/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010706.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 6, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 131 Headlines AID ASSOCIATION: Lawsuits Won't Deter Merger, Lawyers Say ETOYS INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. New York ETOYS INC: Milberg Weiss Begins Shareholder Suit In S.D. NY FMC CORPORATION: Appeals Court Orders Third Chemical Suit Trial INTERNAP NETWORK: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Court Certifies Case JC PENNEY: Alleged Card Charges, Denied Claims Bring Suit MOVIE REVIEWS LITIGATION: Nonprofit Group Files Fraud Suits PONDIMIN LITIGATION: Judge Okays $11 Million Settlement PROTON ENERGY: Cauley Geller Files Securitie Suit in S.D. NY REDBACK NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Shareholder Suit SODOMY LAW LITIGATION: Judge Extends Ruling to Minnesota Adults SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Securities Suit VANDERBURG COUNTY: Settlement Offered in Jail Crowding Suit ***** AID ASSOCIATION: Lawsuits Won't Deter Merger, Lawyers Say --------------------------------------------------------- Corporate attorneys say lawsuits pending against Aid Association for Lutherans and Lutheran Brotherhood won't affect the companies' merger plans, the Post-Crescent reports. A class action lawsuit was filed by four members of AAL in Kansas City, Mo. in 1999. The suit alleged fraudulent or misleading sales practice. At least two other lawsuits have been filed. AAL has a Member Dispute Resolution Program, adopted in March 1999, which is designed to stop costly litigation by members who believe they are treated unfairly. The program involves three steps which include appeal, mediation and binding arbitration. Minneapolis-based Lutheran Brotherhood is facing similar lawsuits concerning the creation of universal life policies in the 1980s, but does not have a rule in its bylaws forbidding members from suing it. Minneapolis attorney Katheryn Andresen, representing plaintiffs suing both companies, told the Post-Crescent the lawsuits are based on a marketing practice involving "vanishing premiums." AAL members were reportedly persuaded by their agents to exchange the cash value in their traditional whole life insurance policies for the riskier universal life policies. "One sales tactic used throughout the industry and by these two companies was to say that at some point the (universal life) policy would be earning sufficient interest and dividends to pay for the cost of insurance, and the member would have no more out- of-pocket premiums," Andresen said. She told the Post-Crescent that when interest rates fell and the clients aged, the premiums rose. Clients who couldn't keep up with the payments faced default and the loss of their investment. AAL members are also challenging the arbitration rule, and claim it is an attempt to strip them of their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs' attorney in the Missouri lawsuit Diane Nygaard said, "We are confident that no judge will require people to individually take problems they have with an insurance company through a three-step, insurance-company-run procedure." AAL requested to transfer the Missouri case to a federal court in Wisconsin, but federal District Court Judge Gary Fenner remanded the case to Missouri state court in May 2000 by. The Missouri judge has not ruled yet on whether the case will be certified as a class action. The case filed by Andresen against Lutheran Brotherhood began with a suit in a Wisconsin state court but was joined with cases from Minnesota and elsewhere in a federal court in Minnesota, and was certified as a class action by federal District Court Judge Paul Magnuson earlier last month. ETOYS INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of eToys, Inc. (Nasdaq: ETYS) securities during the period between May 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges the following defendants: * Goldman Sachs & Co. * BancBoston Robertson Stephens * Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated * Edward C. Lenk, and * Steven J. Schoch with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. On or about May 19, 1999 , eToys commenced an initial public offering of 8,320,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $20.00 per share. In connection therewith, eToys filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of eToys shares issued in connection with the eToys IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate eToys shares to those customers in the eToys IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional eToys shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Purchasers of the securities of eToys between May 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may, no later than August 27, 2001 request the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff. For more information on this action, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau of the Client Relations Department, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, Web site www.classlawyer.com. ETOYS INC: Milberg Weiss Begins Shareholder Suit In S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action lawsuit on July 3, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of eToys, Inc. (NASDAQ: ETYS) between May 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, against the following defendants: * Goldman Sachs & Co. * BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. * Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated * Edward C. Lenk, and * Steven J. Schoch. On or about May 19, 1999, eToys commenced an initial public offering of 8,320,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $20.00 per share. In connection therewith, eToys filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of eToys shares issued in connection with the eToys IPO; and (ii) Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill had entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill agreed to allocate eToys shares to those customers in the eToys IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional eToys shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Purchasers of the securities of eToys between May 19,1999 and December 6, 2000, may, no later than August 27, 2001, request to be appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff. For more information on this action, contact the following attorneys: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081, Email: etoyscase@milbergny.com, Website: http://www.milberg.com FMC CORPORATION: Appeals Court Orders Third Chemical Suit Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned part of a 1999 jury verdict in FMC's favor, and a three-judge panel sent the case back to Chief U.S. District Judge Charles H. Haden II for a third trial in a lawsuit over a December 1995 chemical leak at FMC Corp.'s Nitro plant. More than 6,000 pounds of toxic phosphorus trichloride was released from Chicago-based FMC's chemical manufacturing plant. The chemical then combined with rainwater to produce a hydrochloric acid cloud. U.S. District Judge Raymond A. Jackson of Virginia was appointed to hear the appeal with Fourth Circuit Judges Karen J. Williams and William B. Traxler Jr. The panel said in a 19-page unsigned decision that jurors in the second trial never indicated whether the entire class of more than 400 plaintiffs was harmed by leak exposure. Both trials were broken into two phases. In the first phase, jurors were to decide the class-wide issues of negligence and strict liability, as well as compensatory damages for the 12 "trial plaintiffs." Trial plaintiffs were chosen to represent various categories of the larger class, with the first phase determining whether FMC's conduct warranted punitive damages. The second phase involves a series of mini-trials to resolve individual claims by the rest of the class. Claims Resolution could be performed by a special master or mediator. IRWIN MORTGAGE: 11th Circuit Court Certifies Case --------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit against Irwin Mortgage Corp. has been certified as a class action lawsuit by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, according to a July 3, 2001 report by LendingIntelligence.com. Irwin Mortgage was formerly Inland Mortgage Corp. The case Culpepper v. Irwin will now see trial in an Alabama Federal District court. Industry lawyers have reportedly voiced their concern that this ruling will trigger potential class-action cases which were pending. George Eshaghian, general counsel for WMC Mortgage Corp., told LendingIntelligence.com, "In the mortgage industry, this is viewed as a big deal. Culpepper is not the only pending case out there." "We're going to see a lot more litigation like this. This has a huge potential impact on the mortgage business and the way lenders and brokers interact and the services provided to borrowers. The business will be very fundamentally changed." John and Patricia Culpepper are suing the mortgage company for misuse of yield-spread premiums, which brokers receive from lenders as compensation. The suit charges that Irwin violated the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act anti-kickback provision by paying yield-spread premiums. Irwin can appeal the class certification decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. No trial date has yet been scheduled. INTERNAP NETWORK: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of InterNAP Network Services Corporation (Nasdaq: INAP) securities during the period between September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/internap.pdf. The complaint charges the following defendants: * InterNAP * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. * Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. * BancBoston Robertson Stephens * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. * Anthony C. Naughtin * Paul E. McBride, and * Eugene Eidenberg. On or about September 29, 1999, InterNAP commenced an initial public offering of 9.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, InterNAP filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of InterNAP shares issued in connection with the InterNAP IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate InterNAP shares to those customers in the InterNAP IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional InterNAP shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Purchasers of the securities of InterNAP between September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may, no later than September 4, 2001 request to be appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff. For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau of the Client Relations Department, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, Web site www.classlawyer.com JC PENNEY: Alleged Card Charges, Denied Claims Bring Suit --------------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit filed June 28, 2001 charges JCPenney and Dutch insurance firm Aegon with charging consumer credit cards without permission. The suit also alleges the companies denied rightful claims made by consumers on insurance policies. Scott Hovanyetz, writing for DMNews.com, reports that JCPenney has marketed an accidental-death-and-dismemberment insurance policy to consumers via telemarketing since 1987. Attorneys at Berg & Androphy, which represents the plaintiffs, reportedly said JCPenney promised to send information in the mail to interested consumers without obligation. Consumers were reportedly told in some cases that the first three months of premiums on the insurance policies would be paid for them. Consumers were automatically enrolled, with no signatures required to activate the policies. The suit charges that JCPenney made withdrawing from the program "nearly impossible," Hovanyetz reports. All refunds were reportedly capped at two to three months. The lawsuit stemmed from the death of 81-year-old Marguerite York of Corpus Christi, TX. York died of injuries from a car accident in June of 1999. Her son William York, an attorney based in Houston, reportedly found out she had unknowingly paid premiums through her credit card on a $100,000 life insurance policy since 1993. York had protection under the policy if she was "struck by a vehicle," but law firm Berg & Androphy said JCPenney denied the claim, Hovanyetz reports. The law firm is seeking up to $4.4 billion in damages from the class-action lawsuit, which was filed in state district court in Corpus Christi. MOVIE REVIEWS LITIGATION: Nonprofit Group Files Fraud Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Nonprofit group Citizens for Truth in Movie Advertising and four other people filed 10 separate class action lawsuits late Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court against virtually all the major studios and their subsidiaries, the Post-Crescent reports. Anthony Sonnett, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, described his clients as people who were "just sick and tired of looking at movie ads that say Battlefield Earth was the greatest movie since `Star Wars,' then go and find it is absolutely atrocious." The lawsuits allege the studios engage in fraud and unfair and deceptive business practices when they use glowing reviews about films in advertisements without informing the public that reviewers may have gotten perks in connection with attending the film screening, the Post-Crescent said. The studio defendants and their subsidiaries include: * Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios * Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. * Lions Gate Entertainment * DreamWorks * Vivendi Universal * AOL Time Warner * Artisan Entertainment * Viacom, and * Sony. The lawsuit alleges movie reviewers receive perks and benefits which include travel and meal accommodations, hats, mouse pads, meetings with celebrities, and celebrity autographs. Studios are required by California Civil Code and Federal Trade Commission laws to either not give anything to reviewers and/or make disclosures in the advertisements about items received from the studio in order to avoid a conflict of interest. PONDIMIN LITIGATION: Judge Okays $11 Million Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Ontario Court of Justice Judge Peter Cumming approved a national class-action settlement of more that $11 million for users of the diet drug Pondimin. Some 9,500 Canadians who have medical effects caused by the drug may claim compensation. The drug is also known as fenfluramine and is believed to increase risk of heart valve damage. It is believed to cause heart abnormalities which allow a back flow of blood through heart valves. This decreases circulation and can lead to infection or primary pulmonary hypertension, which is a fatal disease. Symptoms of heart damage include shortness of breath, leg swelling, and heart murmurs. Health Canada and other agencies had reported that 30% of users had abnormal heart echocardiograms, triggering a pullout from store shelves in both Canada and the U.S. in September 1997. The lawsuit was filed by Lindy and Michael Knowles of Ajax against drug companies Wyeth-Ayerst Canada, Inc. and parent company American Home Products Corp. PROTON ENERGY: Cauley Geller Files Securitie Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Proton Energy Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRTN) securities during the period between September 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/protonenergy.pdf. The complaint charges the following defendants: * Proton Energy * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation * Salomon Smith Barney Inc. * Walter Schroeder * John A. Glidden * Trent M. Molter, and * Robert W. Shaw, Jr. with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about September 28, 2000, Proton Energy commenced an initial public offering of 7 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17 per share. In connection therewith, Proton Energy filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Smith Barney) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Proton Energy shares issued in connection with the Proton Energy IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Proton Energy shares to those customers in the Proton Energy IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Proton Energy shares in the aftermarket at pre- determined prices. Buyers of the securities of Proton Energy between September 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, have no later than September 4, 2001 to request appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff. For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau, Client Relations Department, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, Web site www.classlawyer.com REDBACK NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced today that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Redback Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: RBAK) securities during the period between May 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/redback.pdf. The complaint charges the following defendants: * Redback * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. * BancBoston Robertson Stephens * Lehman Brothers Inc. * Dennis L. Barsema, and * Geoffrey C. Darby On or about May 17, 1999, Redback commenced an initial public offering of 2.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $23 per share. In connection therewith, Redback filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Robertson Stephens and Lehman Brothers) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Redback shares issued in connection with the Redback IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Redback shares to those customers in the Redback IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Redback shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Buyers of the securities of Redback between May 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000 have no later than September 4, 2001 to request appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff. For more information on this action, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau, Client Relations Department, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, web site at www.classlawyer.com. SODOMY LAW LITIGATION: Judge Extends Ruling to Minnesota Adults --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Delila Pierce, of Hennepin County, gave class- action status Monday to a case in which eight plaintiffs sued the state challenging the sodomy law. The judge found a state law, which prohibited oral and anal sex, unconstitutional in May because it violated rights to privacy. The 13-page Monday order gives the May ruling state-wide effect. Eight plaintiffs sued the state, the governor and the attorney general with the backing of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union. Pam Louwagie and Margaret Zack, writing for The Star Tribune, said the plaintiff's attorneys noted consenting adults who engage in the sexual acts in private, noncommercial settings are protected from prosecution. The 19th-century law made oral and anal sex illegal even between consenting adults in a private setting. SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files S.D. NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action lawsuit on July 3, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sycamore Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: SCMR) between October 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at: http://www.milberg.com/sycamore/ The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, against the following defendants: * Sycamore * Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated * Lehman Brothers, Inc. * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation * Goldman Sachs & Co. * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated * Daniel E. Smith, and * Frances M. Jewels. On or about October 21, 1999, Sycamore commenced an initial public offering of 7,475,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $38 per share. In connection therewith, Sycamore filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. Additionally, on March 14, 2000, Sycamore sold shares to the public through a secondary offering of 10,200,000 of its shares at an offering price of $150-1/4. As alleged in the complaint, the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs & Merrill had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs & Merrill allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Sycamore shares issued in connection with the Sycamore IPO; and (ii) Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs & Merrill had entered into agreements with customers whereby Morgan Stanley, Lehman, Robertson Stephens, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs & Merrill agreed to allocate Sycamore shares to those customers in the Sycamore IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Sycamore shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings. Persons who bought the securities of Sycamore between October 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, may, no later than August 31, 2001, request the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff. For more information about this action, contact the following attorneys: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081, Email: sycamorecase@milbergNY.com, Web site: http://www.milberg.com SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files S.D. NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sycamore Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCMR) securities during the period between October 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/sycamore.pdf. The complaint charges the following defendants: * Sycamore * Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. * Lehman Brothers Inc. * FleetBoston Robertson Stephens * Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation * Goldman Sachs & Co. * Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated * Daniel E. Smith, and * Frances M. Jewels with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about October 21, 1999, Sycamore commenced an initial public offering of 7,475,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $38 per share. In connection therewith, Sycamore filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Robertson Stephens, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Sycamore shares issued in connection with the Sycamore IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Sycamore shares to those customers in the Sycamore IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Sycamore shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Persons who bought the securities of Sycamore between October 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may no later than August 31, 2001 request to be appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff. For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, Client Relations Department, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com, web site at www.classlawyer.com VANDERBURG COUNTY: Settlement Offered in Jail Crowding Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Vanderburgh County council voted 6-1 Tuesday to offer an agreement to the County Commissioners and an attorney for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU). A report by Susan Taylor of The Evansville Courier & Press said the agreement is intended to end the 22-year-old class-action lawsuit brought by former and current county jail inmates complaining about overcrowding. County Commissioners and ICLU attorney Kenneth Falk, representing jail inmates, have to sign the agreement before it can be filed in federal court. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young has set July 13 for the court filing. The agreement basically says the county is committed to "take steps necessary to have a jail facility with a capacity of at least 400 beds which is designed to resolve conditions of overcrowding which the plaintiffs allege have occurred in the past," Taylor reports. Under the agreement, commissioners are not allowed to issue bonds and levy new or increase existing taxes without the approval of the council, which has set a $35- million budget to build a new jail and possibly a new community correction complex and a juvenile holding facility. The three facilities will reportedly cost $50 million. ********* 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., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 2001. 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 * * *