/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000426.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 26, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 81 Headlines AMBER: Refund in OK Town for Speeding Tickets May Cover 30 Years ASBESTOS LITIGATION: West Virginia University Employees Sue ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVU Says Senate Says Employees Not United on Suit ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL: Patient Dies After Being Restrained BRISTOL-MYERS: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Lawsuit in New Jersey CARROLL & GRAF: NY App. Ct. Reverses Class of Book Authors Re Royalties COLORADO: Trial Begins in Lawsuit over School Funding HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in TX LIBERTY NATIONAL: Dismissed Blacks=92 Suit May Be Refiled at State Ct MICROSOFT CORP: Cable News Coverage on Stock Price ORANGE UNIFIED: Teachers Walk out of Contract Negotiations REZULIN: Lawsuits against Maker of Diabetes Drug Pile up RISCORP INC: Plans Vigorous Defense of Securities Suit in FL RISCORP INC: Will Resume Defense in FL Case over Worker's Policies SOTHEBY'S, CHRISTIE'S: NY Judge Oks Class for Antitrust Lawsuit TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Kaye Says No Delay for Next Phase of Trial TOBACCO LITIGATION: Moves to Cap Damage Award Anger Lawyers TOYOTA MOTOR: Car Dealer Sued in IL under Consumer Fraud Act and TILA UNISYS CORP: Securities Lawsuits in PA Consolidated * 3rd Cir in PA Orders Freeze on NJ's Version of Megan Law Notification AMBER: Refund in OK Town for Speeding Tickets May Cover 30 Years ---------------------------------------------------------------- A case of unfiled paperwork could prove costly for a small central Oklahoma town. How much might depend on a battle of state statutes and a statute of limitations. Chickasha attorney Ryland Rivas says everyone who has received a traffic ticket in Amber for about 30 years might be entitled to a refund because of an obscure state statute. City attorney Van Bingaman believes only one person fits the criteria because that person appealed a traffic ticket fine. The statute Rivas cited requires Oklahoma towns to file their city ordinances with their respective county clerk's office every 10 years. Rivas found that the town of Amber hadn't filed its ordinances since the 1960s. And a judge through out a speeding ticket. The statute may mean everyone who has received a traffic ticket in Amber since then is entitled to a refund, Rivas says. He is putting together a class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 30 clients in the hopes of reclaiming the money. His clients are seeking only the money they paid in fines for speeding, Rivas said, adding that he would like the case to be settled out of court. "They just want their money back," he said. "They've paid over than what they should have to." Bingaman cited another statute that he said authorizes the tickets issued by Amber police. "There is a statute out there that allows us to keep operating even though that one piece of paper wasn't filed," Bingaman said. The statute allows cities to issue fines and tickets, not to exceed $50 plus court costs, even though city ordinances haven't been filed, he said. Rivas was trying to take care of a speeding ticket issued to one of his clients by the Amber Police Department when he stumbled upon the statute. "It was just an absolute accident," he said. Bingaman said he couldn't speculate why the ordinances weren't filed. Rivas said the statute Bingaman cited might legitimize the tickets issued by Amber police. If that is the case, he said, his clients will seek to recoup the amount over $50 that they've paid. In either case, the decision will be made when Rivas files the lawsuit. "It just seems the city knows they aren't supposed to do that and they should go through their accounting and give the money back," Rivas said. Bingaman said each person issued a ticket has 10 days to appeal once the county judge has announced the verdict - in this case, the amount of the speeding ticket. Anyone who wanted to protest a ticket should have appealed, he said. Only one of Rivas' clients meets that standard, Bingaman said. "I don't think they can prevail on the lawsuit," he said. The lawsuit may prove to be a financial burden to the northern Grady County town. But Rivas said he figures the town's municipal league insurance would be able to cover any money they would have to pay back. (The Associated Press, April 25, 2000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: West Virginia University Employees Sue ----------------------------------------------------------- When Loretta Price became a records clerk for West Virginia University in 1985, she didn't know about the cancer-causing asbestos her employers had discovered in school buildings a year earlier. "I have always given my all," Price said after suing WVU for putting her at risk. "I didn't realize that included my health." Price, a secretary in the sociology and anthropology department, has joined five colleagues in accusing school officials of ignoring a known health threat for years. Their lawsuit, which could be expanded to a class-action case covering thousands of workers, seeks damages for emotional distress, as well as monthly medical monitoring that may not be covered by insurance. Anyone exposed to asbestos has a high risk of developing lung and other cancers, said Robert Sweeney, an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio. They also could suffer from asbestosis, a progressive and life-threatening lung disability, or mesothelioma, a rare and inevitably fatal tumor in the lining of the lung. Regular screenings for potential asbestos-related health troubles could cost a person hundreds of dollars each month, Sweeney said. Attorneys who filed the lawsuit in Kanawha County Circuit Court in Charleston have interviewed nearly 100 people and hope a judge will allow more plaintiffs to join by declaring it a class-action case. Any custodian, maintenance worker, secretary, clerk, teacher or other employee who worked in a building with a known asbestos problem may be eligible, Sweeney said. The litigation does not cover students, who would have been exposed for much shorter periods than long-term employees. "I don't mean to minimize what it means for the university to expose those students, but we've attempted to couch this litigation to protect those people with the most exposure," Sweeney said. "These risks are real. They should not be minimized," he said. "Until the university accepts them as risks, these people are not adequately protected." WVU legal counsel Jon Reed said he was happy to learn none of the employees currently has an asbestos-related health problem, and he denied the university has done nothing since 1984. "This is really a suit related to their concerns over possibilities rather than something that's actually happened," Reed said. "We've had an asbestos monitoring and asbestos abatement program in place for many years, and we believe the results of those tests have indicated that WVU has been a safe place for our workers." Sweeney said the university has not offered to pay for medical monitoring of people who may have been exposed. In fact, during the legislative session that ended in March, the central office of the state's higher education system sought protection from just such an expense in a bill reorganizing the state's colleges and universities. The bill passed, but the medical monitoring provision was quickly dropped. Reed, however, said WVU has required some employees to undergo medical monitoring - at the university's expense - when they are considered at risk. "The issue will likely be one of whether these particular employees are ones for whom medical monitoring would be appropriate," he said. WVU's Coliseum is closed until October while USA Remediation Services Inc., of Warrenton, Va., removes asbestos from the ceiling over the 14,000-seat basketball arena. The $7.8 million project should be finished in time for fall practice. The arena was closed last August after tests found asbestos fibers in the seating section, prompting environmental regulators to question public safety. Potential problems with asbestos at the College of Law and the Creative Arts Center were subsequently identified. Sweeney argues all of the discoveries create anxiety for the plaintiffs. The others who filed the lawsuit are math professor Sam Nadler; former custodian Barbara Pritt; custodian Frances Cogar; tradeworker David L. Sturms; and maintenance man and boiler operator Gregory M. Malvito. The lawsuit charges that WVU surveyed 400 buildings in 1984 to determine whether asbestos, a common fireproofing and insulation material in the '60s, presented any dangers. About 330 buildings contained asbestos or materials made with asbestos. It was sprayed on as insulation, used in floor and ceiling tiles, and wrapped around pipes and ducts. But from 1984 through 1992, the university did nothing to minimize the danger to its employees, the lawsuit charges. Nor did it warn them or train them how to protect themselves. A 1992 review of the Coliseum found the asbestos-coated ceiling "significantly damaged," with fibers and chunks of debris on catwalks, and in and around air ducts. The building should have been closed then, the plaintiffs argue. (The Associated Press, April 21, 2000) ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WVU Says Senate Says Employees Not United on Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Griffith, chair-elect of the West Virginia University Faculty Senate, was not surprised to hear about a lawsuit filed against WVU that alleges the university was negligent in dealing with asbestos in campus buildings. However, Griffith made it clear that the views of six university employees named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit do not reflect the views of WVU's faculty and staff as a whole. Six employees were named in the lawsuit filed against WVU in Kanawha County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs' attorneys will seek class-action status for the case. The lawsuit could be expanded to include hundreds of plaintiffs, and nearly 100 people have already been interviewed. But at a March meeting of the Faculty Senate, professor Anna Elfenbein moved for the Senate to elect a fact-finding committee to investigate the asbestos situation on campus. Faculty members voted by secret ballot, and the motion failed "by a large majority, something like 55 to 15," Griffith said. "I interpret that to mean that the large majority of the Faculty Senate assumes that the university is doing all it can to handle the asbestos according to guidelines," he said. The university's in-house lawyer, Jon Reed, said allegations that the school ignored the asbestos problem and was negligent about exposing employees to the material are false. The suit claims WVU officials knew asbestos was present in the air not only at the Coliseum, but also at the law school, Creative Arts Center, Knapp Hall, Allen Hall, Percival Hall and others. As a result, the suit says, all employees who worked primarily in those areas have been put at risk. The university's handling of the asbestos problem was, according to the suit, "An inadequate response to a serious public health risk and undertaken without taking into consideration the day-to-day health risks of those workers who continue to labor in that environment." The plaintiffs' lawyers asked the school to first pay a lump sum into a fund that would be used to test the possible victims for asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and other cancers. The second phase seeks actual damages from the exposure. Reed said the school has had in place for years a medical monitoring program for workers who have been exposed not only to asbestos, but any hazardous material. "Asbestos is something we have all known about, and the potential hazards have been made very clear," Reed said. "We have made a conscious effort to be out in front on this issue and stay current with the leading edge of the related and applicable science." Reed said the suit would likely be referred to the state Board of Risk Management, which will then deal with the suit as a claim against the state's insurance. In all likelihood, Reed said, outside counsel will be appointed. "Our wish, though, is not to have a rancorous relationship with the parties," Reed said. "We'll work with these employees who might be involved in the suit and their lawyers to come to an agreeable and amicable solution to this situation. We would like to get this resolved so that everyone's situation is taken into account." The university announced last June that asbestos had been found in the area of the 14,000-seat Coliseum. It was closed last September and a $ 15 million cleanup is under way. The presence of asbestos in other campus buildings also has been announced. (Charleston Daily Mail, April 21, 2000) ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL: Patient Dies After Being Restrained -------------------------------------------------------------- Patients at Atascadero State Hospital are outraged over the death of a troubled 26-year-old man who was wrestled to the floor after throwing chairs and spitting at several staff members. Deshaun Eric Washington of Napa was pronounced dead on April 4, possibly of a heart attack, about an hour and a half after his outburst began at the hospital, which is being sued in part for allegedly using unreasonable force to control its patients. "We call it 'dogpile on the patient.' The first word out of the patient is 'I can't breathe,"' said Anthony Dacayana, a fellow patient who is involved in the class-action suit and called The Associated Press to complain about Washington's death. Hospital spokeswoman Leslie Malcom described Washington as "highly combative." She said the staff "did an exemplary job in trying to control his aggressive episode and to revive him." That didn't match the image he had among friends in Napa, where a small, but close-knit community of homeless people blends in with the tourists who come for wineries, upscale restaurants and bed-and-breakfast inns. They described a shy, soft-spoken homeless man who laughed like a girl and danced when he cooked. They said they couldn't imagine him getting violent, unless he wasn't taking his medicine. Toxicology tests showed no drugs - prescription or otherwise - in Washington's system, San Luis Obispo County Coroner Steve Tate told the AP. Washington was sent to the hospital - one of five state institutions for the criminally insane - on a temporary basis on March 22 after being found incompetent to stand trial for assault. He had thrown a rock through a car window for no apparent reason, his lawyer said. Washington was pronounced dead at Twin Cities Hospital near Atascadero 13 days later after experiencing a "medical emergency," confirmed Malcom, who provided few details. Tate said Washington had a history of high blood pressure and bradycardia, or a slow heart beat, and may have suffered a heart attack after he was wrestled to the floor, placed on a board and then restrained with leather straps in a bed. Tate also said Washington apparently wasn't taking the drugs he had been prescribed, which included nifedipine, often taken for high blood pressure; lorazepan for severe agitation; and diphenhydramine or Benadryl for insomnia. Tate, who is still awaiting some test results before officially declaring the cause of death, also found no obvious signs of trauma, only bruises on his wrist and elbow. Other patients were told about his death the next day. Decayana said they were read an internal memo that said Washington's heart stopped because he had prior medical problems, and that his heart condition was exacerbated by being restrained. "Somebody died and this person shouldn't have died," Dacayana said. "Our concern ... is that they're going to find fault with the patient and not with the staff, but there are staff here who've seen that their procedure of takedowns is wrong." Brent Brooks, 44, who lives on Napa's streets and met Washington at the local shelter, was surprised to hear Washington had died. He had heard about the rock-throwing incident and figured his friend was in the county jail. "I hate to think of anyone dying strapped down," he said. "It's horrible." Staffers at the shelter where Washington often slept, many of them former homeless people themselves, were "extremely upset" when they heard the news, said Charlene Horton, who directs the agency that runs the shelter. "He was a very gentle soul when he was here," she said. Washington has a 28-year-old brother who also has lived in Napa and a grandmother in Pasadena. Neither could be reached for comment. Jess Raphael, the Napa County public defender who represented Washington in January, said he never did get him to explain the attack, which covered a woman with shattered glass. Washington seemed to want to be arrested at the time - he simply sat down on a curb and waited for police, he said. "We couldn't converse about the case. We couldn't carry on a conversation. He was depressed, lethargic," Raphael said. "He wasn't really in a position to help himself. He was a sorrowful creature." (The Associated Press, April 21, 2000) BRISTOL-MYERS: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Lawsuit in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------------- Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. gives notice that a class action complaint was filed April 24 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the common stock of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) at artificially inflated prices during the period November 8, 1999 through April 19, 2000 ("Class Period") and who were damaged thereby. The complaint charges BMY and its senior officer with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements relating to the development of its drug, VANLEV. Defendants began a campaign to herald VANLEV as the most effective drug for treating hypertension and, to allay any safety concerns, conditioned the market to believe that there were no serious side effects to the drug. However, the complaint further alleges that defendants knew but did not disclose that the results of the BMY-conducted clinical trials of patients given VANLEV showed that a rare and very serious side effect, that is, a severe form of angioedema which is life threatening, had afflicted some patients in the trials. Defendants' false and misleading statements regarding VANLEV resulted in artificially inflated stock prices during the Class Period. Contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C., Philadelphia Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire or Barbara A. Podell, Esquire 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 E-mail: sfprpc@op.ne CARROLL & GRAF: NY App. Ct. Reverses Class of Book Authors Re Royalties ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuit by book authors alleging underpayment and late payment of royalties by Carroll & Graf Publishers should not have been certified as class action, New York Appellate Division rules. In a lawsuit filed in New York state court by several book authors, including mystery novelist Carolyn Banks, Carroll & Graf Publishers has been accused of underpaying royalties, paying royalties late, and withholding royalties by setting reserves for returns in excess of standard industry practice. According to Banks and her fellow plaintiffs, Carroll & Graf did these things not just to them, but as a "pattern of conduct" towards all its authors. As a result, they sought to have their case certified as a class action, and their motion was granted by trial court Judge Barry Cozier. Carroll & Graf took an immediate appeal from that ruling. And in a short Memorandum Decision, the Appellate Division has reversed. New York law permits class actions in cases where "there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." The Appellate Division acknowledged that "on their face, plaintiffs' claims do appear to have a semblance of commonality. . . ." On closer examination, however, the appellate court determined that most of the plaintiffs' claims will require "individualized proof." For example, the court said that the reasonableness of Carroll & Graf's reserves for returns depends on the popularity of a book's author, the number of books distributed, the type of book and its market, the amount of promotion and publicity for the book, and the book's past history of returns. The underpayment of royalties claim will require the review of sales of individual books, the number returned, and the royalty provisions of each publishing contract. The late payment issue may present common issues. But the appellate court was not convinced that this issue "predominates" the issues to be litigated. For these reasons, the Appellate Division has "decertified" the class. Banks v. Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., 699 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1999 N.Y.App.Div.LEXIS 12638 (App.Div. 1999)[ELR 21:11:21] (Entertainment Law Reporter, April, 2000) COLORADO: Trial Begins in Lawsuit over School Funding ----------------------------------------------------- Ernie Casius Jr. used to come home from school frustrated and embarrassed because he couldn't get from his upstairs classroom to the downstairs restroom fast enough. Casius, who suffers from cerebral palsy, often didn't make it time, his mother, Wilma Casius, told a judge Monday. "He had accidents." Wilma Casius testified in a class-action lawsuit against state government that claims a lack of state funding for school construction and repairs violates the state constitution's guarantee for a uniform funding system. The trial opened Monday in Denver District Court and is expected to last five weeks. A decision is expected this fall. The lawsuit represents at least 23,000 students in Lake County, Sanford, Aguilar, Las Animas, Pueblo 60 and Centennial. Colorado has about 700,000 public school students. Attorneys representing the students outlined their case in opening arguments submitted in writing. They contend that the state funding formula violates the state Constitution's guarantee of a uniform funding system favors wealthier areas and hurts schools in poorer communities - like Aguilar Elementary, which Ernie Casius attended. The plaintiffs "daily attend classes in decrepit school buildings that fail to meet constitutionally mandated minimum standards," attorney Steven Kaufman said. Problems cited in the lawsuit include unsafe fire escapes and fire alarm systems, antiquated wiring and plumbing, leaking roofs, inadequate heating and ventilation systems and structural deficiencies, such as cracked masonry. Attorney Linda Comer, who represents the state, said in her written statement that local districts must maintain school buildings, and "the current school finance system enables the districts to meet that obligation." Evidence will show that building conditions "are the results of local district decisions" and arose from "a pattern of neglect, inefficient maintenance or lack of planning," Comer said. The trial opened with testimony from Richard Hill, director of Colorado State University's Rural Education Assistance Program, who surveyed public schools in Aguilar in southern Colorado. Hill said the schools had unsafe fire escapes and playgrounds and science labs lacked basic equipment. "It was a perilous environment in a myriad of ways," Hill said. Hill said Aguilar elementary, junior high and high school are on one 2.9-acre campus. He said the minimum land for a single elementary school is about 8 acres. New schools would cost $8 million to $10 million, but he estimated the Aguilar district could raise less than $2 million through bond issues. Hill's team completed its report in August 1998. Since then, lawmakers have granted some emergency funding to the Aguilar schools. The money was used mostly to fix heating systems. Under Colorado law, state funding covers a little more than half the operating costs of public schools. The rest comes from local property taxes. School districts must finance school construction and repairs through property taxes, which puts districts with low property values in a bind. House Speaker Russell George, R-Rifle, said courts have ruled against states in 28 out of 30 similar lawsuits. He said a ruling against Colorado could cost the state billions of dollars. George said two bills heard by a House committee Monday could have helped settle the school lawsuit, though only one survived. Senate Bill 181, which George sponsored, would ask voters in November to allow spending surplus revenue on emergency construction. The bill was tentatively approved and now advances to the full House for debate. (The Associated Press, April 25, 2000) HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in TX -------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 25, 2000, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of investors who bought Hastings Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq: HAST) stock between June 12, 1998, through March 7, 2000 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit charges Hastings and several of its top officers with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's revenues. Specifically, Hastings is alleged to have misled the market by improperly entering merchandise receipts into their inventory control system, which had the effect of materially understating Hastings' cost of revenues and overstating its gross profit and net income in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). Upon the announcement that Hastings would restate its earnings results for the years 1995 through 1999, the Company's stock price plunged 23% on extraordinarily heavy trading volume to an all-time low. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 800-575-0735 (Michael Miske, Gregory Nespole, Esq., Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or Shane T. Rowley, Esq.) (http://www.whafh.com)(whafh@aol.com) (classmember@whafh.com). LIBERTY NATIONAL: Dismissed Blacks=92 Suit May Be Refiled at State Ct --------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed against Liberty National Insurance Co. by blacks who claimed they were defrauded by the company, but the judge left the door open for residents to refile part of the suit in state court. U.S. District Court Judge H. Dean Buttram dismissed the suit, filed by four DeKalb County residents, in response to a pre-trial motion from Liberty National. The suit was filed in December by Ellen Gayle Moore, 49, Fannie McConnell, 72, Spencer Williams, 51, and Anita Bowers, 43. They claim they were charged discriminatory premiums. The four claimed Liberty National, through Service Insurance Co., sold life insurance, burial insurance and other types of policies to blacks for 50 years. But they said the company failed to pay death benefits to black policyholders. Buttram said in an April 7 ruling that the time had run out for the plaintiffs to make their claims. But he said the court would be "sympathetic" to their claims, if true. The claims allege a moral lapse on the part of Liberty National, Buttram said, but the court can only enforce legal obligations. Birmingham attorney Joe Whatley, who represents the plaintiffs, said he would file an amended complaint and ask the judge to reconsider. The suit sought class-action status for black policyholders. (The Associated Press, April 21, 2000) MICROSOFT CORP: Cable News Coverage on Stock Price ---------------------------------------------------------- Broadcast on the CNN on April 25, 2000 HIGHLIGHT: Bad news at Microsoft helped pull down the Nasdaq, the index now just 161 points above its lowest close of the year. Courtney Smith, president and chief investment officer of the company that bears his name, discusses why investing in Microsoft is now "too risky for too little reward." DEBORAH MARCHINI, CNN ANCHOR: Bad news at Microsoft helped pull down the Nasdaq, the index now just 161 points above its lowest close of the year. DAVID HAFFENREFFER, CNN ANCHOR: Courtney Smith, president and chief investment officer of the company that bears his name, is here with his Wall Street forecast. Good morning. COURTNEY SMITH, COURTNEY SMITH & COMPANY: I was named after the company by the way, just joking. HAFFENREFFER: Microsoft shares really took it in the chops yesterday, down more than 12 points on the day, it is now just above its 52-week low, cheap enough to buy? SMITH: No, no, I'm not a big fan of owning Microsoft, and in fact I doubt I am going to own this company for years, and there's really a couple of major reasons. First of all, this is the company that has basically -- is going to be the Philip Morris of the next 10 years. This is a company that is now being beset by legal problems from the Department of Justice and 19 states. This has really opened the door that everybody can now sue them, you've got the rest of the states, you're going to have their competitors suing them, you're going to have foreign governments suing them, you're going to see class-action lawsuits, and as far as I'm concerned, why do I want to own a company, although it is a great company, that has such litigation risk? It's just too difficult, too risky for too little reward. The second problem is that they're being attacked from all angles. You know, we may be able to start using cell phones and personal digital assistants and cable modems and all kinds of ways to be able to access the productivity tools we need in our business through Linux, cable modems, whatever, we don't necessarily need to have a Microsoft products to do that. So they're being -- they are having to fight a war on multiple fronts, and it's very difficult to win that kind of a battle. MARCHINI: You think they're going to be so hamstrung in their basic business that makers of other operating systems like Linux, and those who basically help distribute it, like RedHat will prosper? SMITH: Yes, I do. Not that I want to buy Red Hat. MARCHINI: Oh, why not? SMITH: Well, I don't think the Linux companies -- I think there is a little smoke and mirrors there in a way too, these are help desks masquerading as companies, so I'm not convinced that's the greatest, you know, business model either. I mean, I think they are a little overvalued as well. But the point is that you've got a company that is being attacked from all fronts, and it is very difficult to win in that environment. HAFFENREFFER: Four point four decline yesterday for the Nasdaq composite, Microsoft getting some of the blame, I guess, for sparking it, much of a surprise in that decline? SMITH: The surprise was obviously the size of the decline is always a surprise, but I had been bearish going into the day. I'm actually bullish coming into today, I think we'll probably see an up session in the market over the next several days. And we're starting to put in a bottom I think in the Nasdaq, but it's not quite there yet, we're going to probably stagger around and see some volatility over the next week or so. HAFFENREFFER: All right, what's the reason that you say we're about to call a bottom in tech stocks? SMITH: Because the biggest cure for a bear market is a bear market, and that is to say that one of the key reasons why we saw the Nasdaq hit so hard was that there was $25 billion worth of stocks sold by insiders, mainly tech stocks, mainly stock coming out of lock up from IPOs a year ago. Twenty-five billion dollars of new supply? Hey, this is a market based on supply and demand, there was an incredible amount of supply coming out. Once you have lower prices, that supply doesn't come out anymore. MARCHINI: All right, but the anecdotal evidence suggests individual investors are not buying on the dips. SMITH: Absolutely right, but if I can get rid of $25 billion worth of supply, it doesn't take a lot of buying to start to move the market up, but that's going to take a few weeks, we need to get a little confidence back in the market that this isn't going to be a 1987 washout, or a 1973-74, you know, bear market for people to start to say: Hey, wait a minute, OK, this is pretty cheap stock, maybe I'll buy Microsoft or, you know, VA Linux or whatever, you know, but they'll start to come in and buy some of the names that have been premiere names over the last year or so. ORANGE UNIFIED: Teachers Walk out of Contract Negotiations ---------------------------------------------------------- Teachers union representatives walked out of contract negotiations Monday with the Orange Unified School District, all but ensuring that a scheduled two-day walkout will begin Wednesday. Representatives of the 1,500-member Orange Unified Education Assn. left the bargaining table Monday after district negotiators refused to undergo mediation on 1998-2000 teacher contracts, said Bill Shanahan, the union's executive director. In a related development, a Superior Court judge dismissed a $ 75-million class-action lawsuit filed against the district on behalf of its retired teachers. Orange teachers have been planning a walkout since trustees of the 30,000-student district retroactively imposed a 1998-2000 contract in March without union consent. District officials hoped to avert a walkout by coming to an agreement Monday on a contract for the next academic year. But union negotiators would not broach that topic until they could be heard on the 1998-2000 contract, Shanahan said, which led to the impasse. "We feel that we tried to offer a way around the issues by suggesting the mediation," he said. "The district chose not to go that route." District spokeswoman Judith Frutig said the two sides have already been through mediation on the 1998-2000 contracts. "We've been there and done that," she said. "We want to move ahead and negotiate a 2000-2001 contract." The contract the board approved in March gives teachers a retroactive 8% pay raise over the 1998-2000 school years, bringing the salaries of the most veteran teachers to $ 56,560. The union's last proposal would have included larger raises for veteran teachers. Salaries would range from $ 32,000 at entry level to a maximum of $ 63,980. The last-minute meeting came as the district prepared for staff absences Wednesday and Thursday by offering more than double its usual $ 100 daily rate for substitute teachers and hiring private security guards for campuses. By late Monday, more than 500 teachers in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside counties had responded to the district's ads offering $ 250 per day for substitutes who passed a background check, said Robert Howell, the district's director of human resources. Howell said at least 800 substitutes will be ready to report during the walkout, which the district expects will keep 850 to 1,000 Orange teachers out of the classroom. The district also sent letters to students' homes last week, assuring parents that schools will remain open and that instruction will carry on as usual. At Monday's meeting, district negotiators offered the teachers a voluntary lifetime medical-benefits buyout of as much as $ 20,000 over five years, available at retirement. This was a concession on an earlier proposal of mandatory buyout over 10 years at age 65, said Frutig. The union also offered a compromise Monday, saying it would accept a $ 1,000 decrease in health benefits, Shanahan said. Rancorous contract negotiations between the district and the teachers union have lasted for two years. District officials have said they cannot afford to pay teachers what the union is requesting and stay afloat financially. Meanwhile, union officials have questioned the validity of the district's budget figures. Last week, a Superior Court judge dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of 700 retired Orange teachers. The lawsuit, which sought class-action status, claimed that the district reneged on 23-year-old promise to give retirees free lifetime medical benefits in exchange for lower salaries. In dismissing the suit, Judge John C. Woolley said the retired teachers filed suit too soon--before they had exhausted all options through the Public Employment Relations Board. James A. Bowles, the school district's lawyer, said in a statement that the purpose of the failed lawsuit was to overturn a contract negotiated by the district and the teachers union in 1997, which required any new retirees to enter a health-maintenance organization plan. Plaintiff David Reger said he was not aware that the suit was dismissed; his lawyers could not be reached for comment late Monday. Two similar suits, one for $ 35 million filed on behalf of retired janitors and clerical workers and one for $ 19 million filed for retired administrators, are pending. (Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2000) REZULIN: Lawsuits against Maker of Diabetes Drug Pile up -------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits against the maker of Rezulin, the diabetes drug withdrawn from the market after it was blamed for at least 63 deaths, are piling up as both individuals and groups seek compensation for a wide range of alleged health complications. Some patients died or needed lifesaving liver transplants after taking Rezulin, including a Franklin man who urgently needs a donor organ. Many more, including some in Massachusetts, say they require long-term monitoring to watch for potential side effects. The suits are multiplying in the wake of the decision last month by Warner-Lambert Co. of Morris Plains, N.J., to pull Rezulin off the market, under pressure from the US Food and Drug Administration. Sales of the drug were halted in Britain two years ago. Rezulin is one of a class of new drugs that help diabetics use their limited amount of natural insulin more efficiently. Officials at the FDA disagreed over the drug's risks - with some arguing that the benefits to diabetics outweighed the risks - delaying agency action until March. "This case is such a tragedy for the Americans who suffered from the drug, and a tragedy for faith in the FDA," said Michael Hackard, a California lawyer who is representing 26 Rezulin patients. Hackard said people who suffered severe liver damage, as well as the families of those who died, should get multimillion dollar settlements, based on previous suits in which patients needing transplants received settlements of $4 million to $6 million. However, because those suits will be so expensive to pursue - as much as $ 100,000 each - a Medford firm has filed a class-action suit to obtain compensation for people who did not have as severe a reaction to the drug. "This case is the only hope for some of the lesser-damaged people," said Robert J. Bonsignore of Bonsignore and Brewer. The suit, said Bonsignore, aims to "force the company to set money to reimburse people who fell victim to their drug, for the cost of medical monitoring and maybe associated health costs." A second class-action suit was filed this month in New Jersey. Warner-Lambert issued a brief statement in response to the lawsuits. It said the company's conduct "was guided by strict adherence to FDA regulations." While acknowledging that "some patients have experienced adverse events" while taking the drug, the company gave adequate warning about health risks. In addition, some doctors continue to defend Rezulin. Dr. Martin Abrahamson, chief of adult diabetes at Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, said he welcomed Rezulin as "a major advance" in controlling blood sugar, a major issue for diabetics. He defended the FDA's course of action, saying that if patients were monitored properly, there was only a 1 in 100,000 chance of a "serious liver event." Since Rezulin's withdrawal from the market, patients who were taking it have been switched to one of two drugs similar to Rezulin that appear to have fewer adverse effects, said Abrahamson. Hackard, the California lawyer, said his clients from across the country include six people have had or will need liver transplants, and others "who are too old or too sick to have liver transplants, and will die" as a result of damage allegedly caused by Rezulin. The Massachusetts patient he represents, David "Chris" Ashe, 53, of Franklin, suffered such severe liver damage that he needs a transplant to survive, said Hackard. While Hackard blames the FDA in part, he says the company "apparently suppressed information" about deaths that occurred in early clinical testing so that the FDA was unaware of them. Rezulin was touted as a great advance in diabetes treatment when it was introduced in early 1997. A growing number of deaths linked to the drug forced Warner-Lambert to strengthen warnings about possible toxicity. Hackard said that the FDA allowed Warner-Lambert to push the drug through approval in about six months, compared with the normal three-year approval process. By not withdrawing the drug when it was pulled from the market in Britain, he said, the company "brought in an additional $1.5 billion in revenue while lots of people died." Hackard estimates that up to 600 deaths may have occurred due to Rezulin, 10 times the reported number. David Geiger, a Boston attorney who defends product-liability lawsuits, said Warner-Lambert would probably rely on its regulation by the FDA as a defense against its actions, and that plaintiffs would have to convince a jury that the Warner-Lambert was negligent in its warnings to doctors. (The Boston Globe, April 25, 2000) RISCORP INC: Plans Vigorous Defense of Securities Suit in FL ------------------------------------------------------------ On July 9, 1999, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, two of its executive officers, and two former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiff in this action purports to represent the class of shareholders who purchased shares of RISCORP's Class A Common Stock between November 19, 1997 and July 20, 1998. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the financial statements included in the periodic reports filed by RISCORP with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the class period contain false and misleading statements of material fact and omissions, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These allegations principally relate to the difference between the net book value of the Company as reflected on its published financial statements during the class period and the net book value of the assets transferred to Zenith as determined by the neutral auditors and neutral actuaries pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement between the parties. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. RISCORP believes that these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this suit. RISCORP INC: Will Resume Defense in FL Case over Worker's Policies ------------------------------------------------------------------ On March 13, 1998, RISCORP Insurance Company ("RIC") and RISCORP Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("RPC") were added as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, styled Bristol Hotel Management Corporation, et. al., v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, a/k/a Aetna Group, et. al. Case No. 97-2240-CIV-MORENO. The plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all employers in the State of Florida who purchased or renewed retrospectively rated or adjusted workers' compensation policies in the voluntary market since 1985. The suit was originally filed on July 17, 1997 against approximately 174 workers' compensation insurers as defendants. The complaint was subsequently amended to add the RISCORP defendants. The amended complaint named a total of approximately 161 insurer defendants. The suit claims that the defendant insurance companies violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and the Florida Antitrust Act, committed breach of contract and civil conspiracy, and were unjustly enriched by unlawfully adding improper and illegal charges and fees onto retrospectively rated premiums and otherwise charging more for those policies than allowed by law. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, treble damages under the Antitrust and RICO claims, and equitable relief. RIC and RPC moved to dismiss the amended complaint and have also filed certain motions to dismiss the amended complaint filed by various other defendants. On August 26, 1998, the district court issued an order dismissing the entire suit against all defendants on one of the grounds identified in the various motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. The district court indicated that all other grounds and motions to dismiss that were pending at that time were mooted by the dismissal. On September 13, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal. On February 9, 1999, the district court issued, sua sponte, an Order of Reconsideration in which the court indicated its desire to vacate the dismissal of the RICO claims and pendant state claims based on a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court. On March 17, 1999, plaintiffs-appellants filed an unopposed motion to remand the action to the district court, citing the Order of Reconsideration. On June 9, 1999, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court. Management will resume its vigorous defense of the case once district court proceedings recommence. SOTHEBY'S, CHRISTIE'S: NY Judge Oks Class for Antitrust Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Beleaguered auction house Sotheby's and Christie's have suffered a new blow with a New York judge giving the green light to more than 60 litigants to bring a class action lawsuit. The lawsuits were launched individually after January's announcement of a US Justice Department antitrust investigation into alleged price-fixing in the international auctions business. However, Judge Lewis Kaplan has now given the lawsuits class action status, allowing them to group together to bring one large case. The judge said anyone who bought or sold items through the two auction houses between January 1993 and February 7 this year could be part of the class, potentially opening the door for thousands of claims running into millions of dollars. The ruling does not affect shareholders who filed suits claiming that any price-fixing would have inflated revenues and misled investors. The investigation concerns allegations that the auction houses colluded over prices, changing their fees within weeks of each other in 1992 and in 1995. No charges have been brought. Christie's announced in January that it and its management had been offered "conditional amnesty" from prosecution in exchange for information regarding the probe. Sotheby's non-executive chairman Alfred Taubman and its chief executive Diana Brooks resigned in February. (The Daily Telegraph(London), April 25, 2000) TOBACCO LITIGATION: Judge Kaye Says No Delay for Next Phase of Trial -------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for the country's five largest tobacco companies seemed unable to win an argument in Miami-Dade Circuit Court on Monday. Judge Robert Kaye rejected a request by lead tobacco attorney Dan Webb to delay the start of the next phase of the statewide class-action trial against the industry. The judge told lawyers on both sides to be ready on May 15. Webb wanted the extension, he said, because there is too much work still to be done. That work includes taking depositions and collecting interrogatories from some of the 52 witnesses scheduled for the next phase. The next phase of the trial, Webb said, would probably take closer to eight weeks than the four weeks previously estimated. Jurors already have heard 18 months of testimony in this case. In the first phase of the trial, which ended in July, the six jurors found the tobacco industry responsible for manufacturing a dangerous product and lying about its health risks. In the second phase, the jury found that cigarettes caused the cancer suffered by three smokers who were representing the entire class. On April 7, the jury returned with a verdict ordering the tobacco companies to compensate them with $ 12.7 million for their medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering. In this next phase, the same jurors must decide how much the tobacco companies should pay to the entire class of smokers, estimated to be as many as 500,000 people, as punishment for manufacturing the product that made them sick. "This class size presents a very real possibility that defendants would be economically crippled," Webb said. Using what he called conservative estimates of the class size, 300,000 people, and possible punitive damages of $ 25,000 per person, the jury could come back with a verdict "beyond what Philip Morris could absorb," Webb said. Florida law does not allow punitive damages so high as to bankrupt a company. And Stanley Rosenblatt, half the husband and wife team of lawyers representing the smokers, said projecting the bankruptcy of the tobacco companies is like predicting the bankruptcy of Saudi Arabia. "It seems obvious from the findings of the jury in phase one and phase two, that they said you deserve to be economically crippled," Rosenblatt said. Tobacco lawyers also asked the judge to remove Frank Amodeo, an Orlando clockmaker, as a plaintiff in the case because of the verdict returned by the jury earlier this month. The jury awarded Amodeo more than $ 5 million in compensatory damages. But the jury also said he should have known that cigarettes caused his throat cancer when he was diagnosed in 1987. By not joining the class-action lawsuit until 1995, he missed the four-year deadline for filing a lawsuit. The judge said he would make a decision regarding this contradictory verdict after the trial is completed. (Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), April 25, 2000) TOBACCO LITIGATION: Moves to Cap Damage Award Anger Lawyers ----------------------------------------------------------- The country's biggest cigarette companies engineered a legal coup when they offered $ 246 billion to settle lawsuits brought by 46 states, said the lawyers now representing hundreds of thousands of sick Florida smokers in a precedent-setting class action. "They've got all these states trying to protect them now because the more cigarettes they sell, the more money the states get," said Susan Rosenblatt, one of the Miami lawyers representing the smokers in the ongoing class-action trial. "It's really a mind-boggling situation, because our supposed allies have joined with the defense," Rosenblatt said during a hearing Monday in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The hearing came during a break in the trial, which will resume on May 15, when the six-person jury will return to hear evidence and answer this question: How much should the tobacco companies pay class members as punishment for selling a dangerous product and lying about its health risks? A proposal now before the state Legislature in Tallahassee that would protect the tobacco industry from a huge punitive damage award fueled Rosenblatt's ire.Under a 1997 settlement of a Medicare case brought against the cigarette makers by Florida, they will pay the state $ 17 billion over the next 30 years. "And not one cent of that money goes to any individual," said Stanley Rosenblatt, Susan's husband and the other half of the legal team representing Florida smokers. Their case against the tobacco companies is precedent-setting because any punitive or compensatory damages the cigarette makers actually pay out would be the first to go directly to people who became sick from smoking, or the relatives of those who died from tobacco use. Lawyers for the tobacco companies have said the class could be as large as 500,000, and the jury could award as much as $ 300 billion in punitive damages to the smokers, effectively bankrupting the cigarette industry. And lobbyists for the tobacco industry have successfully peddled those fears in Tallahassee, said the smokers' lawyers. "The (Florida) Legislature and Attorney General Bob Butterworth are now convinced that if there is a huge punitive award in this tobacco case, the state's money for roads is at risk," said Susan Rosenblatt, referring to the fact that most of the money from the 1997 settlement goes for general revenue purposes. The tobacco companies also want to use the settlement with the states to show the jury hearing the class-action case that they have changed their ways, Stanley Rosenblatt said. "And we will show that they (tobacco) haven't changed a thing," he said. Fears the class action could interfere with the state's settlement prompted a legislative committee last week to recommend a change in the law. The committee wants to put a $ 50 million cap on the amount tobacco companies would have to put in a bond pending appeals of the verdicts. Under current law, the tobacco companies would be required to post about 120 percent of the damage amount in bond. The bond would ensure there is money waiting for the sick smokers after the appeals are over. Several other states passed similar laws earlier this month. The Rosenblatts reminded the court that state law does not allow damage awards so high that they bankrupt a company. And urged the judge not to give special favors to the industry. "This is an industry awash in cash," said Stanley Rosenblatt. "Think about it: They were willing to pay $ 246 billion to make this go away. And Mr. Webb (the lead tobacco attorney in the trial) can now quote the attorney general of Florida." Butterworth was a key player in the state's 1997 settlement with tobacco and, at that time, a vocal opponent of tobacco. But now he is interpreting state law in a way that would indefinitely postpone any possible punitive awards from the tobacco companies getting to smokers in the class action. "Now (the legislators and Butterworth) are fighting against their own constituents to keep the cash flow coming from the tobacco industry," Rosenblatt said. "It would be interesting to see if any of the (tobacco) CEOs took any pay cuts since that settlement." (Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), April 25, 2000) TOYOTA MOTOR: Car Dealer Sued in IL under Consumer Fraud Act and TILA --------------------------------------------------------------------- The fact that the auto dealer is not liable under the Truth in Lending Act cannot automatically translate into a finding that the auto dealer did not engage in an unfair and deceptive practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. Pawlikowski v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., Illinois Appellate Court, Second District. 309 Ill.App.3d 550, 722 N.E.2d 767, 243 Ill. Dec. 1 (1999). The plaintiff filed her class-action complaint against Toyota Motor Credit Corp. and Arlington Toyota Inc. concerning a retail installment contract for the sale of a motor vehicle and an extended warranty. The plaintiff alleged that she had entered into the retail installment contract on May 6, 1991, with Arlington. The contract was later assigned by Arlington to TMCC, a finance company. The plaintiff further alleged that the retail installment contract contained a certain disclosure as follows: Other Charges Including Amounts Paid To Others On Your Behalf: ... C. Cost of Optional Mechanical Breakdown Protection Paid to the ... Company Named Below -- Covering Certain Mechanical Repairs Mechanical Breakdown Ins. $ 900.00" The plaintiff further alleged that although the retail installment contract provided that $ 900 was paid to the warranty company, this statement was misleading. The plaintiff alleged that the amount actually paid to the warranty company was substantially less, with the difference retained by Arlington. This cause was certified to proceed as a class action. TMCC filed a motion to dismiss counts 4, 5 and 6 pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In its motion, TMCC contended that it was not liable under the Consumer Fraud Act as an assignee of the retail installment contract and that the plaintiff had failed to allege specifically the nature of the fraudulent conduct. TMCC also argued that it could not be held liable for fraud committed by Arlington. The trial court granted TMCC's motion to dismiss, with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that TMCC's involvement" in the misstatement on the retail installment contract renders it liable for fraudulent misrepresentation under the Consumer Fraud Act. The Illinois Appellate Court, in an opinion written by Justice Fred Geiger, without dissent, ruled as follows: We first address whether the plaintiff may state a cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act against TMCC regardless of TMCC's liability under the Truth In Lending Act. The Consumer Fraud Act prohibits any concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact in trade or commerce with the intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission.... The fact that TMCC is not liable under TILA cannot automatically translate into a finding that TMCC did not engage in an unfair and deceptive practice under the Consumer Fraud Act. For this reason ... we conclude that TMCC's escape from liability under TILA does not serve as an affirmative defense to the plaintiff's Consumer Fraud Act cause of action.... For the foregoing reasons, we hold as follows: that portion of the trial court's Nov. 23, 1998, order dismissing count 4, with prejudice, is reversed...." Daniel A. Edelman, Cathleen M. Combs, James O. Latturner, Jeffrey S. Sell and Jamie S. Franklin, all of Edelman, Combs & Latturner of Chicago, and Lawrence A. Stein of Huck, Bouma, Martin, Charlton & Bradshaw P.C. of Wheaton and Vincent L. DiTommaso of DiTommaso & Associates of Oak Brook, for appellant. Thomas M. Crisham and Jean M. Predergast, both of Quinlan & Crisham Ltd. of Chicago, for appellee. (Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 24, 2000) UNISYS CORP: Securities Lawsuits in PA Consolidated --------------------------------------------------- As has been reported in the CAR, a number of purported class action lawsuits seeking unspecified compensatory damages have been filed against Unisys and various current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by persons who acquired Unisys common stock during the period May 4, 1999 through October 14, 1999. On February 16, 2000, these actions, which are in the early stages, were consolidated under the caption In re: Unisys Corporation Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Federal securities laws in connection with statements made by the company concerning certain of its services contracts. The company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend this action vigorously. * 3rd Cir in PA Orders Freeze on NJ's Version of Megan Law Notification ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ordered a freeze on sex offender notifications in New Jersey until it has time to review the fairness of procedures being used by local officials who issue these earnings. U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas last week ruled that the state's Megan's Law guidelines, as revised by Attorney General John Farmer, provided a reasonable system for warning neighbors about sex offenders while making sure the privileged information was not leaked to the community at large. But the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia issued an order last Tuesday saying it wanted to review those facts for itself. Federal Appellate Judge Dolores Sloviter ordered Megan's Law notifications frozen in the meantime, a step Irenas never took even after he demanded that the guidelines be improved. The New Jersey Public Defenders office, which represents sex offenders, hailed the order because in their view the current system for notifications does not prevent leaks. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling last year written by Sloviter, said Megan's Law was all right provided reasonable steps are taken to make sure that information about sex offenders was given only to neighbors who were authorized to receive it. Sloviter said people have a constitutional right to keep their home address private, and that authorities must take steps to protect this right when conducting door-to-door notifications about sex offenders. Under the law, sex offenders who are released from prison or who move into New Jersey are required to register their address, and officials seek to conduct limited notifications to neighbors or area schools according to their assessment of the risk that the offender might pose to others. For high risk offenders, police conduct door-to-door notification with name, address, photo, criminal record and other details. For those deemed moderate risk, notifications are limited to area schools, daycare centers, Little Leagues and other facilities or organizations that have custody of children. In a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of sex offenders, the Public Defender's office has challenged the notification procedures, saying the information was frequently leaked to others not entitled to receive it and further, that county prosecutors were not doing enough to prevent these leaks. (Pennsylvania Law Weekly, April 24, 2000) ********* 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. 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 * * *