/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010914.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 14, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 180 Headlines AETHER SYSTEMS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY AIR TRANSAT: Lawsuit for Emotional Trauma Will Win Small Payment AIRLINE LITIGATION: Suit Seeks to Ban Pesticide Spraying in Planes APRIA HEALTHCARE: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Sued by Employees For Unpaid Overtime in CA CANNON BEACH: Disabled Get Access at Oregon Resort Town in Settlement CHINADOTCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit in S.D. NY CITIGROUP INC.: Cohen Milstein Initiates Privacy Suit in Arizona CLARENT CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in S.D. NY E-STAMP CORPORATION: Customer Files Breach of Contract Suit in NY EQUINIX INC.: Sued by Stockholders for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY HANDSPRING CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY HARRIS TEETER: Sued by Former Employees for Racial Bias in Atlanta HORSESHOE GAMING: Intervenes in Tax Suit in Bossier City LA KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Initiates Suit in E.D. NY LENDINGTREE, INC.: Enters Settlement in California Lawsuit LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Enters Agreement to Settle Suit in Delaware LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: New Jersey Court Approves Class Certification MARCONI PLC: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA MCAFEE CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY METLIFE, INC.: Subsidiary Named in Automobile Claims Suits in RI and FL NETRO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY NETWORK PLUS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY ONYX SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA OPUS360 CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY OPUS360 CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Securities Suit in S. D. NY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: Face Multiple Antitrust Suits in CA PLAINS PIPELINE: Enters $1.1 Million Settlement in Delaware RAMBUS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA REMEC INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in S.D. CA RETEK INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in N.D. TX ********* AETHER SYSTEMS: Faces Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------- Aether Systems, Inc. faces several securities class action suits filed in the United States District of New York for alleged violations of securities laws. These actions were filed on behalf of persons and entities who acquired the Company's common stock after its initial public offering in October 21, 1999. The suits claim that prospectuses, dated October 21, 1999 and September 27, 2000 issued by Aether contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of securities laws. The prospectuses allegedly failed to disclose that the Company's underwriters had solicited and received excessive fees, commissions and benefits beyond those listed in the arrangements with certain of their customers. These commissions were designed to maintain, distort and/or inflate the market price of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket. Aether believes these claims are without merit and plans to vigorously contest these actions. The company provides wireless information and transaction services, wireless systems engineering, and software that serves as a bridge between companies' applications and mobile devices. Its software includes the Aether Intelligent Messaging (AIM) and ScoutWare products, while its network operations center manages data delivery for wireless companies. AIR TRANSAT: Lawsuit for Emotional Trauma Will Win Small Payment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Class-action litigation -- arising out of the forced landing made by an Air Transat flight in the Azores on August 24th -- is not likely to produce a windfall for the passengers. Nonetheless, the lawsuit could prove financially painful for the Canadian airline, according to a report recently appearing in The Globe and Mail. Personal-injury specialists say that damages arising from psychological traumas rarely translate into the sort of "windfall" settlements seen in cases involving physical injuries. "They [the passengers] may find themselves very disappointed with any damages the court may assess for psychological harm," said Howard Kohn, a lawyer with the Toronto firm of Forbes Chochla. The damages tend to vary greatly, said Mr. Kohn, depending on whether individual passengers can show that they suffered long-term trauma, such as not being able to continue working. Punitive damages, awarded to punish, could, on the other hand, range higher and would hit Air Transat directly in the pocketbook, said Mr. Kohn. He explained: Since punitive damages are rooted in negligence or bad behavior, it is the only category of award for which insurers virtually never offer coverage. While damages for personal injuries are not likely to exceed tens of thousands of dollars, the amount of a punitive award is very much up in the air; courts have been making efforts to keep punitive awards down, said Mr. Kohn. "Litigators are holding their breath right now, awaiting a Supreme Court of Canada decision [Whiten v. Pilot Insurance] that could either broaden or shrink punitive awards, said Mr. Kohn. The previous record for punitive damages was $15,000. The ruling in Whiten will determine whether an Ontario jury ought to have exploded previous records for punitive damages by awarding $1 million in a recent case. An important component when assessing punitive damages, says Joel Rochon, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in the Air Transat case, is the defendant's financial health. He observed that, with sales revenues of $1.9 billion, the corporation that owns Air Transat "has very deep pockets." Turning to some general comments about the Air Transat case, University of Toronto law professor Ed Morgan said that whether the lawsuit ever gets to trial is a major question mark; usually, the main fight is over who does or doesn't belong in the class. "I don't think any class action has been tried all the way to a verdict in Ontario yet," said Professor Morgan. Meanwhile, Joel Rochon