text:
Tuesday, August 2, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 151
AMAZON.COM: Reaches Settlement For WA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AMAZON.COM: Consumers Commence Antitrust Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Underage Drinking Suits Moved To Federal Courts
ARVINMERITOR INC.: Faces Three ERISA Violations Suits in E.D MI
ATHEROGENICS INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in S.D. NY
AUSTRALIA: Operator Reaches Deal Over 2003 Chairlift Collapse
CORE SOLUTIONS: SEC Files Securities Fraud Suit V. Former CEO
DISETRONIC MEDICAL: Recalls D-TRON Adapters Due to Valve Failure
EMCOR GROUP: Shareholders Launch Consolidated Fraud Suit in CT
FAKE LIPITOR: FDA Issues Alert on U.K. Recall of Fake Lipitor
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Reaches $25M Settlement For ERISA Suit
HOLMES GROUP: Recalls 2.6M Rival Slow Cookers For Burn Hazard
ILYSSA MANUFACTURING: Recalls Chicken For Listeria Contamination
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls School Buses For Microswitch Defect
LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: TN Court Approves ADA Lawsuit Settlement
MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 27,800 RX8 Passenger Cars For Crash Hazard
MERCK & CO.: NJ Court Grants Certification To Vioxx Fraud Suit
MICROTUNE INC.: SEC Settles Case Over Revenue-Inflation Scheme
MIRANT AMERICAS: GA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set Sept. 6,2005
MIRANT CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of CA Suit
MIRANT CORPORATION: Bankruptcy Court Allows Bustamante Claims
MIRANT CORPORATION: Bankruptcy Court Allows CA Egger Suit Claims
MIRANT CORPORATION: Units Enter Tolling Agreements W/ Defendants
MYLAN LABORATORIES: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuit in PA
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Deadline Looms For SC Train Wreck Settlement
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Parker & Waichman Files Suit Over Ortho Evra Patch
PERRIGO CO.: Recalls Infants' Drops Due to Faulty Dosing Syringe
RAYTHEON COMPANY: MA Court Approves Investor Lawsuit Settlement
RAYTHEON CO.: MA Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Fraud Suit Dismissal
SECOND CHANCE: Chippewa Township Joins Suit Over Defective Vests
TEXAS: Reliant, Deloitte Settles Lawsuit Over 2001 IPO for $75M
UNIPROP: Park Residents Launch Suit Over Unsanitary Conditions
UNOCAL CORPORATION: Settles Lawsuit Over Proposed Chevron Deal
New Securities Fraud Cases
AVON PRODUCTS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in IN
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Stock Suit in CA
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Suit in NY
STARTEK INC.: Dyer & Shuman Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline
Amazon.com, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its directors and
certain of its senior officers in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington.
Several class action complaints were filed by holders of the
Company's equity and debt securities, alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On August 1, 2003, plaintiffs in the 1934 Act cases filed
a second consolidated amended complaint alleging that the
Company, together with certain of its officers and directors,
made false or misleading statements during the period from
October 29, 1998 through October 23, 2001 concerning the
Company's business, financial condition and results,
inventories, future prospects, and strategic alliance
transactions. The 1933 Act complaint alleges that the
defendants made false or misleading statements in connection
with the Company's February 2000 offering of the 6.875% PEACS.
The complaints seek damages and injunctive relief against all
defendants.
In March 2005, the Company signed a Stipulation of Settlement
with counsel representing the plaintiff class with respect to
the 1934 Act claims. In July 2005, the Company signed a
Stipulation of Settlement with counsel representing the
plaintiff class with respect to the 1933 Act claims. If
finalized and approved by the Court, these settlements would
dispose of all claims asserted in these lawsuits in exchange for
payments totaling $48 million, substantially all of which the
Company expects to be funded by the Company's insurers.
The suit is styled "Brody v. Bezos, et al., case no. 2:01-cv-
00416-RSL," filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, under Judge Robert S. Lasnik.
Representing the plaintiffs is Lynn Lincoln Sarko of KELLER
ROHRBACK, 1201 3rd Avenue Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101-3052
Phone: 206-623-1900, Fax: FAX 623-3384, E-mail:
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com.
Amazon.com, Inc. faces a consumer fraud class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
On October 29, 2002, Gary Gerlinger, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated consumers in the United States
who, during the period from August 1, 2001 to the present,
purchased books online from either Amazon.com or Borders.com,
instituted an action against the Company and Borders. The
complaint alleges that the agreement pursuant to which an
affiliate of Amazon.com operates Borders.com as a co-branded
site violates federal anti-trust laws, California statutory law,
and the common law of unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
injunctive relief, damages, including treble damages or
statutory damages where applicable, attorneys' fees, costs, and
disbursements, disgorgement of all sums obtained by allegedly
wrongful acts, interest, and declaratory relief.
The suit is styled "Gerling v. Amazon.com et al, case no. 3:02-
cv-05238," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.
Representing the Company are George Charles Nierlich and Joel
Sanders, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, One Montgomery Street
Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415 393-8200, Fax:
415 986-5309, E-mail: cnierlich@gibsondunn.com, or
jsanders@gibsondunn.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are Roy A. Katriel, The Katriel Law
Firm, P.L.L.C., 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C.
20007, Phone: 202-625-4342; and Miranda Kolbe, Juden Justice-
Reed, Robert C. Schubert, Schubert & Reed LLP, Two Embarcadero
Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-788-4220,
E-mail: jreed@schubert-reed.com or rschubert@schubert-reed.com.
The underage drinking class actions filed against Anheuser-Busch
Companies, Inc. and many other brewers and distillers in Ohio,
Virginia and Michigan state courts have been removed to the
states' respective federal courts.
A law firm has named the Company (and many other brewers and
distillers) as a defendant in very similar class action lawsuits
in Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin and West
Virginia state courts. In these suits, the parents of illegal
underage drinkers are suing to recover the sums that their
offspring purportedly spent illegally buying alcohol from
persons or entities other than the defendants. The claims
asserted against the company vary depending on the suit, but
include negligence, unjust enrichment, violation of the state's
Sales Practice Act or other statutory provisions, nuisance,
fraudulent concealment and civil conspiracy.
The suit filed in Michigan includes a claim under the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act. Each suit seeks money damages,
punitive damages and injunctive and equitable relief, including
so-called disgorgement of profits allegedly attributable to
underage drinking.
The company removed the Ohio case to federal court in the
Northern District of Ohio in June 2004, removed the West
Virginia case to federal court in the Northern District of West
Virginia in May 2005 and removed the Michigan case to federal
court in the Eastern District of Michigan in July 2005.
ArvinMeritor, Inc. and Rockwell Automation, Inc. continues to
face three separate class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in
2003 and 2004, as a result of changes made by the company to its
health insurance benefits to certain United Auto Worker and
United Steel Worker retirees, spouses and dependents.
The lawsuits allege that the changes breach the terms of various
collective bargaining agreements entered into with the United
Auto Workers and the United Steel Workers at former facilities
that either have been closed or sold and are located in
Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Illinois and
Michigan. The complaints also allege a companion claim under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
essentially restating the alleged collective bargaining breach
claims and bringing them under ERISA. Plaintiffs seek an
injunction requiring the defendants to provide lifetime retiree
health care benefits under the applicable collective bargaining
agreements, plus costs and attorneys' fees, as well as punitive
and unspecified damages for mental distress and anguish.
The first identified complaint is styled "Intl U Utd Auto, et al
v. Arvinmeritor Inc, et al., case no. 2:03-cv-73872-NGE," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. Representing the
plaintiffs are Stuart M. Israel of Martens, Ice, (Royal Oak),
306 S. Washington Suite 600, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Phone:
248-398-5900, E-mail: israel@martensice.com; and Daniel W.
Sherrick, UAW International Union, Legal Department, 8000 E.
Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48214, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax:
313-926-5216. Representing the Company are Michael A. Alaimo
and Leonard D. Givens of Miller, Canfield, (Detroit), 150 W.
Jefferson Avenue Suite 2500, Detroit, MI 48226-4415, Phone:
313-963-6420, E-mail: alaimo@millercanfield.com or
givens@millercanfield.com; and Charles S. Mishkind of Miller,
Canfield, (Grand Rapids), 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W. Suite 1200,
Grand Rapids, MI 49503, Phone: 616-454-8656, E-mail:
Mishkind@MillerCanfield.com.
AtheroGenics, Inc. and some of its executive officers and
directors face a consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "In re Atherogenics Securities Litigation."
Purported securities class action lawsuits were initially filed
against the Company and some of its executive officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on January 5, 2005 and February 8, 2005 and
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta division on January 7, 2005, January 10, 2005,
January 11, 2005 and January 25, 2005.
The allegations in these lawsuits relate to the Company's
disclosures regarding the results of the CART-2 clinical trial
for AGI-1067. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Company securities during
the period after these disclosures were made in September 2004
to December 31, 2004.
Plaintiffs filed separate motions to consolidate these lawsuits
in both the Southern District of New York and the Northern
District of Georgia on March 7, 2005. In addition, three class
members simultaneously moved for appointment as lead plaintiffs
in both districts on March 7, 2005. On April 18, 2005, the
Honorable Richard J. Holowell ordered the New York Actions
consolidated and appointed lead plaintiff and co-lead counsel.
On July 5, 2005, the Company filed a motion to transfer the New
York Action to the Northern District of Georgia. On July 14,
2005, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Georgia Actions.
The New York Action and the defendants' motion to transfer that
action to Georgia are still pending.
The suit is styled "In Re: Atherogenics Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:05-cv-00061-RJH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard
J. Holwell. Representing the Company is Dawn M. Wilson of
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, NY, NY
10022, Phone: (212)-230-8862, Fax: (212)-230-8888, E-mail:
dawn.wilson@wilmerhale.com. The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:
(1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
info@bermanesq.com
(2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
(3) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(5) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999,
(6) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com
(7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
(Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
11747 Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com
(8) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com
(9) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com
(10) Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106 Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290,
sn06106@AOL.com
(11) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004 Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(12) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, 35 East State
Street, Media, PA, 19063, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com
(13) Wolf Popper, LLP 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
10022-6689Ave Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093,
E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com
The operator of Victoria's Arthur's Seat Chairlift reached a
confidential financial settlement with 15 people injured when it
collapsed back in January 2003, The Mercury reports.
According to Slater and Gordon lawyer Barrie Woollacott, 15
people injured in the 2003 collapse took a class action
settlement against the chairlift operator, seeking compensation
for pain and suffering, medical costs and loss of income. He
adds that the confidential settlement was to be approved by the
Victorian Supreme Court on August 26 and that other people who
were injured in the incident could still join the action.
Eighteen people suffered head, neck and spinal injuries when a
pylon collapsed on the tourist attraction on the Mornington
Peninsula, southeast of Melbourne. During an ensuing five-hour
rescue, more than 50 people were trapped in mid-air. Forensic
radiologists would later determined that the victims suffered
injuries similar to those caused by ejector seats in military
A WorkSafe report into the incident found poor design, not
inadequate maintenance, as the cause of the collapse. It found
that the faulty design and installation of the structure caused
pooling of water around pylon base plates, resulting in
corrosion and metal fatigue in pylon anchor bolts.
Mr. Woollacott told The Mercury that this week will be the last
opportunity for people injured in the incident to seek
compensation because once the settlement was approved by the
court, no new damages claims could be started. He also said that
the 15 people represented included children and parents. He
added, "It's been two and a half years since the accident
occurred and a number of the people that we act for were quite
seriously injured and there's no doubt that they are still
suffering the effects and the consequences of those injuries and
its impact on their lives." He goes on to state, "They will be
very relieved to put this thing behind them so they can move on
with their lives."
Chairlift operator Richard Hudson spent $500,000 repairing the
popular ride after its collapse, including replacing pylons. It
reopened in January 2004. However, several months later a
passenger was injured when a chair came loose and slid into the
one in front. Since then, WorkSafe charged the operator for
failing to control risks to people other than employees. The
chairlift though was eventually able to continue operating after
the company proved it could operate the ride safely.
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit in federal
court in Los Angeles charging Christine Favara, a former chief
executive officer of a penny stock company, with securities
fraud and other federal securities law violations relating to
the issuance of false and misleading press releases and the
improper registration of shares intended to be issued as
compensation to employees and consultants.
The complaint alleges that Ms. Favara, also known as Christine
McKiernan, Christine Anderson and Christine Anderson Holzman,
while CEO of Core Solutions, Inc., caused Core Solutions to
issue press releases about the company's current financial
condition and its future prospects that were false and
misleading. According to the complaint, in January 2003, when
Core Solutions had no revenues and approximately $11,000 in
assets, Ms. Favara issued press releases stating the company had
generated new accounts representing over $1 million in annual
revenue and projected annual revenues of $50 million to $250
million. The complaint alleged that these projections were
false and misleading given that the company had no revenue or
assets at the time.
In addition, the complaint alleges that Ms. Favara failed to
disclose in a Form 10-KSB filed by Core Solutions that she was
subject to a previous Commission injunction that arose from an
insider trading matter. The complaint also alleges that Ms.
Favara caused Core Solutions to improperly register and issue
shares under a Form S-8 registration statement (i.e., stock that
was intended to be issued in connection with an employee benefit
plan), because the recipients of those shares did not qualify as
proper recipients of Form S-8 shares.
The Commission alleges in its complaint that Ms. Favara violated
the securities registration and antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and aided and abetted
violations of the reporting provisions, Section 13(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder. In its
action, the Commission is seeking a permanent injunction,
disgorgement, and civil penalties. In addition, the Commission
is seeking to prohibit Ms. Favara from participating in a penny
stock offering and from serving as an officer or director of an
issuer. The action is styled, SEC v. Christine Favara aka
Christine McKiernan aka Christine Anderson aka Christine
Anderson Holzman, Civil Action No. CV 05-5486 RJK, PLAx] (LR-
19318).
Disetronic Medical Systems, Inc., Fishers, Indiana is announcing
a voluntary nationwide recall of its D-TRON adapters, used with
the D-TRONplus insulin pump, because they can potentially over-
deliver a maximum amount of up to 1.8 I.U. of insulin. Use of
these recalled adapters may pose a potential life-threatening
situation to certain children using the pump. Other users who
are insulin sensitive may also be at increased risk. The
affected D-TRON adapters are part number REF 3000803, Lots
4013674 through 4022628. Other adapter lots are not affected.
The root cause of this issue is a sporadic failure of a valve
inside the D-TRON adapter to close completely, which can result
in a potential over-delivery of a maximum amount of up to 1.8
I.U. of insulin. This may occur up to 15 minutes after replacing
the adapter and priming the set. If this situation occurs, the
pump will give an A-4 alarm and will continue to deliver
insulin. Over infusion may also occur with no alarm if the
pressure does not drop below the alarm threshold nevertheless we
did not have any reports of such cases. If an A-4 alarm sounds
the caregiver should check blood glucose levels, take other
actions as indicated in the D-TRONplus insulin pump manual, and
consult with their health care team if necessary. If the patient
has symptoms that cause the caregiver to be concerned that over
infusion may have occurred without an alarm, the caregiver
should take similar measures. Signs and symptoms of excessive
insulin dosing may include: sweating, thirst, confusion, nausea
and loss of consciousness. There have been no reports of injury
or death associated with the use of the affected D-TRON
adapters.
Disetronic has notified the caregivers and physicians of the
pump users 13 years of age and under to immediately discontinue
the use of the affected adapters. These caregivers have also
been provided with new D-TRONplus adapters, which can be
identified by the part number. The new part number is located on
each adapter and is REF 04574826001. Only adapters that are not
affected by the recall are now being shipped by Disetronic, in
order to ensure that customers of all ages will have the new
adapters as soon as possible. Approximately 110 D-TRONplus
insulin pumps are in use by children age 13 years and younger in
Users should contact the Disetronic Pump User Support Group for
information regarding replacement of affected D-TRON adapters at
1-800-688-4578. Users, caregivers and physicians who have
questions about the recall may contact Disetronic Medical
Systems, Inc. at 1-800-688-4578 24-hours a day, 365 days a year
or visit http://www.disetronic-usa.com.If you are a physician
or a patient who has experienced a problem with any of these
insulin pump adapters, please send a report to FDA's MedWatch
program and to Disetronic. See http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/for
filing information or call 1-800-FDA-1088 (1-800-332-1088).
EMCOR Group, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut,
entitled "In re EMCOR Group, Inc. Securities Litigation." The
suit also names as defendants:
(1) Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Frank
T. MacInnis,
(2) Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Leicle E. Chesser, and
(3) Senior Vice President-Chief Accounting Officer and
Treasurer Mark A. Pompa
The individual defendants were later dismissed. The plaintiff
purported to represent a class composed of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Company common stock and/or
other securities between April 9, 2003 and October 2, 2003,
inclusive. The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and of
Section 20(A) of the Securities Exchange Act, relating to
alleged misstatements and omissions in certain of the Company's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, press
releases and other public statements between April 9 and October
2, 2003 and sought damages on behalf of the purported class in
unspecified amounts.
The suit is styled "In re: EMCOR GROUP, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, case no. 3:04-cv-00531-JCH," filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, under
Judge Janet C. Hall. Representing the Company are:
(i) David A. Becker, Erica P. McFarquhar, Latham & Watkins
- DC, 555 11th St., NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC
20004, Phone: 202-627-2200, Fax: 202-637-2201, E-mail:
david.becker@lw.com or Erica.McFarquhar@lw.com
(ii) Michele E. Rose or Laurie B. Smilan of Latham &
Watkins, LLP - VA, Two Freedom Sq. 11955 Freedom Dr.,
Suite 500, Reston, VA 20190, Phone: 703-456-1000, Fax:
703-456-1001, E-mail: Michele.Rose@lw.com
(iii) Jeffrey J. Vita or Heidi Zapp, Saxe, Doernberger &
Vita, PC, 1952 Whitney Ave., Hamden, CT 06517, Phone:
203-287-8890, E-mail: jjv@sdvlaw.com or hhz@sdvlaw.com
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(a) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
(b) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505,
(c) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
(d) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
(e) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com
(f) Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd., 1360 West 9th St., Suite
200, Cleveland, OH, 44113-1904, Phone: 866.522.9500, E-
mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com
(g) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
(h) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone:
877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting U.S.
residents to the recent recall of a batch of counterfeit
"Lipitor" (atorvastatin) sold in the United Kingdom (U.K.). The
medicine is used to treat high cholesterol. The counterfeit
Lipitor 20mg tablets were recalled in the U.K. on July 28, 2005.
Health authorities in the U.K. stated that initial results of
tests performed on the counterfeit drugs do not indicate that
this product poses an immediate risk to patients, however, they
are advising that patients stop taking the drug and return it to
the pharmacy where they obtained it. U.K. pharmacies are being
advised to return all remaining stock of this batch to Pfizer
Ltd., the manufacturer of Lipitor.
Consumers who purchased FDA-approved Lipitor products through
legitimate U.S. pharmacies should not have received any of these
counterfeit tablets and are not subject to this recall. But some
U.S. residents may have obtained prescription drugs from the
U.K. through on-line or storefront operations that do not supply
legitimate, FDA-approved products, or through state-run drug
importation programs that facilitate the purchase of unapproved
foreign drugs. Consumers who purchase drugs through these
arrangements may have received these counterfeit products.
"Americans need to be very careful when buying drugs outside of
the U.S. drug distribution system," said FDA Commissioner Lester
M. Crawford. "The American drug supply system is in fact a very
safe one that consumers can count on."
The affected product is 20 mg. "Lipitor" and is sold in packages
of 28 tablets. The drug packages are marked with batch number
004405K1 and an expiration date of "11 2007." The batch number
can be found on the end of the box next to the expiration date
and on the foil backing of the drug's blister pack. Legitimate
U.K. Lipitor also has this same batch number.
Because the recalled Lipitor is fake, there is no guarantee of
its quality or effectiveness. U.S. patients who have the
identified U.K. drugs should stop using them and should consult
their physician or pharmacist if they have any questions or
concerns. Patients should resume treatment as soon as they can
obtain from their doctors or pharmacists a legitimate supply of
Lipitor or an equivalent medicine. When patients resume taking
the drug, they should take only the daily dose prescribed and
not try to make up for missed doses.
Lipitor belongs to a class of drugs known as "statins". In
addition to Lipitor, a number of low-cost FDA-approved generic
versions of these drugs are available to consumers. Consumers
interested in these options should discuss them with their
physicians.
Information on Pfizer's recall of the one batch of Lipitor can
be accessed from the following Websites:
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/news/press_Lipitor_280705.pdf,
http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/ourwork/monitorsafequalmed/defmedsr
epcen/Lipitor_EL_05_A11Final.pdf. For additional consumer
information on counterfeit drugs, visit the Websites:
FDA Consumer Education for Counterfeit Medicine
http://www.fda.gov/cder/consumerinfo/counterfeit_text.htm.
HealthSouth Corporation reached a $25 million settlement in a
class action lawsuit over losses in its employee retirement fund
following a huge fraud at the medical services company, The
Associated Press reports.
Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
which were made public, recently revealed that HealthSouth would
pay $7 million of the agreement, and insurance companies would
pay the remaining $18 million. A judge though must still approve
the settlement. The suit was filed over losses in HealthSouth's
retirement plan due to declining prices for HealthSouth's stock.
HealthSouth shares plummeted in value after the SEC filed suit
in March 2003.
The settlement does not affect claims against former HealthSouth
finance chiefs Aaron Beam, Mike Martin or Bill Owens, who all
pleaded guilty in a multi billion-dollar earnings overstatement.
In addition, the suit also continues against fired CEO Richard
Scrushy. He was acquitted of all criminal charges last June 28.
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), The Holmes Group, of Milford, MA is voluntarily
recalling about 2.6 million units of Rivalr Slow Cookers.
According to the CPSC, the handles on the base of the slow
cookers can break, posing a risk of burns from hot contents
spilling onto consumers. These Rivalr Slow Cookers, sold from
January 1999 through May 2002, were previously recalled for the
same hazard. The recall has now been expanded to include all
units manufactured before September 2004. CPSC has received a
total of 126 reports of handles breaking, including 33 reports
of consumers who reported burn injuries from the hot contents of
these slow cookers.
The recall includes Rivalr Crock-Potr slow cookers with model
numbers 3040, 3735, 5025, 5070 and 5445. The model number is
printed on the UL label located on the bottom of the base. The
recalled Rivalr slow cooker has a removable ceramic bowl that
sits inside of a metal base. The Rivalr logo is printed on the
front of the unit above the control knob. The bases are round or
oval shaped and were sold in various colors and designs. A date
code is stamped on the side of one prong of the power plug. The
first two digits represent the week of manufacture and the last
two digits represent the year of manufacture. Any plug with a
date code from 0199 (1st week of 1999) to 3504 (35th week of
2004) is included in this recall or the previous recall.
Manufactured in China, the cookers were sold at all Wal-Mart,
Kmart, Target and additional discount department stores
nationwide from January 1999 through May 2005 for between $15
and $40.
Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
The Holmes Group to receive instructions on receiving a
replacement base.
Consumer Contact: Visit The Holmes Group's Web site at
http://www.rivalrecall.comor call (800) 299-1284 anytime.
Ilyssa Manufacturing Corporation, a Brooklyn, NY, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 3,200 pounds of ready-to-eat
chicken products that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service announced today.
The products subject to recall are:
(1) 16 oz. packages of "Chef Pronto, Tortellini with
Grilled Chicken and Sun-dried Tomatoes."
(2) 12 oz. packages of "Chef Pronto, Grilled Chicken with
Balsamic Vinegar and Rosemary."
(3) 12 oz. packages of "Chef Pronto, Grilled Lemon Pepper
Chicken."
(4) 12 oz. packages of "Chef Pronto, Grilled Chicken
Strips."
All products bear the sell-by date "AUG 0205" and establishment
number "P-19629" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The
products were produced on July 18 and distributed to retail
establishments in Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, Washington,
D.C. The problem was discovered through a FSIS sampling
program. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of these products.
Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weak immune systems, such as infants, the elderly and persons
with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.
Consumers and media with questions about the recall should
contact company President Jeffrey Levi at (718) 625-4180.
Consumers with food safety questions can call the toll-free USDA
Meat and Poultry Hotline at (888) 674-6854. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day. "Ask Karen" is
the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day to
answer your questions at the Website:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Education/Ask_Karen/.
International Truck & Engine Corporation is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily
recalling several school buses, namely:
(1) IC / 3800, model 2002-2004
(2) IC / BESB, model 2006-2007
(3) IC / CESB, model 2002-2006
(4) IC / FESB, model 2002-2006
(5) IC / RESB, model 2002-2006
These school buses were originally sold or currently registered
in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and The District of
Columbia. In extremely cold weather, the microswitches used
internally to position the sign in the open and closed positions
may malfunction, causing the sign to open or close in an
improper position or not open at all. Should the stop arm not
perform properly, a child or pedestrian may be endangered by
passing motorists should the motorist not stop at the correct
The Company will notify its customers and replace the original
switch with a switch pack that is not sensitive to extreme cold
weather and will inspect to ensure the microswitch heater wiring
is properly connected, free of charge. The recall is expected
to begin on September 14,2005. The Company has not yet provided
a telephone number to contact it. For more details, contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236;
(TTY:1-800-424-9153); or visit the Website:
http://www.safercar.gov.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee approved the settlement of the class action filed
against Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc. in relation to ten of its
facilities, alleging violations of the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA).
On January 12, 2001, Access Now, Inc., a disability rights
organization, filed a class action lawsuit against each of the
Company's hospitals alleging non-compliance with the
accessibility guidelines under the ADA. The suit seeks
injunctive relief requiring facility modification, where
necessary, to meet the ADA guidelines, along with attorneys'
fees and costs.
In January 2002, the Court certified the class action and issued
a scheduling order that requires the parties to complete
discovery and inspection for approximately six facilities per
year. As of June 30, 2005, the plaintiffs have conducted
inspections at 22 of the Company's hospitals.
The District Court approved the settlement agreements between
the parties relating to ten of the Company's facilities. The
Company is now moving forward in implementing facility
modifications in accordance with the terms of the settlement.
The Company currently anticipates that the costs associated with
modifying three of these facilities will be approximately $1.0
million, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Mazda North American Operations is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 27,800 MAZDA / RX8 passenger cars, model 2004.
On these cars, cracks may occur in the ball joint socket, due to
the improper forging of the lower control arm. In severe
driving conditions, the ball may separate from the ball joint
socket and a loss of steering may occur, which could result in a
crash.
Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the control
arms. The recall is expected to begin on August 2005. For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-222-5500, contact
the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236;
(TTY: 1-800-424-9153); or visit the Website:
A state judge ruled that Merck & Co. Inc. must defend itself in
a class action lawsuit over its Vioxx painkiller in New Jersey,
The Bloomberg News reports.
Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee, in Atlantic County, N.J.,
agreed to certify as a class action a suit brought by the
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 on behalf of
all third-party payors, such as health-maintenance
organizations, managed-care organizations, employers and unions,
which thus creates the largest single claim to date against
Merck.
In a 70-page ruling, the judge said, "Under the facts of this
case with the Merck Corporation being located in New Jersey and
New Jersey being applicable, the location of the third party
payors class action belongs in the jurisdiction of the New
Jersey state court system."
In what was the world's biggest drug recall, Merck, the U.S.'s
third-largest drug maker, withdrew Vioxx in September 2004,
after research indicated that users had a greater risk of heart
attacks and strokes.
The company opposed the request for class certification. In
fact, Ted Mayer, a lawyer representing Merck, told Bloomberg
News in an e-mailed statement, "We believe these types of claims
cannot be litigated on a class-wide basis." He goes on to state
that the "decision was not a ruling on the merits. We continue
to believe the claims are unfounded and, as with other cases,
intend to fight them vigorously."
In her ruling, Judge Higbee stated that about 2,200 Vioxx
lawsuits were previously filed in New Jersey, the largest number
of personal injury suits to be filed in any state.
Additionally, Judge Higbee stated in her ruling that the federal
judge in New Orleans who is overseeing the consolidated Vioxx
cases in the federal court system has met with state judges and
"assured the state court judges that the federal court has no
desire to interfere in the proceedings that were already much
more advanced in the state courts." She goes on to state, "This
is probably a unique case where the class-action attorneys here
have already participated in over 50 depositions of Merck
corporate employees, reviewed over seven million documents and
prepared several personal injury cases for trial and moved for
class certification before discovery on the class-certification
process has even taken place in federal court."
Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck has set aside $675-million
to fight Vioxx suits, which are expected to number in the
thousands.
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled cease-
and-desist proceedings against Plano, Texas-based semiconductor
manufacturer Microtune, Inc. and William L. Housley, its former
president, Jeffrey W. Davis, its former executive vice-president
of sales and marketing, and Everett Rogers, its former chief
financial officer, in connection with Microtune's overstatement
of revenues in 2001 and 2002.
In the cease-and-desist order, the Commission found that
Microtune and Mr. Housley violated the antifraud provisions of
the federal securities laws and that Mr. Davis caused
Microtune's antifraud violations. The Commission also found
that Microtune violated the internal controls, record-keeping
and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws, and
that Mr. Housley, Mr. Davis and Mr. Rogers caused those
violations. Mr. Housley further agreed to pay $50,000 in
disgorgement; Davis agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty in a
related civil action. The parties settled without admitting or
denying the Commission's substantive findings.
According to the Commission's order, Microtune engaged in a
revenue-inflation scheme, orchestrated by Housley and Davis.
The scheme enabled Microtune to meet its published quarterly
revenue projections through overshipments of goods to
distributors coupled with exorbitant sales concessions that
induced the distributors to accept the excess goods. Under
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, Microtune's sales
concessions required Microtune to defer recognition of revenue
until the goods were ultimately sold by the distributors to end
customers. Instead, Microtune improperly recognized the revenue
immediately upon shipment to the distributors. Many of the
sales concessions were embodied in side agreements that Housley
concealed from responsible Microtune personnel and from
Microtune's independent auditors. On other occasions, the
concessions appeared on customer purchase orders, but, due to
faulty internal controls, they were not detected by Microtune's
accounting or customer service departments and, consequently,
were not properly accounted for. Mr. Rogers, as the company's
CFO, failed to establish adequate internal controls. As a
result of the scheme, from the third quarter of 2001 through the
third quarter of 2002, Microtune overstated, in its Commission
filings, its quarterly revenue by 5 to 77 percent.
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the class action
filed against Mirant Americas Generating, LLC is set for
September 6,2005 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.
On June 11, 2003, a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia
entitled "Wisniak v. Mirant Americas Generation, LLC, et al."
The lawsuit names as defendants the Company and certain current
and former officers and managers of the Company. The plaintiff
seeks to represent a putative class of all persons who purchased
debt securities of the Company pursuant to or traceable to an
exchange offer completed by the Company in May 2002 in which
$750 million of bonds registered under the Securities Act were
exchanged for $750 million of previously issued senior notes of
the Company.
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Company's
restatement in April 2003 of prior financial statements rendered
the registration statement filed for the May 2002 exchange offer
materially false. The complaint seeks damages, interest and
attorneys' fees. The defendants have removed the suit to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. This action is stayed as to the Company by the filing
of its Chapter 11 proceeding.
On November 19, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
staying this action also with respect to the individual
defendants to avoid the suit impeding the ability of the Company
to reorganize or having a negative effect upon its assets. On
December 8, 2003, the district court took notice of the
Bankruptcy Court's order dated November 19, 2003 staying the
litigation and administratively closed the action. On December
16, 2003, the plaintiff dismissed the Company as a defendant,
without prejudice, and filed a proof of claim against the
Company in the bankruptcy proceedings asserting the same claims
set forth in the lawsuit.
The Company and the plaintiff have entered into a stipulation of
settlement of the Wisniak suit and the claim filed against the
Company that was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on January 19,
2005. Under the terms of the stipulation of settlement, the
plaintiff will seek certification of a class by the district
court that will receive $2.25 million to be paid by insurers for
the Company and an allowed, unsecured claim for $2 million
against Mirant subordinated to the claims of its other unsecured
creditors. Members of the plaintiff class will have the
opportunity to opt out of the settlement, and if class members
who choose to opt out own in the aggregate more than 1% of the
Company's bonds that are the subject of the suit, then the
Mirant defendants have the option to withdraw from the
settlement. The stipulation of settlement must also be approved
by the district court to become effective. On June 27, 2005 the
district court entered an order granting preliminary approval to
the settlement, certifying a settlement class, and scheduling a
hearing for final approval of the settlement.
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of several rate payer class actions filed against
Mirant Corporation, Mirant Americas Energy Marketing and several
of its subsidiaries, and several energy firms.
Eight additional rate payer lawsuits were initially filed
between April 23, 2002 and October 18, 2002 alleging that
certain owners of electric generation facilities in California,
as well as certain energy marketers, engaged in various unlawful
and fraudulent business acts that served to manipulate wholesale
markets and inflate wholesale electricity prices in California
during 1999 through 2002. Each of the complaints alleges
violation of California's Unfair Competition Act. One complaint
also alleges violation of California's antitrust statute.
Each of the plaintiffs seeks class action status for their
respective case. Some of these suits also allege that contracts
between California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and
certain marketers of electricity, including a nineteen month
power sales agreement entered into by Mirant Americas Energy
Marketing with the DWR in May 2001 that terminated in December
2002, contain terms that were unjust and unreasonable. The
actions seek, among other things, restitution, compensatory and
general damages, and to enjoin the defendants from engaging in
illegal conduct. The captions of each of these eight cases are:
(1) T&E Pastorino Nursery, et al. V. Duke Energy Trading
and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed April 23, 2002,
Superior Court of California, San Mateo County;
(2) RDJ Farms, Inc., et al. v. Allegheny Energy Supply,
Company, LLC, et al., Superior Court of California, San
Joaquin County;
(3) Century Theatres, Inc., et al. v. Allegheny Energy
Supply Company, LLC, et al. filed May 14, 2002 Superior
Court of California, San Francisco County;
(4) El Super Burrito, Inc., et al. v. Allegheny Energy,
Supply Company, LLC, et al., May 15, 2002, Superior
Court of California, San Mateo County;
(5) Leo's Day and Night Pharmacy, et al. v. Duke Trading
and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed May 21, 2002,
Superior Court of California, Alameda County;
(6) J& M Karsant Family Limited Partnership, et al. v. Duke
Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed May
21, 2002, Superior Court of California, Alameda County;
(7) Bronco Don Holdings, LLP, et al. v. Duke Energy Trading
and Marketing, LLC, et al., filed on May 24, 2002,
Superior Court of California, San Francisco County;
(8) Kurtz v. Duke Energy Trading et al.; filed October 18,
2002; Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
These suits were initially filed in California state courts by
the plaintiffs and removed to United States district courts.
These eight cases were consolidated for purposes of pretrial
proceedings. On August 28, 2003, the district court granted the
motions to dismiss filed by the defendants in the Pastorino, RDJ
Farms, Century Theatres, El Super Burrito, Leo's Day and Night
Pharmacy, J & M Karsant and Bronco Don Holdings suits, finding
that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by the filed rate
doctrine and federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed
that dismissal on February 25, 2005. The plaintiff in the Kurtz
suit voluntarily dismissed his case without prejudice on
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division allowed the plaintiff in a class
action filed against Mirant Corporation to receive an allowed,
general, pre-petition unsecured claim against Mirant Americas
Energy Marketing.
On November 20, 2002, a class action suit, styled "Bustamante v.
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.," was filed in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles against certain
publishers of index prices for natural gas, gas distribution or
marketing companies, owners of electric generation facilities in
California and energy marketers, including the Company, Mirant
Americas Energy Marketing and subsidiaries of Mirant Americas
Generation.
The plaintiff in the Bustamante suit alleged that the defendants
violated California Penal Code sections 182 and 395 and
California's Unfair Competition Act by reporting false
information about natural gas transactions to the defendants
that published index prices for natural gas causing the prices
paid by Californians for natural gas and for electricity to be
artificially inflated. The suit sought, among other things,
disgorgement of profits, restitution, and compensatory and
punitive damages.
On July 8, 2003, the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiffs had
failed to allege facts sufficient to warrant relief. The court
granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, and
on August 13, 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under California's Unfair Competition Act and
state antitrust statute against gas distribution or marketing
companies, owners of electric generation facilities in
California and energy marketers, including the Company and
various of its subsidiaries.
The amended complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in a
scheme to report false gas prices and volumes to companies that
published index prices for natural gas in order to manipulate
the price indices to benefit themselves. This conduct, the
plaintiff asserted, violated California Penal Code section 395
and caused the prices paid by Californians for natural gas to
be artificially inflated. The suit was brought as a
representative action on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, the general public and all taxpayers. The suit sought,
among other things, disgorgement of profits, restitution, treble
damages and injunctive relief. In November 2003, the plaintiff
dismissed the Mirant entities identified as defendants in the
amended complaint filed in August 2003.
On December 15, 2003, the plaintiff in the Bustamante suit filed
proofs of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of a
putative class (the "Bustamante Claims") listing the total
amount claimed as $500 million and attaching the original and
first amended complaints. On October 18, 2004, the Debtors
filed an objection to the Bustamante Claims. On November 19,
2004, the Debtors filed a motion requesting that the Bankruptcy
Court strike the portions of the Bustamante Claims that
purported to have been filed on behalf of unnamed absent members
of a purported class. On January 26, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court
entered an order embodying a ruling made orally on December 1,
2004 granting the motion and striking the Bustamante Claims to
the extent they sought to recover on account of any claims other
than the claim of Bustamante, in his individual capacity. The
Mirant Debtors have also filed a motion to disallow the
remaining Bustamante Claims. The Mirant Debtors have entered
into a stipulation with Bustamante entitling him to receive an
allowed, general, pre-petition unsecured claim against Mirant
Americas Energy Marketing in the amount of $1,000 without the
Mirant Debtors' admission of the validity of the Bustamante
Claims or any of the factual or legal assertions made in the
Bustamante Claims and with a full reservation of any rights,
claims and defenses any of the Mirant Debtors may have against
any person asserting the same or similar factual or legal
assertions as those contained in the Bustamante Claims. That
stipulation was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on July 11,
Texas, Fort Worth Division approved a settlement with the
representatives in a class action filed against Mirant
Corporation and various owners of electric generation facilities
in California and marketers of electricity and natural gas in
California, styled "Egger et al. v. Dynegy, Inc., et al.,"
allowing them to receive an allowed, general unsecured claim
against Mirant Americas Energy Marketing in the amount of $1,000
in full and final satisfaction of the Egger Claims.
The suit was initially filed on April 28, 2003 in the Superior
Court for the County of San Diego, California, and also names as
defendants various subsidiaries of Mirant Americas Generation
LLC. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
electricity in Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New
Mexico, Arizona and Montana from January 1, 1999. The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful,
unfair, and deceptive practices in the California and western
wholesale electricity markets, including withholding energy from
the market to create artificial shortages, creating artificial
congestion over transmission lines, selling electricity bought
in California to out of state affiliates to create artificial
shortages and then selling the electricity back into the state
at higher prices. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants
conspired among themselves and with subsidiaries of Enron
Corporation to withhold electricity from the Cal PX and CAISO
markets and to manipulate the price of electricity sold at
wholesale in the California and western markets.
The defendants' unlawful manipulation of the wholesale energy
market, the plaintiffs allege, resulted in supply shortages and
skyrocketing energy prices in the western United States, which
in turn caused drastic rate increases for retail consumers. The
plaintiffs assert claims under California's antitrust statute
and its Unfair Competition Act. The plaintiffs contend that the
defendants' alleged wrongful conduct has caused damages in
excess of $1 billion and seek treble damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, and an accounting of the wholesale energy
transactions entered into by the defendants from 1998.
The defendants removed the suit to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in October 2003 that did not include
any Mirant entities as defendants due to the stay of litigation
resulting from the filing of the Mirant Chapter 11 proceedings,
but identified them as "relevant actors."
Five plaintiffs in the Egger suit (the "Proposed
Representatives") filed proofs of claim (the "Egger Claims") in
the bankruptcy proceedings purportedly on behalf of a class of
"all persons and businesses residing in Oregon, Washington,
Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona and Montana who were
purchasers of electrical energy during the period beginning
January 1, 1999 to the present." Claimants alleged that various
misconduct by the Company and several of its subsidiaries,
including subsidiaries of the Company, caused inflated prices in
wholesale power markets. Claimants listed the damage amount of
their claims as "TBD/in excess of $100 million." Claimants
attached the first amended complaint to their proofs of claims.
On October 18, 2004, the Mirant Debtors filed an objection to
the Egger Claims. On November 10, 2004, the parties jointly
presented to the Bankruptcy Court a scheduling order in which
they agreed that the Egger Claims were sufficiently similar to
the Oscar Claims so that the Bankruptcy Court's ruling on the
Mirant Debtor's motion to strike the Oscar Claims would also be
dispositive as to the Egger Claims. Thus, the Egger Claims were
disallowed with prejudice to the extent they sought to recover
on account of any claims other than those of the Proposed
Representatives in their individual capacities.
On January 19, 2005, the Bankruptcy Court approved a settlement
agreement with the Proposed Representatives pursuant to which
each of the Proposed Representatives will be entitled to receive
an allowed, general unsecured claim against Mirant Americas
Energy Marketing in the amount of $1,000 in full and final
satisfaction of the Egger Claims.
All of Mirant Corporation's wholly-owned and certain non-wholly-
owned U.S. subsidiaries (the "Mirant Debtors") reached tolling
agreements with the individual defendants in a class action
filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware, styled "California Public
Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Mirant Corporation, et
al."
On June 10, 2003, certain holders of senior notes of the Company
maturing after 2006 filed the suit in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, also naming as defendants Mirant Americas
Generating LLC, certain past and present Mirant directors, and
certain past and present Company managers. Among other claims,
the plaintiffs assert that a restructuring plan pursued by the
Company prior to its filing a petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code was in breach of fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to them by the Company, Mirant Americas,
Inc., its managers and Mirant Americas Generating LLC. In
addition, plaintiffs challenge certain dividends and
distributions made by the Company prior to the Petition Date.
Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1 billion.
The Company has removed this suit to the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware. This action is stayed with
respect to the Mirant entities that are defendants by the filing
of the Chapter 11 proceedings of these entities. On November
19, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order staying this
action also with respect to the individual defendants to avoid
the suit impeding the ability of the Mirant Debtors to
reorganize or having a negative effect upon the assets of the
Mirant Debtors. The Mirant Americas Generation Creditor
Committee in 2003 filed a motion in Mirant's bankruptcy
proceedings seeking to pursue claims against Mirant, Mirant
Americas, certain past and present Mirant directors, and certain
past and present managers of the Company similar to those
asserted in this suit.
The Bankruptcy Court ruled that while the committee has standing
to assert claims on behalf of the estate of the Company, no such
claims could be filed without the Bankruptcy Court's approval
and no motions seeking such approval could be filed at least
through April 2004. On June 15, 2005, the Mirant Americas
Generation Creditor Committee again filed a motion in Mirant's
bankruptcy proceedings seeking to pursue claims against Mirant,
Mirant Americas, certain past and present Mirant directors, and
certain past and present managers of the Company similar to
those asserted in this suit. On June 30, 2005, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an oral ruling that if the Mirant Debtors had not
by July 8, 2005 entered into agreements with the individual
defendants in this action tolling the running of any statute of
limitations, then the Mirant Americas Generation Creditor
Committee would be authorized to file claims against those
defendants on behalf of the estate of Mirant Americas
Mylan Laboratories faces a consolidated shareholder class action
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, styled "In re Mylan Laboratories Inc. Shareholder
Litigation."
On November 22, 2004, an individual purporting to be a Company
shareholder, filed a civil action against the Company and all
members of its Board of Directors alleging that the Board
members had breached their fiduciary duties by approving the
planned acquisition of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and by
declining to dismantle the Company's anti-takeover defenses to
permit an auction of the Company to Carl Icahn or other
potential buyers of the Company. The suit also alleges that
certain transactions between the Company and its directors (or
their relatives or companies with which they were formerly
affiliated) may have been wasteful. On November 23, 2004, a
substantially identical complaint was filed in the same court by
another purported Company shareholder. The actions are styled
as shareholder derivative suits on behalf of the Company and
class actions on behalf of all Company shareholders.
The court ordered the suits consolidated. The Company and its
directors filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the
complaints. On January 19, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their
complaints to add Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co.,
Richard C. Perry, Perry Corp., American Stock Transfer & Trust
Company, and "John Does 1-100" as additional defendants, and to
add claims regarding trading activity by the additional
defendants and the implications on the Company's shareholder
rights agreement. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief and undisclosed damages.
Over 1,000 Graniteville residents will have to decide this
weekend whether to sue Norfolk Southern or join a settlement
over a chemical spill in January that killed nine, hurt hundreds
and displaced thousands of people, The WISTV reports.
Though the majority of families affected have chosen to join the
class action settlement, many people are opting out. Located not
far from the tracks where the crash happened, the Graniteville
Settlement Office, was recently filled with a lot of people that
where affected by the wreck, who inquired about the settlement.
Harry Jackson explains why they're at the office, "I got this.
It was left on my door at home. Deadlines for class action
suits, and that's what I come here to find out about." Mr.
Jackson is one of over 1,000 residents who have until Monday to
decide to accept or reject a proposed settlement from Norfolk
Southern Railroad. Those who don't do anything by the deadline
waive their right to sue later.
That's just fine with Mike Wallace, "Norfolk had offered what
was fair and we were ready to be just complete with it." The
settlement agrees to pay people like the Wallaces' a minimum of
$2,000 per household. Attorney Pete Strom told The WISTV,
"There's no cap on it. The railroad has basically opened their
checkbooks, and any claims that we're able to prove they're
willing to pay."
Since it's opening last month an estimated 4,000 people have
filed claims with the center with 5,400 people being eligible,
meaning more than 1,000 haven't made up their minds.
As previously reported in the January 18, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, a week after the train crash spilled a
toxic chemical, killing nine people and sickening hundreds in
South Carolina, the evacuated residents of Graniteville, some
not yet able to returns to their homes filed lawsuits against
Norfolk Southern, claiming negligence and nuisance.
About 5,400 residents were evacuated from a one-mile radius of
the crash site after the train wreck ruptured a railcar carrying
chlorine and released a toxic cloud over the town of
Graniteville, killing nine people, injuring hundreds and forcing
the evacuation of thousands.
The law firm of Parker & Waichman, LLP initiated a suit against
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson and
Johnson Inc. (NYSE:JNJ), on behalf of a 30-year-old wife and
mother of four who developed life-threatening blood clots after
using the Ortho Evra contraceptive patch. The victim was
admitted into the intensive care unit in July 2003 due to a
severe headache, blurry vision, nausea and vomiting. Tests
determined the cause to be a posterior-superior sagittal sinus
thrombosis with associated subarachnoid hemorrhage. The suit was
filed on July 26, 2005, in the Middlesex County Court House in
New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Posterior-superior sagittal sinus thrombosis is characterized by
blood clotting in the superior sagittal sinus, a single venous
sinus in the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord. A
subarachnoid hemorrhage, or SAH, is bleeding into the
subarachnoid space surrounding the brain. Both injuries are
considered serious medical emergencies, which can lead to death
or severe disability, even after being recognized and treated at
an early stage. The victim did not have any vascular problems
prior to using Ortho Evra.
It is alleged that Ortho-McNeil was aware of the increased risks
associated with Ortho Evra before the drug was approved and
that, once approved, the company failed to adequately warn
patients about these risks. Evidence shows that the risk of
blood clots and stroke associated with Ortho Evra is
significantly higher than with oral contraceptive pills. The
incidence of embolisms and thrombotic injuries in Phase III
trials of Ortho Evra was six times greater than the incidence of
such events in oral contraceptives using the hormone
levonorgestral. The FDA has logged 9,116 reports of adverse
reactions to the patch in a 17-month period, whereas Ortho Tri-
Cyclen, the birth control pill, only generated 1,237 adverse
reports in a six-year period. During a 12-month period, 44
serious injuries or deaths have been linked to Ortho Evra,
whereas only 17 such reports were linked to the birth control
pill during a similar time period. The pattern is further
magnified when usage rates are considered: Ortho Tri-Cyclen has
six times the number of users as Ortho Evra.
Prior to approval, the FDA medical review expressed concerns
about Ortho Evra causing venous thromboembolisms, stating:
"Post-marketing surveillance for DVT (Deep Venous Thrombosis)
and PE (Pulmonary Embolism) events will be important, as there
are potential serious adverse risks (with two cases of pulmonary
emboli in the clinical trials) with this new delivery system for
contraception."
Unlike the birth control pill, which is ingested and metabolized
by the body's digestive system, the medication in the Ortho Evra
patch is released directly into the bloodstream. This results in
dangerously higher concentrations of the medication in the body,
leading to adverse effects.
"It is clear that there are significantly greater risks
associated with the Ortho Evra patch than with oral
contraceptive pills," commented Jason Mark, an attorney with
Parker & Waichman, LLP. "As reports of serious injuries and
deaths continue to surface, it appears the risks of Ortho Evra
far outweigh its benefits."
Ortho Evra is an adhesive, transdermal birth control patch that
is worn on the torso. The patch is intended to release 150 mcg
of norelgestromin and 20 mcg of ethinyl estradiol into the
bloodstream per 24 hours. It is replaced once a week for three
weeks, and no patch is worn during the fourth week, during
menstruation. The regimen is then repeated. Ortho Evra was
approved by the FDA in April 2002, and over four million women
have used Ortho Evra since its approval. Ortho Evra continues to
be marketed aggressively to both consumers and physicians.
For more details, contact David Krangle, Esq. of Parker &
Waichman, LLP, Phone: 1-800-529-4636, E-mail:
dkrangle@yourlawyer.com, Web site: http://www.yourlawyer.com.
The Perrigo Company (Nasdaq: PRGO; TASE) is voluntarily
recalling all lots of concentrated infants' drops that are
packaged with a dosing syringe bearing only a "1.6 mL" mark
(1) acetaminophen,
(2) acetaminophen, dextromethorphan HBr, and
pseudoephedrine HCl, or
(3) dextromethorphan HBr, and pseudoephedrine HCl.
The dosing syringe may be confusing in determining the proper
dose for infants under 2 years of age as directed by a doctor
and could lead to improper dosing, including overdosing. The
following products are being recalled to the retail level:
(i) Cherry Flavor Infant Pain Reliever 160 mg Acetaminophen
(0.5oz. and 1.0oz)
(ii) Grape Flavor Infant Pain Reliever 160 mg Acetaminophen
(iii) Cherry Flavor Cough and Cold Infant Drops (0.5oz)
(iv) Cherry Flavor Decongestant and Cough Infant Drops
(0.5oz)
The directions on the bottle and carton labeling for infants
ages 2-3 years and weighing 24-35 pounds allow safe and
effective dosing for this age and weight group. However, these
products are also intended for use by infants younger than 2
years and weighing less than 24 pounds. The labeling directs
consumers to ask a doctor for dosing directions for this age and
weight group.
The products are being recalled because the oral dosing syringe
enclosed with these products is not marked so as to accurately
measure doses less than 1.6 mL when prescribed by physicians for
infants younger than 2 years and weighing less than 24 pounds.
Until recently these products were provided with a dropper, not
the oral dosing syringe, and the dropper had two markings on it
("0.4 mL" and "0.8 mL"). The single mark on the current syringe
along with the changeover from the dropper to this syringe has
caused some confusion among consumers and health-care
professionals and may lead to improper dosing. Taking more than
the recommended dose (overdose) of acetaminophen may cause liver
damage. The products, however, are safe and effective when
accurately dosed. Parents or caregivers who have questions
should discuss with their doctor how to accurately determine the
proper dose.
The recalled products were sold nationally at retail chains
under the following store-brand labels: American Fare, Best
Choice, Brooks, Berkley & Jensen, CVS, Dollar General, Eckerd,
Equaline, Equate, Family Dollar, Food Lion, Good Neighbor,
GoodSense, Healthy Generations, Health Pride, Hy-Vee, Kroger,
Leader, Longs, Major, Medicine Shoppe, Meijer, Parklane, Publix,
Rite Aid, Safeway, Shop Rite, Sunmark, Target, Today's Health,
Top Care, Walgreen, Western Family, and Winn Dixie.
Perrigo is cooperating with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (the "FDA") in this recall and in the effort to
alert consumers and retailers about this issue. Questions or
concerns about a product described in this recall should be
directed to Perrigo's Consumer Affairs Department, toll free, at
800-321-0105. Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of
these products should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch
Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by fax at 1-800-FDA-1078, by
mail at MedWatch, HF-410, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD
20852-9787, or on MedWatch's website at
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/.
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against Raytheon Company and two
of its officers.
Several suits were initially filed and later consolidated into a
single complaint in June 2000, when four additional former or
present officers were named as defendants in a Consolidated and
Amended Class Action Complaint with the caption, "In re:
Raytheon Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 12142-PBS)."
The Consolidated Complaint principally alleged that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by purportedly
making misleading statements and by failing to disclose material
information concerning the Company's financial performance
during the class period.
In March 2002, the court certified the class of plaintiffs as
those people who purchased Raytheon stock between October 7,
1998 through October 12, 1999. On March 17, 2003 the named
plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint
which did not change the claims against the Company or the
individual defendants, but which added the Company's independent
registered public accounting firm as an additional defendant.
Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, in May 2004, the
Company reached an agreement to settle this class action lawsuit
on behalf of the Company and all individual defendants.
The terms of the settlement included a cash payment of $210
million and the issuance of warrants for the Company's stock
with a stipulated value of $200 million. The warrants will have
a five-year term with a strike price of $37.50 and will be
issued when the settlement proceeds are distributed to the
claimants. On December 6, 2004, the Court issued an Order
granting Final Approval of the settlement and, on December 10,
2004, Final Judgment was entered resolving all claims asserted
against the Company and the individual defendants. In May 2004,
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm
reached a settlement with the plaintiff, which was also approved
on December 6, 2004. In 2004, the Company also paid $210
million into escrow in connection with the settlement. At June
26, 2005, the insurance receivable balance was $80 million.
In July 2004, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the
Company and the individual defendants reached an agreement to
settle a derivative action related to this class action lawsuit.
The settlement, which was approved by the court in July 2005,
will resolve all claims in the case and is not expected to have
a material effect on the Company's financial position, results
of operations, or liquidity.
The suit is styled "Meisel v. Raytheon Company, et al, case no
01:99cv12142," filed in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris. Representing the
Company is John F. Batter, III of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-526-6000, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
john.batter@wilmerhale.com. Representing the defendants are:
(1) Andrew L. Barroway of Schiffrin & Craig, Ltd., Three
Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,
(2) Jeffrey C. Block, Glenn de Valerio, Patrick T. Egan of
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, One
Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
jblock@bermanesq.com, gdevalerio@bermanesq.com,
pegan@bermanesq.com
(3) Bryan L. Crawford, Samuel D. Heins and Stacey L. Mills,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., 3550 IDS Center, 80 South
Eighth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 612-338-
4605, E-mail: heins@heinsmills.com,
(4) Mark D. Smilow and Joseph H. Weiss of Weiss & Yourman,
551 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10076, Phone: 212-682-
Massachusetts has yet to rule on Raytheon Co.'s motion seeking
dismissal of the consolidated class action filed against it,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).
In May 2003, two purported class action lawsuits were filed on
behalf of participants in the Company's savings and investment
plans who invested in the Company's stock between August 19,
1999 and May 27, 2003. Both lawsuits are substantially similar
and have been consolidated into a single action. In April 2004,
a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries in the Company's savings and
investment plans who invested in the Company's stock since
The Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint alleges that the
Company, its Pension and Investment Group, and its Investment
Committee breached ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to:
(1) prudently and loyally manage plan assets,
(2) monitor the Pension and Investment Group and the
Investment Committee and provide them with accurate
(3) provide complete and accurate information to plan
participants and beneficiaries, and
(4) avoid conflicts of interest.
In October 2004, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended ERISA Complaint.
Law enforcement agencies across the country, including Chippewa
Township, are currently involved in a federal class action
lawsuit against Second Chance Body Armor Inc., a Michigan-based
company that sold defective bullet-resistant vests to the
agencies, The Beaver County Times reports.
According to Police Chief Robert "Clint" Berchtold, Chippewa
Township bought vests from the company. Thus, Chippewa Township
Supervisors agreed to join the lawsuit on behalf of its police
Township solicitor George A. Verlihay told The Beaver County
Times that Zylon, the material used to make the protective
vests, degrades in heat. He adds that police officers have been
injured and killed as a result of the defect.
The company, which both manufactured and sold the vests,
recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and sold all
assets. Additionally, the federal suit also names Toyobo,
supplier of the bullet-resistant material. Recently though, the
Japan-based company has agreed to contribute $29 million to
settle the lawsuit, according to documents posted at
http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com.
Chippewa Manager Stephen Johnson told The Beaver County Times
that he was unsure whether other local communities might be
Mr. Verlihay told The Beaver County Times that Chippewa could
have decided to opt out of the class action and pursue its own
lawsuit, though he recommended against it. If Toyobo settles on
more favorable terms with any other party, according to him, the
company would have to provide the same settlement for those
named in the federal suit. "Nobody knows for sure how many
claimants there are out there," Mr. Verlihay adds.
Mr. Verlihay pointed out that purchasers can accept a 50 percent
settlement reimbursement from Toyobo or use the equivalent
amount from the settlement fund to buy replacements from Armor
Holdings Inc. at discounts of 50 percent to 60 percent, with
measurement charges waived.
Reliant Energy, Inc. (NYSE: RRI) and Deloitte & Touche LLP
agreed to pay $75 million to settle claims they misled investors
during that company's 2001 initial public stock offering,
according to the plaintiffs' lawyers.
The settlement covers investors who lost money after purchasing
common shares of Reliant Resources, as Reliant Energy was
formerly known, in its April 30, 2001 initial public offering.
Investors who purchased Reliant Resources stock on the open
market before May 14, 2002 are also eligible to participate in
the settlement.
The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
(MPERS) acted as lead plaintiffs on behalf of Reliant Resources
investors in federal court in Houston, represented by the law
firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.
"We are pleased that we were able to recover a very significant
portion of the money investors lost," said Henry Dean, Chairman
of the MPERS Board of Trustees. "We will continue to use all the
means at our disposal to defend the retirement assets of our
members."
Under the agreement, the Reliant Defendants -- Reliant Energy,
Inc. and former company executives R. Steve Letbetter, Stephen
W. Naeve, Mary P. Ricciardello and Joe Bob Perkins -- will pay
$68 million of the settlement, while Deloitte will pay $7
million.
Before it becomes final, Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, must approve
the settlement. Judge Werlein is overseeing the class action,
captioned In Re: Reliant Energy Securities Litigation, 02-cv-
In their complaint, investors charged that Reliant made false
statements, audited by Deloitte, in the prospectus and
registration statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Investors accused the defendants of failing to disclose the
company was engaged in "round trip" energy trading and thereby
exaggerating its revenues and trading volume. Round-trip trading
refers to the practice whereby two companies buy and sell the
same amount of power at the same price and at the same time,
resulting in a financial "wash" for both companies.
When news of the practice and the resulting financial
restatements was first disclosed to the market in May 2002,
Reliant Energy and Reliant Resources stock suffered double-digit
declines.
"The size of this settlement underscores the positive impact
public pension funds like MPERS can have when they step forward
to fight corporate crime," said lead counsel Michael Pucillo, a
partner in Berman DeValerio's West Palm Beach, Florida office.
"The settlement is an excellent result for all the investors in
the class."
MPERS manages more than $1 billion in retirement assets for
9,500 full- time police department workers throughout Louisiana.
The suit is styled, In Re: Reliant Energy Securities Litigation,
02-cv-1810, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas with Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr.
presiding. Maria Wyckoff Boyce, Esq. and James Edward Maloney,
Esq. of Bakker & Botts, 910 Louisiana, Suite 3000, Houston, TX
is representing the plaintiffs. Lawrence H. Hunt, Jr., Esq. of
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, 10 S. Dearborn, Chicago, IL,
For more details, contact Richard Lorant of Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Phone: +1-617-542-8300 or
+1-617-230-0903, E-mail: rlorant@bermanesq.com.
Several homeowners at Novi's Old Dutch Farms mobile home park in
Michigan filed a lawsuit against the park's operators, claiming
that they live in unsanitary conditions, WXYZ, MI reports.
Their class action lawsuit, which was filed against Uniprop, the
park's owner, seeks more and $1 million for the homeowners.
According to residents, troubles exist with their water and
sewer systems. One such resident, Kassy Vogel, even claims that
her tap water sometimes comes out orange and smells bad. She
added that she would not allow her children to brush their teeth
with the water. "Only bottled water," Mrs. Vogel says.
Additionally, some homeowners are claming that the park's on-
site sewer system leaks raw sewage under homes, contaminating
groundwater and creating an unpleasant smell.
Mrs. Vogel told WXYZ, "It doesn't feel like, to the residents,
that this company cares about us. It's just not a clean
environment."
The CEO of Uniprop, the Birmingham-based owner of the mobile
home park, stated that he is disappointed that the homeowners
filed the lawsuit, since, according to him, the park is in
compliance with all local, state and national laws.
Both sides are set to meet in court next month, WXYZ reports.
Unocal Corporation and suitor Chevron Corporation settled a
class action lawsuit filed in a California court challenging
their deal, according to a U.S. regulatory filing, The Economic
Times, India reports.
The suit had threatened to delay Unocal's shareholder meeting on
August 10, since the plaintiffs planned to seek an injunction to
postpone that meeting. The filing also showed that based on
advice and talks with its advisers, Unocal's board estimated
that a deal with rival Chinese bidder CNOOC Ltd. could take up
to nine months to close. On the other hand, Chevron stated that
it could close its deal on August 10 once shareholders vote on
it. The filing revealed that Unocal's adviser Morgan Stanley
also discussed the value of CNOOC's $67 a share bid under
various scenarios, given the uncertainty surrounding the
completion of any deal.
According to the analysis done by Morgan Stanley, CNOOC's
proposal produced a range of values, from $52.82 per share,
given a 50 percent chance of consummation, to $65.07 per share
under a 90 percent chance of consummation.
Shareholders will vote at the August 10 meeting on whether they
support Chevron's sweetened $17 billion offer for Unocal. CNOOC
Ltd. has offered $18.5 billion for Unocal, but its bid has run
into stiff political opposition in Washington and failed to win
the support of Unocal's board. As part of the settlement,
Unocal stated that it would make certain disclosures about the
proposed deal. The settlement is still subject to California
state court approval.
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Avon Products, Inc. ("Avon")
(NYSE:AVP) common stock during the period between April 8, 2005
and July 18, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Avon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Avon engages in the manufacture and marketing of beauty
and related products primarily in North America, Latin America,
Europe, and Asia Pacific.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements about the
Company's performance and future prospects. As alleged in the
Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, which were known, or recklessly
disregarded by them, at all relevant times:
(1) that the Company was experiencing increasing resistance
to its expansion efforts in China because local
businesses were dissatisfied with the Company's plans
to direct sell in that market;
(2) that the Company's revenue growth in its Central and
Eastern Europe markets was dramatically slowing from
internally forecasted levels such that the Company
would be unable to reach its stated earnings
projections;
(3) that the Company's expansion efforts in Russian were
being delayed due to a variety of adverse factors; and
(4) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their earnings projections and
positive statements about the Company.
On July 19, 2005, before the start of trading, Avon issued a
press release announcing that its earnings for the second
quarter of 2005 would be below expectations because of two
factors "an unexpected temporary decline in China as Beauty
Boutique owners reacted with concern to the imminent resumption
of direct selling in that country;" and "lower-than- anticipated
revenue growth in Central and Eastern Europe resulting from
underperformance of several key marketing offers as well as
delayed expansion into new geographies within Russia."
Upon this news, shares of Avon common stock closed at $31.30 per
share, a decline of $5.30 per share, or over 14%, from the
previous trading day's close, on unusually heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/avon/.
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities Guidant
Corporation ("Guidant") (NYSE: GDT) between December 1, 2004 and
June 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), against defendants Guidant, Ronald W. Dollens
(CEO, President), Guido J. Neels (COO), Keith E. Brauer and
Peter J. Mariani.
The Complaint alleges that defendants' positive Class Period
press releases and SEC filings were materially false and
misleading because:
(1) a material portion of the Company's defibrillator
products contained life-threatening defects;
(2) the unsafe defibrillators presented a material,
undisclosed risk to investors;
(3) the Company faced tens and potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars in unreserved liabilities related
to the defective defibrillators, such that the
Company's financial statements were not true or
accurate or in compliance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(4) as a result of the significant product defects in
Guidant's defibrillators, the Company foreseeably faced
a massive, expensive product recall, which would
undermine the Company's market credibility, future
sales of Guidant products and profitability; and
(5) defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that
Guidant was operating according to plan, or that the
Company could maintain its growth in sales of
defibrillators in the foreseeable near-term.
On June 17, 2005, Guidant announced a recall of approximately
50,000 defibrillators. Then, on June 24, 2005, before the open
of trading, defendants announced that it was investigating the
safety of certain defibrillator components and advised doctors
to "discontinue implants of these devices pending further
notice." In reaction to this announcement, the price of Guidant
stock fell to $63.90 per share, from $68.60 per share on June
22, 2005, on unusually heavy trading volume. Defendants were
motivated to engage in the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint
because it enabled Company insiders to sell over 866,515 Guidant
shares at artificially inflated prices, for proceeds exceeding
$63.5 million.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the securities of Molina
Healthcare, Inc. (Nasdaq: MOH) ("Molina Healthcare" or the
"Company") between November 3, 2004 and July 20, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran is
investigating similar claims at this time and welcomes inquiries
from potential class members concerning their rights and
interests in this matter.
The lawsuit alleges that Molina Healthcare violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Molina
(1) expanded rapidly through acquisitions and
underestimated the financial impact of assimilating its
acquisitions, while failing to make favorable contracts
with various providers;
(2) the acquisitions and unfavorable contracts resulted in
significant increases in healthcare costs;
(3) failed to account for and efficiently counteract a
higher than expected number of catastrophic cases,
increased maternity costs and an increase in outpatient
services;
(4) and that as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
forecasts were lacking in any reasonable basis when
On July 20, 2005, the Company announced a revision of its full
year earnings forecast, dropping its previous estimate of $2.40
to $2.45 per share, downward to between $0.73 to $0.80 per
share. Further, Molina Healthcare announced that it expects a
second quarter loss of between $0.15 to $0.20 per share. In
reaction to this news, the Company's share price dropped from
$46.00 on July 20, 2005, to $26.00 on July 21, 2005 --
constituting a decline of nearly 44% in a single day.
For more details, contact Donald J. Enright, Esq. of
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran's Washington, DC office, Phone:
1-877-337-1050, E-mail: contact@ftllaw.com, Web site:
http://www.ftllaw.com/news/releases/050729Molina.html.
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: RNR) securities between
January 24, 2002 and July 25, 2005, inclusive (the Class
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., 261 Old York Road, Suite
423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900 E-mail:
FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net.
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP is encouraging persons who
purchased the common stock of StarTek, Inc. (NYSE:SRT) between
February 26, 2003 and May 5, 2005 ("Class Members") to contact
Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP, at 1-800-711-6483 or via
email at KShuman@DyerShuman.com, or their counsel of choice,
concerning their rights and interests as potential class members
in the shareholder class action recently filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against
StarTek and certain of its officers and directors.
The firm reminds investors that they have until September 6,
2005 to file for lead plaintiff in the case.
For more details, contact Kip B. Shuman of Dyer & Shuman, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-711-6483, E-mail: KShuman@DyerShuman.com, Web site:
http://www.dyershuman.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.
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2005. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *


I would like to ask the older Amiga fans here about the flight sims that were released for the Amiga.
I am by no means planning to buy any but I am curious which ones are considered the best by the people here.
I never saw the Miggy as a good platform for flight simulators.
I always prefer the peecee for that.
I can only remember the great FA18 Hornet. I enjoy it a lot.
The first one that really became popular was Falcon in 1988/89. It was first released on the Atari ST, then the Amiga. There were many other really good Flight Sims on the Amiga, many with built in analogue stick support.
But, as you say, a lot of the same games were released on PC and were the better versions purely because by the time more Flight Sims were being released in the 90's the PC had started to gain proper graphics cards which could handle 256 colour modes with full textured 3D, so the Amiga couldn't match it.
"... many with built in analogue stick support ..." ?
how? Never saw any Joy then digital (8 different positions), how doyou do that with DB9 ports? Or is it an external card?
When F/A 18 Interceptor was released, it was the best flight simulator for the Amiga. There are a couple of very good flight simulators (F29 Retaliator, Falcon F16, TFX etc) for the Amiga, but you will need at least 030 and a couple MBs of Fast RAM for the best pleasure.
but you will need at least 030 and a couple MBs of Fast RAM for the best pleasure.
Gunship2000 was always one of my favourites. The AGA version especially. As has been said before, in the early days the Amiga had some brilliant Flight Sims for the time but they were quickly overshadowed by the PC. TFX would've been a brilliant final hurrah for the Amiga had it been completely finished and the bugs fixed.
That was never an option for me.
I forgot about Gunship 2000. Brilliant game. I still own both the AGA and CD32 versions.. and used to play the CD32 version a lot.
Another really good flight sim was F15 Strike Eagle II.
You have to use an analogue joystick adapter which plugged into the Amiga joystick port to allow you to connect the 15 pin PC joysticks to the Amiga port. Remember that the Amiga's joystick ports also support mice, which are analogue, and therefore can be utilised for analogue joystick support.
I had (might still have somewhere) a Gravis analogue joystick that worked well, and an adapter which I think was made by Phoenix.
Some racing games such as Microprose F1GP also supported this.
That is new to me, i always thought it only could work as digital. Back in time Microprose F1GP would be much better in analog.


text:
Ceinos de Campos és un municipi de la província de Valladolid a la comunitat autònoma espanyola de Castella i Lleó.

Demografia

Referències

Municipis de Tierra de Campos

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: How to flush github object messages in tree view with updated history? This is a new repos I was filling with the initial content, no other collabs involved yet.
I made some mistakes in the commit messages in my git repo; I noticed this after I pushed it to gihub, as it showed up as note after every file or folder involved in the file browser.
--
So I rewrote the history by resetting my local index a few steps back, and carefully committing all files with the correct messages. Then I force-pushed it over my branch on github.
In the history in my local git I see the nice messages. Then I check the history on github and it also shows the nice messages.
But in the tree view on the github website (eg: the standard file/directory list) each file and directory still shows the ugly messages. The bad commits touched most files that are in there, so it shows pretty much for every directory and file, even files unlikely to ever change, like the LICENCE file).
This message is nowhere to be found in my local data. So github is showing data that (afaick) doesn't even exists in my repos anymore.
--
I even deleted the branch from the github repos and pushed my local one, and still it shows the old messages in all the relevant tree views.
Then I went as far as using the Github API (I use this for another project) and try accessing related objects and I simply cannot product the offending messages. They do not exists in that branch (or any other)
But still when you go the repos in your browser every file you see is tagged with this 'ghost' message.
What is going on here?
Does git have more places for messages then just the commits? It it attached to like trees or blobs?
Do I have to drop the whole repos to purge this?
(note: I do not ask if this is a good idea or not: but how to get rid of these messages).
(also I have a question pending at Github but answers takes days sometimes)

A: The support staff was quick today, it turned out this is a web infrastructure cache that can take a little time to sync. It definitely should be same as in the git data history after a while.
So we learn.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange