text:
Thursday, July 14, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 138
ALTRIA GROUP: Israeli Citizen Lodges Suit Over Smoking Addiction
APOLLO GROUP: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
APOLLO GROUP: Discovery Proceeds in CA Teachers' Overtime Suit
ARKANSAS: Judge Says Certification For Prempro Lawsuit Unlikely
ARKANSAS: Judge Sends "Pay Per Click" Suit Back to State Court
AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Wireless Telephone Suit Dismissal Reversed
BEAR STEARNS: CA Court Nixes Approval For Securities Settlement
BEAR STEARNS: Working For Settlement of Enron-Related Lawsuits
CALIFORNIA: Officials Settle Lawsuit Over Disabled Park Access
CANADA: Group Sues Government Over Defoliant Spraying at NB Base
COOPER TIRE: Recalls 385 S/T2 Tires Due to Production Error
COOPER TIRE: Recalls 489 H/T Tires Due to FMVSS No.109 Violation
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Shareholder Lodge Suit, Manitoba Not Included
GENCORP INC.: Working For Settlement of Retirees' Lawsuit in OH
GENCORP INC.: CA Court Allows Plaintiffs to File Amended Lawsuit
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit Over ICDs
HORIZON HEALTH: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT: Judge Condemns Agency Over Inaccurate Data
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Hindi, Vegetarian Groups Receive Checks
MCMORAN EXPLORATION: DE Court Denies Motion For Suit Over Merger
MISSISSIPPI: Freight Trains Collide, Derail, 1 Crewmember Dead
MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs To File Amended Antitrust, Tort Lawsuit
MONSANTO CO.: MO Court Dismisses Suit V. Fraud Suit Plaintiffs
MONSANTO CO.: Summary Judgment in NY Agent Orange Suit Appealed
MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Appeal Vietnam Veterans' Suit Dismissal
NABISCO FOODS: Recalls Choco Wafer Snacks Due to Undeclared Milk
NBTY INC.: Recalls 12T Multivitamins Due to Flawed Packaging
NUTRAQUEST INC.: Agrees To Settle NJ Ephedra Litigation For $1M
RED HAT: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Securities Suit Settlement
SMITHFIELD FOODS: PA Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
STAAR SURGICAL: FDA Issues Warning Due To Repeated Violations
TOYOBO CO.: Pays $29M to Settle Suit Over Zylon-Based Body-Armor
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Opts to Settle Securities Litigation in CA
WD 40: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling in CA Lawsuit
CARRIER ACCESS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in CO
CONAGRA FOODS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NE
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Scott + Scott Provides Litigation Updates
OCA INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Sets August 11 Plaintiff Deadline
STARTEK INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in CO
TREX COMPANY: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in VA
Israeli Sharon Sasson, 37, initiated a $522.33 million (NIS 2.36
billion) lawsuit and request for approval of a class action
status against U.S. cigarette manufacturer Altria Group
(formerly Philip Morris) (NYSE: MO), The Asia Intelligence Wire
In his suit, Mr. Sasson alleged that he became addicted to
smoking cigarettes manufactured and marketed by Altria at age
14, when he began smoking Altria-manufactured Marlboro brand
cigarettes. He asserts that despite his efforts, he was unable
to stop smoking. According to Mr. Sasson, the Altria group is
responsible for his addiction to cigarettes and his physical
dependence on them, because the company directly and/or
indirectly encouraged him to smoke at the time. He is thus
seeking compensation from Altria for expenses, damages, and
suffering caused by his attempts to stop smoking and inability
to do so.
Additionally, the claimant accuses Altria of seriously and
continually misleading the public about the characteristics of
the product that it produces and markets, and the risks incurred
by using it, particularly the presence of nicotine, an addictive
substance, and other poisons in cigarettes. He also claims that
Altria itself now publishes the fact that its cigarettes are
addictive, compares cigarette addiction to drug addiction, and
refers and proposes various treatments for it.
Apollo Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its officers on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between March 12,
2004, and September 14, 2004.
On approximately October 12, 2004, a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, captioned "Sekuk Global Enterprises et. al. v. Apollo
Group, Inc. et. al., Case No. CV 04-2147 PHX NVW." Plaintiff, a
shareholder of the Company who purchased its shares in August
and September of 2004, filed this class action on behalf of
itself and all shareholders of the Company who acquired their
shares, and seeks certification as a class and monetary damages
in unspecified amounts. Plaintiff alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by the
Company for its issuance of allegedly materially false and
misleading statements in connection with its failure to publicly
disclose the contents of the U.S. Department of Education's
program review report.
A second class action complaint making similar allegations was
filed on October 18, 2004, in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, captioned "Christopher Carmona et.
al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et. al., Case No. CV 04-2204 PHX EHC."
A third class action complaint making similar allegations was
for the District of Arizona, captioned "Jack B. McBride et. al.
v. Apollo Group, Inc. et. al., Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA."
The Court consolidated the three pending class action complaints
and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 16,
2005. A motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint was filed on June 15, 2005, on behalf of the Company
and the individual named defendants. The Court has scheduled a
hearing on the motion to dismiss for October 3, 2005.
"Sekuk Global Enterprises et. al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et. al.,
Case No. CV 04-2147 PHX NVW" is pending before Judge Neil V.
Wake. "Christopher Carmona et. al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et.
al., Case No. CV 04-2204 PHX EHC" is pending before Judge Earl
H. Carroll. "Jack B. McBride et. al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et.
al., Case No. CV 04-2334 PHX LOA" is pending before Judge
Lawrence O. Anderson. The plaintiff firms in this litigation
(1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;
(2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com
(3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com
(4) Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite
2360, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800-350-6003, E-
mail: info@ruflaw.com
(5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com
(6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
Discovery is proceeding in the class action complaint filed
against Apollo Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange, captioned "Bryan Sanders
et. al. v. University of Phoenix, Inc. et. al., Case No.
03CC00430."
Plaintiff, a former academic advisor with University of Phoenix,
filed this class action on behalf of himself and current and
former academic advisors employed by the Company in the State of
California and seeks certification as a class, monetary damages
in unspecified amounts, and injunctive relief. Plaintiff alleges
that during his employment, he and other academic advisors
worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, and
contends that the Company failed to pay overtime.
On June 6, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to remove
Bryan Sanders as the named plaintiff and replace him with Deryl
Clark and Romero Ontiveros. Four status conferences have
occurred and the parties are now in the process of discovery. A
continued status conference is scheduled for September 12, 2005.
U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson Jr. told lawyers recently that
he is "virtually certain" that he will deny class certification
of a lawsuit filed by former users of Prempro, a menopause
medication, against the drug's manufacturer, The Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette reports.
The class certification hearing began in Mr. Wilson's courtroom
on June 1 and last convened on June 24. It is one of several
pretrial motions that he is handling for Prempro cases
nationwide. According to the judge, he will make a final
decision on the issue "as soon as reasonably possible." In a
letter faxed to lawyers on both sides of the case, "I am
notifying you of this virtual certainty in the hope that you can
put things in a holding pattern so that no one will expend more
time, money or effort while the order is being prepared."
In the lawsuit, former Prempro users accuse Wyeth (NYSE: WYE),
the drug's Madison, New Jersey-based manufacturer of falsely
advertising the benefits of the drug and failed to communicate
its risks. The suit, which could include the millions of women
who took Prempro from 1994 to 2002, had stemmed from a Women's
Health Initiative study of hormone-replacement drugs including
Prempro that was stopped in 2002 after data indicated the drugs
increased women's risk of breast cancer, heart disease and
For their case to go forward though, the women's lawyers must
show that the suit meets the federal criteria for class action
certification. In fact, federal law requires the women's
attorneys to demonstrate that their class representatives are
typical of women who have used Prempro. Additionally, the
attorneys must also show the representatives will adequately
protect the interests of the entire class and that common
questions of law predominate over individual questions in the
The lawsuit utilizes 14 women, who used Prempro for two years
and have not been diagnosed with any illness, as class
representatives. These women want Wyeth to fund a medical
monitoring program that would screen former Prempro users for
breast cancer and dementia and to return the money they spent on
the drug.
During the hearing, Wyeth attorneys contended that consumer-
protection laws differ so much among the states and Prempro
users themselves differ so much that no single trial could
resolve their issues.
In addition to their arguments, Wyeth's attorneys called on two
medical experts, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and
a physician on the steering committee of the Women's Health
Initiative study, who both testified that the study's findings
were more limited than initially reported in 2002, and they
still would recommend Prempro and other hormone-replacement
drugs as a treatment. They also challenged whether the medical
monitoring the women seek would actually help them. Though
Judge Wilson's letter indicated that a class action suit against
Wyeth won't likely go forward, thousands of personal injury
claims against the pharmaceutical company are still pending.
A lawsuit claiming that America Online, Google, Yahoo and other
Web-centered companies knowingly overcharged for "pay per click"
advertising on the Internet was sent back to a state court where
it was originally filed, The Associated Press reports.
According to lawyers for the lead plaintiff, Lane's Gifts and
Collectibles, an order from U.S. District Judge Harry Barnes,
stated that the lawsuit properly belongs in Miller County
Circuit Court, where the Texarkana gift shop originally filed it
last February 4. Previously, the plaintiffs asked that the
complaint be designated as a class action suit, however due to
disagreements over where the suit should be heard in light of a
new federal law, it has bounced up and down in the court system.
In a recent news release, Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg said,
"Hopefully, we can now begin to focus on the issues of the case,
and not the location of the case." Mr. Fineberg is representing
Lane's and a Florida-based private investigator in the suit. He
also added, "All along, we've believed the case belonged in
state court."
The suit claims that the Internet companies charged Lane's for
advertising traffic not generated by bona fide customers. It
specifically alleges that the defendant companies worked with
one another in a conspiracy to create an online environment that
harms advertisers. In addition, the suit states that the
companies "have grown the Internet PPC (pay per click)
advertising market while failing to disclose that they have
routinely and systematically overcharged and-or over collected
for PPC advertising revenue from their customers."
In the online advertising world, businesses pay Internet
providers a fee based on the number of times their ads are
"clicked." The click takes would-be customers to another page
for more information. Lane's alleges that these ads are often
clicked only to generate a bigger bill for advertisers, not by
someone truly seeking more information.
Other defendants in the suit are, Yahoo! Inc., Overture Services
Inc., Time Warner Inc., America Online Inc., Netscape
Communications Corp., Ask Jeeves Inc., Buena Vista Internet
Group doing business as Go.Com, Google Inc., Lycos Inc.,
Looksmart Ltd. and Findwhat.com Inc.
As previously reported in the May 24, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Mr. Fineberg argued before a federal judge in
Arkansas that the hoped-for class action lawsuit should be heard
in state court, where proceedings started before Congress passed
a law moving most class action lawsuits to federal court. At
that hearing Mr. Fineberg argued that moving the case to federal
court, as the Internet companies requested, was improper.
After its was moved to federal court, Lane's asked Judge Barnes
recently to send the case back to Miller County, where the
lawsuit started back in February 4, but two weeks after its
filing on February 18, President Bush signed a law designating
that federal courts would be the primary location for class
action lawsuits.
Under the new law, class action suits seeking $5 million or more
would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and
more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state.
But if less than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same
state as the primary defendant, and more than $5 million is at
stake, the case would go to federal court.
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of the consolidated class action filed against
Audiovox Corporation and other suppliers, manufacturers and
distributors of hand-held wireless telephones. The suit alleges
damages relating to exposure to radio frequency radiation from
hand-held wireless telephones.
The consolidated suit was transferred to a Multi-District
Litigation Panel before the United States District Court of the
District of Maryland. On March 5, 2003, Judge Catherine C.
Blake of the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland granted the defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss
these complaints.
On March 16, 2005, the appeals court reversed the ruling on the
grounds of federal pre-emption. The Fourth Circuit remanded the
actions to each of their respective state courts, except for the
Naquin litigation which was remanded to the local Federal Court.
Defendants intend to file a petition for certiorari with the
The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation, case no. 1:01-md-01421-
CCB," filed in the United States District Court in Maryland,
under Judge Catherine C. Blake.
Representing the plaintiffs is Mayer Morganroth, Morganroth and
Morganroth PLLC, 3000 Town Cntr Ste 1500, Southfield, MI 48075,
Phone: 1-248-355-3084, Fax: 1-248-355-3017, E-mail:
jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com. Representing the Company is Mark
H. Kolman, Dickstein Shapiro Morin and Oshinsky LLP, 2101 L St
NW, Washington, DC 20037, Phone: 1-202-828-2280, Fax:
1-202-887-0689, E-mail: kolmanm@dsmo.com.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California refused to grant preliminary approval to the
settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed
against McKesson HBOC, Inc. and Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.,
styled "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation."
The suit arises out of a merger between McKesson Corporation
("McKesson") and HBO & Company ("HBOC") resulting in an entity
called McKesson HBOC, Inc. ("McKesson HBOC"). Beginning on June
29, 1999, 53 purported class actions were commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. These actions were subsequently consolidated, and
the plaintiffs proceeded to file a series of amended complaints.
On February 15, 2002, plaintiffs filed their third amended
consolidated complaint, which alleges that Bear Stearns violated
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading disclosures contained in a joint
proxy statement/prospectus that was issued with respect to the
McKesson/HBOC merger.
Plaintiffs purport to represent a class consisting of all
persons who either acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC
between January 20, 1997 and January 12, 1999, or acquired
publicly traded securities of McKesson or McKesson HBOC between
October 18, 1998 and April 27, 1999, and who held McKesson
securities on November 27, 1998 and January 22, 1999. Named
defendants include McKesson HBOC, certain present and former
directors and/or officers of McKesson HBOC, McKesson and/or
HBOC, Bear Stearns and Arthur Andersen LLP. Compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount are sought.
On January 12, 2005, McKesson HBOC announced that it had reached
a settlement with the plaintiff class, which settlement must be
approved by the Court. Bear Stearns's engagement letter with
McKesson in connection with the merger of McKesson and HBOC
provides that McKesson cannot settle any litigation without Bear
Stearns's written consent unless McKesson obtains an
unconditional written release for Bear Stearns and, under
certain circumstances, is required to provide indemnification to
Bear Stearns. On May 23, 2005, the Court entered an order
denying preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.
Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. is working to resolve litigation
against it, arising out of its business transactions with
Enron Corporation, which filed for bankruptcy in December 2001.
Bear Stearns and numerous other defendants were named in certain
actions commenced beginning on October 15, 2002 in the Superior
Court of the State of California, state court in Iowa and the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
brought by purchasers of securities issued by Osprey Trust,
Osprey I, Inc., Enron and certain other entities related to
Enron. The complaints generally alleged violations of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and/or