said that dozens of the passengers aboard the jetliner when it coasted to an emergency landing have joined the lawsuit. AIRLINE LITIGATION: Suit Seeks to Ban Pesticide Spraying in Planes ------------------------------------------------------------------ Airlines face a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago challenging the practice of spraying pesticides in airliners. Passenger complaints range from dizziness and skin rashes to more serious conditions like tremors and breathing problems. Sharon Dorazio, one of the complainants, allegedly developed severe nausea and headaches. A flight attendant asserts she became unable to work at age 32 after 6 years of flying in planes treated with pesticides. The World Health Organization says the pesticides used are safe Most countries do not require airlines to treat their planes with pesticide, but Australia, New Zealand, India and a few smaller countries, such as Jamaica, still do. United Airlines flies to the three largest countries that mandate aircraft spraying - Australia, India and New Zealand, and is getting the most attention. United Airlines spokeswoman, Chris Nardella states that United sprays because".we're required to" and would prefer not to do it as a company. Other airline officials say the pesticides might be bothersome to a few people but do not cause long-term health damage. APRIA HEALTHCARE: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Apria Healthcare Group common stock between March 22, 2001 and July 16, 2001. The complaint charges Apria Healthcare Group as well as Apria's Chief Executive Officer, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from defendants' false and misleading statements regarding the extent of Apria's potential liability from certain billing practices. The complaint alleges that Apria's shares traded at prices that were artificially inflated by defendants' failure to disclose the potential costs of such liability. After Apria admitted the degree of its potential liability on July 16, 2001, Apria's stock price fell 16% in one day to close at $24.08 per share. For more information, contact Ira M. Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll-free) by E-mail: obraun@kmslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.kmslaw.com. BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Sued by Employees For Unpaid Overtime in CA ------------------------------------------------------------- Video rental chain giant Blockbuster, Inc. faces a class action law suit filed in the United States District Court in Orange County, California. On May 7, 1999, Lynn Adams, Khristine Schoggins, and Debbie Lenke filed the suit on behalf of themselves and for certain Blockbuster store managers who worked in California. The plaintiffs claim that they should be classified as non-exempt and are thus owed overtime payments under California law. The dollar amount that plaintiffs seek as damages to themselves and those similarly situated was not set forth in the complaint. In January this year, the trial court judge certified a class. The Company promptly filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeals, which was denied. The Supreme Court of California denied Blockbuster's petition for review last August. Blockbuster believes the plaintiffs' position is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation. Blockbuster is the world's largest video rental chain, with about 7,800 company-owned or franchised stores in 28 countries. The company rents more than 1 billion videos, DVDs, and video games at its Blockbuster Video outlets each year. CANNON BEACH: Disabled Get Access at Oregon Resort Town in Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Magistrate Judge Dennis J. Hubel in Portland recently has approved a settlement in a class-action filed by seven disabled people who rely on either motorized scooters or wheelchairs but found only limited access in the popular coastal resort town of Cannon Beach, according to a recent Associated Press report. The lawsuit accused the city and businesses of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiffs sought no monetary damages but pressed both the city and businesses to comply with federal law. The city has agreed to create beach access to the sand for those in wheelchairs; improve existing sidewalks and build sidewalks where none exist. Access to city parks will be improved, as well as access to the city's main landmark, Haystack Rock. The settlement does not require the city to to admit it violated the law, but does require the city to agree to complete most of the improvements within two to three years. "The difference at Cannon Beach will be dramatic," said Dennis Steinman, a Portland attorney who represents the plaintiffs. City Manager Helen Westbrook said the new projects would benefit everyone, not just the disabled. Westbrook estimated that the city already has spent $155,000 on accessibility projects and figures it will cost another $900,000 to complete the improvements outlined in the settlement. CHINADOTCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf all persons who acquired Chinadotcom Corp. (NASDAQ: CHINA) securities between July 12, 1999 to December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are Chinadotcom and certain of its executive officers. The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of Chinadotcom's initial public offering: (1) Lehman Brothers, Inc., (2) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and (4) Merrill Lynch, Peirce Fenner & Smith Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Chinadotcom's initial public offering of 4,200,000 shares of common stock at $20.00 per share that was completed on or about July 12, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Chinadotcom shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Chinadotcom shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings, including the offerings of VA Linux Systems, Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E- mail: CHINA@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com CITIGROUP INC.: Cohen Milstein Initiates Privacy Suit in Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfield and Toll, PLLC commenced a class action lawsuit in Maricopa County, Arizona, alleging that Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. and Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE:C) unlawfully disclosed to telemarketers and vendors private financial information about their accounts. The class action complaint alleges that due to Citibank and Citigroup's wrongful disclosure of their credit cardholders' account information, telemarketers have received cardholders' private financial account information and security account access information which allows telemarketers to charge credit cardholders' accounts without their authorization. The complaint charges Citibank and Citigroup with breach of contract, violations of South Dakota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act and violations of the common law duty of banking confidentiality. The complaint seeks an order enjoining Citibank and Citigroup from disclosing cardholders' account information and awarding compensatory damages to class members. For more information, contact Keelyn M. Friesen of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll's Seattle office by Phone: 888/240-1238 or 206/521-0080 or by E-mail: kfriesen@cmht.com. CLARENT CORPORATION: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarent Corporation denied the allegations in a number of securities class action suits pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company stated its intent to defend the matter vigorously, as they believe they had meritorious defense to the allegations. The suits were filed beginning July 12, 2001 against against the company, several of their officers and directors, and certain underwriters of their initial public offering. These essentially identical complaints were filed on behalf of those who purchased common stock between July 1, 1999, the date of their initial public offering, and December 6, 2000 or July 2, 2001. The plaintiffs allege that their prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading. The suit asserts that the prospectus failed to disclose, among other things, that certain underwriters: (1) allegedly required several investors who wanted large allocations of public offering securities to pay undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage commissions and (2) allegedly required investors to agree to buy shares of their securities after the public offering was completed at predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining public offering allocations. As a result of the alleged omissions in their prospectus, the plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11, 15 and 20 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company anticipates that these cases will be consolidated into a single class action. E-STAMP CORPORATION: Customer Files Breach of Contract Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- E-Stamp Corporation faces a consumer class action suit filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings last March 16,2001. Joseph Pavel, a prior customer of E-Stamp, filed the suit which alleges that the Company breached its contracts with the plaintiff and other customers in connection with the sale of Internet postage products. By agreement of the parties, the plaintiff dismissed the New York action and refiled in Santa Clara County late last May. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on June 18, 2001 and is currently investigating the claims against it The Company also stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company was the first to receive government approval to offer online postage. However, they phased out its Internet postage service to focus on software for back-end logistics processes such as transportation and warehouse management. EQUINIX INC.: Sued by Stockholders for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equinix, Inc. faces putative securities class action suits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York last July and August. The suits named as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and several investment banks that were underwriters of their initial public offering. The cases were filed on behalf of investors who purchased company stock between August 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The suits allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre- determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for our initial public offering was false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. Equinix believes that additional similar complaints may be filed and says that it would vigorously defend these actions. HANDSPRING CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Handspring, Inc. (NASDAQ:HAND) between June 21, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending against defendants Handspring, Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about June 21, 2000, Handspring commenced an initial public offering of 10,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, Handspring 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: (1) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Handspring shares issued in connection with the Handspring IPO; and (2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate Handspring shares to those customers in the Handspring IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Handspring 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. For further details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 888- 643-6735 or 215-625-9999 by Fax: 215-440-9475 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. HARRIS TEETER: Sued by Former Employees for Racial Bias in Atlanta ------------------------------------------------------------------ Harris Teeter Inc. faces a racial discrimination suit filed by nine African-Americans who are current or former employees of Harris Teeter Inc. in an Atlanta federal court. They are seeking class-action status for the suit, which also names Harris Teeter parent corporation, Ruddick Corp, as defendant. Seven plaintiffs contend that Harris Teeter discriminated against them, blocking promotions and fostering a hostile work environment. The suit further alleges that Harris Teeter is responsible for: (1) Preventing African-Americans from learning about or competing for jobs traditionally held by white employees, (2) Discouraging African-Americans from applying for jobs, seeking promotions and seeking transfers into jobs traditionally held by white employees, (3) Subjecting African-Americans to disparate disciplinary \ policies, practices and procedures. The suit includes examples of alleged discrimination against each plaintiff. In one instance, plaintiff Levern Dicker, a meat department worker at a Harris Teeter in Florence, S.C., from 1988 to 2000, contends his manager wrongfully accused him of stealing and used a racial slur. In another, plaintiff Michael Kane, employed as a co-manager at a Harris Teeter in Atlanta, alleges that a white male manager persists in calling African-American males "homeboys." In Charlotte, plaintiff Robin McKinney, who was employed at Harris Teeter from 1997 to 2000, contends the store paid African-Americans less than whites and that whites were promoted in jobs over African- Americans. She was fired last September, the suit states. U.S. District Court Judge Julie Carnes has yet to approve the motion for class certification Timothy Fleming, an attorney with Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, counsel for the plaintiffs says he's concerned about gaining class- action status. This was because a rule in the Atlanta federal court doesn't allow a plaintiff's attorney to communicate with potential class members unless they call first. In a July 30 order, the judge set a four-month discovery track for the case and said the class status (should she deny the motion) may be revisited at the end of discovery. Haynesworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves is representing Harris Teeter. Attorneys there couldn't be reached. Jessica Graham, spokeswoman for Harris Teeter, said they would vociferously defend their polices. "We're disappointed that a lawsuit has been filed against Harris Teeter because our internal policies absolutely prohibit discrimination of any kind against any associate," says Jessica Graham, Harris Teeter spokeswoman. Last month, Mecklenburg County jurors rejected a racial bias claim lodged against Harris Teeter by a Charlotte women who contended that grocery store managers illegally detained her for shoplifting because she was black. Harris Teeter operates about 155 supermarkets in six southeastern states, mostly in North Carolina. Most of the markets feature niceties such as sushi bars, gourmet delis, and cafes. HORSESHOE GAMING: Intervenes in Tax Suit in Bossier City LA ----------------------------------------------------------- Horseshoe Gaming Holdings, Inc. seeks to intervene in a suit filed in a Louisiana State Court against the Municipality of Bossier City, Louisiana. In the suit, plaintiffs James Wellborn and Charles J. Nickel filed a asked the Court to: (1) order the City to collect a $3.00 per person boarding fee from Horseshoe Entertainment; (2) invalidate a contract fixing the amount paid by Horseshoe Entertainment to Bossier City as opposed to a per person boarding fee; and (3) certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all citizens and tax payers of Bossier Parish. The Company was not named in the suit but sought to intervene to protect its own interest. The company owns a Horseshoe Casino and Hotel in Bossier City, Louisiana, as well as one in Tunica, Mississippi. The Company believes the suit is without merit and will vigorously defend the validity of the contract with Bossier City. KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Initiates Suit in E.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of KeySpan Corp. (NYSE: KSE) stock during the period from April 26, 2001 through July 17, 2001. The action charges KeySpan, as well as certain of its senior officers and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As the complaint alleges, the violations stem from defendants' failure to disclose what they in fact knew, namely: (1) that serious and material "accounting inaccuracies" had been discovered at a KeySpan subsidiary; and (2) that as a result of the need to correct the inaccuracies, KeySpan would need to incur a substantial charge against earnings. On July 17, 2001, defendants revealed to the public that "accounting inaccuracies" existed and that they were of such a magnitude that, in order to correct them, KeySpan would incur a $30 million charge, turning what would have been a second quarter profit into a second quarter loss. KeySpan's stock fell in response to this news to close at $32 per share. Shortly prior to making this public revelation, however, numerous KeySpan officers and directors - named as defendants in the complaint - received millions of dollars from the insider selling of their KeySpan shares at prices artificially inflated by their failure to disclose material information. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses suffered by individual and institutional investors who purchased Keyspan's shares during the class period, excluding defendants and their affiliates. For more information, contact Ira M. Press by Mail: 830 Third Avenue - 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 212-317-2300 or 888-529- 4787 (toll-free) or visit the firm's Website: www.kmslaw.com LENDINGTREE, INC.: Enters Settlement in California Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Lendingtree, Inc. settled a class action suit filed on September 7, 2000 in California Superior Court in Contra Costa, California. The Company revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the case was settled for a nominal amount that will not materially affect their financial condition. The other defendants named in the action are: (1) Ohio Savings Bank, (2) Costco Wholesale Corp., (3) Costco Financial Services Inc., (4) First American Title Insurance Company, and (5) First American Lenders Advantage. This case challenges the legality of the payment of premium spreads to HomeSpace Services, Inc. through an affinity lending program with co- defendants Costco Wholesale and Ohio Savings Bank. The Company acquired certain assets of HomeSpace through an asset purchase early August 2000. Plaintiffs also asserted that the Company was paid yield spread premiums as part of the Costco relationship, and sought to enjoin their receipt of such payments and to require certain additional disclosures and consents from borrowers. The company vehemently denied these allegations. LendingTree also vigorously defended against the lawsuit on the grounds that it is not liable for the actions of HomeSpace by virtue of their purchase of certain of its assets. The Company said they settled the case because of the costs and uncertainties of protracted litigation and that they have not admitted any wrong-doing or liability of any kind. Plaintiffs have filed a Request for Dismissal as to LendingTree that the Company expects will be entered by the court shortly. LendingTree, Inc. is an online loan market which provides mortgages, credit cards, or home equity, auto, or personal loans. LITTLE SWITZERLAND: Enters Agreement to Settle Suit in Delaware --------------------------------------------------------------- Little Switzerland, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in a class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware The memorandum of understanding sets forth an agreement in principle of the terms of settlement, under which: (1) none of the defendants have admitted any wrongdoing, (2) if the terms of settlement described in the memorandum are approved by the court and holders of a certain agreed upon number of shares held by the class do not opt out of the proposed settlement, the case will be dismissed. The settlement amount is estimated at $1.0 million and will be paid from the proceeds of existing insurance coverage. However, there can be no assurance that the case will be settled as contemplated by the memorandum The original complaint was filed against the Company, certain of its former officers and directors, Destination Retail Holdings Corporation (DRHC) and Stephen G.E. Crane. The original complaint alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that DRHC's financing commitment to purchase the Company's shares expired on April 30, 1998, before the Company's stockholders were scheduled to vote to approve the proposed merger between the Company and DRHC at the May 8, 1998 special meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 10, 1999 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint on December 7, 1999. On January 28, 2000, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. In March 2001, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to certain allegations in the amended complaint that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose the status of the Company's relationship with DRHC. However, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the Financing Disclosure Allegations. In addition, the District Court dismissed the claims against defendants DRHC and Stephen G.E. Crane. Little Switzerland, Inc. is a specialty retailer of luxury items operating 18 distinctively-designed retail stores on five Caribbean islands and Alaska. The Company markets a wide selection of high-quality products including jewelry, watches, crystal, china, gifts and accessories. The Company is also the exclusive retailer of certain brand-name products on some islands and in some areas of Alaska. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: New Jersey Court Approves Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ New Jersey State Court certified a class in the April 1998 suit filed against Lucent Technologies The suit alleges that Lucent improperly administered a coupon program resulting from the settlement of a prior class action. It further alleges that Lucent improperly limited the redemption of the coupons from dealers by not allowing them to be combined with other volume discount offers, thus limiting the market for the coupons. The complaint alleges breach of contract, fraud and other claims. The Company is vigorously defending this action. However, in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said there can be no assurance that this case will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business operations. The Company provides communication systems and software for enterprises, including businesses, government agencies and other organizations. The Company offers a broad range of voice, converged voice and data, customer relationship management, messaging, multi-service networking and structured cabling products and services. MARCONI PLC: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a private securities action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania requesting class action status. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Marconi, PLC American Deposit Receipts during the period from April 11, 2001 through and including July 4, 2001. No class has yet been certified in the above action For more information, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by E-mail: pivenlaw1@erols.com or by Phone: 410/986-0036. MCAFEE CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of McAfee.com, Corp. (NASDAQ:MCAF) between December 1, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending against defendants Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about December 1, 1999, McAfee commenced an initial public offering of 6,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12 per share. In connection therewith, McAfee 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: (1) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of McAfee shares issued in connection with the McAfee IPO; and (2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate McAfee shares to those customers in the McAfee IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional McAfee 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. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-9999 by Fax: (215) 440-9475 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. METLIFE, INC.: Subsidiary Named in Automobile Claims Suits in RI and FL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A Metlife, Inc. subsidiary faces multiple class action suits involving automobile claims in Rhode Island and Florida. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company was named in the Rhode Island class action suit which asserts claims by policyholders for the alleged diminished value of automobiles after accident-related repairs. The trial court recently denied a motion by Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company for summary judgment. However, in a more significant ruling, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class. No appeal is expected. A similar class action suit was against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company's subsidiary, Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company, in Florida. The suit was filed by a policyholder alleging breach of contract and unfair trade practices with respect to allowing the use of parts not made by the original manufacturer to repair damaged automobiles. Discovery is ongoing and a motion for class certification is pending. The Company intends to defend themselves vigorously against these suits. In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said that many similar suits have been filed against many other personal lines property and casualty insurers. Metlife, Inc. and its subsidiaries are leading providers of insurance and financial services to a broad section of individual and institutional customers. The Company offers life insurance, annuities and mutual funds to individuals and group insurance, reinsurance and retirement and savings products and services to corporations and other institutions. NETRO CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Netro Corporation (NASDAQ: NTRO) securities between August 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are the following underwriters of Netro's initial public offering of common stock: Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Netro's initial public offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock at $8.00 per share that was commenced on or about August 18, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Netro shares in the Offering in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby he Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the Offering to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Netro shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorneys' Office are investigating underwriting practices in connection with numerous initial public offerings commenced in 1999 and 2000. For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: NTRO@bernlieb.com. or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com NETWORK PLUS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Network Plus Corp. (NASDAQ: NPLS) securities between June 30, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are Network Plus and the following executive officers and directors of Network Plus: Robert T. Hale, Jr., James J. Crowley, and George Alex. The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of Network Plus' initial public offering: (1) Goldman Sachs & Co., (2) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc., and (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Network Plus' initial public offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that was completed on or about June 30, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Network Plus shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Network Plus shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings, including the offerings of VA Linux Systems, Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: NPLS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com ONYX SOFTWARE: Rosen Law Firm Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. WA ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm announced today that it commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Onyx Software Corporation (Nasdaq:ONXS)publicly traded securities during the period between January 10, 2001 and July 24, 2001, inclusive, including those who purchased stock pursuant to Onyx's secondary stock offering in February 2001. The complaint charges Onyx and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Federal securities laws. Onyx is a supplier of customer relationship management enterprise applications that are designed to connect a company's sales, marketing and service organizations with customers, prospects and partners. On January 19, 2001, Onyx announced the acquisition of Revenue Lab and, after the close of the market, hosted a conference call to discuss the acquisition and the Company's business and prospects. Later, Onyx reported favorable, but false, financial results. The complaint alleges that Onyx made misleading statements about its business and issued false and misleading financial results, causing its stock to be artificially inflated. As a result of this inflation, Onyx was able to complete a secondary offering of 2.5 million shares at $13.50 per share, raising net proceeds of $31.5 million on February 7, 2001. Then, on April 3, 2001, just weeks after this offering was completed, Onyx revealed that its 1stQ01 results would be sharply lower than the market had been led to expect with revenues of only $26-27 million and a large loss. The stock dropped below $3 per share on this news. Later, on August 10, 2001, after the market closed, defendants revealed that Onyx's 4thQ00 results had been materially misstated and would have to be restated. After this announcement, Onyx's stock price dropped to as low as $3.70 on August 13, 2001 compared to the Class Period high of $17.25. For more information, contact Laurence Rosen by Phone: 866-767-3653 (toll-free) by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or visit the firm's Website: www.rosenlegal.com OPUS360 CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue for Securities Fraud in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Opus360 Corporation faces multiple securities suits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, commencing April 6, 2001. The first suit were brought on behalf of a proposed class of all persons who acquired securities of the Company between April 7, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The suit named as defendants, the Company, eleven current and former officers and directors of the Company, the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and two shareholders who sold stock in a secondary offering concurrent with the initial public offering. The suit alleges that the plaintiff and members of the proposed class were damaged when they acquired securities of the Company. It further asserts that false and misleading information and material omissions in the registration statement relating to the offering caused the prices of the Company's securities to be inflated artificially. The suit also alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Ten similar putative class actions following the first complaint have also have been filed. As in the first action, the complaints in the Additional Actions allege false and misleading information and material omissions in the registration statement relating to the Offering in purported violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. The Company intends to vigorously oppose the action. OPUS360 CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Securities Suit in S. D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss without prejudice their claims in a securities class action suit filed against Opus360 Corporation last July 20,2001. The suit was filed early June in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims against the Company, certain of its present or former officers and directors, the Selling Shareholders and the underwriters that managed the Company's April 2000 offering. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is based on allegations that the various underwriter defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of the Company's common stock and to cause the plaintiffs to purchase the stock of those companies at artificially inflated prices. On or about July 20, 2001, both parties executed stipulations in which the plaintiffs agreed to drop the defendants in suit and to dismiss without prejudice the claims asserted in that action against each of those defendants. Those stipulations were so ordered by the Court on or about July 24, 2001. PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES: Face Multiple Antitrust Suits in CA ------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmaceutical companies face two antitrust class action suits in California, charging them with unfair business practices and violations of the antitrust law. Between August 3, 1993 and February 14, pharmaceutical industry-related companies were named as defendants in eight separate state antitrust actions in three courts in California. In April 1994, these California state actions were coordinated and assigned to a single judge in San Francisco Superior Court. On August 22, 1994, a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which supersedes and amends the eight prior complaints, was filed in these actions. The California Complaint alleges that 36 pharmaceutical industry- related companies violated California's Cartwright Act, Unfair Practices Act, and the Business and Professions Code unfair competition statute. The California Complaint alleges the defendants jointly and separately engaged in secret rebating, price fixing and price discrimination between alleged competitors who sell pharmaceuticals to patients or retail customers. The judge struck the class allegations from the Unfair Practices Act claims, and on June 26, 1995, granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the consolidated actions. On September 8, 1995, the court entered an order staying all proceedings in the consolidated actions pending resolution of the federal action. On May 21, 2001, the Court granted the parties' request to decertify the class and dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to a settlement of all claims. In addition, on November 13, 2000, 25 pharmaceutical manufacturers and 2 wholesalers were sued in Santa Clara Superior Court in the State of California in an antitrust suit under California state law. The complaint alleges essentially the same claims as those raised in the first complaint on behalf of a group of retail pharmacies that opted out of both the federal and state class actions. The matter is currently stayed pending the first status conference to be held on August 31, 2001. No responsive pleading has been filed. PLAINS PIPELINE: Enters $1.1 Million Settlement in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------- Plains All American Pipeline, Inc. reached a $1.1 million settlement agreement in the securities class action suit filed against them in the Delaware Chancery Court, New Castle County. The suit was derived from an earlier class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which the Company settled for $30 million early this year. The suit alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties that they owed to Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and its unitholders by failing to monitor properly the activities of its employees. The plaintiffs sought the following: (1) account for all losses and damages allegedly sustained by Plains All American from the unauthorized trading losses; (2) establish and maintain effective internal controls ensuring that our affiliates and persons responsible for our affairs do not engage in wrongful practices detrimental to Plains All American; (3) pay for the plaintiffs' costs and expenses in the litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' fees and experts' fees; and (4) provide the plaintiffs any additional relief as may be just and proper under the circumstances. On July 11, 2000, another derivative lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas naming Plains All American Inc., its directors and certain of its officers as defendants. This lawsuit contains the same claims and seeks the same relief as the Delaware derivative litigation. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 14, 2000. The Company intends to vigorously defend the claims made in the Texas derivative litigation. They also believe that Delaware court approval of the settlement of the Delaware derivative litigation will effectively preclude prosecution of the Texas derivative litigation. RAMBUS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Rambus, Inc. (Nasdaq: RMBS) securities between January 18, 2000 and May 19, 2001. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Named as defendants in the complaint are Rambus and the following executive officers and directors of Rambus: (1) Geoffrey R. Tate, (2) David Mooring, (3) Gary G. Harmon, (4) Michael G. Horowitz, (5) Paul Michael Farmwald, (6) Bruce S. Dunlevie, (7) Edward H. Larson, (8) William Davidow. The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading financial information that materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects. The complaint alleges that Rambus falsely promoted its patents and technologies relating to SDRAM chips which enabled Rambus to collect millions of dollars in royalties from the licensing of the SDRAM technology to other companies. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading information and/or failed to disclose material information with regard to the following: (i) that Rambus had engaged in fraudulent activity in order to obtain purportedly valuable patents on SDRAM computer memory and memory related technologies which enable semiconductor memory devices to keep pace with faster generations of processors and controllers; (ii) the validity and enforceability of Rambus' SDRAM patents; and (iii) the effects these adverse undisclosed actions were having and would continue to have on the company's growth and earnings prospects. As a result of these misrepresentations, the price of Rambus common stock was artificially inflated. The individual defendants took advantage of the artificially inflated price of the Company's stock to sell hundreds of thousands of their own shares of Rambus stock for proceeds of over $125 million. The truth was revealed to investors as a result of a lawsuit Rambus had instituted against Infineon Technologies AG. Rambus had sued Infineon for patent violations, claiming that Infineon used SDRAM technology without paying a licensing fee to Rambus. Infineon counterclaimed, alleging that the patents were invalid and fraud based on Rambus' improper conduct in obtaining the patents. On May 9, 2001, a jury found that the SDRAM patents had in fact been fraudulently obtained. On August 9, 2001, the court in the Infineon case confirmed the jury's finding with regard to the SDRAM patents, ordered that Rambus pay Infineon $7.1 million in legal fees, and prohibited Rambus from pursuing patent-infringement litigation against Infineon for its SDRAM products. For further information, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779- 1414 by E-mail: RMBS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com REMEC INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in S.D. CA ----------------------------------------------------------- Semiconductor device maker Remec, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against the class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California last April 1999. The suit was filed against REMEC, some of its officers and directors and the investment banking firms that served as the representatives of the underwriters of our public offering completed in February 1998. The lawsuit was filed by the law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach and others in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as counsel for Charles Vezzetti and all others similarly situated. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by us and the other defendants between December 1, 1997, and June 12, 1998. Specifically, the complaint alleges: (1) that the Company made falsely positive statements which artificially inflated the price of their stock prior to a secondary offering completed in February 1998, in which the Company and some of its officers and directors sold stock, and (2) that Company's stock price fell on a series of adverse disclosures in late May and early June 1998. Since the lawsuit was filed, the underwriters have been dismissed without prejudice. The Company believes the ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse impact on our business or financial condition. However, if the plaintiffs are successful in pursuing their claims against the Company and its officers and directors, such a result could have a significant negative impact on the Company's business and financial condition. RETEK INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Retek, Inc. said that it will vigorously oppose multiple securities suits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, commencing July this year. The complaints charge the Company with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with regard to their initial public offering. The complaint alleges that the prospectus pursuant to which shares were sold in the initial public offering was false or misleading in that it failed to disclose: (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid commissions by certain customers in return for receiving shares in the initial public offering and (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly agreed to purchase additional shares of the our common stock in the aftermarket in return for an allocation of shares in the initial public offering. Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of these omissions from the prospectus, the price of the our common stock was artificially inflated between November 9, 1999 and October 12, 2000. These actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes into a single action. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions. Retek Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries develop application software that provides complete information infrastructure solutions to the global retail industry. Our offerings include traditional merchandising capabilities such as inventory management and purchasing; logistics capabilities including warehouse and distribution management; enhanced supply chain solutions such as forecasting, planning, and supply chain visibility; and customer relationship and order management applications. TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in N.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Teraforce Technology vowed to vigorously oppose a shareholders class action lawsuit was filed on November 16, 1999 in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas The suit, filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between February 24, 1998 and November 17, 1998, names as defendants the Company and certain former and present officers and directors of the Company. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit alleged that the Company made false and misleading statements concerning the Company's reported financial results during the period, primarily relating to revenue recognition, asset impairment and capitalization issues. In March 2001, the Company's motion to dismiss the suit was denied and preliminary discovery has begun in the case. The court has set a preliminary date for trial of April 7, 2003. ******** 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, Aurora Fatima Antonio 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 * * *