/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000303.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 3, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 44 Headlines AETNA INC: CNN Coverage on Wellpoint Takeover Offer of Troubled HMO AETNA INC: WellPoint's $10 Bil Bid May Jeopardize Blue Cross Purchase AURORA FOODS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Complaint AURORA FOODS: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit in CA B.C. GOVT: Canadian Ct of Ap Quashes Action over Eron Mortgage Collapse COCA-COLA: Black Employees Appeal against Ruling on Waiver by Laid-offs CYBERSHIP.COM INC: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in New Jersey CYBERSHOP.COM INC: James V. Bashian Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ FAMILY GOLF: Dennis J. Johnson Announces Securities Complaint in NY GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Patients File Competing Suits in Painkiller Case HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Talks about Distribution of Fund Go on HOST MARRIOTT: Special Litigation Committee Asks for 6 Months HOST MARRIOTT: Texas Multi-Partnership Suits on Hold INMATES LITIGATION: Hillsborough Inmates Allege Denials of Medical Care LANGENBERG HAT: Former Employees Sue Shut Down Maker over Sale Deal MICROSOFT CORP: May Seek Reopening of Workers' Permatemps Case over Pay OAK TECHNOLOGY: Preparing for Trial on July 5, 2000 PERITUS SOFTWARE: MA Ct OKs Settlement of Securites Suit PHILJAS: Japanese Executives Indicted for Hillside Collapse Near Manila PPG INDUSTRIES: Glass Products Price Fixing Settlement Pending RAINFOREST CAFE: Receives Amended Complaint Re Consideration of Merger RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in PA SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Investors' Suit in NY TD WATERHOUSE: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Suit in New York TENAFLY BOARD: Residents Sue over School Bond Referendum on Snowy Day TWA: Workers Say Funds Not Transferred in Timely Manner; Ct OKs Class VESTRON: $2.8 Mil Settlement Ends Suit over Film Revenue Distribution VISX, INC: Steven E. Cauley Files Securities Suit in California VISX, INC.: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit VISX, INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in California ********* AETNA INC: CNN Coverage on Wellpoint Takeover Offer of Troubled HMO ------------------------------------------------------------------- Broadcast on the Cable News Network on March 2, 2000 ALLAN DODDS FRANK, CNNfn CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Aetna, the insurer that built the nation's largest managed health care business through acquisitions, is now the hunted, not the hunter. The Hartford, Connecticut based company is considering a ten billion dollar takeover offer from WellPoint Health Networks and ING America Insurance Holdings. The takeover offer preceded by one day the resignation of Aetna's hard-driving chairman Richard Huber. That left the deal on the table for Huber's replacement, William Donaldson, a long- time Aetna board member, who co-founded the Wall Street firm Donaldson Lufkin Jenrette. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Aetna was just ripe, and there had been so many discussions about this type of thing. Mr. Donaldson is clearly shareholder focused and it doesn't surprise me that somebody decided to step in and at least take a whack at it. DODDS FRANK: For Aetna shareholders, the $70 a share offer would bring the company's stock valuation back in line with those of its competitors such as Cigna . Beleaguered by class-action lawsuits and concerns the company is having trouble integrating acquisitions, such as Prudential's health care unit, Aetna's stock has dropped from nearly $100 to about $40 a share in the last year. Aetna currently has 21 million health care customers and a total customer base of 47 million people. WellPoint has more than seven million medical customers and a total of nearly 30 million people receiving some specialty medical care through Blue Cross of California and other associates. (on camera): When he took over as Aetna's chairman, veteran dealmaker William Donaldson said he was reviewing all the company's option. Aside from accepting this offer, that could include restructuring, looking for another buyer or selling off the company's three main lines of businesses separately to the highest bidders. Allan Dodds Frank, CNN Financial News, New York. AETNA INC: WellPoint's $10 Bil Bid May Jeopardize Blue Cross Purchase --------------------------------------------------------------------- A $ 10 billion bid by WellPoint Health Networks and another company to acquire Aetna Inc. may jeopardize WellPoint's long-delayed purchase of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia. Aetna confirmed on March that it received the takeover offer from California-based WellPoint and an insurance unit of ING Group. Aetna said it will review the bid. WellPoint, though, currently has a $ 500 million deal pending to acquire Cerulean, the parent of Blue Cross of Georgia, the state's largest health insurer. Aetna is No. 2 in Georgia in terms of membership but is the top health insurer nationally. Responding to the news of the Aetna proposal, Charlie Harman, a Blue Cross vice president, said, "WellPoint and Cerulean remain committed to closing our merger transaction as soon as possible." If Aetna accepts the WellPoint-ING acquisition offer --- and it receives shareholder and regulatory approval --- it could derail the Blue Cross purchase. Federal or state regulators may decide not to allow WellPoint to take over both Blue Cross of Georgia and Aetna's operations in the state. "Obviously, the offer by WellPoint isn't totally unexpected, due to Aetna's depressed stock price," said Brent Layton of Atlanta-based consulting firm Layton & Associates. "The big question is, will WellPoint go forward with the purchase of Blue Cross? Or does the size of Aetna locally and nationally satisfy WellPoint's needs?" If the Blue Cross deal is shelved, it would also end an expected payout to thousands of shareholders of Cerulean. Those shares would achieve value only if Blue Cross were acquired. Currently, a battle over who should receive shares in Cerulean is being fought in Georgia courtrooms, and the battle has delayed the WellPoint purchase of Blue Cross. That deal also requires approval from state Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine. A collapse of the WellPoint-Blue Cross deal would also mean that private investors in nonprofit Blue Cross' conversion to a for-profit company would not receive the expected net profit of about $ 60 million on their original investment. It would also jeopardize a payment of about $ 80 million in WellPoint stock to a new nonprofit health care foundation in Georgia. An acquisition of Aetna would continue the consolidation rampant in the health insurance industry. Aetna, in fact, recently bought the health care operations of Prudential, though regulators forced it to sell some of its operations in Texas. Aetna's board has not yet responded to the cash-and-stock offer, received Feb. 24, the day before Aetna suddenly ousted Chief Executive Officer Richard Huber. He was replaced by board member William Donaldson. WellPoint and ING America Insurance Holding offered $ 44 in cash and $ 26 in WellPoint common stock for each share of Aetna. Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna said it will review the offer "in due course." ING Group, a financial services company, owns Life of Georgia, an Atlanta- based life insurance company. Aetna's shares soared after a report of the offer aired on CNBC. The company's stock has been battered in recent months on concerns about costs and industrywide class-action litigation, among other issues. ''This is certainly the best news we've had in a long, long time,'' Joseph France, an analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston, told The Associated Press. CNBC said Aetna's health insurance business would go to WellPoint, and that its financial services unit would go to Amsterdam, Netherlands-based ING. WellPoint is known as an aggressive managed care company. It's also smaller than Aetna. WellPoint reported revenue of $ 7.5 billion in 1999. "On paper, it would seem like a tuna swallowing a whale," said analyst Edmund Kroll of SG Cowen Securities. "If anyone could pull it off, it's WellPoint." Kroll said WellPoint is one of the best operators among health insurers. " From the acquisitions they have done, they have a very good track record." Its chief executive, Leonard Schaeffer, is "a very skillful manager, a good leader," Kroll said. "Aetna is much bigger than WellPoint, but a lot of WellPoint's skills are exportable." Aetna, though, has generated turmoil from long-standing disputes with physicians, notably in Georgia. Last month, three local doctors, the Medical Association of Georgia and the American Medical Association filed a lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court against Aetna U.S. Healthcare, accusing the insurer of routinely delaying payments of medical claims. Aetna also has the highest rate of consumer complaints among Georgia HMOs, according to a report released recently by the state Insurance Department. The company said the complaint rate was far higher than the state agency discussed with the company before the report was released. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 2, 2000) AURORA FOODS: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Spector, Roseman & Kodroff filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Aurora Foods, Inc. common stock between April 28, 1999, and February 18, 2000, inclusive. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued to the investing public financial statements and press releases concerning Aurora's financial condition and performance which were false, misleading, deceptive and failed to conform with both mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission guidelines and Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures. As a result of these false and misleading statements, the market price of the Company's securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period. For more details on this matter, you may contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman toll-free at 1-888-844-5862 or via e-mail at classaction@spectorandroseman.com or visit the firm's website at http://www.spectorandroseman.com AURORA FOODS: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Lawsuit in CA ------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit in the in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Aurora Foods, Inc. common stock between April 28, 1999, and February 18, 2000, inclusive. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued to the investing public financial statements and press releases concerning Aurora's financial condition and performance which were false, misleading, deceptive and failed to conform with both mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission guidelines and Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures. As a result of these false and misleading statements, the market price of the Company's securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period. For additional information on the above-mentioned lawsuit, please contact Marc L. Godino, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody by telephone at 888-388-4605 or at info@secfraud.com via e-mail. B.C. GOVT: Canadian Ct of Ap Quashes Action over Eron Mortgage Collapse ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The B.C. Court of Appeal on February 29 threw out a bid to sue the B.C. government for negligence over the massive collapse of Eron Mortgage Corp. But the province's highest court hinted that the Supreme Court of Canada might want to use the case to spell out more clearly the duty regulators have to individual investors. In a 70-page ruling, the three-member appeal court panel quashed a B.C. Supreme Court decision to certify a class-action lawsuit by Eron investors against the B.C. registrar of mortgage brokers and the B.C. government. (National Post (formerly The Financial Post), March 01, 2000) COCA-COLA: Black Employees Appeal against Ruling on Waiver by Laid-offs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a racial discrimination lawsuit against Coca-Cola appealed on March 1 a court decision affecting severance benefits for laid-off employees. Plaintiffs' attorneys are contesting a ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Story that allowed Coca-Cola to require laid-off employees to give up their right to sue the company if they want to receive enhanced severance benefits. As a result, black employees who want more lucrative benefits must sign a release form waiving their rights to participate as a plaintiff in the discrimination suit, or as a member of a class, if the judge certifies the case as a class action down the road. Current and former African-American employees are scheduled to meet on Saturday March 4 at St. Philip A.M.E. Church in Decatur to discuss this issue with plaintiffs' attorneys. Some employees believe it is unfair for the company to include this case in the release form. Instead, they believe it should be specifically excluded. But Coca-Cola said it is merely following standard operating procedure of giving increased severance benefits to limit its future exposure in litigation. Laid-off employees would still be entitled to regular severance benefits if they don't sign the release form. Plaintiffs' attorneys said they will file before May 30 their legal brief to represent about 2,000 black salaried employees in the United States. Eight current and former employees filed the suit, alleging that Coke has discriminated against African-Americans in pay, promotions and performance evaluations. The firm has denied the allegations. After plaintiffs' attorneys file their brief, the company has up to 75 days to file its response. Then the plaintiffs have up to another 75 days to file a reply to the company's brief. At a minimum, if both sides use all of their allotted time, it would take eight months of legal briefs before a hearing could be held on the issue. The judge, however, has ordered both sides to try to resolve the suit in settlement talks. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 2, 2000) CYBERSHIP.COM INC: Abbey, Gardy Files Securities Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Abbey, Gardy & Squitieri, LLP announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of CyberShop.com Inc. (Nasdaq: CYSP) common stock between October 26, 1999 and February 24, 2000 (the "Class Period"). In brief, the Complaint charges that CyberShop and its top executive officers violated the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that defendants caused CyberShop to falsely portray its financial condition to allow its founder to sell a substantial amount of his personal CyberShop holdings at artificially inflated prices. In February 2000, defendants belatedly disclosed, among other things, that it would be abandoning its electronic retailing business and that revenues from its core operations had actually declined in the third quarter of 1999. As a result, CyberShop's common stock now trades at less than $4.00 per share, significantly less than the inflated prices at which insiders sold a portion of their holdings just three months ago. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Mark C. Gardy, Esq., Nicholas H. Gilbo, Esq. by e-mail at ngilbo@a-g-s.com or Patricia Toher at ptoher@a-g-s.com ABBEY, GARDY & SQUITIERI, LLP, 800-889-3701 (toll free) or 212-889-3700 CYBERSHOP.COM INC: James V. Bashian Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of James V. Bashian filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of those persons and entities who purchased the common stock of CyberShop.com. Inc. between October 26, 1999 and February 24, 2000, inclusive The complaint charges CyberShop and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For inquiries concerning this matter, please get in touch with James V. Bashian, Esq. of LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN at 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700 New York, New York 10110 by telephone at 212/921- 4110 or 800/556-8856 or via e-mail at lojvb@worldnet.att.net FAMILY GOLF: Dennis J. Johnson Announces Securities Complaint in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Dennis J. Johnson gives notice that a class action complaint was filed on February 24, 2000 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Family Golf Centers, Incorporated (Nasdaq:FGCI) common stock during the period May 12, 1998 through August 12, 1999 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that FGCI and certain of its top officers and directors violated certain of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period, FGCI misled investors by misrepresenting the Company's growth and future profitability by failing to reveal problems associated with its acquisitions. Contact: The Law Offices of Dennis J. Johnson Dennis J. Johnson, Esquire or Jacob B. Perkinson, Esquire 1-888-459-7855 LODJJ@aol.com GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Patients File Competing Suits in Painkiller Case ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers representing Georgetown University Medical Center patients who may have been exposed to infections by a drug-abusing hospital worker filed dueling lawsuits, each seeking to represent the estimated 600 patients who will be tested for HIV, hepatitis and other viruses. The outbreak of legal activity moves the episode from Georgetown's busy laboratory waiting rooms, where 142 patients have gone so far for free screenings, to the dockets of D.C. Superior Court. Even if it is later shown that no patient contracted a life-threatening virus from the activities of X-ray technician Jeffrey L. Royal, the affected patients were seriously damaged, the lawyers said. "If someone told me that I may have HIV or hepatitis, and I had to wait for a blood test to come back, you could not pay me enough to be subjected to that type of anguish even for two or three days," said lawyer Keith W. Donahoe. Both lawsuits allege that Georgetown's elite medical center failed to protect patients by not adopting American Hospital Association guidelines that call for universal pre-employment drug screening. The lawyers say such screening might have identified Royal as a drug abuser before the university hired him in September and assigned him to the interventional radiology unit. Medical center officials have acknowledged that executives resisted drug screening out of a desire to be consistent with the hiring policies at the university as a whole. The hospital fired Royal on Feb. 2 after a nurse and a clinical manager found him siphoning the synthetic narcotic painkiller fentanyl from an infusion pump, police said. In a videotaped statement to police, Royal said that for some time he had been removing fentanyl and another drug, Versed, from dispensing pumps and intravenous lines and replacing the clear liquids with saline solution so he could use the painkillers himself, police said. Royal, 40, of Kensington, has been arraigned on a felony charge of tampering with consumer products and, if convicted, faces a maximum 10-year prison term and a $ 250,000 fine. Health officials fear he may have put salt water into drug lines or dispensing pumps with discarded needles that he recovered from infectious waste containers. The needles could have been contaminated by Royal or by viruses carried by the patients in whom they were originally injected. Royal has not commented. His attorney, Jeffrey O'Toole, said his client did not endanger any patient. In the past two weeks, Georgetown has notified 466 patients who underwent interventional radiology procedures other than cardiac catheterizations during Royal's employment, from Sept. 8, 1999, through Feb. 2. An additional 100 to 150 patients are likely to be notified in coming weeks, officials said. Legal experts say the claims likely will be consolidated under a single judge, who then will decide whether to certify the case as a class action that automatically covers any affected patient who does not object to being represented. That judge then will appoint one or both groups of lawyers as the official class representative. It is possible that other lawyers will file similar lawsuits, which could lead the judge to exclude them or to form a committee of lawyers to steer the plaintiffs' litigation. The first group to reach the courthouse filed suit on behalf of two named plaintiffs, Carolyn Datlow Jousse, a Potomac woman who said she suffered excruciating pain after cancer surgery, and Edward Hillegass, a Falls Church postal worker who underwent a diagnostic procedure on his spine in December. Both are represented by Donahoe, of the District, and Jon D. Pels, of Rockville. The other case was filed by D.C. lawyer Joseph Cammarata on behalf of a 38-year-old Virginia woman who underwent a radiological procedure in January. Cammarata asked the court to seal the woman's name. "She is concerned about her well-being and her relationship with her family and husband and also her standing in her workplace and in her community," Cammarata said. Cammarata represented Paula Jones in her lawsuit against President Clinton and is leading a class action against the District on behalf of relatives of mentally retarded wards of the city who died in its custody. He too said that damage has been done to his clients even if it turns out that no one was infected by Royal's actions. "There is a claim for the emotional upheaval, the potential for a time bomb within you that you have no control over," he said. "The fear of an infectious disease for which there is no cure just blows the mind." (The Washington Post, March 2, 2000) HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Talks about Distribution of Fund Go on --------------------------------------------------------- Negotiators for five eastern European countries underscored their demand that at least 90 percent of a compensation fund for Nazi-era forced and slave laborers should go directly to victims. Representatives from Poland, the Czech Republic, Belarus, Russia and Ukraine said they had agreed to stay united on the issue during a meeting in Warsaw to plan joint strategy before the next round of talks on the fund March 7 in Washington. The five countries, along with Jewish groups, class-action lawyers and officials from the United States and Germany, are involved in talks on how to distribute the proposed $5 billion fund. Poles and others in Eastern Europe repeatedly have expressed concern about how the money will be distributed. Recent talks have tried to settle the issue of how much money would go to various categories of laborers, and how much would be spent on administration, property compensation and a plan to ensure further education on the evils of the Holocaust. Germany has proposed earmarking $3.8 billion for direct compensation of forced and slave laborers, and using the rest to compensate Jews who lost property in Germany and on the Holocaust education fund. In December, Germany pledged to set up the fund, the costs of which will be split by government and industry, to compensate hundreds of thousands of people, mostly from Eastern Europe, made to work to support the Nazi war machine. In exchange for the fund, German companies will get legal protection from U.S. class-action lawsuits. (AP Online, March 1, 2000) HOST MARRIOTT: Special Litigation Committee Asks for 6 Months ------------------------------------------------------------- A group of partners in Courtyard by Marriott II Limited Partnership filed a lawsuit, Whitey Ford, et al. v. Host Marriott Corporation, et al., Case No. 96-CI-08327, on June 7, 1996, in the 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas against the Company and others alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, violation of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act of 1983 and conspiracy in connection with the formation, operation and management of CBM II and its hotels. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. On January 29, 1998, two other limited partners, A.R. Milkes and D.R. Burklew, filed a petition in intervention seeking to convert the lawsuit into a class action. The defendants have filed an answer, the class has been certified, class counsel has been appointed, and discovery is underway. On March 11, 1999, Palm Investors, L.L.C., the assignee of a number of limited partnership units acquired through various tender offers, filed a plea in intervention to bring additional claims relating to the 1993 split of Marriott Corporation and to the 1995 refinancing of CBM II's indebtedness. The original plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint on March 19, 1999, and in a third amended complaint, filed May 24, 1999, asserted as derivative claims, some of the claims previously asserted as individual claims. On March 25, 1999, Equity Resource, an assignee, through various of its funds, of a number of limited partnership units, also filed a plea in intervention similar to that which was filed by Palm Investors. On August 17, 1999, the general partner of CBM II appointed an independent special litigation committee (the "SLC"), comprised of the Honorable William Webster and the Honorable Charles Renfrew, to investigate the derivative claims described above and to recommend to the general partner whether it is in the best interests of CBM II for the derivative litigation to proceed. The general partner has agreed to adopt the recommendation of the SLC. Under Delaware law, the recommendation of a duly appointed independent litigation committee is binding on the general partner and the limited partners. On August 30, 1999, the court held a hearing to consider the defendant's motion to stay these proceedings until the committee makes its recommendation. Similarly, the SLC has asked the court to postpone the trial for up to six months so that the SLC can complete its investigation. The court has not yet ruled on these requests. After intervening in the CBM II class action, Palm Investors and Equity Resource, together with Repp Properties, joined in a complaint filed in April 1999, Equity Resource Fund X et al. v. CBM One Corporation et al., Case No. 99-CI-04765, in the 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. This action asserted as derivative claims, on behalf of CBM I and CBM II, the same kind of claims asserted individually in the Ford and Milkes actions described above. After the appointment of the SLC, this complaint was withdrawn by the plaintiffs in September 1999. HOST MARRIOTT: Texas Multi-Partnership Suits on Hold ---------------------------------------------------- On March 16, 1998, limited partners in several limited partnerships sponsored by Host Marriott or its subsidiaries filed a lawsuit, Robert M. Haas, Sr. and Irwin Randolph Joint Tenants, et al. v. Marriott International, Inc., et al., Case No. 98-CI-04092, in the 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, alleging that the defendants conspired to sell hotels to the partnerships for inflated prices and that they charged the partnerships excessive management fees to operate the partnerships' hotels. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants committed fraud, breached fiduciary duties and violated the provisions of various contracts. A Marriott International subsidiary manages each of the hotels involved and, as to some properties, Marriott International, or one of its subsidiaries, is the ground lessor and collects rent. The Company, Marriott International, several of their subsidiaries, and J.W. Marriott, Jr. are among the various named defendants. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. Those allegations concerning CBM II have been transferred to the CBM II lawsuit described above. On March 18, 1999, two limited partners in CBM I filed a class action petition in intervention seeking to treat CBM I in a similar manner by converting that portion of the lawsuit into a class action. On April 29, 1999, the court denied this petition and refused to certify the class. No trial date has been set. INMATES LITIGATION: Hillsborough Inmates Allege Denials of Medical Care ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Two former Hillsborough County inmates filed a class action suit on February 14 on behalf of themselves and others who were denied needed prescriptions and medical care while in the county jail. Michael Skinner and Jason Poloski filed suit in U.S. District Court in Concord alleging that it was the practice and policy of the Hillsborough County House of Correction to deny inmates needed medical care, medication and treatment. Poloski alleges that he was denied medical treatment for a severe case of shingles and that, because treatment was withheld, he suffered permanent scarring and other injuries. The suit was filed against James M. O'Mara Jr., superintendent of Hillsborough County Department of Corrections, the county itself, PrimeCare Medical, which contracted with the county to provide medical care, and two correctional employees identified only as John/Jane Does #1 and John/Jane Does #2. Attorney John P. Kacavas of Wiggin and Nourie in Manchester, in filing the suit, is asking the suit be made a class action suit. That could possibly mean hundreds of plaintiffs, Kacavas said. The suit, he explained, alleges that the county corrections department had a policy and practice of not providing adequate medical care and treatment "as a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of these people." Kacavas hopes that with the filing of the suit that "those people who were in the Valley Street Jail who were reluctant to come forward and reveal what happened to them will now come forward." He said no amount of monetary damages has been specified because, at this point, it is undetermined, although the suit asks for both compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiffs have asked, however, that the jail be ordered to stop the practice of denying needed medical care, medication and treatment. Skinner's Suit Skinner of Manchester, according to the suit, was arrested on March 11, 1997, by Manchester police for violating the non-contact terms of his divorce. At the time of his arrest, Skinner suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression for which he was taking prescription medications Zoloft, Ativan and Ambien. After he was booked at the Manchester Police Department, Skinner was brought to a holding cell. Never having been arrested before, he experienced a panic attack and crawled under the cell cot. That evening, he was transported to the Hillsborough County Department of Corrections -- the Valley Street Jail-- where "he was accosted by several as yet unnamed corrections officers (COs). As they shackled his arms behind his back, one of the COs drove Mr. Skinner to his knees." In an acute state of panic/anxiety, according to the suit, Skinner resisted and cried out, "No." At that point another CO grabbed his head, smashed it to the cement floor and knelt to the left side of his head with the full force of his body weight, the suit alleges. Despite numerous requests, he received no medical treatment at the jail following "this physical beating," according to the suit. After his release the following day, he went to Catholic Medical Center where he was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome and cervical strain. While he was at the jail, he also repeatedly requested his prescribed medication for anxiety and for sleep, the suit alleges. When he was finally permitted to speak with an as-yet-unnamed nurse he was told, "They don't give this stuff out in here." Nearly two years later, on March 8, 1999, Skinner was again arrested by Manchester police for violating a court order related to his divorce. He served eight days of a 30-day sentence. The suit alleges that during that time, he made repeated requests to COs for his prescription medications only to be told that a nurse would see him soon. When he was finally permitted to speak with a nurse he was told, "You won't get these in here; these are addictive." Skinner was arrested a third time on June 15, 1999, again for violating the terms of a restraining order. He served 10 days in jail. Again he advised the booking officer at the jail that he suffered from PTSD and major depression and needed the three prescribed medications. Twice, Skinner's physician spoke with a corrections official at the jail in order to apprise them of Skinner's diagnosis and need for prescription medications. Despite this and Skinner's repeated requests, he was completely denied the needed medications, the suit alleges. Poloski's Suit Poloski was arrested on May 27, 1999, and held at the Valley Street Jail as a detainee. Shortly after his confinement began, he noticed a painful and itchy rash extending laterally from the left side of his torso to his left shoulder blade, according to the suit. Poloski requested an evaluation at the next available medical call. About 12 hours later, a nurse observed his condition and immediately quarantined him. Poloski alleges that for two full days he was denied necessary medical care resulting in the rash spreading uncontrollably. "Mr. Poloski's condition became so painful it was difficult for him to breathe," the suit alleges. "After literally screaming in pain, Mr. Poloski was visited by an as yet unnamed nurse who informed him that he had a very bad case of shingles, and that he would need to go to the hospital immediately." About 30 minutes later, the nurse returned to tell him that the doctor declined to authorize a hospital visit. "Instead, without the benefit of a physical examination, the doctor prescribed medication to ameliorate the pain but nothing to treat the underlying cause. Consequently, Mr. Poloski's pain intensified," according to the suit. Poloski said he was first visited by a doctor three or four days later -- about a week after the onset of shingles. Upon his release from jail on June 29, 1999, Poloski sought treatment at Matthew Thornton Healthcare, where he was told that the initial denial and ensuing delay in treatment had made his condition worse. (The Union Leader, February 15, 2000) LANGENBERG HAT: Former Employees Sue Shut Down Maker over Sale Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit was filed March 1 on behalf of the more than 100 employees and retirees of the Langenberg Hat Co. Until Langenberg was shut down by the courts in January, it was believed to be the oldest hat manufacturer in operation in the country. It was founded in 1860 and once operated in St. Louis. Most recently, it had four sites, all in Missouri: two in New Haven and one each in Owensville and St. Elizabeth. The suit, filed in federal court in Jefferson City, seeks $ 1.8 million that the employees say they were promised when the company changed ownership last year. The company was sold to Connie "Chip" Armstrong Jr., a Texan who was seen as a "white knight" coming to rescue the financially ailing manufacturer. Only recently did it become public knowledge that Armstrong was a felon who was free on bail while appealing a conviction. Armstrong had been convicted in 1997 in California on 21 felony counts. He swindled big companies, including Federal Express, out of more than $ 62 million. While free on appeal, he wasn't supposed to take any job where he would be near anyone else's money. The suit accuses Armstrong and Eric Park, the man who was president of the hat company when it was sold to Armstrong, of failing to protect the employees' interest in the deal. Armstrong was supposed to pay about $ 350,000 in cash to an employees' trust when the deal closed and follow that up with an equal payment in each of the next four years for a total of about $ 1.8 million. But those payments apparently were not being made, at least not in full. The trust fund is believed to contain only about $ 80,000, according to the suit. Park, a stockbroker in Washington, Mo., was supposed to make sure there was collateral to back up Armstrong's promise to pay, the suit says. But the collateral turned out to be of far less value than originally thought. Park said that he counted on the St. Louis law firm that he hired to check out Armstrong and his financing plan. "They were the biggest, baddest law firm I could find," he said in reference to Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale. A phone call to one of the lawyers involved in the case was not returned. The suit alleges that Armstrong had a conflict of interest in the deal. As the buyer, he was supposed to post collateral. But when he took over the company, he also became the trustee of the employees' trust fund. When he wore that hat, he was supposed to be making sure that enough collateral had been posted. The suit was filed by the Jefferson City law firm of Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff and Landwehr. It could not be determined what impact, if any, the suit would have on plans to liquidate the company. Area banks have foreclosed for non-payment of loans. The Bank of Washington (Mo.) is owed the most: $ 1.6 million. March 1 evening was the deadline for bids on all four plants' equipment and inventory. The buildings are slated to be sold, probably at courthouse auctions, in the coming two weeks. At least one party is hoping that the suit will delay the breakup of the company. The Northern Cherokee Nation of Missouri and Arkansas is interested in buying the hat company. A member of the tribe's council, John Lightning Spirit Campbell of Warrenton, has worked on the hat company's boilers and other equipment for 15 years. He's convinced that the company can be turned around. Campbell said that if the company were owned by a minority it could better attract government contracts. The Indian reservations would also be a good market for the Western hats that Langenberg is famous for, he said. But Campbell said the 9,000-member tribe needs more time to find financing. He warned that once the equipment is sold, it will be impossible to put the company back together again. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 2, 2000) MICROSOFT CORP: May Seek Reopening of Workers' Permatemps Case over Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In a status report Microsoft submitted to U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, company attorneys say they may ask the judge to reconsider the class status of Vizcaino vs. Microsoft, which was originally certified as a class action in 1993. According to the Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court has twice denied the software giant's petition to review the case. In early January, the Supreme Court upheld a federal appellate court's ruling that full-time employees Microsoft paid through temporary employment agencies -- known as permatemps -- should have been allowed to buy discounted Microsoft stock. The ruling, according to Los Angeles Times, could cost Microsoft at least $ 20 million because roughly 10,000 permatemps could be eligible for the discounted stock program. Attorneys representing Microsoft's temporary work force say the company is now delaying rather than complying with the federal ruling that requires it to pay millions of dollars to thousands of employees denied the right to buy discounted company shares through the company's employee stock purchase plan, Los Angeles Times reports. "Microsoft's response to losing in the U.S. Supreme Court is to ask the District Court to throw out the class certification and start all over with this litigation," Los Angeles Times quotes plaintiff attorney Stephen Strong. Microsoft, the report says, has indicated that it is not seeking to relitigate or delay the case. In earlier appeals, Microsoft has argued that the court had allowed too large a pool of former workers to be considered for compensation. OAK TECHNOLOGY: Preparing for Trial on July 5, 2000 --------------------------------------------------- Oak Technology, Inc., and various of its current and former officers and Directors are parties to several class action lawsuits filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock (excluding the defendants and parties related to them) for the period July 27, 1995 through May 22, 1996. The first, a state court proceeding designated IN RE OAK TECHNOLOGY SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. CV758510 pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court in Santa Clara, California, consolidates five class actions. This lawsuit originally named as defendants several of the Company's venture capital fund investors, two of its investment bankers and two securities analysts. The plaintiffs alleged violations of California securities laws and statutory deceit provisions as well as breaches of fiduciary duty and abuse of control. After several rounds of demurrers, the only remaining claim is the California Corporations Code Sections 25400/25500 cause of action against the Company, four officers and the Company's investment bankers and securities analysts. On July 16, 1998, the state court provisionally certified a national class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock during the class period. The class was provisionally certified with the order held in abeyance pending resolution of the question of whether a nationwide class may bring a California Corporations Code Sections 25400/25500 claim. This issue was resolved in favor of allowing such nationwide class actions by the California Supreme Court, Case No. 5058723, on January 4, 1999, in the DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SECURITIES LITIGATION appeal by the California Supreme Court. Discovery has commenced in this action. The defendants and certain third parties have produced documents and a number of depositions have been taken, including the depositions of those officers of the Company who were officers during the class period. This action is set for trial on July 5, 2000. Based on its current information, the Company believes this suit to be without merit and will defend its position vigorously. PERITUS SOFTWARE: MA Ct OKs Settlement of Securites Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Peritus Software Services, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: PTUS), a provider of solutions for software maintenance, announced that it received final approval on Monday, February 28 from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts of the settlement of the previously filed class action securities litigation brought against the Company and certain of its past or present officers and directors covering the class period of October 22, 1997 through and including October 26, 1998. The settlement, which was funded entirely by the Company's directors and officers liability insurer, will become final at the expiration of the appeal period. PHILJAS: Japanese Executives Indicted for Hillside Collapse Near Manila ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A Japanese manager and five other company executives were indicted on March 1 for the collapse of a hillside housing development in heavy rains last year that killed 58 people, officials said, an AP Online report says, March 1, 2000. The rains triggered a landslide that toppled the Cherry Hills subdivision in Antipolo, east of Manila, on Aug. 3, destroying 378 houses. Relatives of the victims filed a class action suit with the Justice Department seeking a total of $4.1 million in damages from Philjas, the Philippine-Japanese venture that built Cherry Hills. Among those charged in an Antipolo court with ''reckless imprudence'' resulting in multiple deaths were Philjas general manager Hiroshi Ogawa and company president Tirso Santillan. If convicted, they could be sentenced to up to four years in prison. Investigators have said the tragedy could have been prevented if Philjas had acted immediately after learning that the ground was starting to shift a few days before the landslide. Justice Department prosecutors said Philjas failed to conduct required engineering, structural and geological assessments before building Cherry Hills. Santillan has said his company did not conduct soil stability tests because they were not required for low-cost housing. Company officials said days of heavy rains caused the collapse of Cherry Hills. Eight Philippine officials were previously indicted on charges of allowing the construction of the housing project without required permits, AP Online says. PPG INDUSTRIES: Glass Products Price Fixing Settlement Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc., has been named as a defendant in a number of antitrust lawsuits filed in federal and state courts by various plaintiffs, the Company relates in its latest annual report. These suits allege PPG was involved with competitors in fixing prices and allocating markets for certain glass products. PPG counts twenty-nine cases filed in federal courts, all of which have been consolidated in a single federal district court (W.D. Pa.) for pretrial proceedings under the multidistrict litigation rules. Eleven cases were filed in state courts in California, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Kansas; the Wisconsin case was removed to federal court and then consolidated under multidistrict litigation. PPG's co-defendants in these actions are Pilkington plc; Libbey-Owens Ford Co., Inc.; AFG Industries; Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.; Guardian Industries Corp.; and Ford Motor Company. In the federal multidistrict litigation, the other defendants named above, except for the Ford Motor Company, have entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs, which are pending court approval. These antitrust lawsuits all purport to be class actions. In the federal multidistrict litigation, the court has ruled that the case may proceed as a class action. The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking economic and treble damages and injunctive relief. PPG believes it has meritorious defenses in these lawsuits. RAINFOREST CAFE: Receives Amended Complaint Re Consideration of Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainforest Cafe, Inc., "A Wild Place to Shop and Eat"(R), (Nasdaq:RAIN), announced that the plaintiffs in the two purported class action lawsuits filed on December 23, 1999 and January 13, 2000, have amended their original complaints to allege, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration of the merger with Landry's Seafood Restaurants. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend themselves in their actions. Rainforest Cafe, Inc. develops, owns, and operates combination restaurant/retail facilities offering a stimulating and entertaining rain forest theme, providing visitors with "A Wild Place to Shop and Eat(R)." There are currently 38 Rainforest Cafe(R) units open including 28 domestic locations and 10 international units. Rainforest Cafe, Inc. common shares are traded on the NASDAQ national Market under the symbol RAIN. This news release (as well as information included in oral statements or other written statements made or to be made by the Company) may contain forward-looking statements, such as statements relating to future expansion, that involve risks and uncertainties relating to future events. Actual events or the Company's result may differ materially from the result discussed in the forward-looking statements. The Company does not expect to update forward-looking statements continually as conditions change. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those relating to the merger with Landry's Seafood Restaurants, Inc., the results of shareholder litigation, competition, fluctuations and changes in consumer preferences and attitudes, intellectual property protection, development and construction activities. Investors are referred to the full discussion of risks and uncertainties associated with forward-looking statements contained in the Company's Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 1, 2000. Contact: Rainforest Cafe, Inc., Hopkins, MN Connie Carrino Director of Corporate Communications 612-945-5400 http://www.rainforestcafe.com RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in PA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies Inc. between July 15, 1999 through February 17, 2000, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Ravisent and certain of its officers violated the federal securities law by issuing false and misleading statements regarding Ravisent's revenue recognition policy, revenues and income. As a result, the price of Ravisent's common stock was inflated during the Class Period. For concerns regarding this lawsuit, please contact Jonathan M. Plasse, Esq. or Emily C. Komlossy, Esq. of GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LLP at 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017-5563, by telephone at 212-907-0700 or at plassej@glrs.com or komlose@glrs.com via e-mail. SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Berger & Montague Files Investors' Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following notice is issued by the law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. on behalf of its clients, who on February 29, 2000, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BID) during the period of February 11, 1997 through January 28, 2000 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Commission. The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the Company's revenues. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to reveal that during the Class Period, Sotheby's revenues were both reliant upon, and unsustainable in the absence of an alleged price fixing arrangement with Christie's International PLC. The complaint also asserts that defendants' false and misleading statements artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during the Class Period. If you have any questions about the action, please contact: Sherrie R. Savett at 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Telephone: 215-875-3000 Fax: 215-875-4604 or 888-891-2289. You can e-mail the firm at InvestorProtect@bm.net with your name, mailing address and telephone number. The firm's website is at http://home.bm.net TD WATERHOUSE: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone & Bonner filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who maintained Internet trading accounts at TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc. or its predecessor company, Waterhouse Securities, Inc., and who suffered losses when Waterhouse executed previously-canceled securities trades although Waterhouse had confirmed the cancellation of those trades. Plaintiff alleges claims for violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The plaintiff further alleges that Waterhouse and its President, John H. Chapel violated the federal securities laws by falsely representing to investors that they had successfully canceled securities trades and then executing those transactions. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Waterhouse unlawfully paid itself commissions in connection with those unauthorized trades and related transactions executed by Waterhouse to liquidate the unauthorized trades or to generate funds to pay for those transactions. For queries on the above-mentioned lawsuit, you may get in touch with James Bonner of Shalov Stone & Bonner at 276 Fifth Avenue, Suite 704, New York, NY 1000 at 212-686-8004 or via e-mail at Jim@lawssb.com or visit website at http://www.lawssb.com TENAFLY BOARD: Residents Sue over School Bond Referendum on Snowy Day --------------------------------------------------------------------- A group of residents say the $ 17.9 million school bond referendum Jan. 25 was a real snow job, and they have filed a lawsuit saying the election should have been postponed because of bad weather. More than two dozen residents have joined in the class-action lawsuit claiming they were disenfranchised after 5 inches of snow blanketed the town and the Tenafly Board of Education canceled classes for the children , but kept the schools open to conduct the balloting. Many elderly residents have complained they were snowed in that day and couldn't get to the polls. They suspect that the decision to hold the referendum was a strategic move designed to keep them from voting. The school expansion plan was approved, with 41 percent of voters participating. The suit alleges that disabled residents were prevented from voting, and it asks Superior Court Judge Sybil R. Moses to set aside the result. The suit does not challenge the result; it simply claims the election was not fair. "We file this petition not as partisans one way or the other as to the board's referendum,"the suit says."We file this petition to protect and defend the integrity of all Tenafly residents right to vote, be that young or old or even disabled." Carl Zipperle, a resident who waged a campaign to defeat the bond proposal, helped round up petitioners for the lawsuit. He believes Moses will throw out the results once the evidence is heard. "The Tenafly school board seems to think it is OK to hold the vote in the middle of a severe winter storm, 10 years after the adoption of the Americans With Disabilities Act," Zipperle said."I'd describe that decision as rather medieval." The lawsuit asserts that in the past, cancellation of classes has meant that the building was closed. So it was plausible that some residents would have heard the announcement of the school closing on the radio and presumed that the referendum was canceled as well, the lawsuit states. Instead, the Board of Education met after classes were canceled and decided to go ahead with the referendum, against the advice of the Bergen County Board of Elections. The county advised the school board that conducting the election would be difficult because the Superior Court had been closed as a result of the weather. That court hears all challenges to a voter's eligibility on the day of the balloting. The plaintiffs attorney, Robert Quinn, is expected to argue that because the court was closed, voters who might have needed emergency ballots would not have been able to obtain them. Copies of the lawsuit arrived at the Tenafly Board of Education office on Tuesday, February 29. Board President Roberta "Bobbie" Frankfort released a statement defending the decision to hold the referendum. "The Board of Education believes that the voters have spoken," Frankfort said."We believe that the weather was not a significant factor in the election result, as this was one of the highest voter turnouts in several years for any school district election in Tenafly." The 1 NEW3 referendum was split into two questions. The first asked voters whether to spend $ 13.8 million for new construction and technology. The expenditure was approved 1,492 to 1,021. The second question asked voters whether they would approve a $ 4.1 million expenditure for repairs to school buildings, including new roofs at Stillman and Maugham elementary schools. It was approved 1,542 to 913. Since then, the Tenafly Board of Education has moved forward with its plan to build more classroom space at each of its four elementary schools. Moses has ruled that those plans can proceed while the case is pending. A Superior Court hearing is set for March 24. (The Record (Bergen County, NJ), March 1, 2000) TWA: Workers Say Funds Not Transferred in Timely Manner; Ct OKs Class --------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has granted class action status to a suit filed by TWA workers over their 401(k) savings plan. U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple ruled that the suit met the criteria for a class action, finding that questions common to members of the class predominated over questions affecting only individual members. The suit, filed in Kansas City federal court last year by members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, asserted that TWA and Chase Manhattan Bank, the plan's administrator, breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs. In a nutshell, the plaintiffs alleged that TWA and Chase Manhattan failed to transfer funds in a timely manner out of a pooled account that was performing poorly. "Basically, we're saying that our people lost money because the plan administrators weren't able to process large volumes of fund transfer requests during a time of market volatility," said lawyer Ronald Holt of Watkins Boulware Lucas Miner Murphy & Taylor, which represents the TWA workers. The employees claim that it took the administrators 30 days to make the transfers, during which time the share price of the affected Vista Fund fell from $11.60 to $9.20, for a loss of $2.7 million. Some 860 out of 1,800 plan participants made transfer requests. To cover the $2.7 million shortfall, the plaintiffs claim the administrators drew on the funds of the plan participants who elected to stay in the Vista Fund. Those participants are members of the class certified by Whipple. The case now proceeds to the discovery phase. (The Kansas City Star, February 29, 2000) VESTRON: $2.8 Mil Settlement Ends Suit over Film Revenue Distribution --------------------------------------------------------------------- A long-running class-action suit against Vestron has finally ended with a settlement of $ 2.8 million. Filed in 1994, the suit alleged that Vestron improperly allocated revenues among the films in its foreign package distribution deals. The suit sought to rectify huge disparities in the revenues assigned to the various films in the package. The long-defunct Vestron was at one time the largest distributor of independent films. Its catalog was bought by Live and then by Artisan. The suit represented approximately 500 filmmakers, including Ken Burns, who was one of the named plaintiffs. Lead counsel for the class was Thomas A. Cohen of San Francisco. VISX, INC: Steven E. Cauley Files Securities Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of VISX Inc. (Nasdaq: VISX) common stock during the period between March 1, 1999 and Feb. 22, 2000 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges VISX and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements about the steady and increasing revenues the installed base of VISX's Excimer Laser systems would provide to VISX, the strong procedure and equipment royalties VISX was earning, the limited impact of competition which would allow VISX to maintain its $250 per procedure licensing fee in the United States which would lead to consistent revenue growth, and VISX's continued market share domination which would result in 2000 EPS of $1.70-1.80, artificially inflated the price of VISX stock to a Class Period high of $103-7/8 from just $30-1/4 per share (split adjusted) at the outset of the Class Period. This upsurge in VISX's stock enabled VISX insiders to sell 1.4 million shares of their VISX stock for $97 million in proceeds. On Dec. 10, 1999, VISX received an adverse ruling from the International Trade Commission that competitor Nidek had not infringed on VISX's patents, and its stock retreated to the $58-$60 range. This cast doubt on VISX's competitive position and the ability to maintain its prices. However, VISX continued to represent that the $250 per procedure fee was in tact. Then, on Jan. 19, 2000, VISX revealed a drop in 4thQ 99 revenues versus the 3rdQ 99 and exposed the problems VISX was having growing its business. On these disclosures, VISX's stock fell by 29% in one day to $32-1/4. However, it was not until Feb. 22, 2000, that VISX admitted it would reduce its per procedure fee to $100. This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $16 on huge volume on Feb. 23, 2000. If you have any questions regarding this lawsuit or how you may be able to recover for the losses you have incurred, please E-mail or call: LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN E. CAULEY, P.A., 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 201, Little Rock, AR 72212, E-mail: CauleyPA@aol.com or toll free at 1-888-551-9944 VISX, INC.: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ Spector, Roseman & Kodroff filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of VISX, Inc. between March 1, 1999 and February 22, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges VISX and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements about the steady and increasing revenues the installed base of VISX's Excimer Laser systems would provide to VISX, the strong procedure and equipment royalties VISX was earning, the limited impact of competition which would allow VISX to maintain its $250 per procedure licensing fee in the United States which would lead to consistent revenue growth, and VISX's continued market share domination which would result in 2000 EPS of $1.70-1.80, artificially inflated the price of VISX stock to a Class Period high of $103-7/8 from just $30-1/4 per share at the outset of the Class Period. This upsurge in VISX's stock enabled VISX insiders to sell 1.4 million shares of their VISX stock for $97 million in proceeds. On Dec. 10, 1999, VISX received an adverse ruling from the International Trade Commission that competitor Nidek had not infringed on VISX's patents, and its stock retreated to the $58-$60 range. This cast doubt on VISX's competitive position and the ability to maintain its prices. However, VISX continued to represent that the $250 per procedure fee was in tact. Then, on Jan. 19, 2000, VISX revealed a drop in 4thQ 99 revenues versus the 3rdQ 99 and exposed the problems VISX was having growing its business. On these disclosures, VISX's admitted it would reduce its per procedure fee to $100. This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $16 on Feb. 23, 2000. For additional information on the above-mentioned lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, toll-free at 1-888-844-5862 or via e-mail at classaction@spectorandroseman.com or visit the firm's website at http://www.spectorandroseman.com VISX, INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of purchasers of VISX Incorporated common stock between March 1, 1999 and February 22, 2000. The complaint charges that VISX and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action arises from damages incurred by the Class as a result of a scheme and common course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and deceit on the Class during the Class Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain officers of VISX made false and misleading statements to the public about the Company's business prospects of its Excimer Laser Systems, which caused the market price of VISX stock to trade at artificially high levels during the Class Period. Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, insiders were able to sell more than $95 million of their personal holdings of VISX. For more information on this action, please contact Ronald T. Theda, Esq. of Weiss & Yourman, telephone at 800-437-7918 or e-mail at wyinfo@wyca.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Romeo John D. Piansay, Jr., editor, Theresa Cheuk, Managing Editor. Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400. * * * End of Transmission * * *