state law and common law claims, including fraud, and seek
compensatory and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts.
The parties to the actions pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California and state court Iowa, including Bear
Stearns, have reached agreements to settle these actions and
have jointly filed stipulations of dismissal for the settled
actions with the respective California and Iowa state courts.
The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing asserted
against it in the litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas and believes
that it has substantial defenses to these claims.
Bear Stearns International Limited ("BSIL") and Bear Stearns
Securities Corporation (BSSC) are named defendants in an
adversary proceeding commenced by Enron and Enron North America
Corp. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York on November 25, 2003. Plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, to recover payments, totaling approximately $26
million that they allegedly made to BSIL and BSSC during August
2001 in connection with an equity derivative contract between
BSIL and Enron. By Order dated June 3, 2005, the bankruptcy
court denied the motion to dismiss filed by BSIL and BSSC. On
July 5, 2005, defendants filed a motion for leave to take an
interlocutory appeal from the bankruptcy court's decision.
As part of a settlement for a class action lawsuit that accuses
the nation's largest state park system of inadequate access and
services for disabled visitors, the state of California will
repair and remodel its 270 parks, The Associated Press reports.
In announcing the settlement, officials said that the changes,
which will be implemented during the next 11 years, could cost
the state more than $100 million. It will ensure disabled access
to a state park system that serves roughly 80 million visitors
annually, they added.
Laurence Paradis, executive director of Disability Rights
Advocates, an Oakland law firm that represented the plaintiffs
told The Associated Press, "With this settlement, California is
on its way to having the most accessible park system in the
country."
Virtually every state park in California could be changed by the
decision. Trail access will be improved at Mount Tamalpais in
Marin County, while parks providing tours will have to offer
them for the blind and hearing impaired and even small state
park beaches on the North Coast will have to ensure disabled
The settlement resolves two class action lawsuits alleging
California state parks denied entry to the disabled because of
barriers, whose plaintiffs included Californians for Disability
Rights and the California Council of the Blind. Additionally,
under the settlement California, its Department of Parks and
Recreation and Department Director Ruth Coleman denied all
liability and wrongdoing.
In a press statement, Director Coleman said, "State Parks is
already involved in making significant changes at many park
locations and we committed to providing greater access with this
settlement plan." She also said, "We are the stewards of some of
the most diverse and spectacular resources found anywhere in the
world and it is our desire to share those resources with all
citizens."
Officials told The Associated Press that the parks department
began improving disabled access at several sites in 2002 and
have spent roughly $10 million annually on projects since then.
A group of former soldiers and civilians who claim that they
were exposed to Agent Orange and other defoliants at Canadian
Forces Base Gagetown launched a class action suit against
Ottawa, The Canadian Press reports.
In the 41-page statement of claim that was filed before the
Federal Court of Canada, the group states that illnesses ranging
from birth defects in children to cancer in adults were caused
by the chemicals sprayed on the woods near Oromocto, New
Brunswick.
The claim, which was not yet proven in court, seeks punitive and
aggravated damages, but no figure is mentioned in the court
document. It also lists a series of questions to be answered in
the hearing, including: What was sprayed, when, where and how
much?; Did what was sprayed "escape" from the land controlled by
the defendant?; Can what was sprayed cause harm?; and Did the
defendant breach a standard of care to the soldiers?
Previously, the Canadian military acknowledged that the U.S.
military tested Agent Orange and other defoliants at the base
back in 1966 and '67. A base spokesman even told Canadian Press
that the testing occurred in two "very short test periods on
very small pieces of ground."
However, the statement of claim disputes that "the defendant has
never been truthful when inquired about the full extent of the
spraying operations that were conducted." The claimants allege
that "over one million litres had been sprayed between 1956 to
1984" as part of a testing program to determine the
effectiveness of the defoliants.
The case names Kenneth Dobbie, Charles McLeod, Stewart McLeod,
Derrick Williams, John Williams and Mary Williams as claimants.
Stewart McLeod, of Springhill, N.S., was stationed at the base
between 1967 and 1980, and states he was "directly exposed to
the chemicals sprayed by the defendant." Charles McLeod, Mr.
Stewart's son, argues he was born with a variety of illnesses.
Additionally, a group of landowners, who are not named, are also
suing for damage to their land.
Mary Williams, of St. John's, Nfld., was also exposed to the
chemicals while her husband, John Williams, who died recently of
cancer, was stationed at the base. In the statement, Mrs.
Williams argues she suffered from type-2 diabetes and the
increased costs of raising sick children. She also claims that
one of her daughters suffered from a brain tumor and cancer of
the ovary, while another son, Kenneth, died of brain cancer in
1991. Kenneth's brother, Derrick, is suing on his own behalf for
lost companionship.
According to the claim, Mr. Dobbie worked in the woods as a 19-
year-old, clearing brush that had been sprayed with defoliants.
The documents states, "During Christmas of 1966, (Dobbie) began
to suffer severe stomach problems. Subsequently, he was also
diagnosed with toxic hepatitis, stomach ailments, acne, seizure,
blackouts and other neurological disorders."
While the Canadian military is downplaying the impact of Agent
Orange tests at the New Brunswick base, the suit alleges that
they were dramatic. The document even states, "Dioxins pose an
enormous risk to the health of those who come into exposure with
it or areas that have been sprayed by it. As a result of the
spraying of hazardous substances, more than 170 soldiers . . .
have wrongfully died and more are expected to die sooner than
they would have died had they not been exposed."
Brig.-Gen. Ray Romses, commander of Atlantic land forces for the
past two years, previously stated that he is confident tests
being done on the base will prove there is no reason for concern
about the defoliants, the Canadian Press reports. Commercial
varieties of Agent Orange were applied across Canada in the
1950s and '60s. The dioxin-laced ingredient in these defoliant
mixtures - 2,4,5-T - wasn't banned in Canada until 1985.
While there is no question about the toxicity of dioxin, the
health impacts remain difficult to prove, since medical experts
do not acknowledge a definite link between dioxins and illnesses
like cancer and diabetes, but they do say there are some
associations.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 385 units of
Model 9999 Cooper / Weather-Master S/T2 Tires due to production
error. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05T009000.
According to ODI, certain Cooper Weather-Masters S/T2 tires,
size 215/65r16, manufactured between April 24 and May 28, 2005.
These tires were produced with an improper stud pinhole due to
mold stud pin insert working loose. The improper depth of the
stud pinhole is such that a properly inserted metal stud pin,
over time, could penetrate into the carcass and cause a gradual
reduction in inflation. The loss of air could cause the tire to
run under-inflated and result in early failure. Loss of air may
result in loss of steering and vehicle crash could occur.
As a remedy, Cooper will notify its customers and replace the
tires if necessary. The recall is expected to begin during July
For more details, contact Cooper Tire Consumer Relations by
Phone: 800-854-6288 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline:
1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site:
http://www.safecar.gov.
Model 9999 Cooper / Discoverer H/T Tires due to production
According to ODI, certain Cooper Discoverer H/T Tires, Size
235/65R17, manufactured between May 1 and May 21, 2005. These
tires were the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. If the customer inflates
on the dot serial side of the tire rather than the vehicle
manufacturer's recommended inflation pressure, the tire will be
under-inflated causing the tire to prematurely wear, possibly
resulting in a vehicle crash.
As a remedy, Cooper Tire will notify its customers and replace
the tires if necessary.
Shareholders in Manitoba's failed Crocus Investment Fund filed a
class action lawsuit for $200 million, The Canadian Press
Spokesman Bernie Bellan told the Canadian Press that he and
other shareholders feel misled and want some form of
vindication. Mr. Bellan said that the lawsuit names the fund's
former directors, senior officials, the Manitoba Securities
Commission and others. However, it does not name the Manitoba
government though he did point out that many shareholders wanted
to sue the province.
As previously reported in the July 13, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Crocus fund, which had 34,000 investors,
suddenly halted trading last December as questions arose about
the true value of the fund's assets. The fund had issued a $15-
million writedown in its value weeks earlier, and soon announced
a further writedown of $46 million. Shares that were sold for
more than $15 were suddenly estimated to be worth $7.
A report by Manitoba's Auditor-General, Jon Singleton, stated
that the fund's directors misled shareholders by overstating the
fund's value. The Manitoba Securities Commission and police are
now investigating the fund, which is currently in receivership.
Police and the Manitoba Securities Commission are currently
investigating Crocus, which was set up by the Manitoba
government as a labour-sponsored investment fund in the early
1990s.
GenCorp, Inc. is working to settle plaintiffs' claims in the
class action filed against it and OMNOVA Solutions, Inc.
(OMNOVA), disputing certain retiree medical benefits, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
(Cleveland).
In October 2000, a group of hourly retirees filed the suit,
styled "Wotus, et al. v. GenCorp Inc., et al., case no. 5:00-CV-
2604." The retirees seek rescission of the then current Hourly
Retiree Medical Plan established in the spring of 1994, and the
reinstatement of the prior plan terms. The crux of the dispute
relates to union and the Company negotiated modifications to
retiree benefits that, in exchange for other consideration, now
require retirees to make benefit contributions as a result of
caps on Company-paid retiree medical costs implemented in late
1993. A retiree's failure to pay contributions results in a
termination of benefits.
The initial plaintiffs consisted of four hourly retirees from
the Jeannette, Pennsylvania facility of OMNOVA, the company
spun-off from GenCorp on October 1, 1999, two hourly retirees
from OMNOVA's former Newcomerstown, Ohio facility, and three
hourly retirees from the Company's former tire plants in Akron,
Ohio; Mayfield, Kentucky; and Waco, Texas. The plaintiffs
sought class certification seeking to represent all eligible
hourly retirees formerly represented by the unions URW or USWA.
The unions are not party to the suit and have agreed not to
support such litigation pursuant to an agreement negotiated with
the Company.
In December 2003, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class action certification. Subsequently, the trial court denied
a motion filed on behalf of 241 individuals who sought to
intervene in the Wotus case.
OMNOVA had requested defense and indemnification from the
Company regarding this matter. The Company denied this request
and the party-defendants engaged in arbitration as required
pursuant to the 1999 GenCorp-OMNOVA spin-off agreements. On May
26, 2004, the arbitrator issued his decision holding that the
Company is required to defend and indemnify OMNOVA in the Wotus
matter. Because the Company believes that the arbitrator's
ruling was overbroad and exceeded the scope of the arbitration,
the Company sought clarification and modification of the ruling
in Ohio state court. The Company's motion to modify or vacate
in part the arbitrator's ruling was denied in Common Pleas
Court. This decision has been appealed to an Ohio state
appellate court.
On July 8, 2004, the 241 individuals who sought to intervene in
the Wotus matter filed a separate lawsuit against the Company
and OMNOVA, also in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, seeking the same claims and relief (other than
class certification) as in the Wotus matter. The suit is styled
"Baumgardner, et al. v. GenCorp Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04 CV
1278." The number of plaintiffs in the Baumgardner case was
subsequently increased to 294. After the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion to intervene in the Wotus case, the trial
court ruled that the joinder of the 294 individuals in the
Baumgardner case was improper.
On February 4, 2005, the former Baumgardner plaintiffs plus an
additional 13 individuals filed 307 individual complaints
against the Company and OMNOVA with the same allegations that
were made in the Baumgardner case. An additional two cases were
filed on February 28, 2005. The Company has not been served with
any of these 309 complaints.
On behalf of itself and OMNOVA, the Company has recently agreed
to settle the approximately 319 Wotus and Baumgardner cases and
is working with plaintiffs' counsel on appropriate settlement
agreements and releases. The terms of such settlement are
confidential.
The suit is styled "Wotus et al v. Gencorp, Inc., et al, case
no. 5:00-cv-02604-DAP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, under Judge Dan Aaron
Polster. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Edward J. Feinstein, Jere H. Krakoff, John E. Stember
Stember Feinstein Krakoff, 1705 Allegheny Bldg, 429
Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-338-
1445, Fax: 412-232-3730, E-mail: efeinstein@sfklaw.net,
jkrakoff@sfklaw.net or jstember@sfklaw.net
(2) Ira J. Mirkin, Green Haines Sgambati, 400 National City
Bank Bldg., 16 Wick Avenue, Youngstown, OH 44503,
Phone: 330-743-5101, Fax: 330-743-3451, E-mail:
imirkin@green-haines.com
(3) William T. Payne, 1007 Mt. Royal Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA
15223, Phone: 412-492-8797, Fax: 412-492-8978, E-mail:
wpayne@stargate.net
The Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County
allowed plaintiffs to file an amended class action against
GenCorp, Inc., its directors and one executive officer, styled
"Tolwin et al. v. GenCorp Inc. et al."
An alleged Company shareholder filed the suit in November 2004,
alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to give adequate consideration to reasonable acquisition
offers. Plaintiff sought class action status and on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated individuals, plaintiff
sought damages and injunctive relief.
The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
which was granted on February 17, 2005. The trial court granted
plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. The defendants have
notified their insurer and, if an amended complaint is filed,
intend to vigorously defend this action.
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a national class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons implanted with recalled
Guidant heart defibrillators. The case, Perusich v. Guidant
Corporation, et al. is filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. As alleged in the Complaint, Guidant Corporation
(NYSE: GDT) and Guidant Sales Corporation are named as the
defendants in this action due to their responsibility in
manufacturing, promoting, marketing, distributing and/or selling
Guidant implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs).
The class action filed by Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP seeks to
(1) inform the public that users and consumers of Guidant
ICDs are at an increased risk of harm and/or death,
(2) establish a medical monitoring fund so that every
consumer may be tested and treated for the adverse
effects of Guidant ICDs
(3) reimburse monies paid for the product, and
(4) provide compensation to all victims for personal
injuries and death.
On June 16, 2005, Guidant announced that it was recalling 50,000
faulty defibrillators due to potentially life-threatening
malfunctions in 6 different devices. At least two patients with
Guidant defibrillators have died, and Guidant has acknowledged
its devices have failed at least 45 times. On June 24, 2005,
Guidant advised that it was recalling an additional 5 devices.
In sum, approximately 100,000 people may be affected by the
defective heart devices. The following devices are affected
under FDA recall classification:
(i) VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR, Model 1861, manufactured on or
before April 16, 2002
(ii) CONTAK RENEWAL, Model H135, manufactured on or before
(iii) CONTAK RENEWAL 2, Model H155, manufactured on or before
(iv) VENTAK PRIZM AVT
(v) VITALITY AVT
(vi) RENEWAL AVT
(vii) CONTAK RENEWAL 3
(viii) CONTAK RENEWAL 4
(ix) RENEWAL 3 AVT
(x) RENEWAL 4 AVT
(xi) RENEWAL RF
FDA has notified consumers that some of these devices fall under
a Class I recall, the most serious classification under FDA
guidance. Under a Class I recall, there is a reasonable
probability that if a particular device is malfunctioning, the
malfunctioning device will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death.
An automatic implantable defibrillator is a device used to
control tachyarrhythmia (irregular heartbeat and rapid rate).
The implantable defibrillator is similar to a pacemaker in that
it is designed to correct arrhythmias. But while a pacemaker is
used primarily to correct slow heart rates, an implantable
defibrillator detects and corrects both fast and slow heart
rates. The device can deliver a strong electrical shock to the
heart in order to restore a normal heartbeat. Perusich was
implanted with the defective VENTAK PRIZM, Model 1861 in May
2002 and must now undergo surgery to remove the Guidant
defibrillator and have it replaced.
For more details, contact Tobias L. Millrood, Esq. or Steven D.
