/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/020319.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 19, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 55 Headlines ALASKA MILK: Faces Possible Suit As Milk Poisons Students in Pampanga AIRLINE MERGER: Controversial Hawaiian, Aloha Airlines Merger Scrapped AUSTRALIA: Insurance Giant Director Guilty Of Breaking Corporations Law CANADA: Hospital, Psychiatrist Probed Over Physical Abuse of Patients DYLEX LTD.: Former BiWay Managers Commence Suit Over Unpaid Bonuses ENERGY COMPANIES: Arizona Landowners File Suit Over Coal-Bed Royalties HMO LITIGATION: Doctors Commence Legal Battle Against Health Plans LEVEL PROPANE: Settles Suit Over Customer Overcharges in Ohio OKLAHOMA: Jail Faces Potential Suit For "Inhuman" Treatment of Inmates PAYPAL INC.: Faces Second Consumer Accounts Suit in N.D. California SLAVE LABOR: Appeals Court Asked To Allow WWII Labor Suit To Proceed SMURFIT NEWSPRINT: Settles WA Suits Over Defective Cladwood Siding SMURFIT-STONE: Faces Suit For Violation of Antitrust Laws in IL, PA VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Australian Court Allows Consumer Suit v. Drug Firms Securities Fraud ADVANCED SWITCHING: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Files For Reorganization To Settle Suits in NJ AT HOME: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in NY COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Slotnick Shapiro Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY CORNING INC.: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NY GILAT SATELLITE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX JP MORGAN: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY JUNIPER NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Suit in CA LUMENIS LTD.: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY MEDI-HUT CO.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey NATIONAL GOLF: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY NVIDIA CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA NVIDIA CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA PDI INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits in New Jersey QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Bailey Peterson Files Securities Suit in CO REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in FL RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: NY Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Brian Felgoise Initiates Securities Suit in NY TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faruqi Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ********* ALASKA MILK: Faces Possible Suit As Milk Poisons Students in Pampanga --------------------------------------------------------------------- Philippine food company, Alaska Milk Corporation (AMC), faces a potential class action filed by parents of school children in the province of Pampanga, after they fell prey to milk-poisoning, the Manila Bulletin reports. Students of the St. Rosario Elementary School in Minalin, Pampanga fell ill after drinking the Company's chocolate milk under a school feeding program instituted by the Philippine Department of Education. Further investigation revealed that children in the elementary schools of the barrios of Sto. Domingo, San Isidro and Lourdes were also poisoned. A total of 245 children were diagnosed with poisoning, while more than a thousand were brought to the Jose BN. Lingad Memorial Regional Hospital (JBLMH) for diagnosis. No serious cases were reported. Provincial Administrator, Benalfre Galang, was quoted in a news report that his office is helping the victims' parents file a suit against the Company, which could be held liable because the poisoning incident happened as soon as the children drank the chocolate milk. Mr. Galang told the Manila Bulletin, "There is a provision in the law that if the effect of poisoning was immediate, then the product is considered as not fit for public consumption.And Alaska could be held liable for what happened in Minalin." Further investigation is still being conducted to strengthen the case against the Company. Company Corporate Affairs Director, Santiago Polido, issued a statement that the milk drunk by the children was of good quality. "We reviewed all aspects of our involvement and we found out that there was nothing wrong with the products delivered under the DepEd program," he said. "From production to storage to handling to the time they were delivered to DepEd, the products were in good condition." Pampanga Governor Lito Lapid was alarmed over the Company's immediate "hand washing" in the incident, Mr. Galang said. He added that it is too early for the Company to disclaim responsibility for the matter. AIRLINE MERGER: Controversial Hawaiian, Aloha Airlines Merger Scrapped ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Airlines and Aloha Airlines have terminated their planned merger, saying the two parties were unable to satisfy the conditions of the merger agreement, Associated Press reports. The planned merger, initially undertaken to strengthen the Companies' financial situations after losses incurred due to the reduction of air travel after September 11, met with widespread opposition from both Companies' employees, stockholders and consumers. Class actions were also commenced in Hawaii courts, stating the merger would lead to higher prices and poorer service. Hawaiian Chairman John W. Adams announced earlier that the airline rejected a deadline extension requested by TurnWorks Inc., a Texas- based company working to merge the two carriers, Associated Press reports. In response to the announcement, Aloha spokesman Stu Glauberman said, "Aloha is aware of the decision by Hawaiian Airlines, and will issue comments at the appropriate time." AUSTRALIA: Insurance Giant Director Guilty Of Breaking Corporations Law ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kim Santow, of the New South Wales Supreme Court, found that former HIH Insurance director Rodney Adler, the collapsed insurance giant's former chief executive, Ray Williams, and former chief financial officer Dominic Fodera, broke corporations law in a $10 million deal, according to a recent report by the AAP News. The Justice found the threesome had breached 13 sections of the Corporations Act. Justice Santow will hear submissions from the parties next week before deciding what penalties to impose. The Court can impose fines of up to $200,000 for each Act breach. Contraventions by Mr. Adler and the Adler Corporation, found to have breached the Act five times, were "the most serious of all," Justice Santow said. He added that, as a director of the collapsed HIH, "Mr. Adler was required to act in good faith and for proper purpose, neither of which he did." The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) originally sued Mr. Adler, Mr. Williams and Mr. Fodera over the transfer of $10 million from an HIH subsidiary to Pacific Eagle Equities, owned by Mr. Adler's family company, Adler Corporation, on June 15, 2000. The money was used to buy $4 million worth of HIH shares to prop up its ailing share price by giving the impression he had bought the share with his own money, Justice Santow found. Another $3.8 million was spent on buying three investment holdings from Adler Corporation with which Mr. Adler "had long been dissatisfied," the Judge said. The remainder was given in unsecured loans to companies associated with Mr. Adler and his Company. Mr. Adler denied all these charges and argued that he was not a director of HIH Casualty and General Insurance and did not oversee its investments. ASIC has asked that Mr. Adler be banned from being a director of other companies and that he be ordered to pay a fine. After the verdict, Mr. Adler said he was disappointed by the decision and announced he would lodge an appeal. Mr. Adler said, "It