LawCash Links

Recommended

Several class actions have been filed against deep discount store operator 99 Cents Only Stores (NYSE:NDN) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 11, 2004, and June 10, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities.

A class action has been filed against membership shopping warehouse operator PriceSmart, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSMT) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between December 20, 2001, and November 7, 2003. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities.

On November 17, 2004, the Court approved the proposed settlement in a class action that had been filed against the San Diego Association of Realtors, the North San Diego Association of Realtors, the Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors, Incorporated, the East San Diego County Association of Realtors, Incorporated, the Coronado Association of Realtors and Sandicor, Incorporated for charging smaller realtors higher fees to a multiple listing service (MLS) than larger firms from 1990 to the present.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably ... a duck. A class action has been filed against Internet site EZ Expo.com, Inc. on behalf of California consumers who allege that the site makes a $150 offer for a 42-inch plasma television that is nothing more than bait in a lottery that is illegal under California law.

A statewide class action has been filed in New York against Integretel, Inc., Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc. and Neal Saferstein, owner of these companies. The action is brought on behalf of all New York residents who, since 1997, never agreed to pay for an Internet service, or any other service, from Mercury Marketing of Delaware, Inc., or its subsidiaries, but who have been billed by Mercury on their phone bills anyway. The consumers allege that, in agreement with local phone services providers such as Verizon Wireless, Mercury and its subsidiaries illegally piggyback fees for services that are never provided onto consumers' telephone bills. Consumers allege that Mercury and its subsidiaries have a long history of this illegal conduct and have engaged in fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, tortious conversion and deceptive trade practices as a result of this conduct. Additionally, the consumers allege that Mercury's subsidiary, Integretel, Inc., has violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by attempting to and actually collecting from consumers for these nonexistent services. The consumers are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, treble damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

The parties have reached a settlement apparently valued at $222,000 in a class action filed against Big Y Foods, Inc., on behalf of as many as 160,000 persons who alleged that the grocery chain wrongfully collected Connecticut state sales tax on prepared foods from them, in violation of Connecticut consumer protection laws. The persons eligible to take part in the settlement may contact the attorneys for the class or more information.

IT'S FREE