Resnick, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA, 19087, Phone: 1-888-348-6787 or 1-610-822-0273
or E-mail: tmillrood@sbclasslaw.com or sresnick@sbclasslaw.com.
Horizon Health Corporation faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of the States of California for the County of
Orange, styled "Jeanine Phillips, on behalf of herself and all
others simultaneously situated v. ProCare One Nurses, LLC,
Obstetrical Nurses, Inc. and Horizon Health Corporation, Case
Number 030000425."
The complaint alleges various violations of California wage and
hour laws and seeks the recovery of substantial amounts for
wages, fines, penalties and attorneys fees. The case is filed
as a private attorney general action under Section 17200 of the
California Business and Profession Code.
The Company considers that it is entitled to indemnity from
Obstetrical Nurses, Inc., a predecessor to ProCare One Nurses,
LLC for liability relating to a portion of the claims and has
asserted a claim for Indemnity in a separate lawsuit. The
parties are engaged in discovery proceedings. The case is filed
as a class action, but the court has not yet ruled on a motion
for class certification.
In a scathing condemnation of the government's treatment of
American Indians, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who called
the Interior Department a "pathetic outpost," recently ordered
the department to admit that it can't provide accurate
information about lost royalties owed to American Indians, The
Associated Press reports.
Specifically, Judge Lamberth directed the department to enclose
notices in its correspondence saying information provided on
trust assets may not be credible. However, Interior officials
called Judge Lamberth's language "intemperate rhetoric uncommon
to jurisprudence but made common in this case."
The notices also are meant to alert people that they may be
members of the class action lawsuit brought by lead plaintiff
Eloise Cobell in 1996 on behalf of more than 300,000 American
Indians. Under Judge Lamberth's order, the notices must say:
"Evidence introduced in the Cobell case shows that any
information related to (American Indian trust accounts) ... from
the Department of the Interior may be unreliable."
Judge Lamberth has been locked in a protracted nine-year legal
battle with both Secretary Gale Norton and her Clinton
administration predecessor, Bruce Babbitt over the Interior
Department's inability to come up with an accurate accounting of
what American Indians are owed. The judge went as far as to hold
both administrators in contempt of court.
In his recently issued opinion, Judge Lamberth wrote that "one
would expect, or at least hope, that the modern Interior
Department and its modern administrators would manage it in a
way that reflects our modern understandings of how the
government should treat people. He goes on to write, "Alas, our
'modern' Interior Department has time and again demonstrated
that it is a dinosaur - the morally and culturally oblivious
hand-me-down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist
government that should have been buried a century ago, the last
pathetic outpost of the indifference and Anglocentrism we
thought we had left behind," AP reports.
Tina Kreisher, the Interior Department's communications
director, responded to the judge's opinion with a statement
saying that the agency's "historical accounting efforts have
consumed approximately $100 million in taxpayer funding and have
found a net error of approximately $15,000. That statement also
said, "Although our accounting efforts are not complete, the
accounting firms have not found any evidence of systemic fraud
or accounting system error. The facts, to date, do not support
the rhetoric being advanced in this case."
Calculating payments of oil, gas, grazing and timber royalties
from American Indian lands dating back to when the trust fund
was created in 1887 and adding accrued interest, Indian
plaintiffs in the suit against the government say they are owed
at least $27.5 billion.
A federal appeals court has occasionally reversed Judge
Lamberth's decisions in the case. In none instance, the court
threw out a plan he had for making the Interior Department
account for the money and told Judge Lamberth he could no longer
"micromanage" how the system gets fixed.
In addition to the scathing condemnation of the Interrio
Department, the judge's 34-page opinion was also accompanied by
a three-page order.
He further wrote: "For those harboring hope that the stories of
murder, dispossession, forced marches, assimilationist policy
programs, and other incidents of cultural genocide against the
Indians are merely the echoes of a horrible, bigoted government-
past that has been sanitized by the good deeds of more recent
history, this case serves as an appalling reminder of the evils
that result when large numbers of the politically powerless are
placed at the mercy of institutions engendered and controlled by
a politically powerful few," AP reports.
Several Hindu and vegetarian groups in the United States
recently received checks for sums ranging from $50,000 to $1.4
million as part of the $10 million court-ordered settlement in
the case involving their beef against McDonald's Corporation and
its french fries, The Times News Network reports.
Four years after Seattle-based Indian-American lawyer Harish
Bharti sued the fast food giant for misleading customers by
claiming their French fries were vegetarian, McDonald's mailed
out the checks, in addition to the apology it issued in March
2002. According to McDonald's said, will go "to Hindu,
vegetarian and other groups whose charitable and educational
activities are closely linked to the concerns of these consumers
(having dietary restrictions)."
Among the groups that benefited from the class action bonanza
are International/American Gita Society, which got $50,000;
Hinduism Today Endowment, $250,000; Supporting Excellence in
Education, $900,000; Council of Hindu Temples of North America
$200,000; SSV Temple, $50,000; and Hindu Students Council,
$500,000. Vegetarian groups that were awarded include
Vegetarian Resource Group ($1.4 milion), ADAF Vegetarian
Nutrition Dietetic Practice Group ($600,000), Preventive
Medicine Research Institute ($550,000), North American
Vegetarian Society ($1 million) Vegetarian Vision,
Inc.,($250,000); and American Vegan Society, $500,000.
They are among the 24 groups selected to receive compensation
from over 250 groups that were initially considered under the
terms of the settlement. In addition, other beneficiaries were
Jewish, Muslim and Sikh groups, which joined the lawsuit
claiming that the fries were not kosher/halal etc.
Paramacharya Palaniswami of the Hindu Monastery in Kaui, Hawaii,
which received a check for $ 254,773.19 drawn on Chicago's Banco
Popular told TNN in an interview from Hawaii, "It was quite a
surprise. I guess we will be inspired to do more things for
vegetarianism." As a first step, the monastery, according to Mr.
Paramacharya, plans to place the amount in an endowment for
publication of its Hinduism Today magazine. None of the
principle will be touched, so that it will be a perpetual source
for funding outright 1,000 or more free subscriptions a year
forever, or subsidize a larger number, he added. He also said
that the "the supersized endowment will educate Americans,
especially youth, about the merits of a veggie lifestyle, which
has been a Hindu ideal for 6,000 years."
The victorious groups have however asked customers to take note
of the fact that McDonald's made no changes in their fries,
which still have beef-flavoring.
Under the terms of the settlement, McDonald's is only required
to make a better disclosure, not change the way its fries are
The Delaware Court of Chancery issued its opinion denying
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment in litigation that
arises out of the merger of Freeport McMoRan Sulphur, Inc.
("Sulphur") and McMoRan Oil and Gas Co. resulting in the
combined McMoRan Exploration Co.
The litigation was certified as a class action on January 28,
2005, and a Notice of Pendency was mailed to all owners of
Freeport McMoRan Sulphur, Inc. common stock during the period
August 3, 1998 through November 17, 1998 and their transferees,
successors and assigns.
The Court held that all issues would remain for trial. Those
genuine issues of material fact include whether:
(1) The Merger exchange ratio was unfair to the
stockholders of Sulphur;
(2) A majority of the board of Sulphur was interested and
not independent under Delaware law;
(3) The special committee formed to review the Merger on
behalf of the Sulphur shareholders was not independent
from Messers. Moffett, Adkerson, and Rankin;
(4) The process employed by the special committee was
flawed and improperly influenced by interested members
of the Board including Messers. Moffett and Wohleber;
(5) The Joint Proxy Statement issued in connection with the
Merger contained material misstatements of material
facts and omissions of material fact.
Expert discovery is still ongoing with a two-week trial
scheduled to commence in the Court of Chancery in Wilmington,
Delaware on September 19, 2005 before The Honorable Stephen P.
Lamb.
For more details, contact Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq. or Robert J.
Kriner, Jr., Esq. of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, One Rodney
Square, P.O. Box 1035, Wilmington, DE, 19899, Phone:
(302) 656-2500, Fax: (302) 656-9053, E-mail:
pamelatikellis@chimicles.com or robertkriner@chimicles.com, Web
site: http://www.chimicles.com.
Two freight trains collided and partially derailed in Bentonia,
Mississippi Sunday, killing at least one crewmember, the
The collision northeast of Bentonia in west-central Mississippi
involved two Canadian National Railroad freight trains. It
wasn't immediately clear how the two trains ended up on a
collision course. CN spokeswoman Karen Phillips told AP the
cause of the crash was under investigation. It happened hours
before rains from Hurricane Dennis reached the area.
Rescue crews had a lot of difficulty searching for three other
crewmembers presumed dead in the wreckage. A fire that followed
the crash hampered the search efforts, Yazoo County coroner
Ricky Shivers told AP.
Dozens of homes in the area near Little Yazoo were temporarily
evacuated after the collision. One of the train cars leaked
vegetable oil and caught fire, but the flames were extinguished,
Amy Carruth, spokeswoman with the Mississippi Emergency
Management Agency, told AP. Ms. Phillips said there were no
hazardous materials involved.
Plaintiffs sought the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri's permission to file an amended
class action against Monsanto Company related to the Company's
biotechnology trait products.
A group of farmers initially filed two purported class action
lawsuits, which were later consolidated in Missouri federal
court and styled "McIntosh v. Monsanto et al." The suits were
initially filed against the former Monsanto Company by two
groups of farmers - one on December 14, 1999, in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, which
complaint was amended in March 2001 to add Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, Inc., Syngenta Seeds, Syngenta Crop Protection,
and Bayer CropScience as defendants; and the other 4on February
14, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.
The complaints included both tort allegations in connection with
the sale of genetically modified seed and allegations of
violations of antitrust laws, including allegations of a
conspiracy among defendants to fix seed prices in the United
States. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief in
addition to antitrust, treble, compensatory and punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.
On September 22, 2003, the District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment on all tort claims and denied the plaintiffs' motion to
allow the tort claims to proceed as a class action. On
September 30, 2003, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to allow their antitrust claims to proceed as a class
action, which decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit on March 7, 2005. On June 30, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court seeking to
amend their complaint to seek certification of a class of
growers from only four states (Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and
Indiana) and restricted to only one crop (glyphosate tolerant
soybeans).
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri dismissed Monsanto Co.'s lawsuit related to several
class actions filed against it in 16 different state courts,
alleging consumer fraud and deceptive business practices.
Starting the week of March 7, 2004, individual plaintiffs filed
essentially identical purported class actions on behalf of
direct and indirect purchasers in 16 different state courts
essentially alleging violations of unspecified international
laws through patent license agreements, alleged breaches of an
implied warranty of merchantability, and alleged violations of
unspecified consumer fraud and deceptive business practices
laws, all in connection with the sale of genetically modified
seed. The antitrust claims included allegations of violations
of various antitrust laws, including allegations of a conspiracy
among defendants to fix seed prices in the United States in
violation of federal antitrust laws.
On June 8, 2004, the Company filed suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against each of the
individual named plaintiffs in the state class actions for
breach of contract (the Monsanto Action). The Company alleged
that the agreements it entered into with the plaintiffs required
that the plaintiffs' suits be filed in federal or state court in
Missouri. Subsequently, the plaintiffs agreed to stay their
state actions pending determination of the Company's request for
summary judgment in its favor in the Monsanto Action. On March
29, 2005, the court in the Monsanto Action denied the Company's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed that action for lack
of jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York's ruling granting summary judgment
in favor of Monsanto Co. and the other defendants in the class
action styled "In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation,
MDL 381."
Various manufacturers of herbicides used by the United States
armed services during the Vietnam War, including the former
Monsanto Company, have been parties to lawsuits filed on behalf
of veterans and others alleging injury from exposure to the
herbicides. After the United States Supreme Court allowed new
claims to proceed notwithstanding a prior class action
settlement, this litigation was sent back to Judge Jack
Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York as part of a multidistrict litigation proceeding
established in 1977 to coordinate Agent Orange-related
litigation in the United States, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 9,2004) reports.
In 1984, a settlement in the MDL proceeding concluded all class
action litigation filed on behalf of U.S. and certain other
groups of plaintiffs. Approximately 30 suits filed by
individual U.S. veterans contesting the denial of their claims
subsequent to the class action settlement have been consolidated
in the MDL and are currently pending in the District Court.
On June 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed two claims
(Isaacson and Stephenson) to proceed notwithstanding the 1984
class action settlement. On February 9, 2004, the District
Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all
claims made in the Isaacson and Stephenson cases on the basis of
the government contractor defense. The Court, however, stayed
entry of that judgment and granted plaintiffs' request for an
additional six months to conduct further discovery solely
relating to the government contractor defense. On March 18,
2004, the District Court ordered that all other plaintiffs in
all other lawsuits currently pending before the court in this
matter were to adhere to the same schedule, unless they
specifically requested not to be so bound.
After a hearing during the week of February 28, 2005, the
District Court granted the motions for summary judgment filed by
the Company and other defendants in all pending cases arising
out of claims from U.S. veterans on the basis of the government
contractor defense. Plaintiffs have appealed the District
Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
The suit is styled "In re Agent Orange Product Liability
Litigation, case no. 1:79-md-00381-JBW-JMA," is filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, under Judge Jack B. Weinstein. Representing the
plaintiffs is David Earl Cherry of Campbell Cherry Harrison
Davis & Dove P.C., P.O. Drawer 21387, 5 Ritchie Road, Waco, TX
cherry@thhetriallawyers.com. Representing the Company are
Joseph Guerra, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, 1501 K.Street,
N.W., Washington, DC 20004, Phone: (202) 736-8023; and John C.
Sabetta, Seyfarth Shaw, LLP, 1270 Avenue of the Americas, Suite
2500, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 218-5500, Fax:
(212) 218-5526, E-mail: jsabetta@ny.seyfarth.com.
Eastern District of New York's dismissal of the class action
filed against Monsanto Co. and other manufacturers of the
herbicide Agent Orange, alleging that they conspired with the
United States government to commit war crimes and crimes against
humanity in connection with the spraying of the herbicide.
The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange (VAVAO) filed
the suit, styled "VAVAO, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company, et
al.," which was assigned to Judge Jack B. Weinstein. On March
10, 2005, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss and
for summary judgment filed by the Company and other defendants
in this case. Plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The suit is styled "Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent
Orange/Dioxin et al v. Dow Chemical Company et al, case no.
1:04-cv-00400-JBW-JMA," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Jack B.
Weinstein. Representing the plaintiffs is Constantine Peter
Kokkoris of Abberley & Koolman, 521 Fifth Avenue New York, NY
10175 Phone: 212-349-9340 Fax: 212-587-8115 E-mail:
cpk@kokkorislaw.com.
Nabisco Foods, a Kraft Company of East Hanover, NJ, is recalling
the 4.86 oz. boxes of Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Oreo Thin Crisps
Baked Chocolate Wafer Snacks with the "Best When Used By" date
of 04DEC05BD because some bags inside may contain Nabisco 100
Calorie Packs Chips Ahoy! Thin Crisps Baked Chocolate Chip
Snacks, made with milk, which is not declared on the outside
box. The bags inside the box are properly labeled Nabisco 100
Calorie Packs Chips Ahoy! Thin Crisps and milk is clearly listed
as an ingredient on the individual bag. People who have an
allergy, or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume Nabisco
100 Calorie Packs Chips Ahoy! Thin Crisps.
The recalled product has been distributed to retail stores
nationwide in the United States.
The 4.86 oz. boxes are labeled Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Oreo
Thin Crisps baked chocolate wafer snacks, but the individual
bags and product inside those may contain Nabisco 100 Calorie
Packs Chips Ahoy! Thin Crisps. The "Best When Used By" date of
04DEC05BD is printed on the top flap of the box.
No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to date.
No other Nabisco 100-Calorie Packs, Oreo or Chips Ahoy! products
are part of the recall, and there is no health risk for
consumers who are not allergic to milk.
The company learned of the error when consumers in Florida and
North Carolina reported finding Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Chips
Ahoy! Thin Crisps bags in Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Oreo Thin
Crisps boxes. The Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Oreo Thin Crisps do
not contain any milk, but the Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Chips
Ahoy! Thin Crisps do contain milk. The individual bags of
Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Chips Ahoy! Thin Crisps are labeled
properly. The packaging error was limited in scope and no other
Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs, Oreo or Chips Ahoy! products are part
of the recall.
Consumers and retailers that purchased the 04DEC05BD code date
of Nabisco 100 Calorie Packs Oreo Thin Crisps may return the
product to the store where purchased for a full refund.
Consumers with questions about the recall should call
1-800-433-9361 or visit the company's Web site:
www.kraft.com/specialreport/100CaloriePacksOreo/.
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), NBTY Inc., of Bohemia, New York is voluntarily recalling
about 12,000 bottles of Nature's Bounty and Natural Wealth Brand
Multivitamins.
The vitamins contain iron, but do not have child-resistant
packaging as required by federal law. They could cause serious
injury or death if ingested by a child.
The Nature's Bounty and Natural Wealth brand multivitamins have
lot number 60835-06 written on the label. The recalled vitamins
were sold in containers of 100 caplets. The containers are both
clear with white caps. They are labeled "Nature's Bounty Multi-
Day Multivitamin Plus Iron" or "Natural Wealth Daily Vitamin
Plus Iron."
Manufactured in the United States, the multivitamins were sold
at various drug and grocery stores and independent distributors
nationwide from July 2004 through March 2005 for about $4.
Consumers should keep this product out of the reach of children
and return it to the store where it was purchased or contact
NBTY for information on receiving a refund or replacement.
Consumer Contact: Call NBTY at (800) 433-2990 between 9 a.m. and
7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday. Consumers also can visit
http://www.naturalwealth.comor http://www.naturesbounty.comfor
more information about this recall.
Nutraquest, Inc. and three related companies agreed to pay the
state of New Jersey nearly $1 million to settle claims that it
exaggerated the benefits and understated the risks of a weight
loss product implicated in the death of Baltimore Orioles
pitcher Steve Bechler, the Associated Press reports.
The Company is a successor of Cytodyne Technologies, which made
Xenadrine RFA-1, an ephedra-based product found to have
contributed to the February 2003 spring training death of Mr.
Bechler from heatstroke. A medical examiner determined ephedra
contributed to the 23-year-old's heatstroke; his body
temperature had reached 108 degrees, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 21,2005) reports.
The company says it stopped selling ephedra-based products in
2003 because they were no longer profitable. Ephedra has been
banned from the market, after supplements with it were connected
to injury and death.
The Company was named in several personal injury and wrongful
death cases in the U.S. and Canada by the end of 2001, filings
show. One of the wrongful death suits was filed on behalf of
the family of former Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler
after his February 2003 death from healthstroke was allegedly
tied to Xenadrine RFA-1.
The settlement announced by the state of New Jersey early this
week. Under the settlement, the Company also agreed not to make
unsubstantiated claims in advertising. In a written statement,
the company said it settled the case "to avoid the uncertainty
and cost of litigation." It claimed it had 10 clinical studies
that proved the products were safe and effective when used as
directed.
New Jersey sued the companies in 2003 over their marketing.
"They had targeted vulnerable consumers with false promises of
dramatic weight loss with little to no effort," Attorney General
Peter Harvey told AP. "The fact is, there is no miracle weight
loss product."
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Red Hat,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering.
Several purported class action suits were initially filed,
arising out of the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering. On August 8, 2001, Chief Judge Michael
Mukasey of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York issued an order that transferred all of the so-called
IPO allocation actions, including the complaints involving the
Company, to one judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The
court has consolidated the actions into a single action.
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing registration statements and
prospectuses that contained materially false and misleading
information and failed to disclose material information.
Plaintiffs also challenge certain IPO allocation practices by
underwriters and the lack of disclosure thereof in initial
public offering documents.
On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the 300 consolidated actions, including the Red Hat action.
The relief sought consists of unspecified damages. No discovery
has occurred to date. The Company, among other issuers, the
plaintiffs, and the insurers have agreed, in concept, to a
proposed settlement whereby the Company would be released from
this litigation without further payment from the Company. That
proposed settlement has been submitted to the court for its
consideration; however, there is no certainty that the court
will approve the settlement.
The suit is styled "In Re Red Hat, Inc. Initial Public Offering,
Case No. 01 Civ. 2712 (Sas)," related to "In re IPO Allocation
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92," pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
Pennsylvania dismissed the class action filed against Smithfield
Foods, Inc. on behalf of shareholders of Pennexx Foods, Inc.
The suit also names as defendants Pennexx and its directors
(including two of the Company's officers who were former
directors of Pennexx). The class action complaint alleged
violations of federal securities laws and state common law and
sought unspecified compensatory damages.
On December 5, 2003, Pennexx filed a cross-claim in the class
action against the Company and the Company's officers who
formerly served as directors of Pennexx. The cross-claim
alleged, among other things, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and
tortious interference with contractual relations, and sought
damages in excess of $226 million.
On October 15, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
Pennexx's cross-claim, which the District Court granted in full
on May 16, 2005. On June 2, 2005, Pennexx filed a Notice of
Appeal of the District Court's dismissal of the cross-claim to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On January 21, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
class action suit, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part on September 27, 2004. On February 23, 2005, the
shareholder plaintiffs in the class action filed a motion to
certify a class of certain Pennexx shareholders. On June 29,
2005, the District Court dismissed the class action without
prejudice for lack of prosecution. The District Court took this
action following the withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and the
failure of any other putative class member to step forward as
lead plaintiff.
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned
Staar Surgical Co., over its failure to correct numerous
violations of FDA regulations, the Associated Press reports.
The FDA warned the eye surgery products manufacturer that it is
prepared to take action against the Company, should it continue
to violate regulations. In a letter from July 5, the agency
said the Company "failed to adequately correct numerous
violations" and gave the company 10 days to provide a response
and supporting documentation. The Company said it expects to
respond by the deadline, supplying details of corrective actions
it has taken since its last update in February.
The agency said in the letter that it is "gravely concerned
about STAAR's serious, continuing violations and is prepared to
seek the appropriate remedies," according to excerpts provided
by the company. The FDA first notified Staar of the violations
in September. Staar said the agency is likely to pursue
enforcement action against the company if it finds the response
inadequate. Such a move would have a "material and adverse
impact," Staar said in a statement, AP reports.
Toyobo Co. Ltd agreed to pay $29 million to settle a class
action suit that alleged the company and a U.S. bulletproof-vest
maker allowed the sale of body armor that they knew was
defective, The AFX News Limited reports.
Filed in an Oklahoma state court, the suit was brought on behalf
of several U.S. federal agencies that purchased thousands of
vests made with Zylon, a bullet-resistant fiber made by Toyobo.
The civil suit was brought against the maker of the vests,
Second Chance Body Armor Inc. of Michigan, Toyobo, and related
entities. Second Chance filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy-court
protection in October 2004.
As previously reported in the April 26, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, owners of bullet-proof vests manufactured
by Second Chance Body Armor, Inc. containing Zylon, manufactured
and sold by Toyobo Company, Ltd. brought a lawsuit alleging that
the vests, marketed under the names Ultima, Ultimax, and Triflex
fail to meet the performance characteristics for which they were
In February, the Circuit Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, where
the suit has been filed, certified the case as a class action.
For more details, contact Zylon(r) Vest Class Action by Mail:
P.O. Box 1700, Faribault, MN 55021, Phone: 877-567-2754, Web
site: http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com.
Tripath Technology Inc. (Nasdaq:TRPH) entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to settle the
securities class action litigation entitled In re Tripath
Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C 04 4681
SBA, pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Court") against Tripath
and certain of its current and former officers and/or directors
(the "Class Action"). The settlement class consists of all
persons who purchased the securities of Tripath between January
29, 2004 and June 13, 2005, inclusive. As part of the
Stipulation, Tripath and the other defendants continue to deny
any liability or wrongdoing.
Under the terms of the Stipulation, the parties agreed that the
Class Action will be dismissed in exchange for a payment of
$200,000 in cash by Tripath and the issuance of 2.45 million
shares of Tripath common stock which shall be exempt from
registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act
of 1933. The Stipulation remains subject to the satisfaction of
various conditions, including without limitation (1) final
approval of the Stipulation by the Court, including a finding
that the 2.45 million shares of Tripath common stock to be
issued are exempt from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(1)
of the Securities Act of 1933 and (2) notification to members of
the settlement class in the Class Action.
Terms for distribution of the settlement funds to class members
after final Court approval of the Stipulation, and other terms
of settlement, will be disclosed in a notice to be sent to class
members after preliminary court approval of the Stipulation.
"This settlement puts the federal securities litigation behind
Tripath and will permit us to better focus on running the
business and Tripath's future," said Jeffrey L. Garon, Tripath's
Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment in
favor of WD 40 Co. in the two class actions filed in the San
Diego Superior Court in California, arising out of the use of
the automatic toilet bowl cleaners the Company sold under the
brand names 2000 Flushes and X-14.
On September 4, 2003, a legal action was filed against the
Company in San Diego County, California. On September 23, 2003,
a separate legal action was filed against the Company in San
Diego County on similar grounds. On March 25, 2005, the trial
court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment in both
A motion to set aside the judgment was filed on May 12, 2005.
If class certification is granted, it is reasonably possible
that the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the
operating results, financial position and cash flows of the
Company, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Carrier Access Corporation ("Carrier Access"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CACSE) between October 21, 2003 and
May 20, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants
Carrier Access and certain officers of the Company.
The case name is Sved v. Carrier Access Corporation, et al. The
complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.
The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued statements that were materially false and
misleading, and omitted to set forth facts necessary to make
such statements not misleading, for each of the following
(1) that defendants had engaged in improper accounting
practices. As detailed in the complaint, Carrier Access
has admitted that its prior financial reports were
materially false and misleading as it announced that is
going to restate its results for the first three
quarters of 2004 and interim prior periods;
(2) that the Company would be forced to restate its results
for the year ended 2004 and certain interim periods for
the year ended December 31, 2003;
(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
condition; and
(4) that as a result of the foregoing, the value of the
Company patient revenue was materially overstated at
all relevant times.
For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016,
Phone: (800) 575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of ConAgra Foods, Inc. (Nasdaq: CAG)
("ConAgra") between September 18, 2003 and June 7, 2005 (the
"Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that ConAgra violated federal securities
laws by issuing materially false financial statements. On March
24, 2005, ConAgra announced that it would be restating its
financial statements for fiscal 2002 through the first half of
fiscal 2005 due to improper accounting for income taxes. On June
7, 2005, ConAgra also announced that its fiscal 2005 fourth
quarter would be lower than expected primarily due to continued
weak profitability in its packaged meat operations.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com,
Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which filed a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of DreamWorks
Animation SKG, Inc. (NYSE: DWA) common stock between January 3,
2005 and May 10, 2005 (the "Class Period") is providing updates
regarding the litigation.
According to the firm, the Class Period for this action may be
extended as information develops.
In addition the firm states that on July 11, 2005, DreamWorks
shares fell another 14 percent to their lowest value since
DreamWorks' IPO last October. Further, the Company suspended its
previously planned $500 million Class A Stock secondary
offering. The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission is
investigating the Company. Lead Plaintiff motions must be filed
with the Court no later than August 1, 2005.
For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Attorney Amy K. Saba
of Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-800-332-2259, +1-619-251-0887
or +1-800-332-2259, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
asaba@scott-scott.com.
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
reminds investors that they have until August 11, 2005 to seek
appointment by the Court as Lead plaintiff in a class action
lawsuit filed by the Pomerantz Firm on behalf of purchasers of
securities of the Orthodontic Centers of America ("OCA" or the
"Company") (NYSE:OCA), during the period from May 18, 2004
through June 7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Louisiana.
OCA is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Metairie, Louisiana. The company provides
business services to orthodontic and pediatric dental practices.
The Complaint charges that OCA and its two senior officers,
Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., (CEO) and David E. Verret (CFO),
issued financial statements in which, among other matters,
defendants knowingly or reckless misrepresented the Company's
earnings, resulting in artificial inflation of the Company's
stock price. On June 7, 2005, OCA announced that the Company was
unable to file its already delayed year end report for 2004, and
needed to restate its quarterly financial statements for 2004.
OCA admitted, among other things, that it had materially
overstated its patient receivables and patient revenue for the
first three quarters of 2004. Following this announcement, OCA's
stock price plummeted by $1.53 per share, to close at $2.50 per
For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529, Email:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com.
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court of Colorado against StarTek, Inc. ("StarTek")
(NYSE:SRT).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from February 26, 2003 through May 5, 2005.
For more details, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102,
Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com.
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia against Trex Company, Inc. (NYSE: TWP).
from October 25, 2004 through June 22, 2005.
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 researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.