has been a long and difficult case. I am obviously disappointed with what I have heard to date. I am glad at least that this part of the case is over because there is a future," he said. Mr. Adler said he was looking forward to giving his version of events at the HIH Royal Commission, which is examining the circumstances of Australia's biggest corporate collapse with losses of up to $5.3 billion. Solicitor Bruce Dennis, who is mounting a class action on behalf of 1,000 shareholders against the HIH bosses, said the verdict could end Mr. Adler's career. ASIC Chairman David Knott said the ruling was an important outcome for all share market investors, because "it reinforces the expectation that directors will observe proper standards of conduct and will not place personal interests ahead of those of the company." CANADA: Hospital, Psychiatrist Probed Over Physical Abuse of Patients --------------------------------------------------------------------- New Zealand police are commencing an investigation of Melbourne psychiatrist Dr. Selwyn Leeks, after 34 of his former patients complained of physical abuse while receiving treatment as children at the Lake Alice Hospital in the 1970s, Melbourne Age reports. Last year, the hospital paid patients $5.3 million in compensation over charges of physical abuse, while New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark issued a public apology. The patients charged Dr. Leeks with subjecting them to electric shocks and pain-inducing injections as children. Last year, former New Zealand High Court Judge Sir Rodney Gallen reported that the Lake Alice "patients," aged between eight and 16, were given electric shocks and painful injections for minor breaches of discipline, and lived in a state of "extreme fear and hopelessness." Complaints have been filed with Wellington police, referring to Dr. Leeks, and other staff that might have been involved. Lawyer Grant Cameron, who handled the class action, filed the complaint. Dr. Leeks told the Melbourne Age, he did not want to comment on the police inquiry, but that he was "not particularly worried" about it. "It's something that seems to happen every 25 years," he said. "It's all happened before." DYLEX LTD.: Former BiWay Managers Commence Suit Over Unpaid Bonuses ------------------------------------------------------------------- The sole director of bankrupt retailer, Dylex Ltd., two past directors, and merchandise liquidator, Garcel Inc., are being sued by former managers of Dylex's discount chain BiWay, The Globe and Mail reported recently. Thomas Englefield, a former manager at a Biway store in Caledonia, Ontario, filed a class action on behalf of all BiWay managers, claiming a total of $375,297.34 in unpaid bonuses promised during the chain's liquidation last June and July. The suit also seeks $2.5 million in punitive damages from: (1) New York-based businessman Hardof Wolf, who bought Toronto's Dylex last year; (2) former director Arthur Jacques; (3) former director Donald McCarthy; and (4) California-based merchandise liquidator Garcel Inc., operating as Great American Group A second class action filed recently by Mr. Englefield against Mr. Wolf demands around $18 million in unpaid wages and termination pay, along with $5,000 in damages for each of Dylex's 4,000 workers laid off last year. ENERGY COMPANIES: Arizona Landowners File Suit Over Coal-Bed Royalties ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Arizona landowners commenced a class action suit against about 30 coal-bed methane companies including Devon Energy, Pennaco Energy and CMS, seeking higher payments from the companies that lease the landowners' mineral rights for methane development, the Billings Gazette reports. The suit alleges that the Companies failed to pay them the proceeds that they are entitled to as royalty owners, and that the Companies also failed to pay royalties on all of the gas produced from the methane wells and failed to report the full amount of gas that is produced at the wells. The plaintiffs seek 18 percent annual interest on the unpaid royalties. The Companies have denied the charges. Vinnie White, spokesman for Devon Energy, told the Gazette, "Our policy is to treat everyone we do business with fairly . We pay our interest in accordance with the terms of our contractual agreements and the law." "We pay our fair share of royalty payments. We take a conservative approach to calculating our royalty liability and we believe this lawsuit is totally without merit," said Kelly Farr, a spokesman for CMS. HMO LITIGATION: Doctors Commence Legal Battle Against Health Plans ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Illinois State Medical Society is the latest doctor group in the nation to take to the courts in the escalating battle between physicians and managed-care plans, the Chicago Tribune reported recently. The American Medical Association already has become increasingly litigious, having filed a variety of briefs and lawsuits against health insurance companies under the direction of the Chicago- based national doctor group's litigation center. Illinois' Medical Society is rallying its 15,000 member doctors behind a two-year-old lawsuit the group says will help Illinois physicians who complain they are not being told up-front how they will be paid by the health insurers. The decision to offer support for this lawsuit comes at a time that a similar state legislative initiative is stalled in Springfield, Illinois. "We want health insurers to disclose all of the elements of the contract, which they don't do now," said Dr. Ronald Ruecker, President of the State Medical Society. "Some doctors actually do not even know this (nondisclosure) is going on." The Society is backing a lawsuit filed in Madison County Circuit Court by Dr. Timothy Kaiser, who alleges that certain managed care plans shortchange physicians by bundling fees, causing lower payments to doctors. Dr. Kaiser also says insurers use computer systems to systematically reduce payments to physicians. Although the Society itself is not a plaintiff, the organization said it is taking the unprecedented step of assisting Dr. Kaiser, and other physicians joined in the suit, with case development and discovery. The case has been certified as a class action so more physicians can join the lawsuit. The defendant insurers say the allegations in the lawsuit are groundless. Preferred provider organizations run by Cigna Corporation, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, and Healthlink are named in the suit. "We believe we have fully honored our PPO contracts with the physicians and that the underlying legal claims in this suit are without merit," Cigna spokesman Wendell Potter said. The case is being watched closely by Illinois insurers and employers, who last year defeated the "Fairness in Health Care Servicing Act," which would have given doctors more clout in negotiating fees insurers provide in their contracts. Insurers say such a bill would further increase rising health-care costs by fattening physician salaries. "We do not feel it is appropriate for the Illinois State Medical Society to use the court system and essentially taxpayer money for a lawsuit that is being filed to help push their (the physicians') agenda," said David Dring, spokesman for the Illinois Association of Health Plans. The medical society is not ruling out supporting future court actions against health insurers. "Lawsuits are an unfortunate tool we have to use, but if we see a situation where we can help, we will do it," said Dr. Ronald Ruecker, the Society's President. LEVEL PROPANE: Settles Suit Over Customer Overcharges in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- Level Propane Gases, Inc. settled a class action and a lawsuit filed by the Attorney General, over allegations that the Company overcharged its customers and failed to deliver gas last winter, the WKYC News reports. Under the settlement with the State, the Company will be required to use a more consumer-friendly contract and provide written confirmation of verbal price quotes, said Joe Case, spokesman for Attorney General Betty Montgomery. "The Attorney General's office in the past couple years has received over 4,000 complaints against this company.This was a company that literally left customers out in the cold." The Company will also repay US$4 million to its customers, the Equal Justice Foundation of Columbus told WKYC news. The Company also will pay $2.2 million in damages to customers and $325,000 in penalties. The Company said the settlement institutes improvements that it began last winter. "This settlement is good for both our customers and Level," President Walter J. Himmelman said in a news release. The class action part of the settlement will be filed in the US District Court in Columbus. OKLAHOMA: Jail Faces Potential Suit For "Inhuman" Treatment of Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A Lawyer planning a potential class action against Garfield County Jail in Oklahoma added another name to the list of plaintiffs in the suit, after an inmate was allegedly beaten up by fellow inmates last week, Enid News and Eagle reports. Attorney Stephen Jones added Danny Ray Long to the plaintiffs list in the planned suit, which alleges possible civil rights violations against the jail. Plaintiffs include inmates Jesse Daniel Goldston and Terry Lee Caldwell, who were reportedly assaulted by other inmates within days of each other last month while housed in 10-man cells, the same type of cell in which Long was incarcerated. The suit will represent all county jail inmates. The suit seeks to ask county officials to finance the construction of a new jail to prevent overcrowding and civil and human right violations. If that were to happen, Jones told Enid News, his clients would reconsider their decision to sue. "In our opinion, that would be a sign of a good faith step for the County," he said. County Commissioner Wendell Vencl said the commissioners and Sheriff Bill Winchester are willing to explore the option, but cannot make the decision in time for next week, when the lawsuit will be filed. Mr. Vencl said such a decision required major research, saying "Obviously we can't gather that much information and make a decision in three days." Garfield County Undersheriff, Jerry Niles, said no charges have been filed against any inmate for assaulting Mr. Long. He did not know how many inmates were in the cell at the time, only that there were less than 10, Enid News reports. PAYPAL INC.: Faces Second Consumer Accounts Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Online payments service provider Paypal, Inc. faces a consumer class action filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, over allegations that the Company restricted, closed or froze some its users' accounts, BizReport.com reports. The suit follows another similar case filed in February by national law firm Jacoby and Myers in California Superior Court, making similar allegations against the Company. Company spokeswoman Julie Anderson told Bizreport.com, "PayPal has over 14 million users who make 200,000 payments every day, so clearly PayPal provides a popular and growing service that lets people and small businesses exchange payments easily and securely.While we take customer comments very seriously, we believe these suits are without merit and will contest them vigorously." SLAVE LABOR: Appeals Court Asked To Allow WWII Labor Suit To Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------------- A flurry of legal briefs have been filed in a California appeals court, urging the court to let a Korean-American sue a Japanese cement company, doing business in the United States, for allegedly using slave labor during World War II, the Associated Press reported recently. The State Attorney General's Office, legislators and a coalition of Asian- American groups all filed separate written arguments in the case during the past week. The State Appellate Court temporarily halted the lawsuit in January and has set an April 30 date for hearing arguments on whether it should proceed. Attorney Barry A. Fisher, who represents Jae Wong Jeong, 79, a retired teacher, said to a news conference that "Mr. Jeong is simply seeking compensation for the time he was forced to work." Mr. Jeong, whose lawsuit seeks class-action status, also wants an apology and a trust fund to benefit other former forced laborers. Attorney for the Onoda Cement Company's Los-Angeles-based subsidiary, Douglas Mirell, did not immediately return a call for comment. Victims of Japanese forced labor have gone to court in California and other states seeking compensation from leading Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsui & Company, for the treatment they experienced during the war. The US Department of State and Department of Justice have opposed the lawsuits, however, saying the 1951 treaty that officially ended the war with Japan precludes prisoners of war from seeking reparations. The implications of the treaty puts at issue, in Jeong's case, the constitutionality of a 1999 California law allowing wartime forced- labor victims in Europe and Asia to seek redress until 2010 against multi-national firms that operate in the State. The law is constitutional, according to Phyllis Cheng, a State Deputy Attorney General whose office filed a "friend of the Court" (amicus curiae) brief. "The law does not conflict with the foreign affairs power of the US government," she said. A federal court ruled against the California law in September of last year, but two months later Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Lichtman allowed Mr. Jeong's case to move forward. Judge Lichtman said he was concerned the government was acting in an "uneven manner" by allowing claims made by Holocaust survivors to go forward, while preventing Asian victims from seeking reparations from Japanese companies. Another brief was filed by a group of California legislators, including Senate President Pro Tem John L. Burton, and Assembly Speaker Herbert J. Wesson Jr., whose district includes Los Angeles' Koreatown. The assemblyman has not taken a position on the merits of the claims, but he supports Mr. Jeong's right to have the suit heard by a jury, said Mr. Wesson's spokesman, Michael Bai. SMURFIT NEWSPRINT: Settles WA Suits Over Defective Cladwood Siding ------------------------------------------------------------------ Smurfit Newsprint Corporation settled, for approximately $26.5 million, the class action suit pending in King County, Washington State Court, relating to Cladwoodr, a composite wood siding product manufactured by the Company used primarily in the construction of manufactured or mobile homes. The suit alleged that Cladwood siding on their homes prematurely failed. As a result of the settlement, the Company paid $20 million into a settlement fund, plus up to approximately $6.5 million of administrative costs, plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and class representative payments. The claims period was originally scheduled to expire in February 2002, but will be extended for up to three years in accordance with a protocol that limits the Company's liability for future claims to the amount remaining in the claim fund. SMURFIT-STONE: Faces Suit For Violation of Antitrust Laws in IL, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Packaging manufacturer, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, faces seven class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These complaints allege that the Company reached agreements in restraint of trade that affected the manufacture, sale and pricing of corrugated products in violation of antitrust laws. The suits have been amended to name several other defendants, including subsidiary Jefferson Smurfit Stone, Inc. The suits seek an unspecified amount of damages arising out of the sale of corrugated products for the period from October 1, 1993 through March 31, 1995. Under the provisions of the applicable statutes, any award of actual damages could be trebled. The complaints have been transferred to and consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which has certified two plaintiff classes. The Company has appealed the class certification rulings in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and is vigorously defending these cases. The Company believes that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. VITAMIN ANTITRUST: Australian Court Allows Consumer Suit v. Drug Firms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Federal Court allowed an antitrust class action accusing some of the world's major pharmaceutical companies of vitamin price- fixing to proceed, the Food Navigator reports. The suit alleges pharmaceutical giants Roche, BASF and Aventis Animal Nutrition conspired to fix prices for vitamins A, C, E, B2, B5 and betacarotene. The Federal Court ruled that the Companies could not remove themselves from the class action just because they did not have a physical presence in Australia. They will now face legal proceedings alongside their local subsidiaries. Food Navigator reports that the European Commission has already fined eight companies for their part in the cartel, while the US authorities have also penalized the producers. In February, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court also allowed consumers to file an antitrust suit under the State's consumer protection laws. Securities Fraud ADVANCED SWITCHING: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Advanced Switching Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASCX) securities between October 4, 2000 and February 12, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter. The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations throughout the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The Company initiated its IPO pursuant to a prospectus dated October 5, 2000. The prospectus contained promising information, detailing that: shipments of its A-4000 product were being deployed; the A-4500 product would be commercially accessible by 2001; and a contract for $24 million with Qwest Communications had been signed. Specifically, the suit alleges that at the time of the prospectus, the statements were false and misleading because: (1) the A-4000 product did not work effectively; (2) the A-4500 product would not be offered commercially in 2001 as even the prototype had not yet been created; and (3) the contract with Qwest would most likely not be honored as the Company would be unable to meet the terms of the contract and due to the fact that Qwest would be unable to successfully utilize the A-4000 product. Due to the trouble with the A-4500 and the failure of the Qwest contract, among other problems, the Company announced its implementation of a proposed plan of liquidation on February 5, 2002. Then, on February 12, 2002, it was released to the public that a $17 million refund had been requested from a key customer regarding the shipping of a defective product. For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole, Michael Miske, Gustavo Bruckner, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 or by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Advanced Switching. AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Files For Reorganization To Settle Suits in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AremisSoft Corporation (Pink Sheets:AREM) today filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. The bankruptcy was filed in order to implement a plan of reorganization, which will settle the securities class action against the Company. The Company's filing is expected to have no effect on the operations of SoftBrands, its wholly owned subsidiary that provides enterprise software solutions. The proposed reorganization plan would provide that: (1) all secured and unsecured claims approved by the Court will be paid in full; (2) the Company will contribute its litigation claims and certain other assets to a liquidating trust that will pursue those claims and liquidate the assets primarily for the benefit of securities class action plaintiffs; (3) securities class action plaintiffs will receive all of the beneficial interests in the liquidating trust but SoftBrands will be entitled to 10 percent of the distributions from the trust; (4) Holders of the Company's common stock will receive 39.5 percent of the common stock of SoftBrands and securities class action plaintiffs will receive 60.5 percent of the common stock of SoftBrands; (5) all existing equity interests in the Company will be cancelled and the Company dissolved. The reorganization plan has not been approved and is subject to change by the Court. Shareholders of record will receive a disclosure statement providing more detail about, and enclosing a copy of, the reorganization plan prior to its confirmation by the Court and will have an opportunity to vote on the reorganization plan. The Company plans to ask the Court to schedule a hearing to approve the disclosure statement related to the Company's plan of reorganization within the next 30 days. If the disclosure statement is approved, solicitation materials will be distributed. If the necessary classes of claims or interests vote to approve the plan, the Company will seek to have the plan confirmed by June 15, 2002. George Ellis, Chairman and CEO of AremisSoft, stated, "This is a continuation of the process we began last October to separate our successful vertical software businesses from the legal and regulatory issues facing AremisSoft. Strategically, today's filing should be viewed as another important and necessary step in building SoftBrands into a world-class software company that can provide value for our customers, our employees and our shareholders." AT HOME: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who acquired At Home Corp., d/b/a Excite@Home (NASDAQ: ATHM) common stock between April 17, 2001 and August 28, 2001, inclusive. The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making misstatements regarding, and by failing to disclose adverse material facts regarding, the Company's business and financial condition during the class period and also by virtue of their status as control persons of the Company. Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that the Company was burning through its cash at a substantially higher rate than indicated in its filings with the SEC and in other public statements and that it had obtained $100 million worth of convertible note financing in June 2001 based on alleged misrepresentations that subjected the Company to the threat of immediate claims that could put it into bankruptcy. The suit further alleges that defendants affirmatively misrepresented the amount of cash that the Company would need to finance its ongoing operations for the calendar year 2001 by falsely stating in April 2001 that an additional $85 million in financing would be sufficient to meet At Home's needs for cash during 2001. Despite obtaining a total of $185 million in new financing, the complaint alleges, on September 29, 2001, At Home announced that it would seek bankruptcy protection, and on October 23, 2001, the Company's share price hit a 52-week low of four cents per share. The complaint further alleges that the Company, which at all relevant times held a 74% voting interest in the Company, is liable for the foregoing under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on its status as a control person of the Company. According to the complaint, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct, the Company's stock price was artificially high throughout the class period, causing plaintiff and the other class members to purchase their Company securities at inflated prices. For more information, contact 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: ATHM@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of certain Computer Associates (NYSE:CA) securities, including common stock, during the period from May 28, 1999 through February 25, 2002. The suit charges the Company, as well as its Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These violations, the complaint alleges, stem from defendants' materially false and misleading statements during the class period that, as detailed below: (1) misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial performance; and (2) caused the Company's shares to trade at artificially-inflated prices. The complaint alleges that, during the class period, the Company's public statements and representations were rendered false and misleading by certain accounting and sales practices involving how and when it would recognize revenue. These practices, as described in detail in the complaint, and as discussed in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, are now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the US Attorney's office. When news of these investigations emerged in late February 2002, Company stock lost over one third of its value, falling from its closing price of $25.31 on February 19, 2002 to a February 22, 2002 closing price of $15.99. According to the suit, beginning not later than May 1999, the Company created the impression that its revenue growth was sustainable by falsely claiming that it had transitioned from its mainframe core business to selling software for distributed systems. Simultaneously, as the complaint alleges, the Company inflated its reported revenue by extending contracts in the middle of their term, booking all the revenue from the sale of a software license, but not writing down the revenue from the overlapping period for which it had recognized revenue under the old license, thereby double-counting revenue for the overlap in the licensing periods. In an attempt, according to the complaint, to hide the severe revenue decline the Company was actually experiencing, defendants instituted a "new business model" involving sales of flexible subscription agreements instead of fixed-term licenses, which was intended to disguise its inability to continue selling long-term licenses for mainframe software. The Company engaged in these practices without alerting the market to the actual deterioration in its financial condition, and by releasing non-GAAP-compliant financial results which used revenue booked in prior periods to obscure a dramatic drop in new sales. For more details, 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 Toll Free 888-529-4787 by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Slotnick Shapiro Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Slotnick, Shapiro & Crocker, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of a union pension fund in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of certain Computer Associates International, Inc. (NYSE: CA) securities, including common stock, during the period from May 28, 1999 through February 25, 2002. The action charges the Company, as well as its Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These violations, the Complaint alleges, stem from defendants' materially false and misleading statements during the class period that, as detailed below: (1) misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial performance; and (2) caused the Company's shares to trade at artificially-inflated prices. The suit alleges that, during the class period, the Company's public statements and representations were rendered false and misleading by certain accounting and sales practices involving how and when the Company would recognize revenue. These practices, as described in detail in the suit, and as discussed in the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, are now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the US Attorney's office. When news of these investigations emerged in late February 2002, the Company stock lost over one-third of its value, falling from its closing price of $25.31 on February 19, 2002 to a February 22, 2002 closing price of $15.99. According to the suit, beginning not later than May 1999, the Company created the impression that its revenue growth was sustainable by falsely claiming that the Company had transitioned from its mainframe core business to selling software for distributed systems. Simultaneously, as the suit alleges, the Company inflated its reported revenue by extending contracts in the middle of their term, booking all the revenue from the sale of a software license, but not writing down the revenue from the overlapping period for which the Company had recognized revenue under the old license, thereby double-counting revenue for the overlap in the licensing periods. In an attempt, according to the suit, to hide the severe revenue decline the Company was actually experiencing, defendants instituted a "new business model" involving sales of flexible subscription agreements instead of fixed-term licenses, which was intended to disguise its inability to continue selling long-term licenses for mainframe software. The Company engaged in these practices without alerting the market to the actual deterioration in its financial condition, and by releasing non-GAAP-compliant financial results, which used revenue booked in prior periods to obscure a dramatic drop in new sales. For more information, contact Stephen D. Oestreich by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, 35th Floor, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 212-687-5000 or 888-367-5291 toll-free by Fax: 212-687-3080 or by E-Mail: tcallahan@sscny.com CORNING INC.: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Corning, Inc. (NYSE:GLW) between September 27, 2000 and July 10, 2001, inclusive. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint asserts claims against the Company and officers Roger G. Ackerman, Katherine A. Asbeck and James B. Flaws for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For more details, contact Marc M. Umeda by Mail: 1010 Second Ave., Suite 2360, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 800-350-6003 or by E-mail: info@ruflaw.com GILAT SATELLITE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP launched a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. (Nasdaq:GILTF) from November 13, 2000 through October 2, 2001, inclusive. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Among other things, plaintiff claims that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, yet covered up the fact, that: (1) the demand for and acceptance of the Company's products and the products of its subsidiary, StarBand Communications, Inc., were greatly overstated; (2) the Company was having difficulty manufacturing and selling its chief product, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) profitably; (3) the Company's purported gross profit margins were false; (4) the Company was materially understating its costs and expenses and (5) the Company, accordingly, would have to take massive charge- offs, numbering in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the future. The suit claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting enormous damages on investors. For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Hanover Compressor Company (NYSE:HC) between May 15, 2000 and January 28, 2002, inclusive. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of defendants' issuance of false financial statements and other false and misleading statements about the Company's operating performance. For more details, contact Brian J. Robbins by Mail: 1010 Second Ave., Suite 2360, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 800-350-6003 or by E-mail: info@ruflaw.com JP MORGAN: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schatz and Nobel, PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of JP Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) between December 31, 2000 and February 1, 2002, inclusive. The suit alleges that the Company, a global financial services company, violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose material risks of its business in its SEC filings and other public disclosures made during the class period. Specifically, the Company's business involved making commodities loans, derivative loans, and other transactions that were designed to be "off the books" financing for its borrowers. These creative transactions were, in essence, loan transactions that were presented as other types of transactions as part of a fraudulent scheme to disguise the loans as assets and to wrongfully obtain surety bonds guaranteeing payment. These transactions subjected the Company to large credit risks, large risks of refusal to make repayment (or to insure performance), and large risks of liability to the debtor and third parties. All of these risks were material to the Company and rendered false and misleading the positive statements (and risk disclosures) that the Company made during the class period. For example, on November 21, 2001, the Company issued a public statement to the effect that its total exposure to Enron Corporation was approximately $900 million. However, this figure did not disclose the Company's true exposure to Enron because it failed to include its exposure to Enron resulting from its systematic practices alleged above. Only later in the class period did the Company reveal that its total Enron-related exposure risk was approximately $2.6 billion due to the risks associated with the practices alleged above. Federal examiners are now assessing the true extent of the Company's undisclosed risk. As a result of the previously undisclosed risk already partially disclosed, the Company's stock price has fallen by 40%. For more details, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman, Wayne T. Boulton, Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-mail: sn06016@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.snlaw.net JUNIPER NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Suit in CA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities suit against Juniper Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq:JNPR) claiming that the Company misled investors about its business and financial condition, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities between April 12, 2001 through June 7, 2001. The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants stated that the Company was on track to have 2ndQ 01 revenues of $330+ million and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and that deferred revenue (i.e., revenue not yet recognized because customers had not yet accepted products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles were shorter than in the past. Defendants also represented the Company was on track to report 2001 EPS of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma, causing its stock to trade as high as $69.50. Defendants took advantage of this inflation selling 747,463 shares, for proceeds of $42.9 million. Then, on June 8, 2001, the Company disclosed that its 2nd Quarter 2001 revenues would be much lower than previously represented and earnings would be less than half of prior estimates. Defendants also admitted that customer acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than in the past, stretching from days to months. One analyst noted that the Company's announcement was matched in "severity by its tardiness." On this news, Company shares dropped to $38.02, or more than 46% lower than the class period high of $69.50. Ultimately, the Company reported a loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of just $0.50, half what defendants represented, and its stock has declined to $13. For further details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway by Phone: at 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. LUMENIS LTD.: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Lumenis Ltd. (Nasdaq:LUME) common stock during the period between January 7, 2002 through February 28, 2002, inclusive. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. On February 28, 2002, the Company revealed the facts concerning the SEC investigation in a conference call. These shocking revelations caused the stock to plummet 30% in one day and more than 69% from its class period high, resulting in damages to plaintiff and members of the class. For more information, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone: 212-213-6222 by Fax: 212-213-9405 by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.nyclasslaw.com MEDI-HUT CO.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Medi- Hut Co. (Nasdaq:MHUT) and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002. The complaint seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The defendants are the Company and: (1) Joseph A. Sanpietro, President and Chief Executive Officer, (2) Laurence M. Simon, Chief Financial Officer, (3) Robert Russo, Treasurer, (4) Vincent Sanpietro, Secretary, (5) James G. Aaron, director, and (6) James S. Vacarro, director The suit alleges that defendants knowingly and recklessly disseminated materially false and misleading statements and omissions that misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial performance. As stated in the suit, the Company misled the investing public by failing to disclose that a Company vice president, Lawrence Marasco had a controlling interest in Larval Corporation, the Company's largest customer. Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that Mr. Marasco, Vice President for Sales and Marketing, had a controlling interest in Larval. During fiscal year 2001, sales to Larval accounted for 62% of the Company's revenues. Because Mr. Marasco had a controlling interest in one of the Company's customers, generally accepted accounting principles dictated that the Company identify sales to that customer as related party transactions. The Company, however, failed to disclose the true nature of its sales to Larval. Indeed, each report it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the class period, including quarterly and annual reports, was devoid of any reference to the fact that one of its largest customers was controlled by a Company employee. These reports were disseminated to shareholders and/or were publicly available to potential investors. The suit also alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by defendants influenced the views of stock market analysts and the investing public and brought about an unrealistic assessment of the Company's performance and prospects, and that, as a result, Company stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period. On February 4, 2002, the nature of the relationship between the Company, Lawrence Marasco and Larval Corp. was revealed to the market. The investing public, recognizing that a majority of its revenues in fiscal year 2001 were generated via sales to a related party, reacted swiftly and severely. By the close of business on February 4, shares had lost 51% of their value, falling $3.41 per share to $3.29 in unusually heavy trading. Four days later, Grant Thornton LLP resigned its position as the Company's independent auditor after only two weeks. Grant Thornton served as the Company's auditors from January 24, 2002 through February 8, 2002. For more information, contact Darin R. Morgan, Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com NATIONAL GOLF: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of purchasers of National Golf Properties, Inc. (NYSE:TEE) securities between April 1, 1999 through November 14, 2001(including all purchases in or pursuant to the Company's May 17, 2001 secondary offering), claiming the Company misled shareholders about its business and financial condition. The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. The suit alleges that David G. Price misappropriated funds from a publicly traded company and funneled them to himself via a scheme of complicated financial dealings involving the Company and a variety of Price-controlled entities. Price-controlled entities conduct substantial business with the Company, to the detriment of its shareholders. Mr. Price's plan culminated in a May 2001 secondary offering that generated over $31 million from plaintiff and other class members which went to a Price-controlled entity, Oaks Christian High School. Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus, which became effective May 17, 2001, and included materially false and misleading financial statements, and other false and misleading statements, pursuant to which 1.175 million Company shares were sold to plaintiff and other members of the class. Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the business and financial operations of the Company with the intent and having the effect of substantially inflating the trading price of common stock. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who acquired NewPower Holdings common stock between October 5, 2000 and December 5, 2001, inclusive. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's public offering on October 5, 2000 was false and misleading in several ways, including misrepresentations and omissions concerning the adequacy of risk management systems put in place in conjunction with Company affiliate, Enron Energy Services, Inc. (EES), and the true nature and purpose of certain related party transactions, including transactions pursuant to which Enron attempted to hedge its investment in the Company through use of a partnership known as "Raptor III," which was conceived and designed by Enron CFO Andrew Fastow. Claims regarding these misrepresentations and omissions have been asserted under Section 11 of the Securities Act against the underwriters of the October 5, 2000 initial public offering and against those persons who were directors (or about to become directors) of the Company at the time of that offering, including its top executives, CEO H. Eugene Lockhart, Chairman Lou L. Pai and CFO William I. Jacobs. The complaint alleges in this regard that the Company and certain of its officers and directors misrepresented or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company had not adopted effective and appropriate hedging strategies against volatility of commodity prices; (2) that the Company was on course to achieve its financial goals and had sufficient liquidity to do so; and (3) that certain forward contracts with EES posed little risk of loss when in truth and in fact they were driving the Company toward insolvency, and were largely structured to protect and enrich Enron, the Company's controlling shareholder. According to the complaint, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct, the Company's stock price was artificially high throughout the class period, causing plaintiff and the other class members to purchase their securities at inflated prices. For further 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: NPW@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com NVIDIA CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Gardy, LLP lodged a securities class action against NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq:NVDA) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from February 15, 2000 through February 14, 2002. The suit also names as defendants Jen-Hsun Huang, President and Chief Executive Officer and Christine B. Hoberg, Chief Financial Officer. The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Specifically, the complaint alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price of Company stock, defendants misrepresented the Company's true prospects in an effort to conceal its improper acts until they were able to sell at least $66 million worth of their own Company stock. In order to overstate revenues and assets in its 4th Quarter 2000 and 1st to 3rd Quarter 2001, the Company violated generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal accounting scheme. This scheme had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and assets. On February 14, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company admitted in part that its past accounting for its prior results may be inaccurate in a press release entitled, "NVIDIA Corporation Conducting Review of Certain Transactions at the Request of the SEC." On this news the company's shares plummeted the following day. For more information, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by Phone: 800-889-3701 or by E-mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.com or nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com NVIDIA CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq:NVDA) during the period Feb. 15, 2000, through and including Feb. 14, 2002. The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class period defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition. In order to overstate revenues in its financial statements, the Company violated generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules by engaging in an improper scheme. As a result of defendants' misleading statements and accounting improprieties during the class period, the price of the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices. For more information, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Diana Steele by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail: afriedman@cmht.com or dsteele@cmht.com PDI INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------------- PDI Inc. vowed to mount a vigorous defense against several class actions commenced in January 2002 against the Company, its Chief Executive officer and its Chief Financial Officer, in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1934. The suits were brought as purported shareholder class actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock May 22, 2001 through November 12, 2001. The suits allege that the defendants intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading public statements and omissions concerning our financial condition and prospects with respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection with the October 2000 distribution agreement with GlaxoSmithKline, as well as its marketing of Lotensin and Lotrel in connection with the May 2001 distribution agreement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. The Company believes that these three complaints will ultimately be consolidated into one action, and that the allegations in these complaints are without merit. The Company has yet to file a response to the suits and discovery has not yet commenced. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Bailey Peterson Files Securities Suit in CO ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bailey and Peterson PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all purchasers of Qwest Communications International, Inc. common stock during the period April 19, 2000, through and including February 13, 2002. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers, with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, plaintiffs have brought claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs claim that the Company and certain of its officers knowingly or recklessly issued, caused to be issued, and participated in the issuance of deceptive and materially false and misleading statements to the investing public regarding the Company, which artificially inflated the price of its common stock. For more information, contact James S. Bailey, Jr. or Randall M. Livingston by Mail: 1660 Lincoln St., Suite 3175, Denver, Colorado 80264 by Phone: 303-837-1660 or by E-mail: bailey@b-p-law.com or livingston@b-p-law.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.aescon/bhplaw/index.htm. REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, PC commenced a securities class action against Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:RTIX) and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Regeneration Technologies, Inc. common stock during the period from July 25, 2001 through January 31, 2002. The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants made highly positive statements regarding the Company's financial results. The Company reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial results and strong revenue growth which caused the price of its securities to trade as high as $12.82 per share during the class period. These statements were allegedly false and misleading because the Company failed to take a charge against earnings to recognize worthless inventory. On February 2, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it was delaying its fourth quarter and year-end results for fiscal year 2001 while "management completes its evaluation of certain inventory issues." The Company also announced that its Chief Financial Officer, Richard Allen, and Vice President of Marketing and Sales, James Abraham, are leaving the Company effective immediately. The Company further announced that it is "evaluating whether these issues may affect RTI's previously reported financial results" and although "RTI's annual results have not been finalized, company officials expect to report a loss for both the quarter and the year." In response to the news the price of Company stock plunged more than 50% from $10.15 on January 31, 2002 to $5.19 on February 1, 2002. For more information, contact Todd S. Collins, Douglas M. Risen or Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: NY Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits -------------------------------------------------------------------- The seven class actions filed in July and August 2001 against Rhythms Netconnections, Inc. have been consolidated in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York along with approximately 800 other securities suits involving approximately 180 issuer defendants and numerous other defendants. The suit, entitled In RE: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, is under Federal judge Schira Scheindlin. The suits name as defendants the Company, its present and former officers and directors and certain underwriters who participated in the Company's initial public offering of common stock. One additional lawsuit, commenced after the Company filed its petition seeking bankruptcy protection, does not name as the Company as a defendant, but names as defendants certain of its officers and directors and certain underwriters who participated in the Company's initial public offering of common stock. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that the Company violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with its initial public offering of common stock, by filing a registration statement and prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission which contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions with respect to undisclosed: (1) excessive fees and commissions allegedly charged by the Company's underwriters in connection with the allocation of Company shares; and (2) agreements between the Company's underwriters and their customers which were allegedly designed to inflate the market price of Company stock after its initial public offering. In certain of these actions, plaintiffs also allege that the Company violated securities laws by disseminating a registration statement and prospectus in connection with a secondary offering of the Company's common stock which allegedly contained the same material misrepresentations and/or omissions as those purportedly contained in its offering documents in its initial public offering. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States Eastern District Court of New York, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Symbol Technologies, Inc. common stock (NYSE:SBL) between October 19, 2000 and February 13, 2002, both dates inclusive. The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements about its quarterly and annual financial results for 2000 and its quarterly financial results for the first quarter of 2001. In particular, it is alleged that the Company improperly booked a $10 million royalty payment in the third quarter of 2000 and of improperly recorded more than $40 million in revenue in the first quarter of 2001. The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements the price of Company stock was artificially inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer damages. For further details, contact Eric Belfi or Maurice Pesso by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682- 1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.rabinlaw.com. SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Brian Felgoise Initiates Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC commenced a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL) securities between October 19, 2000 and February 13, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against the Company and certain key officers and directors. The suit charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For further details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone: 215-735-6810 or by E-mail: BrianFLaw@yahoo.com TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faruqi Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE:TYC) securities between December 13, 1999 and February 5, 2002, inclusive. The suit charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning the Company's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants concealed that the Company paid nearly $8 billion for more than 700 acquisitions that were never disclosed to the public or in its public filings. Defendants further concealed that the undisclosed acquisitions cost over 100% more than the transactions that had been disclosed, based on a price calculated as a multiple of the acquired company's revenues. Contrary to defendants' misrepresentations that the Company had ample free cash flow and that its emergency backup credit lines would remain undrawn, on February 5, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company announced that it was forced to exit the commercial paper market and draw down the full $5.9 billion from emergency backup credit lines in order to pay for $4.5 billion in outstanding commercial paper debt. The defendants later admitted that increased borrowing costs and fees respecting the emergency debt "could cut 45 cents (per share), or $900 million, from Tyco's previous estimate of the company's fiscal 2002 earnings of $7.4 billion or $3.70 a share." In response to the emergency debt announcement by the Company, the trading price of Company shares fell to $23.10 per share - a class period low and a decrease of almost 70% from the value of Company shares at the time that certain of the individual defendants made their insider sales - with trading volume of 69,398,800 shares. For more information, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 by E- mail: Avozz@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 2002. 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 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *