Tuesday, February 6, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 26
APPLE COMPUTER: Feb. 15 Hearing Set for Studio Display Suit Deal
ARIBA INC: Awaits Approval of IPO Securities Suit Settlement
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. IPO Suit Deal Awaits Court Approval
BLUE RIDGE: Landowners Get $2M Payout in Personal Nuisance Suit
BROWN SHOE: Court Mulls Appeal Against $1M Redfield Suit Award
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Calif. Court Dismisses Tote Bag Lawsuit
COYOTE LAND: Faces Litigation Over Pollution Near Fla. Landfill
DELL INC: Faces New Tex. Lawsuit Over $1B "Kickbacks" from Intel
DELTATHREE INC: Court Considers Final Approval of IPO Suit Deal
ENTERGY CORP: Seeks Review of Ruling in Texas Power Price Suit
ESTEE LAUDER: Calif. Price Fixing Suit Settlement Under Appeal
FOLLETT CORP: Fla. Students File Lawsuit Over Textbooks' Pricing
GULF SOUTH: Faces Third Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit in La.
INTERLAND INC: Asks Pa. Court to Dismiss TCPA Violations Suit
MCKESSON CORP: Certification Hearing in AWP Suit Set April 12
MOBILE OPERATORS: Israel Firms Face $2.5B Suit by Customers
MOSAIC CO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Fla. Pollution Suit
NET PERCEPTIONS: N.Y. IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Court Approval
NEW JERSEY: Flood Litigation Settlement in Burlington Approved
NEW MEXICO: Law Firms Plan to Sue County Over Strip Searches
NEW YORK: City Threatened With Suit Over "Street Stops" Increase
NEW YORK: Syracuse Faces Complaint Over Healthcare Increases
NTL EUROPE: Court Grants Discovery Sanctions in Securities Suit
NVIDIA CORP: Faces False Advertising Lawsuit Over Vista Drivers
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Still Faces Racial, Age Bias Litigation in Ark.
POSSIS MEDICAL: Dismissal Motion in Minn. Stock Suit Granted
POWER PONTIAC: Faces Ohio Suit Over Alleged Secret Price Hike
PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal Motion
STARTEK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Stock Suit in Colo.
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Feb. 14 Hearing in "Schwab" Suit Cancelled
TRAFIGURA: U.K. Court to Hear Ivory Coast Toxic Waste Litigation
U.S. FOODSERVICE: "Waterbury" Food Prices Lawsuit to Go Ahead
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit
VERISIGN INC: Settles Calif. Stock, Derivative Lawsuits for $80M
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
WALTER INDUSTRIES: Seeks to Dismiss Ala. Property Damage Suit
WMG ACQUISITION: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Digital Music Downloads
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz Nobel Files Calif. Stock Suit
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif.
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 15, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "Allen et al. v. Apple
Computer, Inc., Case No. BC 328000."
The settlement covers all U.S. customers who purchased one of
the company's 17-inch Studio Displays beginning May 2001, unless
they submitted a request for exclusion before a Jan. 19, 2007.
Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to
claimants who paid for a repair related to the inverter board.
The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who
performed the repair, how much the customer paid for the repair,
and how old the display was when the repair was performed.
In essence the settlement stipulates that:
-- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired
by the company during the second year of ownership will
be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their
unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and
-- customers who had repairs done by a party other than
the company will receive the actual amount they paid up
to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter.
Customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired on or
before Nov. 13, 2006 must mail a claim form postmarked on or
before Feb. 12, 2007 in order to receive the refund.
If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be
mailed and postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered
repair occurred or by Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier.
The purported nationwide class action, which was filed on Jan.
28, 2005, initially alleged that a defect in the company's 17"
Studio Display monitors results in dimming of half of the screen
and constant blinking of the power light.
An amended complaint in the case was filed on Oct. 24, 2005,
adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the alleged
class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display
and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display.
The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported
defect that causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that
the company misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or
concealed the purported defect.
Generally, the suit alleged that the inverter board of the
display, manufactured since May 2001, was faulty, causing
gradient dimming of the top or bottom half of the screen and a
power light to constantly blink on and off in a short-short-long
pattern.
Plaintiffs assert claims under:
-- California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
(unfair competition);
(false advertising); and
-- Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The amended complaint seeks remedies including damages and
equitable relief.
On Nov. 14, 2005, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint as to the allegations regarding the 17-inch display
and a demurrer/motion to strike as to the allegations regarding
the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the ground that plaintiffs
failed to allege that they purchased those displays. At a
status conference on Nov. 21, 2005, the court ordered plaintiffs
to amend their complaint. The company's demurrer is off
calendar pending this amendment.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 12, 2005, and the
company answered on Jan. 5, 2006 denying all allegations and
asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
(1) The Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-888-826-3082,
Web site: http://www.Apple17inchLCDdisplay.com;and
(2) Scott R. Shepherd of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLC, 35 E. State Street, Media, PA 19063-2917
Phone: (610) 891-9880 and (877) 891-9880, Fax: (610)
891-9883, E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com, Web
site: http://classactioncounsel.com/.
Ariba, Inc. is awaiting final approval of the proposed
settlement in the matter, "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," which names the company
as defendant.
In 2001, a number of purported shareholder class action
complaints related to Ariba's and FreeMarkets Inc.'s initial
public offerings were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and
FreeMarkets, and against certain of the two companies' former
officers and directors. These complaints were later
consolidated into single class action proceedings related to
each IPO.
In June 2003, a proposed settlement was reached between
plaintiffs and the company and FreeMarkets (the individual
defendants having been previously dismissed). As part of the
proposed settlement, the settling issuers were required to
assign to the plaintiffs certain claims they had against their
underwriters (Assigned Claims).
Pending the court's final approval of the settlement, the
Assigned Claims were conditionally assigned to a litigation
trustee, which filed lawsuits against the various issuers'
respective underwriters alleging the Assigned Claims.
On Feb. 24, 2006, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the
Assigned Claims brought by the litigation trustee against the
underwriters on statute of limitations grounds. The plaintiffs
have appealed the court's decision.
Because the Assigned Claims were part of the consideration
contemplated under the settlement, it is unclear how the court's
recent decision will impact the settlement and the court's final
approval of it, the company said.
On April 24, 2006, the court held a hearing in connection with a
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement. The court
did not rule on the fairness of the settlement at the hearing.
The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-K
fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira N. Scheindlin.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against
Backweb Technologies, Ltd.
On Nov. 13, 2001, BackWeb, six of its officers and directors,
and various underwriters for the company's initial public
offering were named as defendants in a consolidated action
captioned, "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10000," a
purported securities class action filed in the U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York.
Similar cases have been filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the initial public offerings of more than 300
other companies, and these cases have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."
A consolidated amended complaint filed in the case asserts that
the prospectus from BackWeb's June 8, 1999 initial public
offering failed to disclose certain alleged improper actions by
the underwriters for the offering, including the receipt of
excessive brokerage commissions and agreements with customers
regarding aftermarket purchases of shares of the company's
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On or about July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was
filed in the coordinated litigation on behalf of defendants,
including BackWeb, on common pleadings issues.
In October 2002, the court dismissed all six individual
defendants from the litigation without prejudice, pursuant to a
stipulation.
On Feb. 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to the claims against BackWeb. No trial date has yet
been set.
A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including BackWeb, which
has agreed to the proposal.
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.
In September 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to
the court for preliminary approval, according to the company's
Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30,
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, upheld a
decision by a jury in Cocke County to award $2 million in
damages to landowners along the Pigeon River who filed a
personal nuisance class action against Blue Ridge Paper
Products, Inc., a Lawyers and Settlements report said.
Under the verdict, the settlement will be split among the
approximately 300 landowners who joined the lawsuit.
The suit was filed in April 2003 on behalf of approximately 300
residents owning property adjoining the Pigeon River, Cocke
County, Tennessee, upon which Blue Ridge's paper mill in Canton,
North Carolina, is located, and into which the company has a
permit to discharge.
The plaintiffs were seeking damages for private nuisance in the
period commencing June 1, 1999, and thereafter until present.