I've gotta say I've wanted to try crockpot caramelized onions for a long time…and I finally have. I have mixed feelings about my crockpot, btw. What they do well, they do SO well and what they don't do well…yikes!
I have a few mixed feelings about the onions done in the crockpot, too. The final result was pretty darned good but there were a few that stuck to the sides of the pan and burned a bit, even though I stirred several times. You can't just keep opening the lid over and over with a crockpot.
Admittedly, they weren't too bitter and since I wasn't using my onions until the next day I tossed them in the fridge – as I reheated I noticed that they all kind of magically had evened out in color. You can see some darkness in the photos here & there, though.
The other bothersome thing was the smell! Seriously, the onions I've caramelized stove top or in the oven didn't smell like the ones in the crockpot do, and it didn't go on for hours and hours, either!
The biggest drawback is that it's really hard to judge when the onions will be done – at least the first time. I'd recommend starting them before you go to bed on a day you'll be around in the a.m. so you can keep a pretty close eye on them as they finish.
All crockpots are a bit different, so you'll want to figure out the timing for yours. Could be 8 hours or up to 12. Figure it out the first time (and if you're like me, write it down) and it will be easier to get close to the mark for future batches.
When I cooked these, I had no leftover onion juice by the time the onions were caramelized to my liking. This might vary by the crockpot and the onions. If it appears there is too much juice, lift the lid of the crockpot and allow to evaporate.
On the plus side, it was so low maintenance I'd do it all again!
Melt butter, toss olive oil, butter, salt and onions together. Add to crockpot and cook on low for 8 hours (or more) or on high for 6 hours (or more.) Stir two to three times during the process.
Store in the fridge for several days or the freezer for several months.
Note: Length of time depends on the crockpot and how deeply caramelized you wish the onions to be. Watch carefully during the final hours to prevent burning and to determine the timing for the next batch you make.
This entry was posted in Click here for Fabulous Food Posts and tagged Caramelized Onion, Easy Recipe, Frugal Hausfrau, onions, Slow Cooker. Bookmark the permalink.
I would never have thought to use a crockpot to caramelize onions! I will have to try this.
Kyla, the first time i used my StepMom's old round crockpot and I made them last week with my newer model. It needed a bit more babysitting at the end. Just thought I'd toss out that hint!
How big are your crock pots? I can't remember if mine is 8 quarts or 10, but it's one of those really huge ones that you could cook a turkey in.
I love caramelized onions! This is so good!!
Nice idea.. Am thinking also letting the crockpot melt the onions and garlic and ginger for a curry base?
Hi Mr. Fitz, I don't see why not! I hope you're going to post that curry base! I'd love to see it.
I had never thought about caramelizing onions in a crock pot! I do mine in the oven, which is more hands off than on stovetop. I might have to give this new method a go sometime!
I like the oven method, too, and is what I normally use, but this was nice. I'll tell ya what, though, if I make these in the summer I'm going to put them on the deck!!
I was just thinking about the story of my dog (he was a used dog) that his former owner told me. They let him out early Thanksgiving day and when they opened the deck door, he had someone's ham! lol!
🙂 🙂 🙂 Yes, and I'm still waiting for him to bring my MY ham! lol!
I love that you can do a whole mess of onions while you are doing them in the slow cooker. They do have a few drawbacks, but it is worth it! I'm going to have to check out that bolognese sauce.
I really love the Bolognese – it's winey and delish!! If all the wine is a drawback with the little ones, it could easily be cut back, too.
I've never heard of doing this in a slow cooker Molly! They turned out perfectly. I think this would be pretty good for me as last time I tried to caramelize onions I never quite got there. I got too tired part way through (and I ended up with crispy-and-burnt onions instead…).
I don't have a slow cooker but I've made great caramelized onions in a dutch oven. And it lasts for ages in a jar in my fridge for addition to various dishes. Speaking of … I have some perogies (with caramelized onions and potatoes in the filling) in the freezer that are made even better pan fried in some butter/olive oil and caramelized onions and a spoonful of sour cream on top.
When you're only cooking for one, a batch is enough for 4 servings. I still have one left in the freezer. If I had sour cream in the house, I'd boil them up but I'm house bound (car is in for repairs).
Tell me about it … I hope to get it back by Monday or I'll have to get a rental on Sunday.
What a great idea. I can't imagine they would burn any more easily than when I do them on the stove top, so I'll give it a try.
You know, Hilda, that IS a really good point!
we are just started learning the slow cooker – as you said, some things are good and some things are not. I like the idea of caramelized onions in the slow cooker – will have to try it!
I hope you do – I'd love to hear what you think about them! By the way, I was somewhat emboldened after these onions and decided to make a crockpot dinner yesterday that we saw in a magazine! It was a glum dinner…we forced it down and I had to endure comments like "It's not so bad, really…" lol! I might just stick to my pot roast, stew and bolognese sauce. Now that's a great recipe!! You might really like it!
Thanks, I will have to try that too!


text:
Variety Plus Icon Read Next: 'Girl From the North Country' Latest Broadway Show to Go on Hiatus as COVID Wreaks Havoc
Aug 6, 2003 7:10am PT
Springtime for Leo, Max
'Producers' springs back with old cast
By Robert Hofler
Robert Hofler
Bill Maher, Larry David and Others Remember the Improv 9 years ago
20th Century Fox Films to Get Stage Treatment 9 years ago
Outfest Pics Reflect Changes in LBGT Community 9 years ago
NEW YORK — A few thousand ticket buyers and no tickets to sell.
That's the bizarre dilemma in which the producers of "The Producers" found themselves Wednesday when reports circulated that Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick would once again fill the con-artist fedoras of Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom on Broadway. If all goes as planned and contract negotiations are successful, the show's original stars will make their grand return in January for 90 performances.
Tickets for "The Producers" are currenly on sale only for performances through November. But that didn't stop hundreds of potential patrons from jamming the sidewalk Wednesday outside the St. James Theater, home of the Mel Brooks tuner.
The premature publicity creates a lousy environment for current sales to "The Producers," now starring Lewis J. Stadlen and Don Stephenson. It is expected that patrons will take a wait-and-see approach before shucking out their $99.
If the Lane/Broderick engagement materializes, it will carry "The Producers" through the B.O.-challenged months of January-March. Lane and Broderick left the production in March 2002.
Last year, the producers of "The Producers" saw ticket sales continue to drop significantly in the wake of the two stars' departure, and they were forced to launch an expensive TV campaign to bolster sales during winter 2003. Weekly receipts fell to around $925,000, nearly $125,000 under gross potential. Those numbers have not improved with the onset of summer, a time when most long-running musicals receive a B.O. bump, but they are good enough to put the production about $300,000 above its weekly break-even costs.
No longer one of Broadway's hottest tickets, "The Producers" consistently ranks No. 4 on the weekly box office chart, under "The Lion King," "Mamma Mia!" and "Hairspray," despite playing at a larger venue than the latter two. Capacity for weekday perfs often hovers around 60%.
By the time the two stars return, of course, "The Producers" will be sold out again. Come April 2004, however, the big question makes an unwanted comeback: What actor wants to replace either Lane or Broderick in his signature role? In the wake of the Lane/Broderick brouhaha, the current Bialystock, Lewis J. Stadlen, canceled his matinee and evening perf on Wednesday.
Tickets for the Lane/Broderick perfs could go on sale as early as next week.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


in Maldives there is no democracy no human rights, yameen regime has no religion any faith most greedy brutal dictator in history of Maldives, dr jameel if come to the Maldives regime will charge you on terrorism, there is no law.
The Maldivian constitution has been amended last week. And with the consent of the opposition.
But nobody cares. Why? Because there is the Vice Precedents impeachment to grab all headlines.
Maldivian's are being hoodwinked by both the Government and opposition.
Unfortunately news is biased towards sensational stories - a sign that journalists are also quite young and coming of age.
Where was his fear of Allah when he actively participated in bringing down an elected government? How the mighty fall!
Good riddance. No ones gonna cry over this hypocrite. Next all his VP privileges should be removed!
Soon Maldives will have 2 Vice Presidents - One constitutionally elected and living in exile and the other appointed by parliament.
The sitting VP Jameel can only be removed by impeachment. However, since the parliamentary impeachment process have been nullified last week, even impeachment is not possible.
This is a constitutional mess of the worst form.
Thank you PPM and Maummon clan.


text:
/*
** ƒQ[ƒ€ƒOƒ‰ƒtƒBƒbƒNƒX"Á˜_—p
*/
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>

#include "gg.h"

/*
** ƒQ[ƒ€ƒOƒ‰ƒtƒBƒbƒNƒX"Á˜_'Ì"s‡'É'à'Ƃ‰Šú‰»
*/
void ggInit(void)
{
  // Swap Interval '̐ݒè
#if defined(WIN32)
  GLenum err = glewInit();
  if (err != GLEW_OK) {
    std::cerr <<  "Error: " << glewGetErrorString(err) << std::endl;
    exit(1);
  }
  if (!wglSwapIntervalEXT || wglSwapIntervalEXT(1) == FALSE)
    std::cerr << "Warning: Could not set swap interval." << std::endl;
#elif defined(X11)
#  if defined(GLX_EXT_swap_control) && !defined(__APPLE__)
  Display *dpy = glXGetCurrentDisplay();
  GLXDrawable drawable = glXGetCurrentDrawable();
  if (drawable && glXSwapIntervalEXT(dpy, drawable, 1))
    std::cerr << "Warning: Could not set swap interval" << std::endl;
#  else
  if (glXSwapIntervalSGI(1))
    std::cerr << "Warning: Could not set swap interval" << std::endl;
#  endif
#elif defined(__APPLE__)
  int swap_interval = 1;
  CGLContextObj cgl_context = CGLGetCurrentContext();
  if (CGLSetParameter(cgl_context, kCGLCPSwapInterval, &swap_interval))
    std::cerr << "Warning: Could not set swap interval" << std::endl;
#endif

  // ƒo[ƒWƒ‡ƒ"ƒ`ƒFƒbƒN
  if (atof(reinterpret_cast<const char *>(glGetString(GL_VERSION))) < 2.1) {
    std::cerr << "Error: This program requires OpenGL 2.1 or lator." << std::endl;
    exit(1);
  }
}

/*
** OpenGL '̃Gƒ‰[ƒ`ƒFƒbƒN
*/
void ggError(const char *msg)
{
  GLenum error = glGetError();

  if (error != GL_NO_ERROR) {
    if (msg) std::cerr << msg << ": ";

    switch (error) {
    case GL_INVALID_ENUM:
      std::cerr << "An unacceptable value is specified for an enumerated argument" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_INVALID_VALUE:
      std::cerr << "A numeric argument is out of range" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_INVALID_OPERATION:
      std::cerr << "The specified operation is not allowed in the current state" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_STACK_OVERFLOW:
      std::cerr << "This command would cause a stack overflow" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_STACK_UNDERFLOW:
      std::cerr << "This command would cause a a stack underflow" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_OUT_OF_MEMORY:
      std::cerr << "There is not enough memory left to execute the command" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_TABLE_TOO_LARGE:
      std::cerr << "The specified table exceeds the implementation's maximum supported table size" << std::endl;
      break;
#ifndef GL_INVALID_FRAMEBUFFER_OPERATION
#    define GL_INVALID_FRAMEBUFFER_OPERATION 0x0506
#endif
    case GL_INVALID_FRAMEBUFFER_OPERATION:
      std::cerr << "The specified operation is not allowed current frame buffer" << std::endl;
      break;
    default:
      std::cerr << "An OpenGL error has occured: " << std::hex << std::showbase << error << std::endl;
      break;
    }
  }
}

/*
** FBO '̃Gƒ‰[ƒ`ƒFƒbƒN
*/
void ggFBOError(const char *msg)
{
  GLenum status = glCheckFramebufferStatusEXT(GL_FRAMEBUFFER_EXT);

  if (status != GL_FRAMEBUFFER_COMPLETE_EXT) {
    if (msg) std::cerr << msg << ": ";

    switch (status) {
    case GL_FRAMEBUFFER_UNSUPPORTED_EXT:
      std::cerr << "Unsupported framebuffer format" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_MISSING_ATTACHMENT_EXT:
      std::cerr << "Framebuffer incomplete, missing attachment" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_ATTACHMENT_EXT:
      std::cerr << "Framebuffer incomplete, duplicate attachment" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_DIMENSIONS_EXT:
      std::cerr << "Framebuffer incomplete, attached images must have same dimensions" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_FORMATS_EXT:
      std::cerr << "Framebuffer incomplete, attached images must have same format" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_DRAW_BUFFER_EXT:
      std::cerr << "Framebuffer incomplete, missing draw buffer" << std::endl;
      break;
    case GL_FRAMEBUFFER_INCOMPLETE_READ_BUFFER_EXT:
      std::cerr << "Framebuffer incomplete, missing read buffer" << std::endl;
      break;
    default:
      std::cerr << "Programming error; will fail on all hardware: " << std::hex << std::showbase << status << std::endl;
      break;
    }
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
The 20 best places to work in Britain
Kalila Sangster
Yahoo Finance UK 11 December 2019
Google HQ in King's Cross, London. Photo: Getty.
Google (GOOGL) has been revealed as the UK's best place to work in 2020, according to a new ranking by job and recruitment site Glassdoor.
The annual survey is based on anonymous employee reviews of several aspects of their workplace including career opportunities, compensation and benefits, culture and values, senior management and work-life balance.
Technology giant Google came out on top, followed by software company Equal Experts and customer relationship management platform Salesforce (CRM).
Google employees highlighted its great benefits and perks such as free food at work, good work-life balance, and an enjoyable work environment.
This is not the first time at the top for the technology firm as it ranked number one in both 2015 and 2018 and is the only company that has featured on the list for the last six years, moving up 12 places from last year.
Common themes among the top 20 winners for 2020 include work-life balance, a great culture, smart people and respect for and from leadership and senior management.
Workplace culture seemed to be one of the most important considerations for employees when reviewing their employers. "Google allows you to work with cutting edge technology and within a great, diverse culture where you will learn constantly," a Google employee commented.
"This year marks the shift to a culture-first decade in the workplace," said Christian Sutherland-Wong, Glassdoor president, chief operating officer and incoming CEO.
"Workers are increasingly prioritising culture over cash and research consistently shows that culture is the leading driver of long-term employee satisfaction," said Andrew Chamberlain, Glassdoor chief economist.
"That said, business leaders have quantifiable proof that culture is one of the smartest investments they could make for the success and longevity of their companies. However, being a culture-first organisation isn't about expensive perks, but about articulating a clearly-stated mission that resonates with employees' own aspirations and fuels their best performance."
The ranking features employers hiring across a range of industries, with technology, hospitality, finance, insurance and construction leading the way.
Britain's top 20 employers
1. Google (GOOGL)
2. Equal Experts
3. Salesforce (CRM)
4. Hiscox (HSX.L)
5. Softcat (SCT.L)
6. Abcam (ABC.L)
7. Microsoft (MSFT)
8. SAP (SAP)
9. Topps Tiles (TPT.L)
10. Arup
11. Las Iguanas
12. Mace (MACE)
13. Cisco Systems (CSCO)
14. ICP Nurseries (ICP.L)
15. Arcadis (ARCAD.AS)
16. easyJet (EZJ.L)
17. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)
18. Rentokil Initial (RTO.L)
19. United Utilities (UU.L)
20. Shell (RDSB.L)
PA Media: Money
Why doctors and engineers are at the heart of Palestine's economic conundrum
PayPal CEO: 'Ethical and moral' duty put staff ahead of shareholders
UK house prices rise at fastest pace in 18 years
P/E ratios of 10 times and 9% dividend yields! I'd buy these FTSE 100 shares in an ISA for 2020
EasyJet's grab of Thomas Cook spoils won't be flying too high
Bank of England Carney: Climate no longer 'niche' issue for investors
US-China battle on Huawei could lead to a 'splinternet'
Ghosn escaped Japan 'hiding in a musical instrument case'


text:
Q: AIR app: navigateToURL throws a SecurityError #2193 I'm trying to port an existing web app (ActionScript 3 only project) to AIR, to run as a standalone application. One of its features is opening urls in a browser window. But calling navigateToURL(new URLRequest(url)) throws this SecurityError:

SecurityError: Error #2193: Security
  sandbox violation: navigateToURL:
  app:/AIRDigE.swf cannot access
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCPwAr0xnGE.
    at global/flash.net::navigateToURL()

when run from Flash Builder 4.
Googling doesn't really help me with this specific error number.
Adobe's reference on Security Sandboxes states that any AIR application running with Security.sandboxType==Security.APPLICATION (which my application uses) should be able to connect to any domain, but apparently that doesn't count for me.
Any ideas?
Thanks, Frank

A: Sorry folks, this morning I found the answer myself: the url that I passed into the URLRequest had a space in front of it (it was loaded from an xml feed that is evidently producing faulty urls).
So it seems that a url with an invalid protocol causes that error, and putting a trim() around the url fixed it.

A: I was getting this error because of using double backward slashes in the web link like "http:\\www.youtube.com"
Where as I supposed to use "http:*//*www.youtube.com"

A: try using URLRequest with navigateToURL
navigateToURL(new URLRequest("http://www.youtube.com"));

UPDATED:
navigateToURL(new URLRequest("http://www.youtube.com"),"blank");

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange