text:
Wednesday, April 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 77
ALCOA INC: Steel Union Files Lawsuit Over Retiree Healthcare
AMERICAN NATIONAL: Steelworkers Union Wins Lifetime Health Care
AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Pa. Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger
BLACKSTONE MEDICAL: Recalls Implantable Surgical Fixation System
BOCA MEDICAL: Recalls Potentially Contaminated Insulin Syringes
BROKERAGE FIRMS: 11 Firms Face Allegations of Short Selling
C.H. ROBINSON: Reaches $15M Settlement for Labor Bias Lawsuit
DYNEGY INC: Continues to Face ERISA Fraud Suits in Ill., Tex.
DYNEGY INC: Details Status of Various Gas Index Pricing Suits
DYNEGY INC: Discovery Proceeds in W.Va. Stand Energy Litigation
EARL SCHEIB: Settles Calif. Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit for $750,000
EPSON AMERICA: August Trial Set for Inkjet Lawsuit Settlement
FIDELITY GROUP: Mediation Results in Settlement of S.C. Lawsuit
GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Continues to Face Suit Over Stock Options
LYONDELL CHEMICAL: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suit in Kans.
MASTEC INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Fla. for $10M
MATRIX FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in Ala. Bankruptcy Case
MEAT PACKERS: Fined $9.25M in S.Dak. Beef Pricing Litigation
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Court Reverses Dismissal of Case V. Morgan
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Still Faces Copper Tube Antitrust Litigation
REHABCARE GROUP: Settles Workers' Consolidated Suit in Calif.
RENAL CARE: Continues to Face Amended Shareholder Suit in Tenn.
REWARDS NETWORKS: Calif. Court Sets Trial for Dining Plan Suit
STAAR SURGICAL: Negotiating Securities Suit Settlement Details
STERLING TRUST: Arbitration for Several Suits in Tex. Abated
STERLING TRUST: Calif. Court Grants Summary Judgment for "Munoz"
VIRGINIA: Court Allows Suit Over DNA Testing to Move Forward
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Pursues Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMERICAN INT'L: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Mutual Funds Suit in N.Y.
AMERICA SERVICE: Gardy & Notis Lodges Securities Suit in Tenn.
ASTEA INT'L: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
ESTEE LAUDER: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in Pa.
GMH COMMUNITIES: Motley Rice Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Lawsuit in Wis.
NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Suit in Ill.
ORPHAN MEDICAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in Minn.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in Fla.
The United Steelworkers union filed a class action against Alcoa
Inc. over allegations retiree health benefits were altered
without the union's agreement.
The suit comes after the aluminum producer announced record
first quarter profits despite a looming strike threat. Alcoa is
preparing for a strike should U.S. metal workers reject a new
master labor contract, a statement distributed by Investrend
Communications states. Alcoa claims that the changes were in
line with multiple agreements that retiree medical costs would
be capped at the end of the current contract.
Under the change, retirees will have to pay a monthly premium
for their health care -- a move that Alcoa claims brings them
inline with the rest of the Company. Previously union workers
paid no health care premiums. The USW is in the process of
establishing a new master agreement with Alcoa to cover the
9,000 USW workers in 15 Alcoa plants.
In addition to retiree healthcare, both parties say that active
workers' healthcare, outsourcing and two-tier benefits for new
hires are the key issues. Alcoa has increased inventories,
trained relief workers and prepped management in anticipation of
a strike.
The suit is styled "Miles et al. v. Alcoa, Inc. et al.," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
under Judge Thomas W. Phillips with referral to Judge H. Bruce
Guyton. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) William T. Payne
Law Office of William T. Payne
1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard
Fax: (412) 492-8978;
(2) John Stember
Stember Feinstein
1705 Allegheny Building
429 Forbes Avenue
(3) James G Stranch, III
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings
227 Second Avenue North
E-mail: jgs@branstetterlaw.com
A federal court in California has given preliminary approval to
a class action settlement that guarantees lifetime health care
coverage and lower prescription costs for 6,100 former hourly
employees of American National Can Co., American Can Co. or
National Can Co. who retired prior to 1987.
The negotiated settlement with Pechiney Plastic Packaging Inc.,
successor to American Can and American National Can, was
approved by Judge Charles R. Bryer of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
The United Steelworkers union (USW) filed suit against Pechiney
in 2005 in federal court after Pechiney unilaterally changed the
benefit plans for retirees. It merged nine different medical
plans into one Preferred Provider Plan (PPO), substantially
increasing the cost to retirees of drug coverage.
The settlement requires Pechiney to provide health coverage for
life for both retirees and their spouses. It also lowered
deductibles and out-of-pocket annual maximums, and caps the
amount a retiree can be charged for prescription drugs.
Final Hearing Date
"This settlement reflects the Steelworkers' commitment to fight
to ensure that our retirees receive the health care coverage
that they worked for and deserve," said Fred Redmond, USW Vice
President for Human Affairs and chairman of the union's
Container Industry Conference. "This settlement is a victory
for 6,100 retirees over the callous indifference of Pechiney to
their health and economic security." The affected retirees will
be sent a class notice and the settlement agreement by the end
of April. Class members will have until June 16 to object. A
final hearing will be held in San Francisco on July 7.
John Stember, an attorney who represents the union in the case,
said retirees who ordered prescription drugs through the mail
prior to Jan. 1, 2003, had co-pays ranging from $10 to $30.
After Jan. 1, 2003, Stember said co-pays increased to 20 percent
to 35 percent of the cost of the prescription itself.
This shift from a fixed co-pay to a co-pay based on a percentage
of the prescription cost fell most harshly on retirees with
expensive prescriptions. For example, Mr. Stember said a
retiree who previously paid $30 a month for a costly
chemotherapy drug was forced to instead pay close to $1,000 a
Pechiney sought to resolve the legal dispute through mediation.
The terms of the settlement were worked out during two days of
mediation held in Chicago last August.
Redmond said the new benefits are for the most part as good as
and in some respects better than what was in place prior to the
unilateral change made by Pechiney. For example, the most a
retiree will have to pay for a 90-day mail order supply of
generic or brand name drugs is $30 for generic or $60 for brand
"Without question, this was a great settlement," Mr. Redmond
said. Participants in the plan will continue to pay no premiums
for the benefits, which will have a lifetime maximum of $1
million per person, combined in-network and out-of-network.
The suit was styled "Santos et al. v. Alcan, Inc. et al.," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Charles R. Breyer. Representing the
plaintiffs are: Dolly M. Gee of Schwartz Steinsapir Dohrmann &
Sommers LLP, 6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000, Los Angeles,
CA 90048-5268, Phone: 323-655-4700, Fax: 323-655-4488; E-mail:
dmg@ssdslaw.com; and William T. Payne, Attorney at Law, 1007 Mt.
Royal Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15223, Phone: 412-492-8797, Fax:
412-492-8978; E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net.
Representing the defendants is Susan W. Ansberry of Folger Levin
& Kahn LLP, Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street, 23rd
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-986-2800, Fax: 415-
986-2827; E-mail: sansberry@flk.com.
Plaintiffs in the purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, against
Avery Dennison Corporation in relation to the proposed merger of
UPM-Kymmene (UPM) and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of
Bemis Co., Inc. (Bemis), recently filed an amended complaint in
the case.
The Department of Justice filed a complaint, on the basis of its
belief that in certain aspects of the label stock industry "the
competitors have sought to coordinate rather than compete."
On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company, UPM, Bemis
and certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and
other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices,
essentially repeating the underlying allegations of the DOJ
Merger Complaint. Ten similar complaints were filed in various
federal district courts.
In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.
On January 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily
dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of ten named
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
February 16, 2004, which the Company answered on March 31, 2004.
On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to
class certification and merits discovery, and limited the
initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness
of class certification.
On January 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
Company denies its allegations.
The suit is styled "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery
Dennison Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie. Representing the
plaintiffs is Stewart M. Weltman of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, PLLC, 39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL
60603, Phone: 312-357-0370, E-mail: sweltman@cmht.com.
Representing the Company are Joshua N. Holian and J. Thomas
Rosch, of Latham & Watkins LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite
1900, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-646-8343, Fax: 415-
395-8095, E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com or Tom.Rosch@lw.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration classified as Class I the
voluntary recall of Blackstone Medical, Inc.'s ICON Modular
Fixation System.
On December 27, 2005 Blackstone Medical, Inc. informed the FDA
of a voluntary recall of the system. A notice was sent the same
day to distributors and surgeons implanting the ICON Modular
The product has been marketed since June 2005. Components in
the system may fail after the devices have been implanted. The
Class I includes components of system 54-9011.
Blackstone Medical, Inc. initiated the recall after receiving
reports of construct loosening in the early postoperative
period. Blackstone Medical, Inc. verified the removal from
distribution of remaining affected products that were not yet
implanted.
The ICON Modular Fixation System is a collection of components
that allows the surgeon to assemble a construct including
screws, connectors and rods. The construct is implanted in and
near the patient's spine, and is intended to immobilize and
stabilize spinal segments at the site of spine surgery. The
potential for injury due to failure of the implant will depend
on the specific condition being treated, and the degree of
postoperative healing. There may be potential for serious
injury in specific patients.
There have been 484 surgical procedures in which the recalled
devices have been implanted. To date, approximately 4% of the
constructs have been reported as loose, and this has resulted in
the surgical removal or revision of a number of the constructs.
No deaths, and no serious injuries other than surgery for device
removal have been reported to Blackstone Medical, Inc.
Blackstone Medical, Inc, believes it is unlikely that the
loosening will continue to occur now that patients are later in
the post-operative period. The affected ICON Modular Fixation
System products were distributed and used in both the U.S. and
Blackstone Medical, Inc. is requesting that hospitals and
surgeons review their records to identify patients who have the
recalled products, and to contact these patients. Patients who
may have concerns regarding their ICON fixation devices should
contact the physician who is providing postoperative care.
Boca Medical Products, Inc., of Coral Springs, Florida is
recalling 3984 boxes of Ultilet Insulin Syringe 30g 1/2cc
product lot number 5GEXI.
The product is being recalled because of possible Bacillus
Cereus and Staphylococcus Intermedius presence. This presents a
risk of local infection due to soft tissue injection with a
contaminated syringe as well a risk of introduction of
contaminating organism into previously sterile vial. The
introduced contamination may degrade the insulin, which could
lead to problems maintaining insulin levels. Boca Medical
continues to evaluate possible risks.
Consumers who have Ultilet Syringe Insulin product lot 5GEXI,
are advised to stop usage and return the product. Wholesalers
are advised to stop retail and return the product lot.
The recall includes:
Product Description - Ultilet Insulin Syringe 30g 1/2 cc.
Lot - 5GEXI
NDC no. - 08326-3002-50
A single complaint and a reported event prompted an ongoing
Company investigation. The compliant stated that when the
syringe was used, the color of the insulin solution entering the
syringe chamber changed. The product lot recall is voluntary,
all inventory is on hold and not other product lot is subject to
recall. The FDA has been apprised of the situation.
Boca Medical distributes products through wholesalers. This
product is sold by prescription orders and has been distributed
in Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Alabama, South Carolina,
North Carolina, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, and Arkansas.
Boca Medical is notifying its wholesalers by fax and is
arranging for the return of the recalled product from retail to
consumer level.
To return the product: Boca Medical Products Inc, 3550 NW 126th
Ave, Corals Springs, FL 33065. Attention: Recall Contact. For
any question related to the case, call 1-800-354-8460.
The Electronic Trading Group, LLC has charged brokerage units
-- Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC),
-- Bear Stearns Cos. (NYSE: BSC),
-- Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C),
-- Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) and others
with charging unearned fees, commissions and interest on short
sales when the broker-dealers failed to borrow or deliver the
stock to back a short position, according to the Dow Jones
Newswires.
Others defendants in the suit, which the plaintiffs hope to
convert to a class action include:
-- Credit Suisse Group ((NYSE: CSR),
-- Deutsche Bank ((NYSE: DB),
-- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS),
-- Lehman Brothers Inc. (NYSE: LEH),
-- Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS),
-- Bank of New York ((NYSE: BK), and
-- UBS AG (NYSE: UBS).
"Defendants collusively condone and engage in these practices to
their individual and collective enrichment, routinely
alternating among themselves in the roles of prime broker who
fails to deliver and third-party broker-dealer who permits the
(failure to deliver) to persist," according to the filings.
According to the Dow Jones, the complaint says that Electronic
Trading Group isn't challenging the practice of naked short
selling per se, but rather is suing the broker-dealers for
anticompetitive actions "by which they have arrogated to
themselves illicit and anticompetitive profits at the expense
and without the participation of their clients." The lawsuit
alleges the broker-dealers charged Electronic Trading Group and
other legitimate short sellers for "covering" short positions
that the broker-dealers actually didn't cover and then
concealing that fact.
Electronic Trading Group said in the complaint it was charged
improper fees, commissions and interest by the broker-dealers
from April 2000 to present. "In effect, plaintiff and other
members of the class were charged and paid costs and fees, but
did not receive the bargained-for value in return," the lawsuit
claims. At the same time, a group of hedge funds are also
contemplating a similar lawsuit, according to Milberg Weiss.
Hedge funds are also considering forming an association, which
David Rubenstein of Carlyle has said in Financial Times is to be
prepared for a response in the event a gigantic buyout fails and
critics charge it was built on a house of cards.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. has reached a settlement in
principle of the class claims certified in Carlson, et al. v.
C.H. Robinson, subject to preliminary approval on June 12, 2006,
by the Court.
The settlement to resolve the class claims of gender
discrimination in pay and promotion consists of $15 million for
all damages, costs, and attorneys' fees, to be allocated as
determined by the Court. The $15 million is within C.H.
Robinson's insurance coverage limits.
The proposed settlement also includes programmatic relief
offered by C.H. Robinson. As a condition of the settlement,
C.H. Robinson made no admission of liability.
The settlement proposal does not include the claims of
individual plaintiffs who have filed Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission charges or the Fair Labor Standards Act
overtime pay lawsuits.
The lawsuit alleges that the transportation company
discriminated against women with unequal pay and promotion
opportunities. Originally, it included claims of a hostile work
environment and failure to pay overtime, but the court declined
to certify those claims as class actions, according to the Star
Tribune.
The suit was styled "Carlson, et al v. C.H. Robinson World
(0:02-cv-03780-JNE-JJG)" filed in the U.S. District Court of
Minnesota under Judge Joan N. Ericksen with referral to Jeanne
J. Graham. Representing the plaintiffs are Susan M. Coler of
Sprenger & Lang PLLC - Mpls, 310 4th Ave S Ste 600, Mpls, MN
55415, Phone: (612) 871-8910, Fax: 6128719270, E-mail:
scoler@sprengerlang.com; and Michael D. Lieder of Sprenger &
Lang - DC, 1614 20th St. NW, Washington, DC 20009, Phone: 202-
265-8010, Fax: 202-332-6652, E-mail: mlieder@sprengerlang.com.
Representing the defendants are Robyn E. Anderson of Robins
Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP, 800 LaSalle Ave Ste 2800,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: (612) 349-8500, Fax: 612-339-
4181, E-mail: reanderson@rkmc.com; and Kari Thoe Crone of Robins
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015, Phone: (612) 349-8500, Fax:
6123394181, E-mail: ktcrone@rkmc.com.
Dynegy, Inc. is defendant in several purported class actions in
Illinois and Texas federal courts alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
In January 2005, three DMG union employees who are participants
in the DMG 401(k) Savings Plan for Employees Covered Under a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (formerly known as the Illinois
Power Company Incentive Savings Plan For Employees Covered Under
a Collective Bargaining Agreement), which the Company refers to
as the "DMG 401(k) Plan," purporting to represent all Dynegy
Midwest Generation, Inc. (DMG) and Illinois Power employees who
held Dynegy common stock through the DMG 401(k) Plan during the
period from February 2000 through the present, filed a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against the Company, Illinois Power, DMG and several individual
The complaint alleges violations of ERISA in connection with the
DMG 401(k) Plan that are similar to the claims made in the
Dynegy Inc. ERISA litigation the Company settled in December
2004, including claims that certain of the Company's former
officers (who are past members of the Company's Benefit Plans
Committee) breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants
and beneficiaries in connection with the plan's investment in
the Company's common stock - in particular with respect to its
financial statements, Project Alpha, round trip trades and gas
price index reporting.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the losses to the
plan, as well as attorney's fees and other costs.
Additionally, in September 2005, two former Illinois Power
salaried employees who were participants in the Dynegy Midwest
Generation, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan for salaried employees
(formerly known as the Illinois Power Incentive Savings Plan),
which the Company refers to as the "DMG Salaried Plan,"
purporting to represent all DMG Salaried Plan participants who
held Dynegy common stock through the DMG Salaried Plan during
the period from January 1, 2002 though January 30, 2003, filed a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas against the Company and several individual defendants.
DMG Salaried Plan that are similar to the claims made in the
ERISA litigation referenced in the preceding paragraph.
The Company recently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, in
response to which plaintiffs' counsel filed a second putative
class action on behalf of three plan alleged participants that
is materially identical to the original action.
Dynegy, Inc. is defending these suits that claim damages
resulting from alleged manipulation of gas index publications
and prices by the Company and others:
(1) "ABAG v. Sempra Energy, et al." (filed in state court
in November 2004);
(2) "Ableman Art Glass v. Encana Corporation, et al."
(class action filed in federal court in December 2004);
(3) "Benschiedt (class action filed in state court in
February 2004);
(4) "Bustamante v. The McGraw Hill Companies et al." (class
action filed in state court in November 2002);
(5) "City and County of San Francisco v. Dynegy Inc. et
al." (filed in state court in July 2004);
(6) "County of San Diego v. Dynegy Inc., Dynegy Marketing
and Trade, West Coast Power, et al. (filed in state
court in July 2004);
(7) "County of San Mateo v. Sempra Energy, et al." (filed
in state court in December 2004);
(8) "County of Santa Clara v. Dynegy Inc., Dynegy Marketing
and Trade, West Coast Power, et al." (filed in state
(9) "Fairhaven Power Company v. Encana Corp., et al."
(class action filed in federal court in September
2004);
(10) "In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation" (class action
filed in federal court in January 2004);
(11) "Leggett v. Duke Energy, et al." (class action filed in
state court in January 2005);
(12) "Multiut v. Dynegy Inc." (filed in federal court in
December 2004);
(13) "Nelson Brothers LLC v. Cherokee Nitrogen v. Dynegy
Marketing and Trade and Dynegy Inc." (filed in state
court in April 2003);
(14) "Nurserymen's Exchange v. Sempra Energy, et al." (filed
in state court in October 2004);
(15) "Older v. Dynegy Inc., et al. (filed in federal court
in September 2004);
(16) "Owens-Brockway v. Sempra Energy, et al." (filed in
(17) "Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) v.
Reliant Energy Services, et al." (filed in state court
(18) "School Project for Utility Rate Reduction v. Sempra
Energy, et al." (filed in state court in November
(19) "Sierra Pacific Resources and Nevada Power Company v.
El Paso Corp., et al. (filed in federal court in April
(20) "Tamco v. Dynegy Inc., et al." (filed in state court in
(21) "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. v. CenterPoint Energy Inc., et
al." (class action filed in federal court in November
2003); and
(22) "Utility Savings & Refund v. Reliant Energy Services,
et al. (class action filed in federal court in November
In each of these suits, the plaintiffs allege that the Company
and other energy companies engaged in an illegal scheme to
inflate natural gas prices by providing false information to gas
index publications.
All of the complaints rely heavily on Federal Regulation and
Oversight of Energy (FERC) and Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) investigations into and reports concerning
index-reporting manipulation in the energy industry.
Pursuant to various motions filed by the parties to the
litigation described above, the gas index pricing lawsuits
pending in state court (except for Nelson Brothers) were
consolidated before a single judge in San Diego, California.
These cases are now entitled the "Judicial Counsel Coordinated
Proceeding (JCCP) 4221, 4224, 4226, and 4228, the Natural Gas
Anti-Trust Cases, I, II, III, & IV," which the Company refers to
as the "Coordinated Gas Index Cases."
In April 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the Coordinated Gas
Index Cases on preemption and filed rate grounds. The Court
denied defendants' motion in June 2005 and in October 2005 the
defendants filed answers to the plaintiffs' complaints. The
parties are presently engaged in discovery.
The Nelson Brothers lawsuit involves an alleged breach of a gas
purchase contract and is pending in Alabama state court. The
As to the gas index pricing lawsuits filed in federal court, the
Sierra Pacific case was dismissed in December 2004 on
defendants' motion. The Texas-Ohio case was similarly dismissed
in April 2005.
Plaintiffs in Sierra Pacific and Texas-Ohio appealed the
dismissals and both matters are pending before the same panel of
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In December 2005, the Nevada federal court dismissed three
additional cases (Ableman Art Glass, Fairhaven Power and Utility
Savings & Refund) on similar grounds to Texas-Ohio, finding
plaintiffs' claims barred by the filed rate doctrine.
In February 2006, the Company reached a settlement in "In re
Natural Gas Commodity Litigation," resolving a class action by
all persons who purchased, sold or settled NYMEX Natural Gas
Contracts between June 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002.
The underlying action alleged the named defendants (including
the Company and West Coast Power) unlawfully manipulated and
aided and abetted the manipulation of the prices of natural gas
futures contracts traded on the NYMEX.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company and West Coast
Power continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, and the Company
agreed to pay $7 million in settlement of any and all claims for
damages arising from or relating in any way to trading during
the Class Period in NYMEX Natural Gas Contracts. The
settlement is subject to a fairness hearing and final Court
approval, which the Company expects to occur in the third
quarter 2006.
The Multiut case involves a counterclaim of alleged index
manipulation filed by the defendant, Multiut, against whom the
Company have a pending breach of gas purchase contract claim.
In January 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Multiut's
claims of index manipulation based upon filed rate doctrine and
preemption grounds. The motion remains pending. The plaintiffs
generally seek unspecified actual and punitive damages relating
to costs they claim to have incurred as a result of the alleged
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against
Dynegy, Inc. as well as other companies that is pending in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and
styled, "Stand Energy Corporation, et al. v. Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation, et al., 2:04-cv-00867."
Filed on August 3, 2004, the suit was brought by Stand Energy
Corp. (formerly Atlantigas Corp.). In October 2004, the Company
was named as a defendant in the case, which is alleging that
interstate pipelines provided preferential storage and
transportation services to their own unregulated marketing
affiliate in return for a percentage of the profits.
Plaintiffs contend that such conduct violates applicable Federal
Regulation and Oversight of Energy (FERC) regulations and
federal and state antitrust laws, and constitutes common law
tortious interference with contractual and business relations.
In addition, the complaint claims the defendants conspired with
the other market participants to receive preferential natural
gas storage and transportation services at off-tariff prices.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages.
Following numerous procedural motions, which limited plaintiffs'
claims against the Company to state antitrust violations and
resulting unjust enrichment, defendants filed their answers to
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in September 2005. The
parties are actively engaged in discovery.
The suit is styled, "Stand Energy Corporation, et al. v.
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation, et al., 2:04-cv-00867,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Wets Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers. Representing the
plaintiffs are, Joshua I. Barrett, Rudolph L. DiTrapano and
Molly McGinley Han of Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero, 604 Virginia
Street, E. Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304/342-0133, Fax: 342-
4605; and Robert C. Sanders of Law Office of Robert S. Sanders,
12051 Upper Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922, Phone:
301/574-3400, Fax: 574-2153.
Representing the defendants are, Ryan Takemoto, Roxane A.
Polidora and Steven A. Dahm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman,
Phone: 415/983-1000 and 202/775-9800, Fax: 415/983-1200 and 202/
833-8491; and Marc E. Williams of Huddleston Bolen, P.O. Box
2185, Huntington, WV 25722-2185, Phone: 304/529-6181, Fax: 522-
Earl Scheib, Inc. reached an agreement to settle a putative
class action related to how its California subsidiary classified
certain employees under California overtime law over an
approximately seven year period.
The lawsuit, which was filed in March 2000, is similar to
numerous lawsuits filed against retailers and other employers
with operations in California. While the Company denies the
allegations underlying the lawsuit, it has agreed to the
settlement to avoid additional legal fees, other expenses and
management time that would have to be devoted to protracted and
uncertain litigation.
Under the agreement, which is subject to approval by the
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
approximately 450 current and former employees will be entitled
to make verified claims to share in the settlement. The maximum
amount of the settlement, including claim payments and related
taxes and expenses, administrative fees and class counsel fees
and expenses is $750,000. The Company's maximum portion of the
settlement is $250,000, all of which has been previously accrued
on the Company's balance sheets.
Christian K. Bement, President and Chief Executive Officer of
Earl Scheib, commented, "While the Company denies all liability
or wrongdoing in this case and had, in fact, prevailed on a
similar case, we chose to settle this lawsuit in order to avoid
the distraction and expense, together with the risks, of
protracted litigation that we would otherwise incur. We are
satisfied that the settlement of this lawsuit is in the best
interests of Earl Scheib, its stockholders and other
stakeholders including our employees."
A settlement of a class action relating to Epson America, Inc.
inkjet cartridges has been preliminarily approved by the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.
Lead counsels for the class are:
-- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP with offices in Los Angeles,
Sacramento, and Newport Beach, California and Las Vegas,
Nevada; and
-- Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, with offices in Atlanta,
Georgia and Great Neck, New York.
The class is also represented by:
-- the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP,
-- Los Angeles-based McNicholas & McNicholas LLP,
-- The Ball Law Firm, LLP, and
-- Jacobson, Russell, Saltz & Fingerman, LLP, and
-- Dobrowski L.L.P of Houston, Texas.
The settlement resolves lawsuits filed in California, New York
and Texas based on various legal theories relating to the
performance and other characteristics of Epson inkjet printer
cartridges. Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that a
substantial amount of ink remains in Epson inkjet cartridges
when the Epson printers for which they are designed indicate
that the cartridges are "empty," and suspend printer operation.
Epson America denies these allegations and maintains that an ink
safety reserve ensures print quality and reliability. The Court
has not ruled on these allegations but Epson America has agreed
to settle the action.
Under the terms of the settlement, the settlement class,
consisting of all persons or entities located within the U.S.
who purchased or otherwise acquired an Epson brand inkjet
printer between April 8, 1999 and May 8, 2006, will receive a
$45 per-printer credit for Epson America's online E-Store which
may be used to buy replacement inkjet cartridges or any other
product sold at the E-Store. The credit will be provided
automatically to every class member who has already registered a
printer with Epson America and to those who register a
qualifying printer within 90 days after the final approval of
the settlement.
Alternatively, class members may reject the credit and mail in a
claim form to receive either:
(1) a check from Epson America in the amount of $25 and a
$20 credit at Epson America's E-Store; or
(2) a 25% discount off purchases at the Epson America E-
Store, to a maximum discount of $100.
Class members who do not wish to register with Epson America may
also receive any of the three forms of alternative settlement
benefits by mailing in the same claim form.
The settlement does not require any changes in Epson's printer
technology, but Epson America agreed to make changes to its
product packaging and software in order to clarify that when the
printer signals that a cartridge must be replaced a variable
amount of ink remains. Epson America's Web site will also
display language explaining why there is an ink safety reserve.
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees (the amount of which has not yet
been determined) will be determined by the Court and will be
paid by Epson America separate from, and in addition to, the
other settlement benefits provided to the class.
Gregory Keller said, "It is our hope that this settlement will
set a new high water mark in consumer class actions, not only
with regard to the amount of the benefit class members receive,
but also with regard to the ease with which those benefits may
be obtained. Printer owners who have registered their printers
with Epson America will automatically receive a $45 credit to be
used in the Epson E-Store. Printer owners who have not
registered may do so under the settlement to receive their E-
Store credit."
Added Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown Kellner, "The $45 credit
is simply an outstanding result for the Class. The $45 benefit
means some Class members may obtain up to three replacement ink
cartridges for each printer they have registered with Epson,
and, in doing so, provides the relief that we sought in the
lawsuit, to restore ink to customers."
Susan Aledort, Epson America's Senior Counsel, explained, "We
are pleased to have resolved these lawsuits to avoid costly
litigation and focus on our business of providing high value
products to professionals and consumers. We already communicate
a great deal of information to users about the performance of
Epson ink cartridges and welcome the opportunity provided by
this settlement to further explain Epson's technologies and the
performance of our ink cartridges, including the technological
reasons for the ink safety reserve."
A final approval hearing has been scheduled for August 15, 2006,
following mail and publication notice of the settlement to Class
The suit is styled "In re Epson Ink Cartridge Cases" filed in
Los Angeles County Superior Court, California. The lawsuit and
settlement terms are described in full at
http://www.epsonsettlement.com.
For more information, contact Gregory Keller, E-mail:
Gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com, or Brian Kabateck, E-mail:
Bsk@kbklawyers.com, or Claims Administrator c/o Rust Consulting,
Inc. P.O. Box 1283 Minneapolis MN 55440-1283.
Headquartered in Long Beach, California, Epson America, Inc. --
http://www.epson.com/northamerica.html--is a supplier of inkjet
printers and other high technology products.
Fidelity Group, Inc., HealthPlan Services, Inc. (HPS), Third
Party Claims Management reached a settlement for the class
action filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, Charleston division.
In early 2000, four named plaintiffs filed the class action
seeking unspecified damages. The complaint stems from the
failure of a Fidelity insurance plan, and alleges unfair and
deceptive trade practices; negligent undertaking; fraud;
negligent misrepresentation; breach of contract; civil
conspiracy; and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) violations against Fidelity and its contracted
administrator, HPS.
Two principals of the Fidelity plan were convicted of insurance
fraud and sentenced to prison in a separate proceeding. The
class was certified and such certification was eventually upheld
on appeal.
Shortly after the case was remanded to the trial judge as a
certified class for further discovery, the Company filed a
motion to de-certify the matter based upon evidence not
available to the trial judge when he first certified the class.
While that motion was pending, the parties agreed to mediate the
case before the trial judge. The mediation was successful and
the parties agreed orally to settle the matter.
The Company believes that its insurance carrier will pay its
obligations under the settlement. Although the Company is
currently working to finalize a formal settlement agreement,
notice of class settlement, and preliminary order approving the
settlement, there can be no assurance that the settlement will
be approved or that objections will not be raised.
The suit is styled, "Gunnells, et al. v. Fidelity Group Inc, et
al., Case No. 2:98-cv-02659-PMD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge Patrick
Michael Duffy. Representing the plaintiffs are, Michael Joseph
Brickman and Christian Hancock Hartley of Richardson Patrick
Westbrook and Brickman, P.O. Box 879, Charleston, SC 29402,
Phone: 843-727-6520, Fax: 843-727-3103, E-mail:
mbrickman@rpwb.com and chartley@rpwb.com; and Justin Simon Kahn
of Kahn Law Firm, P.O. Box 31397, Charleston, SC 29417, Phone:
843-577-2128, Fax: 843-577-3538, E-mail: jskahn@kahnlawfirm.com.
Representing the defendants are, Laura Johnson Evans of Pratt-
Thomas Pearce Epting and Walker, P.O. Box 22247, Charleston, SC
29413-2247, Phone: 843-577-4000, Fax: 843-805-6531, E-mail:
lje@wiselaw.com; and James Y. Becker of Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd,
P.O. Box 11889, Columbia, SC 29211-1889, Phone: 803-779-3080,
Fax: 803-765-1243, E-mail: jbecker@hsblawfirm.com.
GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. is defendant in a purported class
action over GTC stock options in Court of Common Pleas for
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.
On November 13, 2001, two employees of one of the Company's
former subsidiaries filed the action seeking damages,
declaratory relief and certification of a class action relating
primarily to their GTC stock options.
The claims arose as a result of the Company's sale of Primedica
Corporation to Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. in
February 2001, which it believes resulted in the termination of
Primedica employees' status as employees of GTC or its
affiliates and the termination of their stock options.
The plaintiffs contend that the sale of Primedica to Charles
River did not constitute a termination of their employment with
GTC or its affiliates for purposes of the Company's equity
incentive plan and, therefore, that the Company breached the
Company's contractual obligations to them and other Primedica
employees who had not exercised their stock options.
The complaint demands damages in excess of $5 million, plus
interest. The Court certified the case as a class action, with
the class including employees of Primedica who, at the time GTC
sold it, had GTC options that had not been exercised.
The Company filed an answer denying all material allegations in
the complaint, and is fighting the case.
Lyondell Chemical Co. and certain other chemical companies are
defendants in a consolidated class action alleging violations of
U.S. antitrust law in connection with the manufacture and sale
of polyether polyols, methylene diphenyl diisocyantate (MDI) and
toluene diisocyanate (TDI).
Beginning November 2004, several purported class actions were
filed in federal court on behalf of U.S. purchasers. The suits
are seeking treble damages in an unspecified amount.
The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) later
consolidated the lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under the caption, "In re Urethane Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1616."
The suit is styled, "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, Master
Docket No. 04-md-01616-JWL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Mario Nunzio Alioto of Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, 2280 Union Street, San Francisco,
CA 94123, Phone: 415-563-7200, Fax: 415-346-0679, E-mail:
malioto@tatp; and Yvonne M. Flaherty of Lockridge Grindal Nauen,
PLLP, 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN
flaheym@locklaw.com.
Representing the Company are:
(1) William C. Cagney of Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf,
LLP, 120 Albany Street Plaza, New Brunswick, NJ 08901,
Phone: 732-846-7600;
(2) Floyd R. Finch, Jr. of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin,
LLP, Kansas City, 4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O.
Box 219777, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-983-8128,
Fax: 816-983-8080, E-mail: ffinch@blackwellsanders.com;
(3) Robert Fleishman of Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, 1330
Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036, Phone:
202-429-3000, Fax: 202-429-3902, E-mail:
rfleishm@steptoe.com; and
(4) Jason Brett Fliegel of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP,
71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-701-
8839, Fax: 312-706-8115, E-mail:
jfliegel@mayerbrownrowe.com.
MasTec, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have agreed to settle all claims asserted against them
in a securities fraud class action for $10 million in cash.
The settlement comes after two years of litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, before the
Honorable Federico A. Moreno, U.S. District Court Judge. The
Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Alex
Meruelo Living Trust as Co-Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of the
class of investors who purchased MasTec common stock between
August 12, 2003 and May 11, 2004.
After an extensive investigation, Lead Plaintiffs filed their
Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of
the Class on February 22, 2005. The Complaint alleged that
MasTec and members of its senior management made false
statements regarding the Company's financial performance for the
second and third quarters of 2003, which had the effect of
artificially inflating MasTec's stock price.
In September 2005, the Court denied Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Action in its entirety. Since that time, Lead
Plaintiffs have engaged in intensive discovery. The case was
set for trial beginning in September of this year.
"We are very pleased to achieve this outstanding recovery, which
represents a substantial percentage of the Class' likely
recoverable damages. The settlement represents the hard work
and commitment of the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs who were
actively involved in all phases of the litigation," said Steven
B. Singer partner at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
(BLB&G), curt-appointed co-lead counsel for the class.
"The settlement was the result of a hard fought process, and we
believe it represents an exceptional result for the Class. This
settlement shows how shareholders can make a difference," said
YA&P partner Behram V. Parekh.
The settlement is subject to Court approval, after notice to the
members of the Class.
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP is court-appointed co-lead
counsel for the class in the suit styled, "In re MasTec
Securities Litigation."
For more information, contact Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP (http://www.blbglaw.com/).
Plaintiff in the putative class action against Matrix Financial
Services Corp., styled, "Monica Thigpen v. Matrix Financial
Services Corporation." which was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Alabama, is withdrawing a
motion for class certification of the case.
The Company was named as a defendant in the case back in March
2004. The plaintiff claims that the Company filed an improper
and false affidavit in connection with plaintiff's Chapter 13
bankruptcy proceeding because the signature page of the
affidavit was executed separate and apart from the other pages,
and has asked the Court to award the plaintiff actual damages,
punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and other
relief as may be appropriate.
In January 2006, the Plaintiff withdrew her Motion for Class
Certification, but has indicated that she will continue to
pursue her claim individually. Discovery is ongoing.
The suit is styled, "Thigpen v. Matrix Financial Services
Corporation, Case No. 04-01035," filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Alabama under Judge Margaret
A. Mahoney. Representing the plaintiff is Steve Olen of Olen &
Nicholas, P.C., P.O. Box 1826, Mobile, AL 36633-1826, Phone:
(251) 438-6957, E-mail: sco@olennicholas.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) M. Warren Butler of Lyons Pipes Cook, POB 2727
Mobile, AL 36652-2727, Phone: 441-8229, Fax: 433-1820,
E-mail: mwb@lpclaw.com;
(2) Jeffery J. Hartley of Helmsing, Leach, Herlon, Newman &
Rouse, P.O. Box 2767, Mobile, AL 36652-2767, (251) 432-
5521, E-mail: jjh@helmsinglaw.com; and
(3) William E. Shreve, Jr., Post Office Box 2727, Mobile,
AL 36652-2727, E-mail: wes@lpclaw.com.
A federal jury in South Dakota recommended a $9.25 million fine
against three of the largest U.S. beef companies accused of
deliberately underpaying for beef prices sometime in 2001,
Reuters reports.
The companies, and their fines:
-- Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., formerly IBP Inc. $4 million
-- Cargill Meat Solutions, d/b/a Excel Corp. $3 million
-- Swift & Co., formerly ConAgra Beef Co. $2.25 million
A fourth defendant, National Beef Packing Co., formerly known as
Farmland National Beef Packing Co., was cleared, the report
The plaintiffs in the case are cattle producer Herman
Schumacher, Michael Callicrate and Roger Koch. The lawsuit,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Dakota in 2002, claimed that "packers unlawfully underpaid the
class members for cattle sold to them [between April 2 and May
11, 2001]."
The plaintiffs claimed that during the first six weeks of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's new boxed beef price reporting
method around April to May 2001, some of USDA's figures were
inaccurate due to computer glitches. They contended that the
defendants knowingly used this flawed data to get better prices
on fed cattle from processors and violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (Class Action Reporter, April 26, 2005).
The U.S. Government Accountability Office report released in
December showed more than half of the government's meatpacker
audits revealed inaccuracies, omissions or undocumented
U.S. District Court Judge Charles Kornmann certified the case
(No. 02-1027) as a class action on behalf of all cattle
producers who sold fed cattle on the cash market in June 2004.
The defendants moved to have the case dismissed, but Judge
Kornmann denied the motion in January.
In an information campaign aimed at identifying potential
members in a class action against Tyson Foods Inc. and other
beef processors the Beef Packer Class Action group launched
http://www.packerclassaction.comin 2005.
The suit was styled, "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al.
(1:02-cv-01027-CBK)," filed in the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann. Representing the
plaintiffs are Elizabeth J. Anderson and David F. Herr of
Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S.
7th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140, Phone: (612)672-8200, Fax:
672-8397.
Representing the defendants are: William H. Baumgartner, Jr. of
Sidley Austin LLP, One South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603,
Phone: (312)853-7000, Fax: (312)853-7036, E-mail:
wbaumgartner@sidley.com; and Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr. of
McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO, 1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700
First Natl. Tower, Omaha, NE 68102-1627, Phone: (402)341-3070,
Fax: 341-0216, E-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin's
dismissal of the Copper Price Manipulation Litigation. The suit
was brought by two subsidiaries of Mueller Industries, Inc.
against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Guaranty Trust
Company of New York (collectively Morgan).
Initially, the Company's subsidiaries, Mueller Copper Tube
Products Inc. and Mueller Copper Tube Company Inc., brought a
lawsuit (the Price Manipulation Action) to recover damages that
the Company believes it suffered on first purchases of copper
cathode resulting from an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
price of copper cathode by Morgan (and certain of its
predecessors and affiliates) and others in violation of the
federal antitrust laws.
The lawsuit was filed on June 12, 2003, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The Company's
lawsuit was later consolidated with those of certain other first
purchasers of copper cathode and rod under the name: "In re
Copper Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1303."
Although the Price Manipulation Action was dismissed by the
district court on March 2, 2004, as barred by the statute of
On February 6, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the district court's decision in part and
remanded the Price Manipulation Action for further proceedings
in the district court.
The suit is styled, "Mueller Copper Tube Company Inc. v. J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 03-C-0318-C," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin under Judge
Barbara B. Crabb. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) William R. Steinmetz of Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren,
1000 North Water Street, P.O. Box 514000, Milwaukee, WI
53203-3400, Phone: (414) 298-1000;
(2) David H. Weinstein of Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato
Karon, 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: (215) 545-7200;
(3) Arthur M. Kaplan of Fine, Kaplan & Black, 1835 Market
Street, 28th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone:
(215) 567-6565; and
(4) Bryan Nowicki of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, 22 East
Mifflin Street, Suite 600, P.O. Box 2018, Madison, WI
53703, Phone: (608) 229-2200.
Representing the defendants is James H.R. Windels of Davis, Polk
& Wardwell, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
Mueller Industries, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries are
defendants in both state court and federal antitrust suits in
relation to the sale of copper plumbing tubes in the U.S.
Beginning in September 2004, the Company was named as a
defendant in several purported class actions brought by direct
and indirect purchasers alleging anticompetitive activities.
Two such purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the Federal
Actions), four were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco (the California Actions),
one was filed in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee
(the Tennessee Action), and one was filed in the Superior Court
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex (the
Massachusetts Action, and with the Federal Actions, the
California Actions and the Tennessee Action, the Actions).
Wholly owned Company subsidiaries, WTC Holding Company, Inc.,
Deno Holding Company, Inc., and Mueller Europe Ltd. are named in
all of the Actions, and Deno Acquisition Eurl is named in two of
the Actions. Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the
complaint in either of the Actions in which it is named, and
only the Company has been served with the complaint in the
Tennessee Action.
The claims in the California and Massachusetts Actions against
WTC Holding Company, Inc. and Deno Holding Company, Inc. have
been dismissed without prejudice.
All of the Actions, which are similar, seek declaratory (except
for the Massachusetts Action) and monetary relief. Plaintiffs'
motions to consolidate and for appointment of lead counsel in
the Federal Actions and plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
California Actions have been granted.
On July 6, 2005, a motion to dismiss the Federal Actions for
failure to state a claim was granted as to WTC Holding Company,
Inc. and Deno Holding Company, Inc. and denied as to Mueller
Industries, Inc.
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the July 6, 2005 order
dismissing the claims in the Federal Actions against WTC Holding
Company, Inc. and Deno Holding Company, Inc. is pending.
Mueller Europe's motion to dismiss the Federal Actions for lack
of personal jurisdiction and on other grounds is pending. The
Company's demurrer to the complaint in the California Actions
and the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennessee Action for
failure to state a claim are pending.
The Company has not yet been required to respond to the
complaint in the Massachusetts Action. Mueller Europe has not
yet been required to respond to the complaints in the
California, Tennessee, and Massachusetts Actions.
RehabCare Group, Inc. settled a consolidated suit in California
that was filed by on-call, recruiting and staffing coordinators,
and employees in other job classifications of the Company's
former staffing business, StarMed Health Personnel, Inc.
Initially, the former StarMed workers, seeking overtime
compensation and related damages under both federal and state
law, filed several suits. The cases were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
The plaintiffs sought to bring collective or class action
proceedings on behalf of all similarly situated StarMed
employees.
In January 2005, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to send
notices of collective action to all former StarMed employees in
the covered job classifications, while denying plaintiffs'
request to proceed as a class action under the California state
law claims.
The notices of collective action were mailed to each person
approved by the court. Approximately 195 of those persons
receiving notices elected to opt-in to the collective action.
On March 6, 2006, while the cases were in an advanced stage of
pre-trial discovery, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement to settle the cases.
A charge related to the settlement has been recorded in
corporate selling, general and administrative expenses on the
Company's statement of earnings for the year ended December 31,
Renal Care Group, Inc. is a defendant in an amended shareholder
class action in Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee
Twentieth Judicial District at Nashville over its merger
agreement with Fresenius Medical Care.
Initially several suits were filed:
(1) On May 11, 2005, the Company was served with a
complaint in the Chancery Court for the State of
Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District at Nashville
styled, "Plumbers Local #65 Pension Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. Renal Care Group, Inc., William P. Johnston, Gary
Brukardt, Peter J. Grua, Joseph C. Hutts, Harry R.
Jacobson, William V. Lapham, Thomas A. Lowery, Stephen
D. McMurray and C. Thomas Smith, Defendants;"
styled, "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust
Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Renal Care Group, Inc.,
William P. Johnston, Gary Brukardt, Peter J. Grua,
Joseph C. Hutts, Harry R. Jacobson, William V. Lapham,
Thomas A. Lowery, Stephen D. McMurray and C. Thomas
Smith, Defendants;" and
styled, "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and
Hod Carriers Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and
others similar situated, Plaintiff, vs. Renal Care
Group, Inc., William P. Johnston, Gary Brukardt, Peter
J. Grua, Joseph C. Hutts, Harry R. Jacobson, William V.
Lapham, Thomas A. Lowery, Stephen D. McMurray and C.
Thomas Smith, Defendants."
The original complaints in these three lawsuits were
substantially identical. Each complaint was brought by the
plaintiff shareholder as a purported class action on behalf of
all shareholders similarly situated.
The complaints allege that the Company and its directors engaged
in self-dealing and breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders in connection with the merger agreement
between the Company and Fresenius Medical Care because, among
other things, the Company used a flawed process, the existence
of the previously disclosed subpoena from the Department of
Justice, the lack of independence of one of the Company's
financial advisors and the existence of the Company's
supplemental executive retirement plan.
The Company removed these cases to federal court in June 2005.
The plaintiffs in the first two cases dismissed them without
prejudice in July 2005, and the third plaintiff filed an amended
The amended complaint asserts the same grounds articulated in
the original complaint adding more specific allegations
regarding the termination fee, the non-solicitation clause and
the matching rights provision in the Merger Agreement, and it
adds allegations that the Company's proxy statement makes
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the process
by which the merger agreement was negotiated.
Specifically, the amended complaint asserts that the proxy
statement makes material misstatements or omissions regarding:
(i) the reason the Company's management and board engaged
in a closed process of negotiating a potential merger
with Fresenius Medical Care and did not solicit
potential competing bids from alternative purchasers;
(ii) the reason the Company's board did not appoint a
special committee to evaluate the fairness of the
merger;
(iii) the alternatives available to the Company including
potential alternative transactions and other strategic
business opportunities, which purportedly were
considered by the Company's board during the strategic
planning process the board engaged in during the second
half of 2004;
(iv) all information regarding conflicts of interest
suffered by defendants and their financial and legal
advisors as alleged herein;
(v) all information regarding past investment banking
services Bank of America has performed for the Company
and Fresenius Medical Care and the compensation Bank of
America received for those services;
(vi) the forecasts and projections prepared by the Company's
management for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 that were
referenced in the fairness opinions by Morgan Stanley;
(vii) the estimates of transaction synergies provided by the
Company's management that were referenced in the
fairness opinions by Morgan Stanley; and
(viii) information concerning the amount of money Bank of
America and Morgan Stanley will receive in connection
with the proposed merger.
The Company believes that the allegations in the pending
complaint are without merit. Completion of the merger is
subject to customary conditions, including the absence of any
order or injunction prohibiting the closing.
The pending complaint seeks to enjoin and prevent the parties
from completing the Fresenius Medical Care transaction. The
pending complaint was remanded to Tennessee state court in
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
set an October 3, 2006 trial date for the purported class action
filed against Rewards Network, Inc., and certain of its
subsidiaries. The suit is styled "Bistro Executive Inc., et al.
v. Rewards Network Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc."
On May 25, 2004, Bistro Executive, Inc., Westward Beach
Restaurant Holdings, LLC and MiniBar Lounge filed a complaint in
the Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company and
its subsidiaries. The plaintiffs were all participants in the
Company's dining credits Purchase Plan (the Dining Plan), and
The complaint was brought as a putative class action and alleges
that amounts paid by the Company under the Dining Plan
constituted loans in violation of California usury laws and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The suit seeks, among other relief, damages and equitable and
injunctive relief, including disgorgement of all purported
"interest" and profits earned by the Company from the Dining
Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a significant
portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and treble
damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year prior
to the filing of the complaint.
On June 25, 2004, the action was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
On October 11, 2005, plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted certifying two classes as follows:
(1) all California restaurants which, from May 25, 2000 to
May 25, 2004, participated in the Dining Plan and which
took a cash advance from the Company pursuant to its
California Dining Plan agreements, and
(2) all persons who, from May 25, 2000 to May 25, 2004,
guaranteed payment of cash advances underlying the
Company's California Dining Plan agreements.
Trial had been set for April 24, 2006, but the date was
continued and a new trial date has been set for October 3, 2006.
The suit is styled, "Bistro Executive Inc., et al. v. Rewards
Network Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," filed in
under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with referral to Judge James W.
McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are, John S. Purcell,
Kenneth R. Chiate, Daniel L. Brockett, James E. Doroshow,
Chandra L. Gooding of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges,
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543,
Phone: 213-624-7707 and 213-443-3000, Fax: 213-624-0643 and 213-
443-3100, E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com; and Anat Levy of
Anat Levy and Associates, 8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Phone: 310-358-3138, E-mail:
alevy96@aol.com.
Representing the defendants are, Scott M. Pearson, Daniel A.
Rozansky and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock Stroock & Lavan,
2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086,
lacalendar@stroock.com.
STAAR Surgical Co. settled the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and its Chief Executive Officer in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
styled.
Since September 1, 2004, multiple class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California
and the District of New Mexico on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Company's securities during various periods between
April 3, 2003 and September 28, 2004, (Class Action Reporter,
December 21, 2005).
On December 15, 2004, the Court ordered consolidation of the
complaints that had been filed in California and directed that
the plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint as soon as
practicable. The New Mexico action was voluntarily dismissed on
January 28, 2005, (Class Action Reporter, December 21, 2005).
A consolidated amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs on
April 29, 2005 generally alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing
false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for FDA
approval of the Company's VISIAN ICL, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's Common Stock.
The plaintiffs generally seek to recover compensatory damages,
including interest.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court denied
in an order filed September 19, 2005 (the Order). While
permitting the case to proceed, the Order effectively narrowed
the proposed class to purchasers of the Company's securities
between October 6, 2003 and January 5, 2004 by limiting the
statements of STAAR that the plaintiffs may challenge.
On December 27, 2005, a Joint Status Report and Notice of
Settlement (the Notice) was filed with the court, indicating
that the parties had reached an agreement to settle all claims.
In the Notice, the parties to the Class action informed the
Court that they have reached an agreement to resolve the
litigation, without admission of liability, and have signed a
Memorandum of Understanding.
The effectiveness of the agreement among the parties is subject
to the parties' negotiating and approving the terms of a
Stipulation of Settlement, and to the Court's final approval,
after notice to the Class, of the terms set forth in that
Stipulation.
The Memorandum of Understanding provides that in consideration
of their agreement to settle, the Company will pay to the
plaintiffs a total consideration of $3,700,000.
The Company's insurance carrier has represented that the
proceeds of insurance will cover those payments and all other
costs related to settlement of the class action, except for
approximately $100,000 in administrative costs payable by the
Company (which was accrued as of December 30, 2005) as part of
its retention under the terms of its insurance policy.
The Stipulation of Settlement is still being negotiated. The
class action remains pending until the Stipulation of Settlement
is executed and filed by the parties and finally approved by the
The suit is styled, "In re STAAR Surgical Co. Securities
Litigation, No. CV 04-8007S," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge James Otero.
Representing the plaintiffs is Avi N. Wagner of Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150.
Representing the Company are Dan Marmalefsky and Mark R.
McDonald of Morrison & Foerster, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los
Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: 213-892-5200, E-mail:
mmcdonald@mofo.com.
Arbitration for several class actions against Sterling Trust Co.
that are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas were abated.
The Company was named as a defendant in several putative class
actions instituted in November 2000 by one law firm in
Pennsylvania. These suits are styled:
(1) "Douglas Wheeler, et al. v. Pacific Air Transport, et
al.;"
(2) "Paul C. Jared, et al. v. South Mountain Resort and
Spa, Inc., et al.;"
(3) "Lawrence Rehrig, et al. v. Caffe Diva, et al.;"
(4) "Merrill B. Christman, et al. v. Millennium 2100, Inc.,
et al.;"
(5) "David M. Veneziale, et al. v. Sun Broadcasting
Systems, Inc., et al.;" and
(6) "Don Glazer, et al. v. Technical Support Servs., Inc.,
et al."
All of the lawsuits were originally filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On April 26,
2001, the District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania ordered that all of such cases be transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas so
that Sterling Trust could properly present its motion to compel
arbitration.
Sterling Trust filed separate motions to compel arbitration in
these actions, all of which were granted. Each of the six
plaintiffs timely filed arbitration demands with the American
Arbitration Association.
The demands seek damages and allege Sterling Trust breached
fiduciary duties and was negligent in administrating each
claimant's self-directed individual retirement account holding a
nine-month promissory note.
The arbitration actions were abated pending the outcome of the
class action, captioned "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v. Sterling
Trust Company, et al."
The Superior Court of the State of California granted summary
judgment as to all claims against Sterling Trust Co. in the
purported class action styled, "Heraclio A. Munoz, et al. v.
Sterling Trust Company, et al."
The Company, Matrix Bancorp, Matrix Bank, The Vintage Group,
Inc. and Vintage Delaware Holdings, Inc. were named as
defendants in the action, which was filed in December 2001.
The complaint seeks class action status, requests unspecified
damages, and alleges negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of written contract on the part of the
In the fourth quarter of 2005, the Company was granted summary
judgment as to all claims against it by the plaintiffs. Once
the court enters the summary judgment order, the plaintiffs will
have a certain number of days to appeal the decision.
A federal court judge has allowed a suit over DNA testing in a
serial rapist hunt to move forward against the city of
Charlottesville and the police department, according to
Charlottesville NewsPLFX. Lawyers for the plaintiff, Larry
Monroe, will now move to have the case certified as class
action, the report said.
Late in March, attorneys for both the City of Charlottesville
and Mr. Monroe delivered at a hearing statements on the question
of whether Charlottesville's General District Court ruling
against Mr. Monroe should affect the federal complaint he filed.
Mr. Monroe is bringing claims against Detective James Mooney,
Chief Longo and the city of Charlottesville on behalf of himself
and other black men asked by police to submit to DNA testing in
the hunt (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).
The suit is the second filed by Mr. Monroe, who unsuccessfully
sued Charlottesville police Detective James Mooney for $15,000
last year, alleging that the detective harassed him into giving
a sample because he is black, not because he fit the description
of the rapist, who has been forensically linked to at least
seven attacks between 1997 and 2004, The Daily Progress reports
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).
The first lawsuit, filed in July 2004, was dismissed in February
after General District Judge Robert H. Downer Jr. ruled that Mr.
Monroe consented to the search and Detective Mooney did not
search him out of racial animosity. However, Mr. Monroe's
lawyer, Deborah C. Wyatt, noted during the first case that the
rapist was described as a black man who is roughly 6 feet tall
with an athletic build, while Mr. Monroe is 5-foot-8 and weighs
about 300 pounds (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2005).
The practice of asking scores of black men for DNA samples was
curtailed in April 2004 after public outcry. The new suit
alleges two violations of constitutional rights:
(1) the policy of asking Monroe and other black men to
provide their DNA for tests violates their
constitutional right to equal protection because the
same policy wasn't applied to all white men after
unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and
(2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures.
Filed last December 16, 2006 in U.S. District Court in
Charlottesville, the suit contends, "All government
classifications based on race are subject to strict judicial
scrutiny, including decisions regarding whom to speak with when
police are investigating a crime." It noted, "While race may be
a factor in such decisions, it may not be the only factor."
Under class action rules, Mr. Monroe must get permission from a
judge to sue on behalf of others who have the same complaint.
The current suit also seeks $15,000 in damages. If class action
status is approved, and if others join the suit, the same amount
of compensation would be sought for each of the plaintiffs.
The suit is styled, "Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia
et al., Case no. 3:05-cv-00074-nkm," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Virginia, under Judge
Norman K. Moon. Representing the plaintiff is Neal L. Walters of
Scott & Kroner, PC, P.O. BOX 2737, Charlottesville, VA 22902-
2737, Phone: 434-296-2161, Fax: 434-293-2073, E-mail:
nwalters@scottkroner.com.
Washington Mutual, Inc. is asking The U.S. Appeals Court for the
Ninth Circuit to make an interlocutory review of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington's decision
to deny the Company's dismissal motion of the consolidated
securities class action, styled, "South Ferry L.P. #2 v.
Killinger, et al., No. CV04-1599C"
In July 2004, the Company and a number of its officers were
named as defendants in a series of cases alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
By stipulation, those cases were consolidated into a single case
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington styled, "South Ferry L.P. #2 v.
Killinger, et al., No. CV04-1599C (W.D. Wa. Filed Jul. 19,
2004)" (the Securities Action).
In brief, the plaintiffs in the Securities Action allege, on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Washington Mutual,
Inc., securities from April 15, 2003, through June 28, 2004,
that in various public statements the defendants purportedly
made misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts
concerning, among other things, alleged internal systems
problems and hedging issues.
The defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Action on May 17,
2005. After briefing, but without oral argument, the Court on
November 17, 2005, denied the motion in principal part, however,
the Court dismissed the claims against certain of the individual
defendants, dismissed claims pleaded on behalf of sellers of put
options on Washington Mutual stock, and concluded that the
plaintiffs could not rely on supposed violations of accounting
standards to support their claims.
The remaining defendants subsequently asked for reconsideration
or, in the alternative, certification of the opinion for
interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. The District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration, but on March 6, 2006, granted the motion for
The defendants will now move the Ninth Circuit to have the
appellate court accept the case for interlocutory review of the
District Court's original order denying the motion to dismiss.
The District Court stayed further proceedings before it pending
the outcome of the defendant's motion to the Ninth Circuit.
The suit is styled, "South Ferry L.P. #2 v. Killinger, et al.,
No. CV04-1599C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge John C. Coughenour.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Clifford A. Cantor, 627 208TH
AVE., SE Sammamish, WA 98074-7033, Phone: 425-868-7813, Fax:
425-868-7870, E-mail: cacantor@comcast.net; and Lori G. Feldman
and Salvatore J Graziano of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
(NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
212-594-5300, E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com and
sgraziano@milbergweiss.com.
Representing the defendants are, Fred B. Burnside of Davis
Wright Tremaine, (SEA), 1501 4TH AVE., STE. 2600, Seattle, WA
fredburnside@dwt.com; and Jay B. Kasner of Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom, (NY), Four Times Square, STE. 45-100, New York,
NY 10036-6522, Phone: 212-735-2628, E-mail: jkasner@skadden.com.
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
Hyatt Regency, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
INSURANCE/REINSURANCE COMPANY RUN-OFF CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES
CATASTROPHIC LOSS CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, FL
MEALEY'S EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE
The Fairmont San Francisco
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
LEAD LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF THE RI DECISION TELECONFERENCE
HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE:
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIMS ANALYSIS
FRAUDULENT JOINDER TELECONFERENCE
P2P NETWORKS AND LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: PROTECTION OF DIGITAL
TOUGH CASES IN TOUGH PLACES TELECONFERENCE: STRATEGIES IN
PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS
WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE
ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN
MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES
EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
PAXIL LITIGATION
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
http://www.mealeys.com/conferences_schedule.html
http://www.cleonline.com/
https://www.ali-aba.org/aliaba/CRSLST.asp
http://www.americanconference.com/Conferences.htm
http://www.ceb.com
http://www.pli.edu
http://www.worldjustice.com/class_action_seminars/
http://www.aei.org/events/filter./events.asp
http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/conference/index.html
http://masstortsmadeperfect.com
Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
American International Group, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates, on behalf of those who purchased MFS mutual funds
from the AIG Advisor Group between June 30, 2000 and June 8,
2005, inclusive.
During the Class Period, the AIG Advisor Group consisted of the
following broker-dealers: Royal Alliance, Inc., SunAmerica
Securities, Inc., FSC Securities Corp., Sentra Securities
Corporation, Spelman & Co., Inc., and Advantage Capital Corp.
The MFS mutual funds and their respective symbols are as
MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MCOFX) (NASDAQ: MCOBX)
(NASDAQ: MCOCX) (NASDAQ: MFCRX) (NASDAQ: MCOTX) (NASDAQ: EACOX)
(NASDAQ: EBCOX) (NASDAQ: ECCOX) (NASDAQ: MCOIX)
MFS Core Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MFCAX) (NASDAQ: MFCBX) (NASDAQ:
MFCCX) (NASDAQ: MCFRX) (NASDAQ: MCRRX) (NASDAQ: MFCIX)
MFS Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MEGRX) (NASDAQ: MEGBX)
(NASDAQ: MFECX) (NASDAQ: MFERX) (NASDAQ: MEGRX) (NASDAQ: EAGRX)
(NASDAQ: EBEGX) (NASDAQ: ECEGX) (NASDAQ: MFEGX) (NASDAQ: MFEIX)
MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MGOFX) (NASDAQ: MGOBX)
MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MCGAX) (NASDAQ: MCGBX)
MFS Managed Sectors Fund (NASDAQ: MMNSX) (NASDAQ: MSEBX)
(NASDAQ: MMNCX)
MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: OTCAX) (NASDAQ: OTCBX) (NASDAQ:
OTCCX) (NASDAQ: MMCRX) (NASDAQ: MCPRX) (NASDAQ: EAMCX) (NASDAQ:
EBCGX) (NASDAQ: ECGRX) (NASDAQ: OTCIX)
MFS New Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: MNDAX) (NASDAQ: MNDBX) (NASDAQ:
MNDCX) (NASDAQ: MFNRX) (NASDAQ: MNDRX) (NASDAQ: EANDX) (NASDAQ:
EBNDX) (NASDAQ: ECNDX) (NASDAQ: MNDIX)
MFS New Endeavor Fund (NASDAQ: MECAX) (NASDAQ: MECBX) (NASDAQ:
MECCX) (NASDAQ: MNERX) (NASDAQ: MENRX) (NASDAQ: MECIX)
MFS Research Fund (NASDAQ: MFRFX) (NASDAQ: MFRBX) (NASDAQ:
MFRCX) (NASDAQ: MFRRX) (NASDAQ: MSRRX) (NASDAQ: EARFX) (NASDAQ:
EBRFX) (NASDAQ: ECRFX)
MFS Strategic Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MFSGX) (NASDAQ: MSBGX)
(NASDAQ: MFGCX) (NASDAQ: MSGRX) (NASDAQ: MSTRX) (NASDAQ: EASGX)
(NASDAQ: EBSGX) (NASDAQ: ECSGX) (NASDAQ: MSGIX)
MFS Technology Fund (NASDAQ: MTCAX) (NASDAQ: MTCBX) (NASDAQ:
MTCCX) (NASDAQ: MTQRX) (NASDAQ: MTERX) (NASDAQ: MTCIX)
Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (NASDAQ: MIGFX) (NASDAQ:
MIGBX) (NASDAQ: MIGDX) (NASDAQ: MIGRX) (NASDAQ: MIRGX) (NASDAQ:
EISTX) (NASDAQ: EMIVX) (NASDAQ: EMICX) (NASDAQ: MGTIX)
MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: MVCAX) (NASDAQ: MCBVX) (NASDAQ:
MVCCX) (NASDAQ: MMVRX) (NASDAQ: MCVRX) (NASDAQ: EACVX) (NASDAQ:
EBCVX) (NASDAQ: ECCVX) (NASDAQ: MCVIX)
MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: MRGAX) (NASDAQ:
MRGBX) (NASDAQ: MRGCX) (NASDAQ: MGIRX) (NASDAQ: MRERX) (NASDAQ:
MRGRX)
MFS Strategic Value Fund (NASDAQ: MSVTX) (NASDAQ: MSVCX)
(NASDAQ: MQSVX) (NASDAQ: MSVRX) (NASDAQ: MVSRX) (NASDAQ: EASVX)
(NASDAQ: EBSVX) (NASDAQ: ECSVX) (NASDAQ: MSVLX) (NASDAQ: MISVX)
MFS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: MSFRX) (NASDAQ: MTRBX) (NASDAQ:
MTRCX) (NASDAQ: MFTRX) (NASDAQ: MTRRX) (NASDAQ: EATRX) (NASDAQ:
EBTRX) (NASDAQ: ECTRX) (NASDAQ: MTRIX)
MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MUEAX) (NASDAQ: MUSBX)
(NASDAQ: MUECX) (NASDAQ: MUSEX)
MFS Utilities Fund (NASDAQ: MMUFX) (NASDAQ: MMUBX) (NASDAQ:
MMUCX) (NASDAQ: MMURX) (NASDAQ: MURRX) (NASDAQ: MMUIX)
MFS Value Fund (NASDAQ: MEIAX) (NASDAQ: MFEBX) (NASDAQ: MEICX)
(NASDAQ: MFVRX) (NASDAQ: MVRRX) (NASDAQ: EAVLX) (NASDAQ: EBVLX)
(NASDAQ: ECVLX) (NASDAQ: MEIIX)
Massachusetts Investors Trust (NASDAQ: MITTX) (NASDAQ: MITBX)
(NASDAQ: MITCX) (NASDAQ: MITRX) (NASDAQ: MIRTX) (NASDAQ: EAMTX)
(NASDAQ: EBMTX) (NASDAQ: ECITX) (NASDAQ: MITIX)
MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAAGX) (NASDAQ:
MBAGX)(NASDAQ: MCAGX) (NASDAQ: MAARX) (NASDAQ: MAWAX) (NASDAQ:
EAGTX)(NASDAQ: EBAAX) (NASDAQ: ECAAX) (NASDAQ: MIAGX)
MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MACFX) (NASDAQ: MACBX)
(NASDAQ: MACVX) (NASDAQ: MACRX) (NASDAQ: MCARX) (NASDAQ: ECLAX)
(NASDAQ: EBCAX) (NASDAQ: ECACX) (NASDAQ: MACIX)
MFS Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAGWX) (NASDAQ: MBGWX)
(NASDAQ: MCGWX) (NASDAQ: MGARX) (NASDAQ: MGALX) (NASDAQ: EAGWX)
(NASDAQ: EBGWX) (NASDAQ: ECGWX) (NASDAQ: MGWIX)
MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: MAMAX) (NASDAQ: MMABX)
(NASDAQ: MMACX) (NASDAQ: MAMRX) (NASDAQ: MARRX) (NASDAQ: MAMDX)
(NASDAQ: EBMDX) (NASDAQ: ECMAX) (NASDAQ: MMAIX)
MFS Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFBFX) (NASDAQ: MFBBX) (NASDAQ: MFBCX)
(NASDAQ: MFBRX) (NASDAQ: MBRRX) (NASDAQ: EABDX) (NASDAQ: EBBDX)
(NASDAQ: ECBDX) (NASDAQ: MBDIX)
MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (NASDAQ: MEDAX) (NASDAQ: MEDBX)
(NASDAQ: MEDCX) (NASDAQ: MEDIX)
MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MGLFX) (NASDAQ:
MGLBX) (NASDAQ: MGLCX)
MFS Government Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: MGMTX) (NASDAQ: MGTBX)
(NASDAQ: MGMIX)
MFS Government Securities Fund (NASDAQ: MFGSX) (NASDAQ: MFGBX)
(NASDAQ: MFGDX) (NASDAQ: MGSRX) (NASDAQ: MGVSX) (NASDAQ: EAGSX)
(NASDAQ: EBGSX) (NASDAQ: ECGSX)
MFS High Income Fund (NASDAQ: MHITX) (NASDAQ: MHIBX) (NASDAQ:
MHICX) (NASDAQ: EAHIX) (NASDAQ: EMHBX) (NASDAQ: EMHCX) (NASDAQ:
MHIIX) (NASDAQ: MHIRX)
MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: MHOAX) (NASDAQ:
MHOBX) (NASDAQ: MHOCX) (NASDAQ: MHOIX)
MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MGBFX)
(NASDAQ: MGBVX) (NASDAQ: MGBCX) (NASDAQ: MGBEX) (NASDAQ: MIBRX)
MFS Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MQLFX) (NASDAQ: MQLBX)
(NASDAQ: MQLCX) (NASDAQ: EALMX) (NASDAQ: EBLMX) (NASDAQ: ELDCX)
(NASDAQ: MLDRX)
MFS Research Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MRBFX) (NASDAQ: MRBBX) (NASDAQ:
MRBCX) (NASDAQ: EARBX) (NASDAQ: EBRBX) (NASDAQ: ECRBX) (NASDAQ:
MRBIX) (NASDAQ: MRBRX)
MFS Strategic Income Fund (NASDAQ: MFIOX) (NASDAQ: MIOBX)
(NASDAQ: MIOCX) (NASDAQ: MFIIX)
MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFALX) (NASDAQ: MBABX)
MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFARX) (NASDAQ: MBARX)
MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MCFTX) (NASDAQ:
MBCAX) (NASDAQ: MCCAX)
MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFFLX) (NASDAQ: MBFLX)
MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MMGAX) (NASDAQ: MBGAX)
MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSMX) (NASDAQ: MBMDX)
MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSSX) (NASDAQ:
MBMAX)
MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MISSX) (NASDAQ:
MBMSX)
MFS Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MMBFX) (NASDAQ: MMBBX)
MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (NASDAQ: MTLFX) (NASDAQ:
MTLBX) (NASDAQ: MTLCX)
MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSNYX) (NASDAQ: MBNYX)
(NASDAQ: MCNYX)
MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSNCX) (NASDAQ:
MBNCX) (NASDAQ: MCNCX)
MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFPAX) (NASDAQ:
MBPAX)
MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFSCX) (NASDAQ:
MBSCX)
MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSTNX) (NASDAQ:
MBTNX)
MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MSVAX) (NASDAQ: MBVAX)
(NASDAQ: MVACX)
MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: MFWVX) (NASDAQ:
MBWVX)
MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MEMAX) (NASDAQ: MEMCX)
(NASDAQ: MEMIX) (NASDAQ: MEMBX)
MFS Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: MWEFX) (NASDAQ: MWEBX) (NASDAQ:
MWECX) (NASDAQ: MWEIX) (NASDAQ: MGERX)
MFS Global Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MWOFX) (NASDAQ: MWOBX) (NASDAQ:
MWOCX) (NASDAQ: MWOIX) (NASDAQ: MGLRX)
MFS Global Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: MFWTX) (NASDAQ: MFWBX)
(NASDAQ: MFWCX) (NASDAQ: MFWIX) (NASDAQ: MGRRX)
MFS International Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MGRAX) (NASDAQ: MGRBX)
(NASDAQ: MGRCX) (NASDAQ: MQGIX)
MFS International New Discovery Fund (NASDAQ: MIDAX) (NASDAQ:
MIDBX) (NASDAQ: MIDCX) (NASDAQ: EAIDX) (NASDAQ: EBIDX) (NASDAQ:
ECIDX) (NASDAQ: MWNIX) (NASDAQ: MINRX)
MFS International Value Fund (NASDAQ: MGIAX) (NASDAQ: MGIBX)
(NASDAQ: MGICX) (NASDAQ: MINIX)
MFS Research International Fund (NASDAQ: MRSAX) (NASDAQ: MRIBX)
(NASDAQ: MRICX) (NASDAQ: EARSX) (NASDAQ: EBRIX) (NASDAQ: ECRIX)
(NASDAQ: MRSIX) (NASDAQ: MRIRX)
The Shelf-Space Funds include the following mutual fund
families: AIG SunAmerica, AIM, AllianceBernstein, American,
American Skandia, Columbia, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton,
Hartford, John Hancock, MFS, NationsFunds, Pacific Life,
Pioneer, Putnam, Oppenheimer, Scudder, Van Kampen, and WM.
This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant American
International Group, Inc. and certain of its affiliated
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients.
Unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push AIG Advisor Group sales personnel to steer
clients into purchasing Shelf-Space Funds that provided
financial incentives and rewards to the AIG Advisor Group and
its personnel based on holdings and/or sales.
The complaint also alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales
practices created an insurmountable conflict of interest by
providing substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space
Funds, even though such investments were not in the clients'
best interest. The AIG Advisor Group's failure to adequately
disclose the incentives constituted violations of federal
securities laws. No class has yet been certified in the above
For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.
Gardy & Notis, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of America Service Group, Inc. at any time between
September 24, 2003 to March 16, 2006.
The complaint alleges that America Service and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC.
The complaint alleges America Service issued numerous false and
misleading statements about its condition that failed to
disclose or misrepresented that:
(1) America Service was not charging its customers in
accordance with their contracts;
(2) America Service failed to properly credit customers
with discounts, rebates, and price concessions;
(3) America Service failed to provide customers with
appropriate credits for returned pharmaceutical
products; and
(4) America Service inappropriately established and
utilized reserves to help its more closely meet
budgeted results.
After the close of trading on March 15, 2006, America Service
announced that it will restate its previously reported earnings
for all of 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and the first six months of
2005, and issue refunds to customers where it failed to
appropriately credit their accounts.
America Service shares fell $5.65 per share, or approximately
29%, to close at $13.95 per share in reaction to the
announcement.
For more details, contact Mark C. Gardy of Gardy & Notis, LLP,
440 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632, Phone:
201-567-7377, Fax: 201-567-7337, E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com,
Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com.
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
Astea International Inc. (Nasdaq: ATEA).
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 May 11, 2005 through March 31, 2006.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.
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.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of The Estee Lauder
Companies, Inc. (NYSE:EL) between April 28, 2005 and October 25,
The Complaint charges Estee Lauder and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Estee Lauder's financial performance and
prospects caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.
Estee Lauder is a global manufacturer of skin care, makeup,
fragrance and hair care products. The Complaint alleges that
the Company's market share was decreasing at the commencement of
the Class Period, and, rather than reverse this negative trend
or fully disclose it, defendants launched a largely successful
campaign that employed channel stuffing and the dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements to prop up reported
revenues and earnings and the Company's share price long enough
for Company insiders to sell millions of their personally held
Estee Lauder shares to unsuspecting investors at prices that
were artificially inflated by defendants' false and misleading
statements.
On September 19, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company
would not meet its guidance for the first half of fiscal 2006,
causing the Company's stock to fall 9%, from $40.51 to $36.05
per share.
Estee Lauder shares, however, continued to trade at artificially
inflated levels until October 26, 2005 when defendants were
forced to disclose fiscal first-quarter 2006 earnings of only
$61.8 million, or $0.28 per share - down 38% from the prior
year's earnings of $95.7 million, or $0.41 per share - on
essentially flat sales.
These results were well below analysts' revised consensus
earnings estimate of $0.32 per share on revenue of $1.54
billion.
Following this disclosure, the Company's share price fell to
$30.71. By this time, Estee Lauder insiders had, during the
Class Period, sold 3,380,399 shares of their Estee Lauder common
stock to unwitting investors for proceeds of $88,077,150.
For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 and
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of GMH Communities Trust between
October 28, 2004 and March 10, 2006, inclusive.
The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Complaint alleges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of GMH
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above
Motley Rice, LLC, filed a class action, Civil Action No. 2:06-
cv-01521-PBT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities purchasers
of GMH Communities Trust (NYSE: GCT) from October 28, 2004,
through March 10, 2006, inclusive.
Investors who purchased shares of GMH in the Company's follow-on
public offering on October 4, 2005, may have claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 that have not yet been alleged.
The complaint alleges that GMH and two of its officers, Gary M.
Holloway, Sr. and Bradley W. Harris, violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
GMH, a housing company, provides housing to college and
university students residing off-campus and to members of the
U.S. military and their families.
The complaint charges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) the Company improperly capitalized certain student
housing property-related expenditures;
(2) the Company improperly timed the recognition of certain
revenues and expenses thereby understating the
Company's operating expenses;
(3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
(4) the Company's financial results violated Generally
Accepted Accounting Principals ("GAAP"); and
(5) as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
financial results were materially inflated at all
On March 13, 2006, GMH announced that it was postponing the
release of its results for the fourth quarter and year ended
The delay related to events arising from an investigation the
Company's Audit Committee initiated after it received a letter
from the Company's Chief Financial Officer, which alleged, among
other things, a "tone at the top" problem within Company
management.
On this news, shares of GMH fell $3.93 per share, or 23 percent,
to close at $12.90 per share on March 13, 2006.
For more details, contact Leslie G. Toran, Esq., of Motley Rice,
LLC, Phone: 404-201-6910, E-mail: ltoran@motleyrice.com, Web
site: http://www.motleyrice.com.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of Merge Technologies, Inc.
dba Merge Healthcare (NASDAQ:MRGE) publicly traded securities
during the period between August 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006.
The complaint charges Merge Technologies and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Merge Technologies engages in the development and delivery of
medical imaging and information management software and
services. It provides solutions for both the original equipment
manufacturer and end-user healthcare markets.
issued materially false and misleading statements about Merge
Technologies' earnings, assets, capital and prospects, which
caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels, allowing the individual defendants to sell $2.6 million
worth of their Merge Technologies stock.
On March 17, 2006, the Company issued a press release announcing
a delay in the filing of its 2005 Form 10-K, an anticipated
restatement to increase tax expense by $1.3 million related to
the merger of the Company and Cedara Software in June 2005 and a
reduction in its previously reported net sales by $1 million.
On this news, the Company's stock fell over 11%, from a close of
$17.97 per share on March 16, 2006 to $15.85 per share on March
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were concealed
by defendants during the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading in that the Company had
manipulated its accounting for at least the second and
third quarters of 2005;
(2) the Company's internal controls were grossly weak,
thereby allowing the Company's top management to
manipulate them at will;
(3) the Company's "record" quarterly income reported during
the Class Period was a product of accounting fraud, not
synergies produced by effective fiscal and personnel
management or from the integration of the Company's
acquisitions; and
(4) the Company's published financial statements violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Merge Technologies publicly traded securities during the
Class Period (the Class).
For more details, contact William Lerach and Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Phone: 800-
449-4900 and 619/231-1058, E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/merge/.
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Northfield Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLD), between February
20, 2004 and February 21, 2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against defendants Northfield and
its CEO, Steven A. Gould.
The complaint alleges that Northfield's sole business is the
development of PolyHeme, an oxygen-carrying blood substitute for
the treatment of urgent life-threatening blood loss in trauma
and resultant surgical settings.
The complaint further alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made numerous positive statements about PolyHeme,
each of which was materially false and misleading because
defendants failed to disclose the results of a clinical trial
that closed in 2000.
In that clinical trial, ten of 81 patients who received PolyHeme
suffered a heart attack within seven days, and two of those
died, whereas, in contrast, none of the 71 patients in the
clinical trial who received real blood were found to have
suffered a heart attack.
The truth emerged on February 22, 2006 with the publication of
an article in The Wall Street Journal titled "Amid Alarm Bells,
A Blood Substitute Keeps Pumping."
The market was stunned by the disclosure of the theretofore
secret adverse data contained in the article and the market
price of Northfield's common stock fell with the belated
disclosures.
On February 21, 2006, the day before the disclosure by The Wall
Street Journal, Northfield's common stock closed at a price of
$12.23 per share. On February 22, 2006, on extraordinary volume
of more than 4.1 million shares, Northfield's common stock
closed at a price of $11.64 per share.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota against Orphan Medical.
Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and a class of
non-management stockholders who held stock in Orphan Medical,
Inc. at the time it was acquired by Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Jazz), and who received from Jazz $10.75 in cash for each
Orphan share owned.
The complaint charges Orphan and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Orphan violated the
Federal securities laws by disseminating a proxy statement in
connection with the solicitation by the board of directors of
proxies to be voted at a special meeting of stockholders held on
June 22, 2005 in which defendants made false and misleading
statements in connection with the value of the xompany.
The Proxy Statement describes at great length the opinion of
Orphan's financial advisor, Banc of America Securities LLC, (the
Financial Advisor), that the $10.75 merger consideration was
fair "from a financial point of view" to common stockholders.
The Proxy Statement, however, omitted to disclose that the
Financial Advisor, in giving such opinion, materially
undervalued Orphan by failing to take into account positive
developments involving Xyrem, Orphan Medical's "lead product."
For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood,
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022,
clowther@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com.
The Law Firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.,
initiated a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of
PainCare Holdings, Inc. (AMEX:PRZ) common stock during the
period from August 27, 2002, through March 15, 2006.
The complaint charges PainCare and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. PainCare
provides pain-focused medical and surgical solutions and
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, PainCare stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class period, reaching a
high of $5.25 per share on April 12, 2005.
Then, on March 15, 2006, the Company announced that, as a result
of on-going discussions with the SEC concerning accounting
irregularities, it would restate all of its previously-issued
financial statements -- from the Company's inception in 2000
through the present.
On this news, PainCare's stock plunged to as low as $2.50 per
share on the first day of trading following the announcement and
has continued to decline sharply, closing at $1.69 per share on
March 22, 2006, on heavy volume.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known or
recklessly disregarded by the defendants but concealed from the
investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) the Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded material
adverse information about the Company's financial
results and then existing business condition; and, as a
result, the Company's projections and reported results
were based upon defective assumptions and/or
manipulated facts; and
misstated due to the fact that PainCare failed to
properly account for expenses and consistently
overstated earnings.
For more details, Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Scott Evans of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W.,
West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: 888-240-
0775 and 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
sevans@cmht.com, Web site: http://www.cmht.com.
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *