/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/020404.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 4, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 66 Headlines AES CORPORATION: New Master Claim Filed in CA Power Antitrust Suit BLUE CROSS: PA Orthopaedic Society To Join Medical Health Care Suit CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Sued For Failing To Pay US$80M in Tax Refunds CERTEGY INC.: Consumers File Suit Over Service Charges in California FEDERATED MERCHANDISING: Recalls 1T Pant Sets Due To Choking Hazard FLORIDA POWER: Supreme Court Refuses Certification To Age Bias Suit GMO LITIGATION: Indonesian Farmers Urged To Stay Calm Over GM Crops INDIANA: Ordered To Compensate Residents Wrongfully Denied Medicaid INTERCON MERCHANDISING: Recalls Folding Beach Chairs Over Injury Hazard MARYLAND: Housing Agency To Pay US$ 1.1M Over ACLU Housing Bias Suit MENORAH GARDENS: Employees Testify on Grave Desecrations in Cemetery ORKIN EXTERMINATING: FL State Judge Certifies Breach of Contract Suit TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Light" Suits To Point To Ads, Studies As Evidence WASHINGTON: Settles For $4.5M Environmental Suit Over Ferry Operations WENZEL CORPORATION: Recalls Propane Camping Lanterns Due To Fire Hazard Securities Fraud ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in PA ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Suit in E.D. PA ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in PA ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in PA CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Prime Retailer's Insolvency in MI EAGLE BUILDING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV EAGLE BUILDING: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV GLOBAL CROSSING: Prongay Borderud Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA INTERWOVEN INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. NY JUNIPER NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA LONE STAR: Officers Move For Dismissal of CalPERS Securities Suit MCAFEE.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY NEWMARK HOMES: Sued Over Planned Merger With Engle Holdings in NV, TX NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY NVIDIA CORPORATION: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in E.D. LA PAN PACIFIC: Trial In Suit Over Western Merger Set For October 2002 PNC FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA RADIO ONE: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in FL REGISTER.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY SYNSORB BIOTECH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY VANTIVE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK ********* AES CORPORATION: New Master Claim Filed in CA Power Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit filed against AES Corporation in San Diego, California have filed a new master complaint in the suit, which alleges antitrust violations due to anti-competitive behavior in California's wholesale power market. The new master complaint asserts similar complaints against a new set of defendants, which include the Company and: (1) AES Redondo Beach LLC, (2) AES Alamitos LLC, (3) AES Huntington Beach LLC The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this action and will defend itself vigorously against the allegations. BLUE CROSS: PA Orthopaedic Society To Join Medical Health Care Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society (POS) will join a class action filed by two Philadelphia-area orthopaedic surgeons against Independence Blue Cross (IBC), alleging that that the Company maintains a pattern of denying and reducing payments to orthopedists. Representing more than 800 orthopaedic surgeons in Pennsylvania, POS has instructed its attorneys to file papers asking Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Albert W. Sheppard, Jr. to permit it to intervene on behalf of its members in the suit. Two Philadelphia-area orthopaedic surgeons, Drs. John R. Gregg and Vincent J. DiStefano commenced the suit. The suit alleges that the Company has "engaged in a pattern and/or practice of improperly denying reimbursement or improperly reducing the amount of reimbursement" owed to them and other orthopaedic surgeons for medical care they have rendered. Specifically, the doctors allege that the Company improperly and unilaterally changed the billing codes submitted with the doctors' requests for reimbursement to codes that provide for a lower reimbursement rate, a practice known as "downcoding." The doctors further allege that the Company engages in a practice known as "bundling" which involves the failure to fully reimburse the doctors when two or more distinct procedures are performed. "The Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society's entry into the case signifies our determination to end IBC's practice of denying our members reimbursement for the medical care they provide to IBC's insureds," said POS President Jeffrey A. Baum, MD in a press statement. POS will join with Drs. Gregg and DiStefano in asking the court to permanently bar the Company from continuing these practices in the future and to order the Company to open up its records for inspection so that the extent of its violations of the orthopaedic surgeons' contractual rights can be fully ascertained. For more details, contact Kathy DeWittie of the Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society by Phone: 1-717-909-8901 or by E-mail: pos@paorthosociety.org or contact Jerome M. Marcus or Jonathan Auerbach of both of Berger & Montague, PC by Phone: 1-215-875-3000 or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Sued For Failing To Pay US$80M in Tax Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------------- The county of Los Angeles faces a class action suit, charging it with shortchanging its residents with about US$80 million in interest from property tax refunds, DailyNews.com reports. The suit, filed by Attorney Rob Pool, alleges that the county gave property tax refunds to people who had filed claims but did not pay nearly the required amount of interest, and charges the county with not notifying people who were owed refunds. Atty. Pool told DailyNews.com, "My client said he was interested in acting on behalf of all tax refund recipients in the county who have been shortchanged.The county tax collector has to inform the public by mail that they have the right to file a claim, like people who were maybe shortchanged in 1996 but don't realize it. The county knows who they are, but they aren't going to say." Tyler McCauley, director of the county's Auditor-Controller's office, declined to comment on the suit because it was still being litigated. However, he emphasized that when the county refunds overpaid property taxes, it routinely pays whatever interest the county treasury is getting paid on its investments. John Redmond, principal analyst for the chief administrator's office, told DailyNews.com the issue had not formally been sent to the Board of Supervisors. "It's new, so until we can look at it and until the board actually takes a position, we don't have a position," he said. The county has until April 15 to file papers showing why a judge should not allow the case to be filed as a class-action suit. A trial is expected sometime in the summer, officials said. CERTEGY INC.: Consumers File Suit Over Service Charges in California -------------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunications firm Certegy, Inc. faces a class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, charging the Company of violating several state consumer laws. The suit alleges that the Company's practice of assessing a service charge on unpaid checks allegedly violated provisions of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Unfair Business Practices Act during the period from August 1992 through December 1996. The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies: (1) a refund of all service charges collected from California consumers during this period, (2) prejudgment interest, (3) statutory damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and (4) attorneys' fees, which amounts in the aggregate could exceed $15 million The Company vowed to defend this action vigorously, but cannot give any assurance that it may prevail due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation. The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a materially adverse effect on its financial position, liquidity, or results of operations. FEDERATED MERCHANDISING: Recalls 1T Pant Sets Due To Choking Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------------- Federated Merchandising Group is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,000 Greendog girl's capri pant and shirt sets. The buttons in the center of the embroidered flowers on the shirt can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. No injuries or incidents have been reported. This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injury. The recalled two-piece set includes a yellow or white, ruffled top with flowers embroidered along the bottom and denim capri pants with buttons on the bottom. The capri sets were sold in sizes 12, 18 and 24 months. The Greendog capri sets have the style number 8088. The style numbers are printed on the hangtag. Macy's, Burdines, The Bon Marche, Rich's, Lazarus and Goldsmith's sold the capri sets nationwide between January 2002 and February 2002 for about $26. For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 874-2812 between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.fds.com/cpsc FLORIDA POWER: Supreme Court Refuses Certification To Age Bias Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The US Supreme Court refused to grant class action status to a lawsuit filed by Florida Power Corporation workers who were fired from the Company in the mid-1990s, accusing the Company of age discrimination, the Tampa Tribune reports. The suit asserts claims under the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, alleging that the Company fired workers as part of an effort to change its image and reduce salary and pension costs. More than 70 percent of those laid off during reorganizations in the 1990s were older than 40. The court did not explain the ruling and did not rule on the merits of the case. They also dismissed a separate case from 117 former utility workers who said they were fired because they were older than 40. The ruling means that the workers must file their cases individually or in small groups. The plaintiffs said the ruling will not harm their case. Plaintiff Bill Hoover told the Tribune, "Yes, we're disappointed because I think it would have made the case easier.We still think we've got a very strong case and (are) anxious to get this done." Company spokesman Aaron Perlut said, "We're still going to trial, (but) the scope of the trial is different.What it allows us to do is deal with each individual plaintiff on a case-by-case basis." Trial in the suit is scheduled for July. GMO LITIGATION: Indonesian Farmers Urged To Stay Calm Over GM Crops ------------------------------------------------------------------- A spokesman for a company supplying genetically modified crops is urging farmers to remain calm and rational in responding to the increasing use of these crops, saying that extensive laboratory tests have shown them to be safe, the Jakarta Post reported recently. Farmers in South Sulawesi, aided by environmental groups, such as the National Consortium for Nature and Forest Conservation (Konphalindo) and the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), are reportedly on the verge of filing a class action against South Sulawesi Gubernatorial Decree No. 89/2001. The decree is considered flawed by its critics since it allows the planting of transgenic cotton beyond the seven regencies in the province in which such use is permitted under Minister of Agriculture Decree No. 107/2001. Tri Soekirman, spokesperson for PT Monagro Kimia, played down the harsh reaction by the farmers and environmentalists to genetically modified seeds. "They (the seeds) have been through scientific tests that are reliable," she told the Jakarta Post. Her comments come amid growing reaction to the growing presence and use of genetically modified crops and seeds in the country. Transgenic cotton and corn are supplied by PT Monsanto from South Africa through Jakarta-based PT Monagro Kimia. Transgenic, or genetically modified, organisms are touted to create higher quality crops and stocks by the insertion of genes from other species. The continuing controversy, however, shows that in an age of biotechnology, Indonesia is ill-prepared to face challenges in the field of genetically modified food products. Scientists, activists, farmers and business people continue the debate while the government remains ambiguous in its position. Further, a lack of legal guidelines on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), inadequate verification mechanisms and an uninformed public due to a meager information campaign, continue to shroud GMO products in ambiguity. There have been calls from the Indonesian Consumers Foundation for the labeling of such products. This does not appear to be method with optimistic prospects at this time, since the government has yet to effectively implement the 1999 regulation on food labeling and advertising. The Ministry of Health, along with the ministries of agriculture and forestry, has yet to decide on the level of GMOs that must be declared on product labeling. The Jakarta Post also presents the general principle that once adequate testing guidelines are established and a genetically modified product is found to be safe, then it should be exploited to help farmers and consumers produce the best yield. However, if testing finds a product to be hazardous, then it should not be allowed to furtively enter the market as such products have done. Antonius Suwanto, a researcher at the Southeast Asian Regional Center for Tropical Biology in Bogor, maintains that labeling is unnecessary once the product has been judged as safe. Nevertheless, Mr. Suwanto conceded that there could be possible implications involved when transgenic crops are exposed to the ecosystem. "We need about five to six years to evaluate all possible risks," he said. INDIANA: Ordered To Compensate Residents Wrongfully Denied Medicaid ------------------------------------------------------------------- After losing an eight-year court battle, the financially-strapped state of Indiana has been ordered to search for thousands of residents who were wrongfully denied millions of dollars in Medicaid coverage, the Associated Press reported recently. The suit that created a budget threat for Indiana helped expand Medicaid from a program that covered just permanent, untreatable disabilities into a program that also covers disabilities expected to last at least four years if left untreated. Lawyers for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU), who fought state Medicaid officials in court, say the ruling could actually save taxpayers money in the future, because it requires Medicaid to pay for care that could help thousands of people to return to work. The ICLU battled the state for several years before winning the class action on behalf of thousands of residents. As a result of losing the case, state officials estimate they may have to pay the disabled residents of Indiana as much as $850 million for medical care they received after the state turned them down for Medicaid coverage. Of this amount, nearly $323 million would come from the state treasury at a time when Governor Frank O'Bannon has ordered Medicaid cuts because Indiana is running out of money. The rest of the $850 million would come from federal funds. Medicaid is a nearly $4 billion state- federal program that provides health care in Indiana to more than 700,000 low income people. That is more than one of every nine Hoosiers, including pregnant women, children living in poverty and people with disabilities. The state sent out about 17,600 letters last month to Hoosiers who were denied coverage simply because they had disabilities that could have been corrected. About 2,343 were returned with no forwarding addresses. If those people fail to come forward by July 12, 2002, taxpayers would save as much as $100 million of the $850 million, the state's own estimations indicate. According to the state's estimates, more than 5,000 of 22,678 people wrongly denied care can no longer be found. INTERCON MERCHANDISING: Recalls Folding Beach Chairs Over Injury Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intercon Merchandising Source, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 100,000 Time Out folding mini beach chairs, which can be used by both children and adults. The chairs can collapse, posing crushing and amputation hazards to consumer's fingers and toes. The Company is aware of one incident in which the tip of a 3-year old girl's finger was amputated when the chair collapsed. The recalled mini beach chair was a free gift with the purchase of a Time Out cosmetic product at Sears stores. The mini beach chairs are white aluminum with a blue canvas seat and back. The name "Time Out" is printed on the canvas backrest. Sears stores nationwide distributed the mini beach chairs with the purchase of $20 worth Time Out cosmetics from June 2000 through August 2000. For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 634-0469 between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm PST Monday through Friday. MARYLAND: Housing Agency To Pay US$ 1.1M Over ACLU Housing Bias Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Baltimore's Board of Estimates has approved payment of $1.1 million in legal fees, related to the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU), public housing discrimination lawsuit, filed in 1995 on behalf of public housing residents, The Baltimore Sun reported recently. The Board of Estimates' action was taken in response to a ruling by the federal judge presiding over the class action that legal fees be paid the ACLU. Susan Goering, the Maryland ACLU executive director, said the ACLU and two law firms are to receive an interim payment of $542,000 from the city of Baltimore, $542,000 from the Housing Authority of Baltimore City and $400,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Until now, Ms. Goering said, the ACLU has not received "one copper penny" from the city since it began looking into public housing conditions in the 1980s. Money paid by the city will go into the Group's litigation fund. The two sides reached a partial settlement in 1996 but have been at odds over implementation of the settlement's terms. The remainder of the case remains unresolved and, despite settlement talks, both sides say a trial is a possibility over how to rectify decades of segregation in housing for the city's poorest residents. Under the settlement, nearly 2,200 special rent-subsidy certificates were to have been provided by now to help disperse the poor throughout the region. Progress in giving public housing residents a chance to live in largely white, middle class neighborhoods has been "sluggish," US Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm wrote in December. Many public housing residents continue to live amidst the poverty that spurred the lawsuit. Where the blame lies is disputed. The ACLU says the city is not moving fast enough, while the city says its foes have blocked or delayed projects that would have helped disperse the public housing residents. Housing Commissioner Paul T. Graziano recently told the mayor that the ACLU turned down a final settlement offer "hands down" and walked away from the table. However, Andrew D. Freeman, a lawyer working with the ACLU, says the city's idea of a settlement is to say "trust us." City Solicitor Thurman W. Zollicoffer Jr. said the city has not fulfilled some promises made in the partial consent decree. "Our hands are not clean," he said. City Council President Sheila Dixon said, "All of us to some degree are at fault." The city's lack of firm resolve on the public housing issue was displayed, when, in 2000, plans to relocate 15 families to Northeast Baltimore, a move that would have helped to satisfy the settlement terms, sparked a loud protest from residents there. A few months later, city officials said they no longer were interested in buying the properties. Mr. Freeman said, "Neither the city nor HUD has been willing to take seriously their obligations to fix the results of decades of discrimination." MENORAH GARDENS: Employees Testify on Grave Desecrations in Cemetery -------------------------------------------------------------------- Five current or former employees of the Menorah Gardens Cemetery in Palm Beach County, which is accused of grave desecration, said that their managers pressured them to make room for more bodies, the Associated Press reported. The videotaped depositions, released recently, were part of the civil lawsuit against the Palm Beach County cemetery, Menorah Gardens, owned by funeral giant Service Corporation International (SCI). Jerome Hyppolite, 64, a former gravedigger at the cemetery, described what one manager told him when they needed to break open a burial vault containing one body in order to make room for others. "My boss asked me to break it, (saying), `Take everything that was there and throw it away and put a brand new box in the spot. Throw them (bones) in the back where the trees are,'" he said in his deposition. Another former gravedigger, Claude Etienne, said he regularly broke up underground vaults, shuffled name plates of the dead and once excavated a full grave to make way for another. He said he acted at the direction of a supervisor who, he said, drank liberally and lived in a trailer on the site. SCI, fighting a two-pronged legal battle, also issued a legal response denying allegations made in a separate civil lawsuit, filed by the state attorney's office. Company spokesman Don Mathis emphasized that the depositions released favor the plaintiffs, who will ask a judge in May to grant them class action status. He added, however that "if you had to rank the credibility of the witnesses you are dealing with in this case, you are dealing at the least credible end." Fort Lauderdale attorney Neal Hirschfeld that that three of the five witnesses were not fired and two still work for SCI. "They were good enough for SCI to hire. It is unfortunate that now they are trying to tear them (SCI) down," he said. ORKIN EXTERMINATING: FL State Judge Certifies Breach of Contract Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- A Florida State judge granted class action status to a lawsuit against Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. filed on behalf of Florida customers who paid for the Company's standard termite extermination contract but were allegedly unable to avail of the Company's services, the Florida Sun-Sentinel reports. The suit alleges the Company charged customers for the termite program but never provided re-inspection or re-treatment services. Company employees allegedly forged customers' signatures saying the services had been provided. The suit further states that customers were lured by false advertising and company promises, only to suffer damages when their homes became infested. The ruling by Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge Robert Simms could allow as many as 100,000 customers to commence claims against the Company. Company estimates place the class number at 65,000 customers, but the attorneys for the plaintiffs say the number could be 100,000, the Sun- Sentinel reports. The Company plans to appeal the certification. In a statement, the Company said, "We strongly believe Judge Simms' opinion is mistaken and conflicts with the law in a long line of Florida cases.It is important to note that Judge Simms did not find any fault with Orkin whatsoever, he simply allowed the plaintiffs' claims, all of which Orkin strenuously denies - to go forward procedurally as a class action. We are very confident our appeal will be upheld." "This has been a huge battle getting the case certified," Attorney for the plaintiffs Dan Clark told the Sun-Sentinel. He anticipates the lawsuit will go to trial in early next year. TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Light" Suits To Point To Ads, Studies As Evidence ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The assertion that cigarette companies have used words such as "light," and "low tar" to deceive smokers into believing they are safer than regular brands, is the major component of the strategy of lawyers who who filed several class actions against three of the nation's biggest tobacco companies: (1) Philip Morris Companies, Inc., (2) RJ Reynolds Tobacco Corporation, and (3) Brown & Williamson Corporation Class action suits were filed on behalf of smokers in 11 states, seeking billions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of consumer protection laws after an Oregon jury ruled that Philip Morris must pay US$15 million to survivors of a woman who died of lung cancer, the Associated Press reports. The jury said Philip Morris falsely represented low-tar cigarettes as more helpful. The suits pending across the country against tobacco companies that sell "light" cigarettes are: (1) California- Case filed against Philip Morris, (2) Florida - Cases filed against Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds. A judge has approved the class-action status of the Philip Morris case, (3) Illinois - Cases filed and class-action status granted against Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and Brown & Williamson, (4) Massachusetts: Case filed and class-action status certified against Philip Morris, (5) Minnesota - Case filed against Philip Morris, (6) Missouri - Cases filed against Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and Brown & Williamson, (7) New Jersey - Cases filed against Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds, (8) Ohio - Cases filed against Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and Brown & Williamson, (9) Pennsylvania - Case filed against Philip Morris, but a judge refused to certify case as a class action, (10) Tennessee - Case filed against Philip Morris, and (11) West Virginia - Case filed against Philip Morris Lawyers for the plaintiffs plan to utilize examples of Company advertising and several studies by the American Cancer Society to prove their point. Stephen Sheller, a Philadelphia attorney who leads the class action effort nationally, characterized the tobacco companies' advertising campaign around the words "light" and "low tar" as a "scam." Mr. Sheller points to a 1999 Brown & Williamson ad for Carlton cigarettes that read, "Isn't it time you started thinking about number one?" A 1974 R.J. Reynolds ad carried the headline, "To smoke or not to smoke" and suggested if smokers did not want to quit, they should try Vantage. John Hines, a plaintiff in the class action filed against Philip Morris in Florida, explained why he switched to lights in the 1980s, "The word `light' itself meant to me that it would probably be better for you," said Mr. Hines, 48, of Palm City. "Why should a company make a profit on something they lied to the people about?" The concept of "light cigarettes" being healthier gained momentum in the 1960s after some health advocates said they could reduce health risks. Former US Surgeon General Julius Richmond recommended in 1981 that smokers switch to lights if they couldn't quit. That position has been dropped, but sales of light cigarettes have boomed. They now account for the majority of the US cigarette market. However, studies from the American Cancer Society showed that there was not enough support for this impression. In two studies, the first in the 1960s and the second in the 1980s, they discovered that lung cancer death rates among smokers rose even though tar levels had dropped. Another study by the National Cancer Institute last fall stated that cigarettes that yielded low tar and nicotine when tested on government- approved machines gave off higher levels when smoked by people. That is because people who smoke lights tend to inhale more deeply and take more puffs to get the nicotine they need. This study, cited as evidence in the nationwide class-action lawsuits, said manufacturers designed cigarettes to register low tar readings in machine tests. One way to do this is to put ventilation holes in the filter. The holes lower tar levels in machine tests but offer little benefit to real smokers, whose finger and lips often cover such holes. The cancer institute study found that people who smoke lights typically believe they are reducing their health risk. Attorney Van Bunch, who filed a class-action lawsuit in Tennessee, said tobacco companies should include labels telling smokers "you have to use the cigarette in an unusual way to get the benefits of lights." The tobacco companies, on the other hand, say the lawsuits have no Merit, and have said that they never attempted to deceive anyone. William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris' vice president and associate general counsel, said the company never attempted to deceive anyone said, "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette. No one has ever advertised these cigarettes as being safe." WASHINGTON: Settles For $4.5M Environmental Suit Over Ferry Operations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The State of Washington and property owners along Rich Passage reached a settlement in a class action claiming waves from high-speed Seattle- to-Bremerton ferries caused environmental and property damage to beaches and bulkheads in Rich Passage and Port Orchard Bay. The State agreed to pay property owners nearly $4.5 million for damage caused by the ferries' wake, as well as to continue monitoring shorelines for any additional impact. In exchange, property owners will allow the Washington State Ferry System (WSF) to operate the ferries at 16 knots through the passage and the bay. The agreement does not limit the property owners' ability to file suit in the future if damages continue. "It has been a long struggle for the property owners," said Sean Matt, the attorney representing Rich Passage property owners. "Almost immediately after the fast ferries began running, the property owners alerted the Washington State Ferries to the problems, but no one would listen, and there were some who ridiculed their claims. Now, after over three years of hard-fought litigation, the state is listening, and agreeing with them." Mr. Matt noted that while the settlement should cover the repairs of most of the physical damages caused by the ferries, perhaps the most enduring benefit will be awareness of the issue and the protection of sensitive shorelines. "Thanks to the property owners, the state is now keenly aware of the ecological impact the ferries caused, literally scouring the beaches of sand and gravel, plant and sea life," he noted. "Moving forward, the state will need to pay much closer attention to the effects on the environment, and we hope it will." Soon after the Chinook began high-speed service, residents along the route began reporting large swells and waves scouring beaches and crashing over bulkheads, in some cases sending seawater encroaching well beyond bulkheads built to stop it. The original lawsuit, filed on March 9, 1999 by several Rich Passage residents, claimed that powerful waves generated by the Chinook ferry were removing or destroying beach aggregate, kelp beds, shellfish, topsoil, bulkheads and other structures and vegetation along the Seattle-to-Bremerton ferry run. On July 26, 1999, Judge Glenna Hall issued a ruling that WSF must immediately slow the high-speed ferry Chinook to 12 knots in Rich Passage and Port Orchard Bay pending full compliance with the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). In March 2000, the Washington Supreme Court overturned the preliminary injunction and allowed WSF to resume high-speed service along the entire Seattle - Bremerton run, but did not interfere with the ongoing SEPA review. The SEPA study released in August of 2001 concluded that wave action from ferries traveling at 34 knots caused probable environmental and property damage along the narrow passage, and recommended the ferries slow to 12 knots through the passage. The SEPA study noted, in part, that waves from high-speed ferries caused "substantial changes to several beach profiles" and "statistically significant decreases in biological abundances" in several regions of Rich Passage. The case was settled after mediation sessions led by retired King County Superior Court Judge Terrance Carroll. The trial was scheduled to begin May 20. The Chinook was introduced to the public on May 15, 1998, and was in full-time service two weeks later. Its sister ship, the Snohomish, went into service in late 1999. Rich Passage, which lies mid-way through the Seattle-to-Bremerton commute, and Port Orchard Bay, took the brunt of the ferries' 24 daily passes at a speed of 34 knots. For more information, contact Sean Matt by Phone: 206/623-7292 or by E- mail: sean@hagens-berman.com or contact Mark Firmani of Firmani & Associates by Phone: 206/443-9357 or by E-mail: mark@firmani.com WENZEL CORPORATION: Recalls Propane Camping Lanterns Due To Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wenzel Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 290,000 propane-fueled camping lanterns with model names "Ozark Trail" or "Wenzel." An insufficient connection between the lantern and the propane cylinder can allow gas to escape and ignite unexpectedly, posing a potential fire and injury hazard to consumers. This hazard can occur during the lighting or normal use of the lantern. The Company has received 12 reports of propane gas escaping from these lanterns and igniting unexpectedly. Two consumers sustained burns to the arm and hand. One of the consumers also suffered burns to the eye. The recalled lanterns are green and silver with brass fittings, have a Glass globe, and stand about 9 inches high (without the propane cylinder attached). The lanterns, when attached to the propane cylinder, sit on a green plastic base on which the model names "Ozark Trail" or "Wenzel" appear. The Ozark Trail model has a double cloth mantle for lighting and the Wenzel model has either a double or single cloth mantle. The models involved are Ozark Trail 824927 and 824928, and Wenzel 824208, 824226, 824227 and 824401, which appear on the box in which the lantern came. Wal-Mart sold the lanterns nationwide under the "Ozark Trail" label from March 1999 through August 2001 for about $18. Sporting goods, camping equipment, and other retail stores nationwide sold these lanterns under the "Wenzel" brand from January 1999 through August 2001 for between $18 and $28. For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 325-8368 between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm CDT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.wenzelco.com. Securities Fraud ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of Adelphia Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive against the Company and: (1) Timothy Rigas, CFO and (2) John J. Rigas, President, CEO and Chairman The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading information, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose billions of dollars of off- balance sheet debt until March 27, 2002. For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: at The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Suit in E.D. PA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Adelphia Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLAC) from April 2, 2001 through April 1, 2002, 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, throughout the class period, the Company failed to disclose billions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt. As alleged in the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, the Company guaranteed credit facilities for certain closely held partnerships, which are controlled by the Rigas Family (the Company's controlling shareholder), and which used the money, in substantial part, to purchase securities from the Company. Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt during an earnings conference call on March 27, 2002. On April 1, 2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an extension to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC. The Company reported that the extension was being sought to allow it and its outside auditors additional time to review certain accounting matters relating to co- borrowing credit facilities which the Company is a party. In response to these negative announcements, the price of the Company's common stock dropped from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12 per share on April 1, 2002. The price of other Company debt securities also materially declined. For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Adelphia Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company, Timothy Rigas (CFO) and John J. Rigas (President, CEO and Chairman). 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 issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. The suit further alleges that, throughout the class period, the Company failed to disclose billions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt. As alleged in the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, the Company guaranteed credit facilities for certain closely-held partnerships, which are controlled by the Rigas Family (the Company's controlling shareholder), and which used the money, in substantial part, to purchase Company securities. Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt during an earnings conference call on March 27, 2002. Then, on April 1, 2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an extension to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC. The Company reported that the extension was being sought to allow it and its outside auditors additional time to review certain accounting matters relating to co- borrowing credit facilities which it is party to. In response to these negative announcements, the price of Company stock dropped from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12 per share on April 1, 2002. The price of Company debt securities also materially declined. For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: adelphiacase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Adelphia Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive. The suit names as defendants the Company, and officers Timothy Rigas and John J. Rigas. The complaint charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding its financial condition and results because it failed to disclose the existence of billions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt related to Highland Holdings. As alleged in the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, the Company guaranteed credit facilities for certain closely-held partnerships, which are controlled by the Rigas Family (its controlling shareholder), and which used the money, in substantial part, to purchase securities from the Company. Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt during an earnings conference call on March 27, 2002. Then, on April 1, 2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an extension to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC. The Company reported that the extension was being sought to allow it and its outside auditors additional time to review certain accounting matters relating to co- borrowing credit facilities which the Company is party to. In response to these negative announcements, the price of Company stock dropped from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12 per share on April 1, 2002. The price of the Company's debt securities also materially declined. For more information, contact Deborah R. Gross, Susan Gross or Tina Moukoulis by Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Second Floor - Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: 800-849-3120 or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Prime Retailer's Insolvency in MI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Champion Enterprises, Inc. is vigorously defending against a securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The suit, which names the Company and Walter R. Young as defendants, alleges violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs generally alleged, among other things, that the Company made false and misleading statements and omitted other information regarding the financial condition of Ted Parker Homes Sales, Inc. (Ted Parker), its former largest independent retailer, and the potential impact on the Company of Ted Parker becoming insolvent. In June 13, 2001, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the second amended complaint and dismissed all of the plaintiffs' complaints. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is now pending. EAGLE BUILDING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV ------------------------------------------------------------------- Weiss and Yourman initiated a securities class action against Eagle Building Technologies, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: EGBT), previously known as Eagle Capital International, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between April 18, 2001 and February 14, 2002. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Anthony D'Amato, (2) Paul-Emile Desrosiers and (3) Tanner & Co. The complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that as a result of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's products, operations and financial results, Company securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period. The complaint further alleges that the artificial inflation continued until the time the Company acknowledged that its prior financial results, from December 31, 2000 to September 30, 2001, were overstated and that certain press releases issued by the Company concerning post- September 11th security measures marketed by it may have been false and misleading. For more information, contact David C. Katz or Mary A. Nastasi by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York NY 10176 by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 by E-mail: info@wynyc.com EAGLE BUILDING: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Eagle Building Technologies, Inc. (OTC:EGBT) securities between April 18, 2001 and February 14, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, 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 more information, 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 GLOBAL CROSSING: Prongay Borderud Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prongay and Borderud initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that acquired shares of Global Crossing (OTC BB: GBLXQ) stock in exchange for shares of Frontier Corporation stock on or about September 30, 1999. The suit charges the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers, certain of the Company's controlling persons and Arthur Andersen with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. For more information, contact Kevin Prongay or Oren Giskan by Mail: 12121 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 by Phone: 310-207-2848 or by E-mail: osgiskan@aol.com INTERWOVEN INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Interwoven, Inc. (NASDAQ:IWOV) labeled "without merit" the securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 7, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and its underwriters with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in their filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The regulatory filings allegedly failed to disclose several agreements between the Company's underwriters and certain purchasers of the Company's stock, which caused the stock price to be artificially inflated. The Company further asserted that the defense of this litigation could result in substantial costs and diversion of its management's attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on its operating results and financial condition in future periods. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: JNPR) publicly traded securities during the period between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants stated that the Company was on track to have 2nd Quarter 2001 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 July 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 more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com LONE STAR: Officers Move For Dismissal of CalPERS Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Certain directors and officers of Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon, Inc. have asked a California trial court to dismiss the claims against them in a shareholder derivative suit filed by the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) CalPERS filed the derivative suit in October 2001 against certain of the Company's present and former directors, alleging breach of fiduciary duties. The suit further states that certain of the defendants were unjustly enriched through related party transactions and by the repricing of stock options previously issued. The suit names the Company as a nominal defendant. The suit also seeks to prevent enforcement of certain change of control agreements granted to executive officers of the Company and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. On January 9, 2002, CalPERS filed an amended complaint and added a claim to attempt to certify a class action based on their allegation that a provision in the change of control agreements violates Delaware law. Certain defendants countered by filing a motion to dismiss the suit on February 8, 2002. Discovery has been stayed pending a court decision on the motion to dismiss. The Company believes the outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. MCAFEE.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- McAfee.com vehemently denied allegations in a consolidated securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between December 1,1999 and December 6,2000. The consolidated suit, which names the Company, certain of its officers and directors and three underwriters of its initial public offering as defendants, alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the Company's initial public offering of securities. The suit brings claims for violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws against those underwriters and also against the Company and certain of its directors and officers. The Company mentions that similar suits have been filed asserting virtually identical allegations against more than 300 other companies in New York federal court. The suit and all other IPO allocation securities suits have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend itself vigorously. NEWMARK HOMES: Sued Over Planned Merger With Engle Holdings in NV, TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Newmark Homes Corporation faces two class actions in Nevada and Texas State Courts charging the Company with violation of fiduciary duty over its planned merger with Engle Holdings Corporation. The first suit was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada and names as defendants the Company and: (1) Michael J. Poulos, (2) Yannis Delikanakis, (3) Michael S. Stevens, (4) Constantinos Stengos, (5) George Stengos, (6) Andreas Stengos, (7) James M. Carr, (8) William A. Hasler, (9) Larry D. Horner, (10) Lonnie M. Fedrick, and (11) Engle Holdings Corporation The second case was filed in the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas against the same defendants in the first suit. The first suit has been stayed indefinitely pending the resolution of the second class action in Texas. The Company's obligation to answer the second lawsuit has been deferred until the plaintiff requests in writing that the Company answer the complaint pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiffs. Although both of these class actions are in their early stages, the Company does not believe the cases have merit and intends to vigorously defend these actions. NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: NPW) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock in the initial public offering on October 5, 2000 and thereafter in the period October 5, 2000 through October 19, 2000, inclusive. The suit alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of press releases and public filings containing materially false or misleading statements representing that the Company could profitably provide electricity and natural gas to residential and small commercial markets because of its ability to hedge against price volatility and because of its technical resources and regulatory and risk management expertise. These representations were false and misleading because the Company did not have any such expertise superior to any competitors and it did not have a viable hedging strategy. For more details, contact Thomas G. Shapiro, Ted Hess-Mahan, or Liz Hutton by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134, or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com. NVIDIA CORPORATION: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA) between Feb. 15, 2000 and Feb. 14, 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 that the Company violated generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal accounting scheme that dramatically overstated revenues and assets. The defendants misrepresented the Company's true prospects in order to conceal the Company's wrongful acts until the defendants were able to sell at least $66 million worth of their own stock. On February 14, 2002, the Company partially admitted that its past accounting for its prior results may be inaccurate. This news caused its shares to plummet the following day. For more information, contact Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott or James E. Miller by Phone: 800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com, drscott@scott-scott.com or jmiller@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.scottscott.com ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in E.D. LA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Orthodontic Centers of America will ask the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to dismiss the consolidated amended class action filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 27, 2000 through March 15, 2001. The consolidated suit arose from three class actions filed against the Company and: (1) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, (2) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., Chief Operating Officer, and (3) Dr. Gasper Lazzara, Jr., former Chairman of the Board The three suits uniformly alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b- 5 thereunder, by allegedly recognizing revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and SEC disclosure requirements and by allegedly making false and misleading statements about the Company's financial results and accounting. The suits were later consolidated. On February 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint that named W. Dennis Summers, one of the Company's directors and former Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of OrthAlliance, as an additional defendant and purported to extend the class period for the action through February 7, 2002. In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs alleged, in addition to the prior allegations, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by allegedly making false and misleading statements about the OrthAlliance merger and the status of litigation between OrthAlliance and certain of its affiliated practices. The Company expects to file a motion to dismiss the suit by April 11, 2002. The Company further believes that the suit lacks merit, and denies the plaintiffs' allegations. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously but cannot predict whether it will prevail in the suit. PAN PACIFIC: Trial In Suit Over Western Merger Set For October 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the class action pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda against Pan Pacific Retail Properties, Inc. is set to commence on October 7,2002. The Bennett Family Trust, and trustee Bryant M. Bennett, initiated the suit in November 2000 over Pan Pacific's acquisition of Western Properties Trust. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Western Properties Trust; (2) Bradley N. Blake; (3) L. Gerald Hunt; (4) Dennis D. Ryan; (5) James L. Stell; (6) Reginald B. Oliver; (7) L. Michael Foley; (8) Joseph P. Colmery; (9) Revenue Properties (US), Inc.; and (10) Stuart A. Tanz. The suit alleges that the merger terms between the Company and Western were unfair and violated the defendants' fiduciary obligations to Western's shareholders. On February 22, 2002, the court granted class certification to the suit. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against each of the claims and intends to vigorously and effectively defend against them. However, the Company cannot give any assurance of a result in their favor, as the litigation is by its nature unpredictable. PNC FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: PNC) from July 19, 2001 through January 29, 2002, inclusive. The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and its auditor and consultant Ernst & Young, LLP (E&Y) with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants misrepresented the Company's financial results and issued false and misleading statements with regard to PNC's financial condition. Defendants failed to properly consolidate liabilities associated with three subsidiaries the Company had established with American Insurance Group (AIG). Throughout the class period, defendants misrepresented the Company's earnings as well as the Company's ability to reduce its liabilities related to non-performing assets. In fact, defendants failure to conform with proper accounting standards produced inflated earnings and misled investors as to the Company's true financial condition. The complaint further alleges that while acting as auditor and a consultant for the Company, E&Y was also acting as a consultant for AIG. In fact, as the Company's auditor, E&Y approved its transactions with AIG while at the same time acting as an "accounting adviser" to AIG. E&Y drew up the financial structure for the subsidiaries in question and approved them for implementation by AIG. E&Y also issued a letter that helped AIG pitch its product to banks. On January 29, 2002, the Company announced that the Federal Reserve Board had contacted the Company about accounting inaccuracies and as a result, its financial results for 2Q:01 and 3Q:01 would be restated and its financial results for 4Q:01 would be revised. The Company also stated that the updated financials would result in year-end earnings being reduced $155 million to approximately $412 million, or $1.38 a share, and revealed that these accounting adjustments would cause its non-performing assets to rise by $125 million to $393 million. In addition, the Company announced that the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC were making inquiries about the Company's transactions and that the Company would cooperate with their investigations. These disclosures shocked the market, causing Company stock to close on January 29, 2002 down $5.79 or nearly 10% at $56.08 in extremely heavy trading volume of 6,305,100 shares. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com RADIO ONE: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Radio One, Inc. vowed to vigorously defend against a securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit alleges that the Company's registration statements and prospectuses filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in May 1999 and November 1999 contained untrue statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of the federal securities laws. In particular, the suit alleges that the Company's registration statements and prospectuses failed to disclose that: (1) certain underwriters required several investors who wanted large allocations of its initial public offering to pay excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage commissions; and (2) such underwriters required investors to agree to buy shares of the Company's securities after the initial public offering was completed at predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining initial public offering allocations. The suit claims that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company is confident that the resolution of the suit will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition or results of operations. REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in FL --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida Gainesville Division on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: RTIX) between July 25, 2001 and January 31, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and: (1) Richard Allen, (2) James Grooms and (3) Brian Hutchinson 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 issuing materially false and misleading statements to the market. Specifically, throughout the class period, 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 Company 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 to earnings to recognize worthless inventory. On February 2, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it was delaying its fourth quarter and yearend 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com REGISTER.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Register.com faces a securities class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging federal securities violations in the Company's March 3,2000 initial public offering (IPO). The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Richard D. Forman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, (2) Alan G. Breitman, former Vice President of Finance and Accounting, (3) Goldman Sachs & Co., underwriter for the Company's IPO, and (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc, underwriter for the IPO. The suit seeks unspecified damages as a result of various alleged securities law violations arising from activities purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The suit further alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's IPO to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The suit alleges that the prospectus for the Company's IPO was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The Company intends vigorously to defend the action, which is being coordinated with over three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies before one judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. No date has been set for any response to the complaint. SYNSORB BIOTECH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Synsorb Biotech Inc. (Nasdaq: SYBB) between April 4, 2001 and December 10, 2001, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint alleges that defendants violated 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. The suit alleges that throughout the class period, defendants touted the successful progression of its SYNSORB Cdr Phase III clinical trials while concealing from the public that, in fact: (1) defendants had "concerns about enrollment;" (2) defendants knew that "the completion of the trial would reach out years beyond" what they had forecast; (3) the FDA had directed defendants to use a more stringent protocol in its Phase III trials; (4) defendants had repeatedly failed to increase enrollment in the Phase III trials during the class period; (5) that defendants had been experiencing "unacceptably high drop out rates;" and (6) that defendants could not afford to continue to finance the Phase III clinical trials After the market closed on December 10, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing the termination of its SYNSORB Cdr development program; and in a conference call the next morning, revealed the true facts concerning the Phase III clinical trials. These shocking revelations made in the press release and in the conference call had a dramatic effect on the price of Company stock, causing the stock to plummet over 52% and causing plaintiff and the class to suffer damages. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) between February 5, 1999 and February 1, 2002, inclusive. 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 issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. The suit alleges that the Company's representations were rendered false and misleading by defendants' failure to disclose: (1) that the Company would achieve its earnings targets only through undisclosed acquisitions; (2) that the individual defendants sold in excess of $100,000,000 of their individual stock holdings to the company; and (3) that the Company's management procedures were to make large payments to insiders, including a $20,000,000 payment to one director and his charity for furthering the interests of the Company. The complaint further alleges that external rule changes required the Company to cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices and recognize the revenues from its security contracts only as the monies thereunder were received. Throughout the class period, defendants were allegedly aware that the adverse financial effect of the rule change by the Securities and Exchange Commission would be approximately $1,000,000,000. However, defendants allegedly failed to disclose this adverse financial effect until partial disclosure was made in October 2001. As defendants belatedly announced portions of the foregoing material facts between October 2001 and January 2002, Company stock fell allegedly by more than 40 plus percent. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com VANTIVE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision dismissing a consolidated securities class action charging Vantive Corporation and certain of its current and former directors and officers with federal securities violations. The consolidated suit arose from a series of securities suits commenced in July 1999, alleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suits were later consolidated and amended. Plaintiffs added to the previous complaints, among other things, allegations of accounting improprieties. The suit was dismissed with prejudice in March 2000 and in June 2000, the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit appellate court. On March 15, 2002, the appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal. The plaintiffs have ninety (90) days following the entry of that order to petition for review by the US Supreme Court. The Company expressed confidence that the resolution of the suit will not have a material adverse affect on its financial position, results of the operations and cash flows. However, depending on the amount and the timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters could materially affect the Company's future results of operations or cash flows in a particular period. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on behalf of investors who purchased Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB), Williams Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE: WCG) securities between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, inclusive. The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information to their shareholders regarding: (1) the spin-off of WCG from WMB, (2) the accounting and financial impact of the contingent liabilities retained by WMB, and (3) the nature of the assets and liabilities of WCG These caused the common stock of both companies to trade at artificially inflated prices. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.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 * * *