The demand for damages totaled approximately $22,500 (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 19, 2006). The plaintiffs in this action
alleged that the discharge of (colored) water from the Canton
Mill resulted in diminution of property value, but it did not
raise health or safety concerns.
On Aug. 17, 2005, a jury in the Circuit Court of Cocke County,
Tennessee ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding $2,000 for
nuisance damages but no punitive damages. A liability of $2,000
was recorded in 2005.
The company appealed the decision to the Tennessee Court of
Appeals Eastern Section in Knoxville, Tennessee.
According to Gordon Ball, the landowners' attorney, the decision
of the appeals court supports the landowners' claim that the
Pigeon River remains an environmental hazard despite
improvements to its color and smell.
Mr. Ball said he plans to keep suing until the company quits
dumping discharges in the river.
Blue Ridge Paper on the Net: http://www.blueridgepaper.com.
The District Court for the city and county of Denver, Colorado
has yet to rule on an appeal against the $1 million damage award
granted to plaintiffs in a class action filed against Brown Shoe
Co., Inc., in relation to the operations of its Redfield,
Colorado site.
The suit was filed in March 2000 alleging claims for trespass,
nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents
contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas
adjacent to and near the site.
In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict
finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class
plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages.
The company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial
interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions
imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute
between the parties.
In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost
recovery suit against other responsible parties approved a
settlement agreement between the company, its co-defendant in
the class action, and an insurer, which resolved all remaining
sanctions issues related to the class action.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury
verdict.
The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q
quarter ended Oct. 28, 2006.
St. Louis, Missouri-based Brown Shoe Co., Inc. on the Net:
http://www.brownshoe.com/.
The Orange County Superior Court dismissed a purported sex and
age discrimination class action against The Los Angeles Angels
baseball team, and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., The Orange County
Register reports.
The suit claimed that thousands of men and juveniles were
unfairly treated when they were denied red nylon tote bags given
only to women 18 and older at a Mother's Day game in 2006.
Michael Cohn, a Los Angeles psychologist, filed the suit on May
4 in Orange County Superior Court, wherein he alleges that
thousands of males, and fans under age 18 were treated unequally
with women at the "Family Sunday" promotion (Class Action
Reporter, May 22, 2006).
The suit is seeking $4,000 in damages for each person whose
civil rights were allegedly violated by being denied the
The suit names as defendant the team and the Corinthian
Colleges. Corinthian oversees Bryman College, which has an
Anaheim campus and was the sponsor of the event.
In dismissing the suit, Judge Jonathan Cannon ruled that the
giving of tote bags exclusively to women was not biased against
men and that the "Family Sunday" event in 2005 was a way to
honor mothers.
"The method they used was reasonable under the circumstances,"
Judge Cannon told Alfred Rava, a San Diego attorney who filed
the suit on behalf of Mr. Cohn.
Mr. Rava still has the option to appeal the decision to an
appellate court.
For more details, contact Alfred G. Rava, 311 4th Ave., Apt.
312, San Diego, CA, Phone: (619) 238-1993.
Coyote Land Co. is a defendant in a purported class action filed
in Santa Rosa County Court for the alleged pollution of a
Florida landfill that the company owns, Carmen Paige of The
PensacolaNewsJournal.com reports.
Holley-Navarre residents living near the construction and
demolition debris disposal facility on Five Forks Road filed the
suit last summer. They are seeking legal relief and monetary
Residents claim that the 37-acre landfill, which began operating
in 2001, has caused pollution of off-site air, groundwater and
soil, as well as odors. They also claim that they are being
exposed to toxic and noxious odors.
No trial date has been set for the case, according to reports.
The law firm of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman &
Robbins LLP filed a new class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, against Dell Inc. on behalf
of two institutional investors, claiming the computer maker
inflated profits with secret payments of about $1 billion a year
from chip maker Intel Corp., reports say.
The lawsuit named as defendants:
-- Dell and 16 current and former officials;
-- Intel; and
-- Dell's accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status for investors who
bought Dell stock from February 2003 to September 2006, alleges
Dell's profits were inflated by hundreds of millions of dollars
through quarterly rebates from Intel that Dell did not properly
account for or disclose, court papers say.
The lawsuit charges that Dell got the Intel payments "for
shipping only Intel-based products and not doing business with
[Advanced Micro Devices Inc.]" Dell began using chips from
Intel's rival last year.
The lawsuit also claimed that Dell concealed problems in
accounting and product quality from shareholders while company
executives reaped $3.3 billion from selling their stock
It further claims that Dell withheld knowledge about such
problems as faulty laptop computer batteries that were later
recalled and a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation of Dell.
The suit is "Amalgamated Bank et al. v. Dell, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00077-LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Ramzi Abadou, Mary K. Blasy, Patrick J. Coughlin,
William S. Lerach all of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058, Fax:
(619) 231-7423 (fax), E-mail: ramzia@lerachlaw.com or
maryb@lerachlaw.com or e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com;
(2) Joe Kendall and Willie C. Briscoe both of Provost
Umphrey LLP, 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700, Dallas, TX
75204, Phone: (214) 744-3000, Fax: 214/744-3015, E-
mail: jkendall@provostumphrey.com or
wbriscoe@provostumphrey.com; and
(3) G. Paul Howes of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, 1111 Bagby, Suite 2100, Houston, TX 77002,
Phone: (713) 571-0911, Fax: (713) 571-0912.
has yet to grant final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Deltathree,
Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors.
Several suits were initially filed, arising out of its initial
public offering in November 1999. Various underwriters of the
IPO also are named as defendants in the actions.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly
solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
exchange for allocating to them shares of company stock in
connection with the IPO and entered into agreements with their
customers to allocate such stock to those customers in exchange
for the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at predetermined prices.
On Aug. 8, 2001, the court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be
transferred to Judge Shira Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial
In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on
common legal issues were filed on behalf of all issuers and
underwriters.
On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion granting in part
and denying in part those motions to dismiss. The complaint
against the company was not dismissed as a matter of law.
Final settlement documentation is in the process of being
approved. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement,
the company is not conceding any liability and it will not bear
any expenses associated with the settlement, other than legal
fees it may incur.
On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of an
omnibus settlement of the litigation. Final approval is
pending, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "In re Deltathree, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "In Re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;
Phone: 212.594.5300;
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com;
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com.
Entergy Corp. is seeking a discretionary review of the refusal
of a Court of Appeals to rehear a decision to remand the Texas
Power Price Lawsuit to the district court.
In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a
purported class apparently of the Texas retail customers of
Entergy Gulf States Inc. who were billed and paid for electric
power from Jan. 1, 1994 to the present.
The named defendants are:
* Entergy Corp.,
* Entergy Services,
* Entergy Power,
* Entergy Power Marketing Corp.,
* Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp., and
* Entergy Arkansas.
Entergy Gulf States is not a named defendant, but is alleged to
be a co-conspirator.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price
gouging accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly
situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the
defendants while rejecting and/or reselling to off-system
utilities, less expensive power offered and/or purchased from
off-system suppliers and/or generated by the Entergy system.
In particular, plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated
and continue to manipulate the dispatch of generation so that
power is purchased from affiliated expensive resources instead
of buying cheaper off-system power.
Plaintiffs estimate that customers in Texas were charged at
least $57 million above prevailing market prices for power.
Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary damages,
costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits. In
September 2003, the Entergy defendants removed the lawsuit to
the federal court in Galveston, and in October 2003, filed a
pleading seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.
In October 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.
In April 2006, the Court of Appeals denied a motion for
rehearing of the decision to remand the case to the district
court. In May 2006, Entergy filed a petition for discretionary
review with the Texas Supreme Court, which is still pending,
according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
The Texas Supreme Court requested full briefing from the parties
before consideration of whether to exercise its discretion to
grant review of this matter.
A federal court and a California state court have yet to rule on
an appeal against the settlement of a suit filed against The
Estee Lauder Companies Inc. and its subsidiaries over
allegations of conspiracy to fix and maintain retail prices of
cosmetics products.
On March 30, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California entered into a final judgment approving
the settlement agreement the company entered into in July 2003
* the Manufacturer Defendants, and
* the Department Store Defendants
in a consolidated class action that had been pending in the
Superior Court of the state of California in Marin County since
In the Federal action, the plaintiffs, purporting to represent a
class of all U.S. residents who purchased prestige cosmetics
products at retail for personal use from eight department stores
groups that sold such products in the U.S. (the Department Store
Defendants), alleged that the Department Store Defendants, the
company and eight other manufacturers of cosmetics (the
Manufacturer Defendants) conspired to fix and maintain retail
prices and to limit the supply of prestige cosmetics products
sold by the Department Store Defendants in violation of state
and federal laws.
The plaintiffs sought, among other things, treble damages,
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, interest and costs.
On April 29, 2005, notices of appeal were filed by
representatives of two members of the purported class of
consumers. One of those appeals has since been withdrawn. If
the appeal is resolved satisfactorily, the final judgment will
result in the plaintiffs' claims being dismissed, with
prejudice, in their entirety in both the federal and California
actions, according to the company's form 10-Q/A filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
There has been no finding or admission of any wrongdoing by the
company in this lawsuit. The company entered into the
settlement agreement solely to avoid protracted and costly
litigation. In connection with the settlement agreement, the
defendants, including the company, will provide consumers with
certain free products and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.
To meet its obligations under the settlement, the company took a
special pre-tax charge of $22.0 million, or $13.5 million after-
tax, equal to $.06 per diluted common share in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2003. At Sept. 30, 2006, the remaining
accrual balance was $16.3 million.
The suit is "Azizian et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.
et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong.
Representing the plaintiffs is Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111-5630,
guido@saveri.com.
Representing the company is Larry S. Gangnes, 1420 Fifth Avenue,
Ste. 4100, Seattle, WA 98101-2338, Phone: (206) 223-7036, E-
mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com.
Two Daytona Beach Community College students have filed a
lawsuit against Follett Corp., accusing the company of
overcharging for textbooks, BVU The Tack Online reports.
Follett, the company that contracts with Buena Vista
University's Lehnus Campus Bookstore, is being charged with
rounding book prices up to the nearest quarter.
company spokesperson Pam Goodman has gone on record saying that
the Daytona Beach Community College case is an isolated
incident. According to an Orlando Sentinel article, Goodman
says that the company uses "different pricing" approaches at
their stores.
A federal judge is still deciding whether the case against
Follett qualifies as a class action.
Follett Corp. -- http://www.follett.com-- operates U.S. college
bookstores with more than 700 campus bookstores in 48 states, as
well as Canada. The company's business groups, which reach
about 60 countries, also provide books and audiovisual materials
to grade school and public libraries, library automation and
management software, textbook reconditioning, and other
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
has yet to rule on a third Hurricane Katrina-related class
action filed against Gulf South Pipeline Co. L.P., a subsidiary
of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, L.P.
Gulf South, along with at least eight other interstate pipelines
and major natural gas producers, has been named in three
Hurricane Katrina-related class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The lawsuits allege that the dredging of canals caused damage to
the marshes and that undamaged marshes would have prevented all,
or almost all, of the loss of life and destruction of property
caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The District Court has dismissed the first two lawsuits for
failure to state a claim. The third case was filed after the
motions to dismiss were filed but prior to the District Court's
ruling. A motion to dismiss has been filed in this third case,
but has not been ruled upon, according to the company's form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
On Sept. 13, 2005 George Barasich, Benny J. Borden, Courtney
Foxworth, Darin Tircuit and Ralph H. Long, Jr., individually and
as representative of similarly situated persons filed a lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
against Gulf South, along with other interstate pipelines and
major natural gas producers.
The lawsuit alleges that the dredging of canals, including
pipeline canals for the purpose of installing natural gas
pipelines, throughout the marshes of Southeastern Louisiana, and
the failure to maintain such canals, caused damage to the
marshes and that the undamaged marshes would have prevented all,
The lawsuit also named as defendants:
-- Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.,
-- Koch Pipeline Co.,
-- L.P., Shell Pipeline Co., LP,
-- Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.,
-- Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp.,
-- Shell Oil, Co.,
-- ExxonMobil Corp.,
-- Exxon Mobil Corp.,
-- Chevron Corp., and
-- BP Corp. N.A., Inc.
The suit is "Barasich et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.
et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge
Sarah S. Vance with referral to Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III.
Web.com Inc., formerly Interland Inc., asked the Allegheny
County State Court in Pennsylvania to dismiss the claims in the
class action filed against it over allege violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
A competing web hosting company, PairNetworks, filed this case
in December 2001 as a putative class action, claiming that the
company's distribution of a facsimile on Nov. 15, 2001 to market
domain name registration services violated the TCPA.
Several years later, two additional plaintiffs joined in the
The plaintiffs have conceded that all of the putative class
members were customers of the company. Federal Communications
Commission regulations in effect at the time provided that the
distribution of facsimiles to persons with whom the sender had
an "established business relationship" did not amount to a
violation of the TCPA.
The company has asked the court to deny class certification and
a ruling on that motion is pending as well as a motion for
summary judgment on the named plaintiffs' claims. If the court
denies class certification, the company's damages, if it were
liable, cannot exceed $1,500 for each of the three named
plaintiffs. However, if the court grants class certification,
its size may exceed $50,000. The company also asked the court
for summary judgment and that motion has been briefed and argued
to the court. If granted, that motion would result in the
dismissal of all claims.
In addition, the company has filed a motion seeking to dismiss
all of the claims against it on the grounds that the facsimile
at issue did not violate the TCPA because it satisfied all of
the requirements of applicable Federal Communications Commission
regulations in effect at the time the fax was sent. Congress
has expressly extended those regulations through the Junk Fax
Act of 2005. The company' motion has been briefed and argued to
the court and the parties are awaiting a ruling.
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
McKesson Corp. remains a defendant in a purported civil class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court, District of
Massachusetts as "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et
al. v. First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corp."
The suit alleges that commencing in late 2001 and early 2002 and
continuing to the present day, the company and co-defendant
First DataBank have effectuated increases in the "Average
Wholesale Price" of certain branded drugs, which alleged conduct
resulted in higher drug reimbursement payments by plaintiffs and
others similarly situated.
The complaint purports to state claims based on the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violations
of the California Business and Professions Code and California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for negligent
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On Oct. 4, 2006, the New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund
plaintiffs and defendant First DataBank announced a proposed
settlement, as to the defendant First DataBank only.
The proposed settlement calls for downward adjustments to
certain First DataBank published AWPs, a prohibition against all
future changes to such AWPs and a prescribed timetable for the
cessation of all publication of AWPs by First DataBank.
On Nov. 22, 2006, the trial court granted plaintiffs leave to
amend their complaint to assert claims on behalf of a purported
class of consumers, in addition to the original class of third
party payors. It also granted preliminary approval of the First
DataBank settlement.
The court has not yet set any schedule for class notice, the
filling of objections to the settlement, or for a hearing on
final approval of the settlement.
On Dec. 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended motion seeking
class certification of classes for both third party payor and
consumer class members.
The company filed its opposition to that motion on Jan. 24,
2007. The hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is scheduled for April 12, 2007.
The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al.
v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.
(1) George E. Barrett of Barret Johnston & Parsley, 217
Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201-1601, Phone: 615-
244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com;
(2) Jennifer Fountain Connolly of The Wexler Firm, LLC,
2000 One LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-
346-2222, Fax: 312-346-0022, E-mail: jfc@wtwlaw.us;
(3) Barbara Mahoney of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP,
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, US,
barbaram@hbsslaw.com; and
(4) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., 1818 Market Street,
Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-496-
0300, Fax: 215-496-6611,
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com.
Israeli mobile communications operators are facing a ILS10.61
billion ($2.5 billion) suit seeking certification of a purported
class of customers allegedly harmed by the company's alleged
violation of the country's Communication Law.
The suit was filed by three plaintiffs in Jerusalem District
Court against:
-- Partner Communications Co. Ltd.,
-- Israel Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.,
-- Hot Cable Systems Media Ltd.,
-- Cellcom Israel Ltd., and
-- Pelephone Communications Ltd.
The defendants allegedly have not implemented number portability
and are in violation of the Communication Law, mandating the
implementation of telephone number portability starting Sept. 1,
2006. Defendants, thus, are allegedly harming the claimants and
consumers of telephone services in general.
The claimants are demanding about ILS1,000 ($235) for each
customer. The suit affects Partner Communications' 2,626,000
customers, according to the company.
Partner Communications is a subsidiary of Hutchison
Telecommunications. Partner Communications on the Net:
http://www.investors.partner.co.il.
Plaintiffs in a class action against The Mosaic Co. over the
release of phosphoric acid process water from the Riverview,
Florida phosphogypsum management system are appealing a court
ruling dismissing the case with prejudice.
In September 2004, prior to the completion of the combination of
IMC Global Inc. and the fertilizer businesses of Cargill, Inc.,
a class action complaint and demand for jury trial was filed
against Cargill, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.
The complaint, which arises out of the sudden release of
phosphoric acid process water from the company's Riverview
facility, contains four counts, including statutory strict
liability, common law strict liability, common law public
nuisance and negligence. The strict liability counts relate to
the discharge of pollutants or hazardous substances.
Plaintiffs seek class certification and an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a class of unknown size
comprising "all fishermen and those persons engaged in the
commercial catch and sale of fish, bait, and related products in
the Tampa Bay area who lost income and suffered damages because
of the pollution, contamination and discharge of hazardous
substances by the defendant."
The motion to dismiss the statutory strict liability counts was
granted in November 2005; the company's other motions to dismiss
the action were denied.
Plaintiffs have amended their complaint and the company has
filed an additional motion to dismiss which was heard by the
Circuit Court in August 2006.
The curt granted the company's second motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice on Jan. 9, 2007. Plaintiffs have recently
appealed the dismissal, according to the company's Jan. 30, 2007
Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006.
The Mosaic Co. on the Net: http://www.mosaicco.com/.
Net Perceptions, Inc.
On Nov. 2, 2001, Timothy J. Fox filed a purported class action
-- the company;
-- FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., the lead
underwriter of the company's April 1999 initial public
offering;
-- several other underwriters who participated in the
initial public offering;
-- Steven J. Snyder, the company's then president and chief
executive officer; and
-- Thomas M. Donnelly, the company's then chief financial
officer.
District of New York and was assigned to the pretrial
coordinating judge for substantially similar lawsuits involving
more than 300 other issuers.
An amended class action complaint, "In re Net Perceptions, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9675
(SAS)," was filed on April 22, 2002, expanding the basis for the
action to include allegations relating to the company's March
2000 follow-on public offering in addition to those relating to
its initial public offering.
The action against the company was thereafter coordinated with
the other substantially similar class actions as "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC (SAS)."
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by not disclosing certain
actions taken by the underwriter defendants in connection with
the company's initial public offering and follow-on public
The amended complaint alleges specifically that the underwriter
defendants, with the company's direct participation and
agreement and without disclosure thereof, conspired to and did
raise and increase their underwriters' compensation and the
market prices of the company's common stock following its
-- initial public offering, and
-- in its follow-on public offering by requiring their
customers, in exchange for receiving allocations of
shares of the company's common stock sold in its initial
* to pay excessive commissions on transactions in other
securities,
* to purchase additional shares of the company's common
stock in the initial public offering aftermarket at
pre-determined prices above the initial public
offering price, and
* to purchase shares of the company's common stock in
its follow-on public offering.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
acquired the company's common stock between April 22, 1999 and
Dec. 6, 2000.
Plaintiffs have since agreed to dismiss the claims against Mr.
Snyder and Mr. Donnelly without prejudice, in return for their
agreement to toll any statute of limitations applicable to those
claims; and those claims have been dismissed without prejudice.
On Aug. 31, 2005, the court gave preliminary approval to a
settlement reached by the plaintiffs and issuer defendants in
the coordinated class actions.
A fairness hearing took place on April 24, 2006, but the court
has not yet made a final determination whether to approve the
settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable, according to the
company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period quarterly
period Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "In re Net Perceptions, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9675 (SAS)," filed in relation to
"In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira N.
Scheindlin.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
Superior Court Judge Harold B. Wells III approved a settlement
between owners of six dams and 180 property owners who filed
damage suits after a "1,000-year" storm in Burlington County
resulted in numerous dam failures and widespread flooding, the
Burlington County Times reports.
In January, parties in the consolidated class action filed by
flood victims along Rancocas Creek reached a tentative
settlement for the case (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 18, 2007).
Defendants who have agreed to the settlement are:
-- the municipalities of Southampton, Medford and Medford
Lakes;
-- the Medford Board of Education;
-- the Rancocas Cranberry Co. in Southampton; and
-- the Union Mill Lake Colony Club in Medford.
Under the settlement, the dam owners and a contractor that
reconstructed one of the dams will pay the plaintiffs a total of
$285,000.
E. Sambol Corp. of Toms River, Ocean County, the principal
building contractor on the Vincentown Mill Dam, agreed to pay
Judge Wells noted that the six dams involved in the settlement
were either minor structures or were not major factors in the
"These dams had little play in the overall damage that resulted
to the members of the class," the judge said. "In the case of
these dams, it's not worth the expense, time and effort to
proceed against the owners."
The settlement does not involve numerous other dam owners named
in the class action or other dams owned by any of the parties in
the agreement.
According to Edward Petkevis, whose Florence law firm is one of
three representing property owners, Hinchman Dam was the only
one of the six dams that failed. The others overtopped, meaning
that water exceeded the height of the dam.
The defendants have agreed to pay amounts ranging from $20,000
to $80,000 each.
In 2004, Judge Wells consolidated three flood lawsuits into one
class action (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005), two of
which were filed on behalf of residents seeking compensation for
damages sustained during the floods in Burlington County.
A third "companion" lawsuit names utility companies as
defendants, including Public Service Electric & Gas, Verizon,
South Jersey Gas and Jersey Central Power and Light (Class
Action Reporter, July 31, 2006).
Plaintiffs allege dam failures or water spilling over dams
caused flood damage on July 12 to 13, 2004, when up to 13 inches
of rain fell in less than 24 hours. It accused defendants of
not properly maintaining the dams.
The judge ruled then that more property owners might file for
damages if they live in the Rancocas Creek watershed, including
the northern and two southern branches of the creek. Judge
Wells also appointed three plaintiff lawyers: Mr. Petkevis,
Carlo Scaramella and Ronald P. Heksch.
Mr. Petkevis said about 200 plaintiffs are included and the
overall class is estimated at as many as 800 property owners.
Plaintiffs are seeking recovery of funds that were paid out
under the National Flood Insurance program, according to Mr.
Petkevis. Total damages are estimated at between $10 million
and $250 million.
Previously, municipal government lawyers argued that not all
properties were affected by both rain and dam water.
Among the defendants are:
-- Medford,
-- Evesham and Medford Lakes,
-- Medford Lakes Colony Club,
-- YMCA Camp Ockanickon,
-- Girl Scouts of Camden County,
-- Evesham Municipal Utility Authority,
-- Medford Board of Education, and
-- several homeowners associations.
(1) Ronald P. Heksch of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, 125
Half Mile Road, P.O. Box 190, Middletown, New Jersey
07748 (Monmouth Co.), Phone: 732-741-3900, Fax: 732-
224-6599, Web Site: http://www.ghclaw.com;
(2) Edward R. Petkevis, 1380 Hornberger Ave., Roebling, New
Jersey 08554-1309, Phone: (609) 499-4300; and
(3) Carlo Scaramella of Cureton Caplan, P.C. by Mail: 950 B
Chester Avenue, Delran, New Jersey 08075 (Burlington
Co.), Phone: 856-824-1001, Fax: 856-824-1008.
Valencia County, New Mexico recently received notification from
two law firms that are planning to file a purported class action
on behalf of a client who claims he was unlawfully strip-
searched at the county jail, The Valencia County News-Bulletin
Back in December 2006, the law firms of Rothstein, Donatelli,
Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu in Santa Fe and Griego
Guggino & Associates in Los Lunas sent the county a tort claim
notice, requesting that it immediately cease its policy of
conducting strip searches of all incoming pre-trial detainees.
In that notice, attorneys informed the county that they intend
to file a class action on behalf of anyone who had been
subjected to a strip search.
The law firms contend that the strip searches were
unconstitutional and conducted on people booked into the jail on
minor charges or by mistake. The attorneys say that the number
of potential class members is believed to exceed 10,000.
In the letter to the county, the law firm revealed that they
represent a 48-year-old man, born and raised in Belen, who was
arrested in September 2006 for allegedly violating a restraining
According to them, when their client was taken to the county
jail in Los Lunas, he was taken into a laundry area and was told
to strip naked. That "categorical and indiscriminate practice,"
according to the law firm is in violation both the U.S. and the
New Mexico Constitutions.
The law firm added in letter, "We intend to seek compensation
for (our client) and others similarly situated for these
unlawful acts.
"Additionally, we wish to receive written assurance ... that the
Valencia County Adult Detention Facility will immediately cease
conducting strip searches of all incoming pre-trial detainees,"
the law firm said.
(1) Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg &
Bienvenu, LLP, 1215 Paseo De Peralta, P.O. Box 8180,
Santa Fe, NM 87504, Phone: (505) 988-8004, Web site:
http://www.rothsteinlaw.com/;and
(2) Griego Guggino & Assoc., P.O. Box 2233, 435 Luna St.,
SE Los Lunas, NM 87031-6865, Phone: (505) 865-5000,
Rev. Al Sharpton, a black civil rights leader, plans to file a
class action against the city of New York over a reported
fivefold increase of the number of people stopped and frisked by
the police, The Associated Press reports.
In a recent report, The New York Times revealed that the New
York Police Department stopped more than 500,000 people last
year, more than five times as many as they did just four years
The report also revealed that 55 percent of the people stopped
last year were black and more than 30 percent were Hispanic.
Rev. Sharpton is accusing police of engaging in racial profiling
and is thus calling for New Yorkers who believe that they were
victims of such acts to come forward and be part of the planned
He said that his civil rights organization, the National Action
Network, would begin collecting names of New Yorkers who believe
they have been victims of racial profiling.
The reverend was quoted as saying, "It is our intention ... to
file a class action to deal with the profiling of blacks in the
city of New York in the stop and frisk policy." He pointed out
that at the moment it remains to be seen whether the suit would
be filed in federal or state court.
New York police officials have denied that profiling is behind
street stops.
Civil Service Employees' Association, the union representing the
city of Syracuse's administrative workers, filed a class-action
complaint against the city on behalf of retirees, after the City
Common Council voted to increase healthcare contributions from
retirees.
It claims the Syracuse Common Council violated their union
contract with workers, when they voted to increase health
insurance contributions for retired city workers.
CSEA Political Action Coordinator Rick Noreault, attended a
recent Finance Committee meeting of the Syracuse Common Council,
where he notified Councilors that they would be violating past
union contracts if they went ahead and raised health insurance
contributions for CSEA City retirees. But the Council went
ahead despite the warning and voted unanimously to increase
retiree contributions.
The union says it is reserving its right to file further legal
action to stop any health insurance changes.
CSEA on the net: http://www.csealocal1000.org/
U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Peck granted the request for
discovery sanctions by Gordon Partners in the consolidated
securities class action filed against NTL Europe, Inc. (now PTV
Inc.) and some of its former officers, including Barclay Knapp,
the company's former president and chief executive officer, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The order stems from a 2002 securities lawsuit against "Old" NTL
Inc., which filed for bankruptcy and emerged as NTL Europe and
"new" NTL.
Several suits were initially filed, generally alleging that the
defendants failed to disclose NTL Europe's financial condition,
finances and future prospects accurately in press releases and
other communications with investors prior to filing its Chapter
11 case in federal court.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the actions and, on July
31, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint in
the individual action without prejudice to filing an amended
complaint and deferred its decision on the complaint in the
class actions. On Aug. 20, 2003, the plaintiff in the
individual action filed an amended complaint. The company then
asked the court to dismiss the suit.
On Dec. 7, 2004, the court denied in part and granted in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions. The court
denied the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on
factual allegations that NTL Europe failed to disclose material
difficulties it faced in integrating acquired companies, failed
to disclose material practices that inflated subscriber numbers
(with respect to some defendants), and failed to disclose the
cash flow status of its largest acquisition during the relevant
period (with respect to some defendants). The court found no
factual support for the plaintiffs' other allegations.
In 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part the company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against NTL Europe,
Inc. and some of its former officers (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 21, 2005).
While NTL Europe, Inc. has been released from monetary liability
(other than PTV's insurance coverage) in these actions as a
result of the completion of the company's Reorganization Plan,
the case remained pending against PTV and the individuals named
Plaintiffs then moved for discovery sanctions against NTL Europe
and "nominal non-party NTL Inc.," claiming they "hindered and
delayed document discovery and allowed numerous documents and
electronically stored information, including the emails of
approximately forty-four of NTL's 'key players,' to be
destroyed."
The Gordon plaintiffs requested that the court impose a range of
sanctions, including an adverse inference order for fact finding
purposes during summary judgment or trial, and payment of
attorneys' fees and costs relating to this motion and the
document discovery process.
On Jan. 29, the court heard oral arguments on the motion and
granted the motion in substantial part and awards an adverse
inference spoliation sanction, plus attorneys' fees in an amount
to be determined."
A copy of the judge's decision is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1968
The suit is "In Re: NTL, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:02-cv-03013-LAK-AJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Representing the company is Seth Marc Schwartz, Skaddden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (NYC), Four Times Square, New York, NY
10036, Phone: 212-735-3000, Fax: 917-777-2710, Email:
sschwart@skadden.com.
(1) Cary L. Talbot, Daniel Bernard Scotti, Steven G.
Schulman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC),
One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
(212) 594-5300, Fax: (212) 868-1229, Email:
dscotti@milberg.com and sschulman@milbergweiss.com
(2) David Arthur Scott, Michael A. Swick, Scott & Scott,
L.L.C., P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester,
CT 06415, Phone: (860) 537-5537
(3) Nadeem Faruqi, Farrell & Thurman, PC, P.O. Box 671,
Princeton, NJ 08542, Phone: (212)983-9330, Fax: (212)
983-9331, Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com;
(4) Samuel Howard Rudman, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406,
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
1173, Email: srudman@lerachlaw.com.
Nvidia Corp. is facing a class action for false advertising by
not providing stable working drivers for Microsoft Corp.'s
newest operating system, reports say.
Nvidia customers claim that the company lacks the ability to
produce drivers to run with Vista and feel that the company
isn't being truthful about being "Vista Ready".
Nvidia has also been accused of closing threads on Nvidia's
forum and banning users that:
-- request a response from Nvidia,
-- post that their Nvidia hardware does not work under
Vista,
-- post that Nvidia software does not work under Vista,
-- post that Nvidia is guilty of false advertising, or
-- threaten to sue Nvidia
Many of the complaints came from owners of Nvidia's 8800 series
of video cards and the customers feel misled about Vista and
DirectX10 compatibility.
Nvidia has been trying to make Vista compatible drivers and on
Jan. 31, 2007 released version 100.59 of its ForceWare graphics
drivers.
Nvidia Class Action on the net:
http://www.nvidiaclassaction.org/
Pilgrim's Pride Inc. continues to face a racial and age
discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, according to the company's
Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 30, 2006.
On Dec. 31, 2003, the company was served with a purported class
action complaint filed by Angela Goodwin, Gloria Willis, Johnny
Gill, Greg Hamilton, Nathan Robinson, Eddie Gusby, Pat Curry on
behalf of persons similarly situated against:
* ConAgra Poultry Co., and
* Pilgrim's Pride, Inc.
The suit alleges racial and age discrimination at one of the
facilities the company acquired from ConAgra. Two of the named
plaintiffs, Greg Hamilton and Gloria Willis, were voluntarily
dismissed from this action.
The suit is "Goodwin, et al. v. Conagra Poultry Co., et al.,
Case No. 1:03-cv-01187-HFB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas, under Judge Harry F.
Barnes.
(1) Carolyn B. Witherspoon, Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon &
Galchus, P.C., 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200,
Little Rock, AR 72201, Phone: (501) 371-9999, Fax:
(501) 371-0035, E-mail: cspoon@cgwg.com;
(2) Rickey H. Hicks, Hicks Law Firm, Attorney at Law
523 South Louisiana, Suite M100, Little Rock, AR 72201,
hickslawoffice@yahoo.com;
(3) Lloyd W. Kitchens, III, Morgan E. Welch, Welch and
Kitchens, LLC, One Riverfront Place, Suite 413, Little
Rock, AR 72901, Phone: (501) 978-3030, Fax: (501) 978-
3050, E-mail: tkitchens@welchandkitchens.com or
mwelch@welchandkitchens.com;
(4) Robert Pressman, 22 Locust Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421,
Phone: (781) 862-1955;
(5) Allen P. Roberts, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 280,
Camden, AR 71701, Phone: (870) 836-5310, Fax: (870)
836-9662, E-mail: allenroberts@cablelynx.com; and
(6) John W. Walker, John W. Walker, P.A., 1723 Broadway
Little Rock, AR 72206, Phone: 501-374-3758, Fax: 501-
374-4187, E-mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com.
Representing the company are Adam T. Dougherty, Kimberly F. Rich
and Mark D. Taylor, Baker & McKenzie 2001 Ross Avenue, 2300
Trammell Crow Center, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 978-3000,
Fax: (214) 978-3099, E-mail: adam.t.dougherty@bakernet.com,
kimberly.f.rich@bakernet.com and mark.d.taylor@bakernet.com.
The U.S. District Court for Minnesota has dismissed, with
prejudice, the consolidated amended complaint in a shareholder
class action filed against Possis Medical and two of its
executive officers.
The dismissed shareholder suit, filed in June 2005, arose from
allegations concerning public statements made prior to the
August 2004 public disclosure of Possis Medical's AiMI clinical
study results.
The case consolidated multiple purported class actions and,
although no class had yet been certified, the court appointed
lead plaintiffs in August 2005. Possis Medical filed its motion
to dismiss shortly thereafter and oral arguments were heard in
"We are very pleased that the trial court has granted our motion
to dismiss. Although we have always been firm in our conviction
that this suit was without merit, it confirms our confidence in
the judicial process to have the court take this action,"
commented Robert G. Dutcher, chairman, president and chief
executive officer of Possis Medical Inc.
The suit is "In re Possis Medical, Inc., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 0:05-cv-01084-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge James M.
Rosenbaum with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel.
(1) Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. of Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield, 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250, St Paul,
MN 55101, Phone: 651-287-2100, E-mail:
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com;
(2) Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, PC, 20 Church St.,
Ste. 1700, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-241-6116, E-
mail: nkulesa@snlaw.net; and
(3) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman,
LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY
10119-0165, Phone: 212-946-4474, E-mail:
arado@milbergweiss.com.
Representing the defendants are Michelle S. Grant, Bryan C.
Keane, James K. Langdon and Roger J. Magnuson of Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500, Minneapolis, MN 55402-
1498, Phone: 612-340-5671 and 612-340-2600, Fax: 612-340-2807
and 612-340-8800, E-mail: grant.michelle@dorsey.com,
keane.bryan@dorsey.com, langdon.jim@dorsey.com and
magnuson.roger@dorsey.com.
Power Pontiac GMC of Calcutta faces a lawsuit filed in
Columbiana County Common Pleas Court concerning motor vehicles
it sold last October and November, the Lisbon Morning Journal
The suit was filed on behalf of:
-- Lisa Reaggle, Shearwood Avenue, East Liverpool;
-- Robert and Susan Wagner, Miller Road, Leetonia; and
-- Harold D. Wilson Jr., Walnut Ridge, Salineville.
The lawsuit alleges the dealership engaged in unfair and
deceptive sales practices involving a theft protection plan
offered to customers, a violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales
Practice Act.
The lawsuit, which could turn into a class action if more
alleged victims are found, is seeking at least $25,000 in
Youngstown attorney David Betras, one of the attorneys
representing the plaintiffs, issued a news release in which he
said the questionable practices involved the sale of "etch"
anti-theft devices.
These devices would be offered at an additional cost to the
customer, who later learned the actual price was substantially
higher than what was originally stated.
Mr. Betras said a customer who was told the device would cost
$300 discovered the actual cost being charged in the loan was
$3,500.
David Betras is with Betras-Harshman LLC, Columbiana County,
15765 State Route 170, P.O. Box 129, Calcutta, Ohio 43920,
Phone: 330-385-0850, E-mail: info@bhlaws.com.
yet to rule on a dismissal motion filed in the consolidated
securities class action against Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
In December 2004 and January 2005, the company, its former
chairman and chief executive officer Malcolm Gefter; president
and former chief operating officer Kevin F. McLaughlin; chief
financial officer and treasurer Edward C. English; and former
president and chief operating officer William K. Heiden, were
named as defendants in three purported class action securities
lawsuits filed in the District of Massachusetts.
The purported class actions are:
(1) "Katz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm Gefter,
Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden,
Civil Action No. 04-12581-GAO (filed Dec. 9,
2004),"
(2) "Schwartz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm
Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K.
Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12704-REK (filed Dec.
27, 2004)," and
(3) "Bassin v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Malcolm L.
Gefter, Ph.D., Kevin F. McLaughlin, Edward C. English
and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 05-10134-GAO
(filed Jan. 21, 2005)."
On Feb. 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the Katz,
Schwartz and Bassin actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel.
On Feb. 18, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a brief response to that motion, reserving their rights to
challenge the adequacy and typicality, among other things, of
the proposed lead plaintiffs in connection with class
certification proceedings, if any.
On April 13, 2005, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the three actions -- as well
as each case that relates to the same subject matter that may be
subsequently filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts -- appoint lead plaintiffs and
approve such plaintiffs' selection of co-lead counsel.
The consolidated actions are now captioned, "in Re Praecis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
04-12581-GAO."
On Aug. 1, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. Lead plaintiffs generally allege securities fraud
during the period Nov. 25, 2003 to Dec. 6, 2004.
The consolidated amended complaint purports to assert claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It
alleges that the company and the individually named defendants
made materially false and misleading public statements
concerning the company's business and financial results,
particularly relating to statements regarding the
commercialization of Plenaxis(R), thereby allegedly causing
plaintiffs to purchase the company's securities at artificially
inflated prices.
Plaintiffs did not specify the amount of damages they are
seeking in the actions.
On Sept. 12, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety. On Oct. 24, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss and the defendants
filed a reply on Nov. 14, 2005.
On Jan. 17, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss and took the matter under advisement.
The suit is "In Re: Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-12581-GAO," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge
George A. O'Toole, Jr.
(1) Marc L. Godino of Glancy, Binkow & Goldbert, LLP, Suite
311, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: 310-201-9150;
(2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com; and
(3) Lawrence D. McCabe and Jacqueline Sailer of Murray,
Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
jsailer@murrayfrank.com.
Defendants in as consolidated securities class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against
StarTek, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors have moved to dismiss the case.
Initially, the company and others were named as defendants in
two purported class actions in the U.S. District Court, District
of Colorado. The suits are:
-- "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. StarTek,
Inc., et al.," filed on July 8, 2005; and
-- "John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al.," filed on July
The federal court later consolidated those actions. The
consolidated action is a purported class action brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of the company's
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between Feb.
26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and in press releases issued during the
class period, and that the market price of the company's common
stock was artificially inflated as a result.
It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of
the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of
On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the action in its entirety.
The suit is "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Startek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01265-PSF-OES," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under
Judge Phillip S. Figa.
Representing the plaintiffs is Matthew M. Wolf, Allen & Vellone,
P.C., 1600 Stout Street, #1100, Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A., Phone:
303-534-4499, E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com.
Representing the company are James E. Nesland and Matthew Voss
of Cooley Godward, LLP-Colorado, 380 Interlocken Crescent, #900
Broomfield, CO 80021-8023, U.S.A., Phone: 720-566-4000, Fax:
720-566-4099, E-mail: neslandje@cooley.com and mvoss@cooley.com.
Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York said the suit filed by Barbara
Schwab on behalf of 'light' cigarette smokers against tobacco
companies, won't go forward until the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of
Appeals rules on whether it may proceed as a class action,
Bloomberg reports.
According to court records, Judge Weinstein ruled that "no
matters related to the 'Schwab' case will go forward before the
appeal is decided."
The Schwab case, filed in 2004 by lead plaintiff Barbara Schwab,
alleged that cigarette manufacturers violated the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act by conspiring to mislead
smokers into the health effects of their product.
Defendants maintained that the "light" or "lights" descriptor
refer to taste, but plaintiffs argued they were fraudulently
intended to convey to the smoker that 'light' cigarettes were
not as harmful to health as 'regular' cigarettes.
The suit seeks economic damages, rather than compensation for
death or disease caused by smoking, of between $120 billion and
$200 billion.
Named defendants in the suit are:
-- Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA unit;
-- Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds tobacco Co.;
-- Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit;
-- Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; and
-- British American Tobacco Plc's British American Tobacco
(Investments) Ltd.
In September 2006, Judge Weinstein allowed the Schwab suit to
proceed as a class action, or group lawsuit.
But the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a stay in all
proceedings in the suit to review the September ruling by Judge
Weinstein certifying the suit as a class action (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006).
Judge Weinstein's decision, made public earlier, means it is
unlikely that he will be asked to block Altria's planned spinoff
of its Kraft Foods unit, which is scheduled for March 30.
Michael Hausfeld, who represents the nationwide class of light
cigarette smokers suing tobacco companies in the Brooklyn case,
said he's considering a legal move to block the Kraft deal, to
help ensure that Altria can pay if he wins the case.
Judge Weinstein's ruling came as he agreed with lawyers for both
sides that an appeals court order delaying proceedings in the
case required him to cancel a hearing he scheduled for Feb. 14.
The suit is "Schwab v. Philip Morris Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-
cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with
referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.
(1) Mark A. Belasic of Jones, Day, 901 Lakeside Avenue,
North Point, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: (216) 586-
3939, Fax: 216-579-0212, E-mail:
mabelasic@jonesday.com;
(2) Peter A. Bellacosa of Kirkland & Ellis, Citigroup
Center, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4675,
Phone: (212) 446-4800, Fax: (212) 446-4900, E-mail:
peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com; or David M. Bernick of
Kirkland & Ellis, 200 East Randolph Drive, Chicago, Il
60601, Phone: (312) 861-2148;
(3) Judith Bernstein-Gaeta of Arnold & Porter, 555 Twelfth
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, Phone: (202) 942-
5000, E-mail: judith_bernstein-gaeta@aporter.com; or
Anthony D. Boccanfuso of Arnold & Porter, 399 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 715-1000, Fax:
212-715-1399, E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com;
(4) Frances Bivens of Davis Polk & Wardwell, 450 Lexington
Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-450-4000.
Representing the plaintiffs are Benjamin D. Brown of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, 1100 New York Avenue N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005; and William P.
Butterfield of Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran, 1050 30th
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone: 202-337-8000, Fax: 202-
337-8090, E-mail: wpb@ftllaw.com.
A British court has agreed to hear a class action over the
alleged dumping of 400 tons of highly toxic waste in the Ivory
Coast from a cargo ship chartered by the London-based arm of the
shipping giant Trafigura, Reuters reports.
The case is considered to be one of the largest class actions
heard in the United Kingdom (Class Action Reporter, Jan 9,
According to Martin Day of London-based law firm Leigh Day &
Co., though the events took place thousands of miles away, it is
right that the British company is made accountable for its
actions by the U.K. courts.
Mr. Day told Reuters that the class action would enable the
complaints of an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 people to be dealt
with swiftly in one single case expected to begin in early 2008.
He and a team of lawyers from his firm would return to Abidjan,
Ivory Coast's economic capital, to continue meeting victims and
compiling evidence after a visit last month.
The company said in a prepared statement that it would contest
the claims that it shipped the waste to Ivory Coast to be
dumped, according to the report.
To be eligible to join the suit, victims must prove they were
injured by the waste and were living in or around Abidjan
between Aug. 19, 2006 when the waste was unloaded from the ship,
and Nov. 19, 2006 when most of it had been cleared up.
The Panamanian-registered Probo Koala, which was chartered by
Trafigura, initially tried unsuccessfully to unload the waste in
Amsterdam. But proceeded to Abidjan later where the waste was
reportedly dumped around the city.
Allegations that the waste had high levels of caustic soda, as
well as a sulphur compound and hydrogen sulphide, have been
strongly denied by Trafigura.
At least 10 people died and more than 40,000 sought medical
advice after suffering from sickness and nausea, diarrhoea,
vomiting, breathlessness, headaches, skin damage, and swollen
stomachs, after noxious fumes drifted over the city.
For more details, contact Leigh Day & Co., Priory House, 25 St.
John's Lane, London, EC1M 4LB, Phone: (020) 7650 1200, Fax:
(020) 7253 4433, DX 53326 Clerkenwell, E-mail:
postbox@leighday.co.uk.
Judge Thomas Smith of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut has denied an appeal by Royal Ahold N.V. to
suspend a class action filed against U.S. Foodservice, its
distribution business, the Financial Times reports.
The Waterbury Hospital filed the suit on Oct. 19, 2006 accusing
the company of an illegal kickback scheme that inflated the
prices that the hospital and other clients pay for food (Class
The suit claims that the scheme accounted for 16 to 20 percent
of the company's total sales between 2000 and 2003.
According to the suit, the Maryland-based company, which is
owned by Dutch corporation Royal Ahold, instructed suppliers to
artificially increase their prices and then passed along those
inflated prices to customers. The suit stated that the company
demanded kickbacks from companies from which it purchased the
food at inflated prices.
In recent developments, the judge, citing the seriousness of the
allegations and the substantial damages alleged, ruled that U.S.
Foodservice had "failed to establish good cause" to delay the
case. He noted that a postponement at a time when Ahold was
selling the unit "would increase the risk that relevant
documents would be lost or destroyed".
The decision came a day before lawyers acting for U.S.
Foodservice filed a court motion to dismiss the class action,
alleging the claim was "patently incorrect", according to
documents seen by the Financial Times.
U.S. Foodservice lawyers accused class-action plaintiffs of
employing a "mischaracterization of fictitious agreements" to
support allegations of breach of contract and racketeering.
However, in his ruling before that motion was submitted, Judge
Smith refused to accept assertions by U.S. Foodservice lawyers
that the "motion to dismiss will likely resolve some or all of
the claims".
In addition to Waterbury Hospital, the suit also lists Cason
Inc., an Illinois-based company that runs an Italian restaurant
and Erick M. Sandler as plaintiff. It accuses U.S. Foodservice
of breach of contract and racketeering, but it does not seek a
specific amount of damages.
In December, plaintiffs filed an amended class action detailing
a scheme in which the distributor is alleged to have marked up
the price of goods through the use of "value-added service
providers (VASPs)," (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006).
According to a testimony, the VASPs simply served to mark up the
cost of goods upon which U.S. Foodservice based its pricing to
its customers.
According to Ahold's defense document, U.S. Foodservice was
never required to charge customers on the basis of "actual
costs", as the plaintiffs suggested, and that Ahold had made
public in official filings "the existence and pricing mechanisms
used with respect to the VASPS."
It said there were no contracts between the plaintiffs and U.S.
Foodservice in the manner suggested by the class action, and the
claimants had failed to produce evidence of contracts, records,
invoices or conversations to support claims of fraud or
racketeering.
The suit is "Waterbury Hospital et al. v. U.S. Food Svc Inc.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-01657-CFD," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F.
Droney.
Representing the plaintiffs is James E. Hartley, Jr. of Drubner,
Hartley & O'Connor, L.L.C., 500 Chase Pkwy, Waterbury, CT 06708,
diane@dholaw.com.
Representing the defendants is Michael P. Shea of Day, Berry &
Howard-Htfd-CT, Cityplace I, 185 Asylum St., Hartford, CT 06103-
3499, Phone: 860-275-0146, Fax: 860-275-0343, E-mail:
mpshea@dbh.com.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of all claims in the consolidated securities class
action against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly ICN
Pharmaceuticals.
Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions were filed against
the company and some of its current and former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for Central District of
The suits alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
financial results to the market during different class periods
ranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the company's stock.
Lawsuits generally claim that the company issued false and
misleading statements regarding its earnings prospects and sales
figures (based upon "channel stuffing" allegations), its
operations in Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the earnings
and sales of the company's Photonics division.
Plaintiffs generally seek to recover compensatory damages,
including interest.
All actions were later consolidated to the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California. On June 24, 2004, the court
dismissed the second amended complaint as to the "channel
stuffing" claim.
The plaintiffs then stipulated to a dismissal of all the claims
against the company and filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
On June 16, 2006, the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissals of the
claims, according to the company's Jan. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q/A
period ended June 30, 2006.
The suit is "In Re: ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-00701," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge David
O. Carter
(1) Abraham & Associates of One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New
York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.714.244, Fax: 212.279365,
E-mail: Larryl@abrahamlaw.com; and
(2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com.
Representing the defendants are, Carl Alan Roth, Eric S. Waxman
and Peder Kristian Batalden of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom, 300 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144,
Phone: 213-687-5000, E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com.
VeriSign, Inc. settled a consolidated securities class action
that was filed against the company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors in 2002.
The settlement also resolved a related shareholder derivative
suit filed against certain current and former officers and
directors in which the company was a nominal defendant. Under
the terms of the settlement, liability insurers for VeriSign
paid $80 million to settle the lawsuits.
Beginning May of 2002, several class actions were filed against
the company. The actions were later consolidated as, "In re
VeriSign, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-02-2270 JW
(HRL)," on July 26, 2002.
The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased company stock from
Jan. 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002. An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on Nov. 8, 2002.
On April 14, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated
On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that
was substantially identical to the amended consolidated
complaint except that it purported to add a claim under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a subclass
of persons who acquired shares of VeriSign pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus filed Oct. 10, 2001 and
amended Oct. 26, 2001 for the acquisition of Illuminet Holdings,
Inc. by VeriSign.
The company said it settled the shareholder suit in January
The suit is "In re: Verisign Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:02-cv-02270-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge James Ware.
(1) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com;
(2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com;
(3) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F.,
CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534;
(4) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
support@milberg.com; and
(5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com.
Representing the defendants is O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San
Francisco, CA 94111-3344, Phone: 415-984-8900, Fax: 415-984-
VICORP Restaurants, Inc. remains a defendant in two labor-
related class actions filed in California courts, according to
the company's Jan. 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Nov. 2, 2006.
The first class action was brought in March 2006 by two former
managers and alleges that the company violated California law
with regard to unpaid overtime, compensation for missed meals
and rest periods, civil penalties for failure to provide
itemized wage statements, failure to provide notice on paychecks
where paychecks may be cashed without any fees, and unfair
business practices.
The classes and subclasses alleged in the action have not been
certified by the court at the current stage of the litigation
but generally are claimed to be:
-- persons who have been employed since Feb. 1, 2005, in
the position of restaurant managers, persons who have
been employed in California since March 15, 2002, in
any capacity who received a payroll check in
California; and
-- all restaurant managers who have ended their employment
with VICORP prior to the effective date of any
settlement, judgment, or other resolution of the action.
The second class action was brought in April 2006 by a former
employee and alleges that VICORP violated California laws with
regard to failure to pay vested vacation pay and unfair business
The class alleged is any person who has been employed by the
company in California at any time from four years prior to the
filing of the class action to date of trial.
No dollar amount in damages is requested in both complaints,
which seek statutory damages, and attorneys' fees in an
VICORP Restaurants, Inc. on the Net: http://www.vicorpinc.com/.
Walter Industries, Inc. is seeking to dismiss itself from a suit
filed against the company and its subsidiary, U.S. Pipe, by
Isaiah Evans in 2005 in the Circuit Court of Calhoun County,
Alabama.
The case is a purported civil class action filed against 18
foundries in the Anniston, Alabama area, alleging state law tort
claims in the creation and disposal of foundry sand alleged to
contain lead and polychlorinated biphenyls.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for personal injury and
property damage. The class action is still in the early stages
of litigation and no substantial discovery has yet taken place,
The case is presently in federal court. A motion to dismiss
Walter Industries in the case has been filed but not ruled on.
The suit is "Isaiah Evans et al. v. Walter Industries, Inc.,
United States Pipe and Foundry Co., Inc., et al, Case No. CV:05-
258."
WMG Acquisition Corp. is facing a consolidated lawsuit pending
in the Southern District of New York in relation to the pricing
of its digital music downloads.
On Aug. 15, 2006, the judicial panel on Multidistrict Ligitation
consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the
Southern District of New York. The lawsuits are all based on
the same general subject matter as the request by the Attorney
General of the state of New York for information alleging
conspiracy among record companies to fix prices for downloads
and, according to some of the complaints, protect allegedly
inflated prices for compact discs.
On Dec. 20, 2005 and Feb. 3, 2006, the Attorney General served
the company with requests for information in the form of a
subpoena duces tecum and subpoena ad testificandum in connection
with an industry-wide investigation as to whether the practices
of industry participants concerning the pricing of digital music
downloads violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, New York State
General Business Law section 340 et seq., New York Executive Law
Section 63(12), and related statutes.
On Feb. 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served the company with a request for information in
the form of a Civil Investigative Demand as to whether its
activities relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The company has provided
documents in response to these requests and intends to continue
to fully cooperate with the Attorney General's and Department of
Justice's industry-wide inquiries.
Subsequent to the announcements of the above governmental
investigations, a total of 30 putative class actions concerning
the pricing of digital music downloads have been filed.
The complaints seek unspecified compensatory, statutory and
treble damages.
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. commenced a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Powerwave
Technologies, Inc between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006,
inclusive. Also included are those who received Powerwave stock
in return for the acquisitions of various assets.
The complaint alleges that Powerwave and certain of its officers
and directors violated Federal Securities laws. Specifically,
Powerwave materially misrepresented and failed to disclose
numerous conditions that adversely affected the company,
permitting defendants to:
-- deceive shareholders concerning the business, operations
and management;
-- artificially inflate the price of the company's shares;
-- register for sale with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission millions of shares of stock that were sold to
the public or used to acquire assets of other unwitting
companies; and
-- allow company insiders to sell millions of dollars of
their privately held shares while in possession of
material adverse non-public information.
On Oct. 9, 2006, investors learned that Powerwave's 2006 third
quarter results would be only $155 million, significantly lower
than the $230-$250 million previously forecast.
On this news, and in the face of repeated company reports of
"record" setting growth and profitability, the price of
Powerwave stock declined almost 20%.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 2,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A.
Kulesa both of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499,
E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Website: http://www.snlaw.net
The Brualdi Law Firm lodged a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division
on behalf of purchasers of Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
securities during the period between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9,
Powerwave and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under.
The complaint alleges that Powerwave materially misrepresented
and failed to disclose numerous conditions that adversely
affected the company, permitting defendants to:
(1) deceive shareholders concerning the business,
operations, management and the intrinsic value of
Powerwave common stock;
(2) artificially inflate the price of the company's shares,
ultimately purchased by misled shareholders;
(3) register for sale with the SEC millions of shares of
stock that were sold to the public or used to acquire
assets of other unwitting companies;
(4) make it possible for company insiders to sell millions
of dollars of their privately held shares while in
possession of material adverse non-public information.
This sudden and shocking disclosure, in the face of repeated
company reports of "record" setting growth and profitability,
had an immediate impact on the price of Powerwave stock, which
declined almost 20% in the single trading day -- marking a
decline of almost $10 per share from the Class Period high
reached only several months earlier.
Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
Feb. 1, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Tali Leger, Director of
Shareholder Relations of The Brualdi Law Firm, Phone: (877) 495-
1877 or (212) 952-0602, E-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.com.
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, Janice Mendoza,
and Guada Fe Fernandez, Editors.