/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030120.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 20, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 13 Headlines ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Review Lawsuit Dismissal ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal AIRGATE PCS: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. GA AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Widens Class Period in TX Suit AOL TIME: Minnesota Board Chosen Lead Plaintiff in Securities Lawsuit AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Grammar Settles Sexual Abuse Charges V. Counselor BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 80,000 Stuffed Bears For Choking Hazard CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: SC Judge Grants Certification to Consumer Suit COMPAQ COMPUTER: Judge Refuses To Permit Posting of Internal Documents DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in S.D. TX HAWAII: Study Arising From Lawsuit Finds Causes For Child Agency Faults HEWLETT-PACKARD Co.: Says Behavior Was Ethical In Hiring Expert Witness INDONESIA: Suit V. Jakarta Governor Over Planned Sports Mall Dismissed INTERVOICE INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit PITTSBURGH UNIVERSITY: Returns To Court Over Same-Sex Health Benefits NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Approves $1.94M May 3 Fire Lawsuit Settlement QWEST INTERNATIONAL: Ex-Employees Ask ID Court To Certify Overtime Suit SANDATA TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Suit in FL UNITED STATES: VA Farmer Wins $6.6M After 17 Years Of Racial Bias WESTAR ENERGY: Investors File Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements ZIMBABWE: Court Partially Dismisses Zimbabwe Leader's Human Rights Suit New Securities Fraud Cases ANNUITY & LIFE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in CT Court CABLE & WIRELESS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA HOTELS.COM: Chitwood & Harley Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX NASH FINCH: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN Court SMARTFORCE PLC: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NH Court TELLIUM INC.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY TELLIUM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court ********* ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Ask Court To Review Lawsuit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the class action against Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. filed a writ of certioriari with the United States Supreme Court to challenge an appeal court's dismissal of their appeal relating to the suit's dismissal. The suit, which also names other companies in the entertainment industry as defendants, was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Paducah Division. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants negligently caused injury to the plaintiffs as a result of, in the case of the Company, its distribution of unidentified "violent" video games, which induced a minor to harm his high school classmates, thereby causing damages to plaintiffs, the parents of the deceased individuals. The plaintiffs seek damages in the amount of approximately $110,000. The court dismissed this action, then the dismissal was appealed by the plaintiffs to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The appeals court then denied the plaintiffs' appeal. ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. and other companies in the entertainment industry in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado withdrew their appeal of the suit's dismissal. The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons killed or injured by the shootings, which occurred at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. The complaint alleges that the video game defendants negligently caused injury to the plaintiffs as a result of their distribution of unidentified "violent" video games, which induced two minors to kill a teacher related to the plaintiff and to kill or harm their high school classmates, causing damages to plaintiffs. The complaint seeks: (1) compensatory damages in an amount not less than $15 for each plaintiff in the class, but up to $20,000 for some of the members of the class; (2) punitive damages in the amount of $5 billion; (3) statutory damages against certain other defendants in the action; and (4) equitable relief to address the marketing and distribution of "violent" video games to children. The court dismissed the suit on March 4, 2002. Following dismissal, the plaintiffs moved for relief and the US District Court for the District of Colorado denied the relief sought by plaintiff. On April 5, 2002, plaintiffs noted an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On October 3, 2002, the Tenth Circuit took jurisdiction over plaintiff' appeal. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a stipulation of dismissal of their appeal with prejudice, and the Tenth Circuit formally dismissed the appeal on December 10, 2002. No further appeals are available to the plaintiffs. AIRGATE PCS: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. GA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Airgate PCS, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Thomas M. Dougherty, (2) Barbara L. Blackford, (3) Alan B. Catherall, (4) Credit Suisse First Boston, (5) Lehman Brothers, (6) UBS Warburg LLC, (7) William Blair & Company, (8) Thomas Wiesel Partners LLC and (9) TD Securities The complaints seek class certification and allege the prospectus used in connection with the secondary offering of Company stock by certain former iPCS shareholders on December 18, 2001 contained materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information necessary to make the statements in the prospectus not false and misleading. The alleged omissions included: (i) failure to disclose that in order to complete an effective integration of iPCS, drastic changes would have to be made to the Company's distribution channels, (ii) failure to disclose that the sales force in the acquired iPCS markets would require extensive restructuring, and (iii) failure to disclose that the "churn" or "turnover" rate for subscribers would increase as a result of an increase in the amount of sub-prime credit quality subscribers the Company added from its merger with iPCS On July 15, 2002, certain plaintiffs and their counsel filed a motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On November 26, 2002, the court entered an Order requiring the plaintiffs to provide additional information in connection with their Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and in December 2002, the plaintiffs submitted Declarations in Support of Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. However, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of the litigation. AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Widens Class Period in TX Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy & Binkow LLP will expand the class period in the securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of AmeriCredit Corporation (NYSE:ACF) to between April 14, 1999 and September 16, 2002, inclusive to January 15, 2003. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding the nature of the Company's revenues and earnings caused its stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting enormous damages on investors. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com. AOL TIME: Minnesota Board Chosen Lead Plaintiff in Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Minnesota State Board of Investment was appointed lead plaintiff in the securities class action pending against AOL Time Warner Inc. in the United States District Court in New York. The board allegedly lost more than $249 million from its investment in the world's largest media company, the Star Tribune reports. The suit seeks class action on behalf of other investors and names the Company and its top executives like former Chairman Steve Case and CEO Richard Parsons as defendants. The suit primarily alleges that the Company violated securities laws by misstating its ad revenue. Company insiders also allegedly sold stock at artificially inflated prices. The state-run board has more than $39 billion in assets and is responsible for investing all Minnesota funds, including state pension funds, the Star Tribune states. The lead plaintiff selects a lawyer, guides trial strategy and conducts settlement talks. "The Minnesota State Board of Investment has the largest financial stake in the litigation," Judge Shirley Wohl Kram said. Eleven other investors or groups of investors had bid on the lead-plaintiff designation, she said. AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose declined to comment, according to the Star Tribune. AUSTRALIA: Brisbane Grammar Settles Sexual Abuse Charges V. Counselor --------------------------------------------------------------------- Australian school Brisbane Grammar agreed to settle for millions of dollars, claims by 65 ex-students that they were sexually abused by school counselor, Kevin John Lynch, the Courier-Mail reports. Court documents obtained by The Courier-Mail yesterday included notices of discontinuance attached to complaints against the Brisbane Grammar School of Trustees, indicating the claims had either been settled or were in the process of being settled. Simon Harrison of Shine Roche McGowan - who is acting on behalf of the plaintiffs - confirmed that the mediation process with the former students was under way. Part of that process included negotiations in regard to claims, Mr. Harrison told the Courier-Mail. The suit was filed in 2001 by former students of Brisbane Grammar and the private Anglican school, St Paul's at Bald Hills. Mr. Lynch was employed as a counselor at both schools. He committed suicide in 1997 after being charged with child-sex offences. Twenty-three cases involving students of St Paul's were settled midway through last year. Brisbane Grammar School Board of Trustees chairman Howard Stack told the Courier Mail last night there was "no perfect solution". "Even unlimited monetary compensation, were it available, would not deliver that solution," Mr. Stack said. He said the young men making the claims "had conducted themselves with great dignity as we grappled with complex moral, ethical and legal issues . There was broad acceptance that none of us could turn the clock back, as much as we wished we could do so. Our aim was to agree on a package of monetary, medical and moral support which would hopefully be a beginning to enable these young men to put their lives back on track." In the case of St Paul's school, the Anglican Diocese of Brisbane and its former insurer paid out hundreds of thousands dollars to victims of Mr. Lynch. Mr. Stack was not able to comment on the school's insurance arrangement but said that any costs would have a significant effect on the school. BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 80,000 Stuffed Bears For Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Build-A-Bear Workshop is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 80,000 "Founding Bear" stuffed bears. The nose of the stuffed bear can be pulled or twisted off, posing a choking hazard to a young child. The Company has not received any reports of injuries resulting from these stuffed bears. This recall is being conducted to prevent possible injuries. The recall includes the "Founding Bear," and the "Founding Bear II." The "Founding Bear" is about 19-inches long, and the "Founding Bear II" is about 18-inches long. Both stuffed bears are chocolate brown and have cream-colored paws and snout. "OUR FOUNDING BEAR" is written on a cardboard tag that was originally attached to the bear's ear. Build-A-Bear Workshop stores and web site sold these stuffed bears nationwide between March 2000 and December 2002 for between $22 and $25. For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 236-5683 between 9 am and 6 pm CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.buildabear.com. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: SC Judge Grants Certification to Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A South Carolina judge granted class certification to a lawsuit filed against Charter Communications on behalf of the Company's South Carolina customers. The order allows nearly 250,000 South Carolina customers to possibly be compensated on the grounds that the Company illegally required them to rent unnecessary equipment and/or to pay a bogus wire maintenance fee, the South Carolina Herald-Journal states. Circuit Judge Don Beatty's order, signed Jan. 5 but filed Thursday morning, certifies a lawsuit filed by Spartanburg residents Nikki Nicholls and Geraldine M. Barber as a class-action suit on behalf of Charter's South Carolina customers. Though preliminary legal maneuvering and appeals could take years, lawyers for Mr. Nicholls and Mr. Barber have said Charter ultimately could be ordered to pay tens of millions of dollars in damages to customers. Charter's attorney, Billy Gunn of Spartanburg, could not be reached for comment on Judge Beatty's ruling. Mr. Gunn has said Charter has several legal options, including waiting for the case to run its course entirely, then appealing to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the SC Herald-Journal states. Judge Beatty's 17-page order also denies several motions Mr. Gunn made in a November 26 hearing, including motions seeking to have the judge recuse himself from the case, asserting that Judge Beatty lacked jurisdiction to preside until the appeals court could rule on another matter, and seeking to deny class-certification on the grounds that the suit wasn't eligible. The next step, according to the judge's order, is a hearing to determine how much time will be allotted to ascertain how much Charter has illegally collected from customers. At the hearing, Judge Beatty also will decide how Charter will be required to notify the nearly 250,000 members of the newly created legal "class." "Although (Barber and Nicholls) are delighted with the court's opinion of today, any celebration at this time would be premature," plaintiffs attorney Mike Spears of Spartanburg said in a written statement. "While it is true that Charter has lost the case through default and that a statewide class has now been certified, much is left to be done." COMPAQ COMPUTER: Judge Refuses To Permit Posting of Internal Documents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Texas State Judge Gary Sanderson refused to grant permission to lawyers suing Compaq Computer Corporation to post on the Internet company documents they say would show the company knowingly sold 1.8 million computers with defective floppy disk controllers, SiliconValley.com reports. The suit, initially filed in federal court in Beaumont, Texas, claims the Company knowingly sold Presario computers with a defective chip that caused loss or corruption of data saved to floppy disks. The lawyers said they wanted to publicize internal Company memos about the defectives and engineers giving its solution top priority. The lawyers said posting the documents would counter Compaq's claims that no defect existed. The court granted class certification to the suit in 2000. The Company has appealed that certification to the Texas Supreme Court. The Company contends the defect never existed and said the company informed computer owners of a software patch which could be installed to protect their computer from floppy disk controller problems, when it learned of the lawsuit, SiliconValley.com reports. Compaq attorney Alistair Dawson said the plaintiffs were not going to post objective information on the Internet, as required by court rules. In a statement, HP lauded Judge Sanderson's Thursday ruling as an effort to "ensure a balanced presentation is given to customers." DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in S.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dynacq International faces a consolidated securities class action pending against it and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging violations of federal securities laws and regulations. The putative class covers those persons who purchased the Company's shares between November 29, 1999 and January 16, 2002. The various complaints that have been consolidated claim that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues and receivables and regarding whether the Company's operations complied with various federal regulations. The Company anticipates moving to dismiss that consolidated amended complaint. These actions are at an early stage, and no discovery has taken place at this time. In March 2002, the Company accepted service of a shareholder derivative action brought in the 295th District Court of Harris County, Texas brought on behalf of the Company against its officers and directors, outside auditor, and investment bank, and two analysts affiliated with that investment bank. The suit alleges: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (3) negligence and (4) breach of contract The plaintiff makes general allegations of the defendants' alleged misconduct in: (i) causing or allowing the Company to conduct its business in an unsafe, imprudent and unlawful manner; (ii) failing to implement and maintain an adequate internal control system; and (iii) exposing the Company to enormous losses," including allegations that various press releases and/or public statements issued between January 1999 and January 2002 were misleading. Plaintiffs further allege sales by the Company's insiders while in possession of material non-public information. The plaintiffs made no demand on either the Company or its Board of Directors prior to filing suit. A separate action was brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas making similar allegations in federal court against only officers and directors of the Company. The plaintiff in this action also did not make a demand to the Company prior to filing suit. Another derivative suit making similar allegations was filed in 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas. However, at the plaintiff's request, the Court dismissed that action. The Board of Directors has appointed a Special Litigation Committee to conduct an investigation and make a determination as to how the Company should proceed on the claims asserted in the state-court shareholder derivative case. The state district court has stayed the case until February 17, 2003 pending the Special Litigation Committee's investigation. On November 12, 2002, the federal district court presiding over the shareholder derivative action filed there stayed that action pending conclusion of the shareholder class action lawsuit. HAWAII: Study Arising From Lawsuit Finds Causes For Child Agency Faults ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A study arising from a class action in Honolulu, Hawaii has found three root causes that inhibit the state's Child Support Enforcement Agency from achieving its mission and goals, state Auditor Marion Higa said recently, according to Associated Press Newswires. Experio Solutions, which was hired as consultant to conduct the comprehensive study of the agency and the automated child support enforcement system, cited the three root causes inhibiting the agency from achieving its mission and goals, to be: (1) lack of focus on strategic definition, (2) lack of full exploitation of system capabilities and (3) deficiencies in training. Honolulu Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna, in October 2002, gave the Child Support Enforcement Agency until March 31, to account for more than $3.5 million in un-cashed child support checks. In a 52-page decision, Judge McKenna agreed with state lawyers that the state agency is meeting its obligations in getting child support payment checks out on time. However, Judge McKenna ruled that the agency has a fiduciary duty to the children entitled to child support payments and to their custodial parents, as well, to account for all the money the agency has collected since 1986. The ruling followed a jury-waived trial in September on a class action. From this lawsuit, the consultant study emerged. Among other things, the consultant has found that a system called KEIKI has capabilities that are not being fully exploited, and that the agency is not converting captured data into information to support management, planning and operational control. HEWLETT-PACKARD Co.: Says Behavior Was Ethical In Hiring Expert Witness ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. said it acted ethically when it hired a former expert witness, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports. The plaintiffs are suing personal computer makers over an alleged defect. The California attorney general's office said the hiring of Philip Adams as a consultant and paying him $27 million misled investors and frustrated an investigation. Hewlett-Packard, in a statement made through its spokeswoman Rebecca Robboy, said the company licensed from Mr. Adams a patented floppy disk controller software "patch" designed to fix the defect. Mr. Adams, acting as a whistle-blower, then sued Hewlett-Packard and other companies, alleging they sold computers with faulty floppy disk controllers to state agencies, according to court records. With Mr. Adams' assistance, the attorney general began investigating the allegations. Mr. Adams would, at that point, have been entitled to receive any damages recovered. However, Mr. Adams negotiated secretly to work for Hewlett-Packard and started there in May 2000, the court records said. INDONESIA: Suit V. Jakarta Governor Over Planned Sports Mall Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Jakarta State Administrative Court dismissed the class action filed against Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso by residents of Kelapa Gading district, North Jakarta, over his decision to allow the construction of a sports mall in the area, which was designated for social and public facilities, the Jakarta Post reports. After a three-month trial, the judges hearing the case decided the suit was invalid. "The suit was filed with the court after the 90-day deadline after an administration policy is issued or after the policy recipient(s) suffer a loss caused by the policy," said presiding judge A. Manurung, who was accompanied by judges Bambang Heriyanto and Disiflin F. Manao. The judges were referring to Article 55 of Law No. 5/1986 on the State Administrative Court, the Post stated. Supreme Court Circular No. 2/1991 issued on July 9, 1991, gives judges the leeway to count the deadline starting from the day the policy recipient(s) obtained a copy of the written policy or suffer any losses caused by the policy. The reasoning behind this circular is that not all state institutions make public their policies. Representing the plaintiffs, the head of RW 6, Harry A. Roboth, and a team of lawyers said they would challenge the ruling with the high court. Lawyer Carrel Ticulau said the ruling was flawed because the judges repeatedly ignored demands for a suspension of the construction of the sports mall, and they also did not allow expert witnesses to testify in court on the designated function of the area, the Post reports. Another lawyer, Tubagus Haryo Karbyanto, said the residents would file a similar suit at the Central Jakarta District Court against Sutiyoso, Yayasan Darma Bakti Mahaka and construction company PT Adhikarya. The case revolves around the issuance of a gubernatorial decree on July 19, 2001, authorizing Yayasan Darma Bakti Mahaka to build the Kelapa Gading International Basketball Complex on the 26,215 square-meter plot of land on Jl. Kelapa Nias, where the community unit is located, the Post reports. A ceremony to mark the construction took place in conjunction with Jakarta's anniversary on June 22. The residents say the administration never informed or involved them in the plan. The construction was halted until Governor Sutiyoso renewed the decree on February 8, 2002. On Feb. 25, about 400 families in the community unit, as well as the heads of the neighboring RW 7 and RW 11 community units, signed a petition against the construction, which they said disturbed the peace, obstructed the road and polluted the air. "Moreover, the land is where the squatters along the Kelapa Gading River used to plant vegetables to eat," Mr. Roboth told The Jakarta Post after the trial. Mr. Ticulau, who also lives in Kelapa Gading, said the residents had spent six months asking the administration to clarify the land's development details. "It was only in August that we finally obtained a copy of the decree and found that no environmental impact analysis had been made. So when we filed the suit at the court on Aug. 12, we were still within the deadline," he told the Post. INTERVOICE INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Intervoice, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated amended securities class action pending against it and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Several related lawsuits were initially filed on behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company during the period from October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000. Plaintiffs have filed claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of the Company on behalf of the alleged class members. In the suit, plaintiffs claim that the Company and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the class period concerning the financial condition of the Company, the results of the Company's merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of the Company. Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The Company believes that it and its officers complied with their obligations under the securities laws, and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. The Company responded to these complaints, which were consolidated into one proceeding, by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated proceeding. The Company asserted that the complaint lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. On this basis, the Company requested that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs responded to the Company's request for dismissal. On August 8, 2002, the court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In the order dismissing the lawsuit, the court granted plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2002. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. All discovery and other proceedings not related to the dismissal will be stayed pending resolution of the Company's request to dismiss the amended complaint. PITTSBURGH UNIVERSITY: Returns To Court Over Same-Sex Health Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------------- The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are heading back to court nine months after a school panel recommended the university not offer same-sex health benefits, the Associated Press Newswires reports. Pitt filed a motion recently seeking to permanently bar the city from hearing a lawsuit involving seven former and current workers who allege the university discriminated by denying their partners of the same sex health benefits. The ACLU plans to fight the motion and has until January 21 to respond in court. Both sides remain at odds seven years after former Pitt employee Deborah Henson filed a complaint with the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, saying the school violated the city's 1990 gay-rights law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Six others later joined her in the pending class action. Pitt won an injunction, in 2000, from Allegheny County Judge Robert Gallo, barring the commission from hearing the lawsuit on the grounds that the city's gay-rights law exceeded the scope of the state's Human Relations Act. The school also noted in its court papers that a state law exempts public universities from local laws that mandate health benefits be extended to domestic partners. Pitt is a state-affiliated school with 9,500 employees. The most recent court filing seeks to make the injunction permanent. Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU's Pittsburgh chapter, warned that a permanent injunction, barring a hearing before the Commission on the issue of a denial of same-sex health benefits to partners of university employees, would result in dismantling discrimination protection. "If they (the university) win that argument, it would essentially wipe out any rights sexual minorities have," Mr. Walczak said. Mr. Walczak called Pitt's position "bigoted and increasingly obsolete" as more colleges and universities move toward offering health benefits to same-sex couples. The number of institutions that offer some form of domestic partner benefits has grown to 170, said Kim I. Mills, education director for the foundation, Human Rights Campaign. However, the reply from Pitt's spokesman Robert Hill was, "We are still at the point where far fewer colleges and universities offer the benefits than those that don't." Mr. Hill added that Pitt does offer other perks such as the use of the libraries and fitness facilities. Mr. Walczak said, "The report (on the panel's study) was really distressing, especially about how the feelings of a few gay students and employees did not justify issuance of same-sex health benefits. They refused to address the issue of discrimination." In 2001, the university agreed with the ACLU to convene a panel to study health benefits for same-sex couples. The ACLU, in return, agreed to suspend its lawsuit until the study was completed. Last year, a university panel recommended against offering same-sex health benefits, saying that while many in the university community favor such benefits, many state legislators oppose the idea themselves or have constituents who oppose that form of health benefits coverage. NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Approves $1.94M May 3 Fire Lawsuit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- A North Carolina judge approved a US$1.94 million settlement between Mitchell County and the families of 17 inmates, eight of whom died in the deadliest jail fire in North Carolina history, the Associated Press reports. The payment from the county's insurer was the maximum the victims and families could get under state law. According to investigators, the fire was caused by cardboard that ignited when it stacked up against a heater in a storage room that had been added to the jail in 1965. A report released in November by the state Labor Department said state and county inspectors failed to detect "serious safety deficiencies," including the storage room built without firewall and with a door, roof and shingles that were combustible. The report also said inspectors from the Department of Health and Human Services - which inspects jails twice a year - failed to detect the safety violations on repeated occasions, according to the Associated Press. The settlement was reached on Thursday. The settlement includes a $50,000 immediate payment, minus some fees, to the 17 families and survivors. An arbitration panel will determine the distribution of the remaining money. The two sides agreed to the settlement during a hearing Thursday. However, some family members said additional civil claims were possible and some said they would continue to push for criminal charges. "This is the very last thing I could do for my son to make sure justice is served," Mark Thomas, whose son, Mark Halen Thomas, 20, died in the May 3 fire told AP. "If no one in the county was guilty, I don't think they would have paid anything." Scott MacLatchie, an attorney who represented the county, said the agreement includes no admission of guilt by county officials, the sheriff or jail employees. "This was a tragic event with eight souls that were lost and nine survivors," he told AP. The settlement "was a wise business and economic decision and somewhat of a moral decision." QWEST INTERNATIONAL: Ex-Employees Ask ID Court To Certify Overtime Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fourteen former Qwest Communications International sales representatives asked the United States District Court of Idaho to grant class certification to a class action alleging the Company forced employees to work unpaid overtime, the Oregonian reports. The class certification, if granted, could apply the case's results to hundreds of sales representatives in Oregon and thousands nationwide. Dan Williams, the Boise lawyer who filed the suit against Qwest in late December, claims Qwest employees worked off the clock before their shifts began and after they ended. "Some people worked an extra two hours a day," Mr. Williams told the Oregonian. Sales quotas were a main source of pressure to work off the clock, Williams said. To close sales of phone services and drive toward their quotas, sales representatives often needed to return calls to customers, the suit says. However, it was difficult for employees to receive approval to log off of the queue that sends new customer calls to them so that they could make the return phone calls. As a result, Mr. Williams said, they had to wait until the system shut down for the evening. "There's an enormous incentive to make sure you meet your quotas," Mr. Williams told the Oregonian. The suit further states that employees also claim that because they were only paid for times they were logged onto the telephone and computer system, they came in up to 20 minutes before their shifts started to boot up slow-loading computer programs. The lawsuit alleges managers told employees that off-the-clock overtime was a ticket to promotions. And it claims managers discouraged employees from charging the company for overtime. The plaintiffs from Portland are Dennis Blakesley, James McCracken and Dianna Scheffler. Mr. Blakesley would not comment, and Mr. McCracken and Ms. Scheffler did not return phone calls, according to the Oregonian. Qwest would not comment on the pending lawsuits, spokeswoman Erin Dunn said. SANDATA TECHNOLOGIES: Enters MOU To Settle Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandata Technologies, Inc. entered into a non-binding memorandum of agreement with plaintiffs in the securities class action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against it and the members of its Board of Directors: (1) Bert E. Brodsky, (2) Ronald L. Fish, (3) Martin Bernard, (4) Hugh Freund, and (5) Gary Stoller The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's public shareholders in connection with Sandata Acquisition Corporation's proposal to acquire all of the outstanding public shares of the Company. The plaintiffs also allege, among other things, that the directors serving on the special committee are not independent, and that the merger consideration is inadequate. The complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the proposed transaction, and rescission if it is not enjoined. On December 23, 2002, the Company entered into a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding. Pursuant to the Memorandum, Sandata Acquisition Corporation agreed to increase its offer set forth in the Merger Agreement, to $2.21 for each outstanding share of Sandata common stock. The Memorandum also provides for the lawsuits' parties to use their best efforts to agree upon, execute, and present to the court a formal Stipulation of Settlement in order to obtain the approval of the court of the settlement and release of the consolidated actions. The parties agreed that the stipulation of settlement will provide, among other things: (i) that Sandata Acquisition Corporation will increase its offer contained in the merger agreement to $2.21 per share of Sandata common stock; and (ii) for a complete release and settlement of all claims against Sandata, the members of its Board, Sandata Acquisition Corporation and their respective predecessors, successors, assignees, parents, subsidiaries, counsel, accountants, attorneys, affiliates, agents and representatives, including without limitation, investment banks or bankers or commercial banks and any past, present, or future officers, directors, or employees of defendants and their predecessors, successors, assignees, parents, subsidiaries, counsel, accountants, attorneys, affiliates, agents and representatives, which have been, or could have been, asserted relating to Sandata Acquisition Corporation's proposal. The Memorandum further provides that the parties to the consolidated actions will petition the Court for final certification of a non-opt out class defined as all holders of Company common stock as of August 5, 2002, through and including the closing date of the Merger Agreement. The settlement contemplated by the Memorandum is subject to the execution of a formal Stipulation and Settlement, the consummation of the merger transaction with Sandata Acquisition Corporation for $2.21 per share of Company common stock, final approval of the Court of the settlement, including certification of a class, and the dismissal of the consolidated actions by the Court. The Memorandum also provides that, subject to approval of the Court, none of the defendants will object to an application by plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $60,000. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and, accordingly, no adjustments have been made in the condensed consolidated financial statements in response to this matter. UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Uniroyal Technology Corporation and certain of its officers face five securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suits allege, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended in connection with: (1) the valuation of a promissory note held by the Company in December 1999, (2) the write-down of goodwill in the Company's subsidiary Sterling in December 2001, and (3) statements made in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in press releases concerning Sterling. The Company labeled the lawsuits "without merit" and said that the lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on its financial results or operations. UNIROYAL TECHNOLOGY: Investors Commence Securities Fraud Suit in FL ------------------------------------------------------------------- Uniroyal Technology Corporation and certain of its officers are currently defendants in a securities class action filed by certain former shareholders of its subsidiary Sterling Semiconductor, Inc. in the the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. This suit alleges, among other things, violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the exchange of common stock of the Company for securities of Sterling in May 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the Company misrepresented the timing of the attainment of commercial viability of the Company's subsidiary UOE. Management intends to defend this suit vigorously. UNITED STATES: VA Farmer Wins $6.6M After 17 Years Of Racial Bias ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has ordered the government to pay $6.6 million to a farmer for 17 years of racial discrimination and attempts to force him off the land, the Associated Press Newswires reports. The decision is the first finding of liability against the government by an administrative law judge under a process set up in late 1998, for reviewing long-standing complaints of discrimination by the Department of Agriculture against black farmers, the Richmond Times- Dispatch reports. The award was made to Will Sylvester Warren, 77, of Southampton County in southeastern Virginia. At least five other cases have been settled by the government privately, without a hearing before a judge. The ruling, issued by Judge Constance T. O'Bryant, is under review by Department of Agriculture staff. The department will decide by the end of next week whether to order a formal review of the ruling. Assistant Secretary for Administration Lou Gallegos would make the final determination on the judge's findings and award. If Mr. Gallegos does not review the case, Judge O'Bryant's judgment will stand. The judge's 46-page ruling bristles with indignation at Mr. Warren's treatment by the Agriculture Department's officials in Southampton, a farm-rich community best known for the 1831 slave uprising led by Nat Turner. Judge O'Bryant said the Department failed repeatedly in its duty to help Mr. Warren, who cannot read or write, and then retaliated against him for alleging racial discrimination. "He knew racism was widespread in the county; indeed, he had been victimized by it," the Judge wrote. "However, he held onto his faith that the federal government would treat him fairly. Regrettably, he found this was not to be. Mr. Warren has challenged the establishment and he has paid a hefty price for it." An investigation by the Agriculture Department's Office of Civil Rights found that the Department has discriminated against Mr. Warren at least since 1988. The government went further when the case went to trial, stipulating that it had discriminated against the farmer since 1985. However, the government has tried to avoid a big payout to Mr. Warren, who had "opted out" of the government's settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by black farmers who alleged systematic discrimination in farm-loan programs. Judge O'Bryant, of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, rejected the government's estimates of Mr. Warren's farm losses at about $300,000 as "implausible and unreliable." Instead, she awarded him more than $1.1 million to compensate for his losses, which included the inability to maintain leases on more than 600 acres and the shutdown of his swine operation. He was unable to expand his farm or maintain the peanut production that had put him in what the judge called "an elite group of farmers" chosen to grow peanuts for a program overseen by what is now widely known as Virginia Tech. "Moreover, his ability to obtain credit was destroyed," she said. In addition to the actual losses, Judge O'Bryant ruled that Mr. Warren was entitled to $5 million for the emotional distress inflicted on him "throughout a relentless campaign by USDA staff to cause him economic and emotional harm." The judge also awarded him $450,000 for damage to his reputation as a borrower, as a person of honesty and good faith, and as a farmer. WESTAR ENERGY: Investors File Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed recently against Westar Energy Inc. charges the company and its top executives with knowingly issuing false and misleading statements about the company's finances, Associated Press Newswires reports. The lawsuit in the US District Court in Topeka, Kansas, charges that those statements cost hundreds of thousands of people to lose money because Westar securities consequently sold at artificially high prices. The class represented in the lawsuit includes anyone who bought Westar stock between March 30, 2001 and December 26, 2002. The complaint was filed on behalf of Howard B. Kahn, hometown unavailable. The lawsuit was filed by attorneys with Swanson Midgley of Kansas City, Missouri, Schiffrin & Barroway of Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania and Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates of Little Rock, Arkansas. The lawsuit charges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act by issuing the misleading or false statements involving its dealings with Cleco Corp., and earnings for Protection One, a security alarm firm owned primarily by Westar. The complaint said the statements artificially inflated the price of Westar's securities, and that each of the defendants knew about the deception. Westar announced in December it had received a subpoena from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, seeking details about its trades with Cleco Corp., a Louisiana utility that acknowledged making inappropriate trades of electrical power. Cleco said it had made "round trip" transactions, in which a trader buys and sells an energy contract at the same moment for the same price, which can artificially inflate revenue and transaction volume. Westar also announced in November it was restating financial results for the first half of the year 2002, including taking a $93 million charge to correct an accounting error involving Protection One. State regulators, around the same time, ordered Westar to reorganize, saying they wanted to protect electric consumers from risks associated with the company's non-utility business interests, such as Protection One, a security-alarm firm. Westar is the state's largest electric company. Its non-utility interests include an 88 percent ownership in Protection One, which critics have argued is a drain on Westar's finances. ZIMBABWE: Court Partially Dismisses Zimbabwe Leader's Human Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed several claims in the class action filed by citizens of Zimbabwe against Robert Mugabe, President of Zimbabwe, and Stan Mudenge, Foreign Minister, individually and as officers of the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), the American Society on International Law (ASIL) newsletter states. The suit states that: (1) ZANU-PF and the individual defendants planned and executed a campaign of violence designed to intimidate and suppress its political opposition, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Specifically, Plaintiffs charged that the defendants' conduct included "murder, torture, terrorism, rape, beatings, and destruction of property;" (2) plaintiffs based their claims on the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), the general federal question jurisdictional statute, and "fundamental norms of international human rights law." The defendants were served while they were in New York City as representatives of Zimbabwe to the United Nations Millennium Summit. They were served, however, outside of the UN Headquarters Area. Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Mugabe was served when he arrived at an unofficial gathering of a private New York group raising money for ZANU-PF. After plaintiffs moved for entry of a default judgment, the defendants asked the State Department for a "Suggestion of Immunity," the ASIL newsletter states. The State Department agreed, indicating to the court that Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Mudenge were immune from suit and that "'permitting this action to proceed against the President and Foreign Minister would be incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests." The State Department urged dismissal of the claims against the defendants based on head-of-state immunity, diplomatic immunity and "personal inviolability attaching to both Mugabe and Mudenge." The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Mudenge individually based on head-of-state immunity and diplomatic immunity. The court, however, allowed claims against ZANU-PF to proceed despite the fact that service of process on the political party was made upon them. New Securities Fraud Cases ANNUITY & LIFE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in CT Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. (NYSE:ANR) between February 12, 2001 and November 19, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and: (1) Frederick S. Hammer, (2) Lawrence S. Doyle and (3) John F. Burke The complaint charges Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. 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, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company had failed to properly account for embedded derivatives contained in certain of its annuity reinsurance contracts in 2001; (ii) that, since at least 2001, the Company had understated a portion of its liabilities and expenses; (iii) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (iv) that as a result, the values of the Company's balance sheet and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On November 19, 2002, the last day of the class period, Annuity and Life announced that it would restate its financial results for years 2000, 2001 and the first and second quarters of 2002, the period ending June 30, 2002. As detailed in the announcement, the restatement was necessary because the Company had failed to properly account for embedded derivatives contained in certain of its annuity reinsurance contracts in 2001, and, that since at least 2001, the Company had understated a portion of its liabilities and expenses. Following this disclosure, shares of Annuity and Life fell as much as 44%, culminating a 91% decline in the price of the Company's common stock in the prior twelve months. For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whesq.com CABLE & WIRELESS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences 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 all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Cable and Wireless plc (NYSE: CWP) between August 6, 1999 and December 6, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Cable announced, in an August 6, 1999 press release that it had agreed to sell One 2 One, a British based mobile telecommunications operator, to Deutsche Telekom. The announced terms of the agreement detailed that Deutsche Telekom would pay 6.9 billion pounds sterling in cash for 100% of the equity ownership interest in One 2 One. Additionally, Deutsche Telekom would provide for the repayment of 237 million pounds of shareholder loans, and would assume nearly 1.5 billion pounds of third-party debt. The complaint alleges that those statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to reveal that an essential term of the One 2 One deal was a 1.5 billion pounds tax indemnification clause agreed to by Cable, and specifically, a trigger clause, involving a future downgrade of Cable's long-term debt rating below a predetermined level, which would trigger a 1.5 billion pounds cash commitment on behalf of Cable. Moody's investment service announced on December 6, 2002, that it would downgrade the long-term debt rating of Cable from Baa1 to Baa2. The Company then surprised the market in a press release that same day revealing that, resulting from the downgrade, the aforementioned "ratings trigger" was initiated. The announcement resulted in a 40 percent decline in the price of Cable's ADRs, from a closing price of $3.90 per ADR on December 6, 2002, to a close at $2.33 per ADR on December 9, 2002, on uncommonly high trading volume. Consequently, the Company filed a Form 6-K with the SEC on December 9, 2002 including a statement concerning the tax indemnification "ratings trigger" clause. For more details, contact Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Cable. HOTELS.COM: Chitwood & Harley Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Hotels.com (Nasdaq:ROOM), between October 23, 2002 and January 6, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges Hotels.com and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hotels.com is an online consolidator of hotel accommodations, contracting with hotels in advance for volume purchases and guaranteed availability of hotel rooms at wholesale prices which are then sold to customers. On October 23, 2002, the Company's president said the Company was an unqualified success and projected phenomenal growth for the fourth quarter, including Q4 '02 revenue of $283-$289 million and cash earnings per share of $0.46 to $0.47. The October 23 release sent the Company's shares soaring to above $60 per share, eventually hitting a Class Period high of $75 on December 2, 2002. Then on January 6, 2003, the defendants announced that the Company would fall materially short of hitting its forecasted projections. On this news, the Company's shares dropped to $44 from $59, a market cap loss of more than $855 million. The complaint details $42 million in insider trading during the class period. For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll- free), by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com NASH FINCH: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in MN Court -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired common stock of Nash Finch Company (NASDAQ: NAFCE) between July 15, 2002 through and including November 8, 2002. The suit charges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the suit alleges that Nash Finch issued false statements, including false financial results in which the Company included income from vendor promotions to which Nash Finch was not entitled, so as to maintain favorable credit ratings on its debt. As a result of defendants' false statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated levels, permitting Nash Finch to maintain credit ratings on its $400 million in debt. On November 8, 2002, Nash Finch issued a press release disclosing an SEC inquiry was looking into its accounting practices. Once this news was revealed, Nash Finch's stock collapsed to $7.60 before closing at $8.18, some 70% below the class period high of $28.85. It was also noted in November 2002, that Nash Finch's former CFO had sued the Company claiming he was fired in 2000 for refusing to manipulate Nash Finch's reported financial results. For more details, 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: NAFCE@bernlieb.com. SMARTFORCE PLC: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NH Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired American Depository Shares (ADS) of SmartForce PLC, doing business as SkillSoft (NASDAQ: SKIL) during the period from October 19, 1999 through and including November 18, 2002. The complaint 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"). As alleged in the complaint, during the class period, defendants and its predecessors issued and/or failed to correct false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and earnings directed to the investing public. Specifically: (1) SmartForce improperly recognized revenue under a re-seller arrangement, resulting in the booking of revenue before it was received from the re-sellers; (2) SmartForce recognized revenue for software sales upon shipment, even though the payment schedules for those contracts extended over several years; (3) SmartForce recognized revenue in connection with other customer contracts upon execution of those contracts, even though the terms were four to five years in length; and (4) SmartForce improperly accounted for bad debt, causing an increase in reserve. On November 19, 2002, SmartForce shocked the market by announcing that it intended to restate the historical financial statements of SmartForce for 1999, 2000, 2001, and the first two quarters of 2002. In the process of preparing the closing balance sheet of SmartForce as of September 6, 2002, SmartForce identified several accounting issues that required the pre-merger SmartForce financial statements to be restated. In response to this announcement, the shares of SmartForce dropped 33.7% to close at $3.07. For more details, 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: SKIL@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com. TELLIUM INC.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Tellium, Inc. (Nasdaq:TELM) on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for its initial public offering dated May 15, 2001, including those persons who purchased Tellium common stock in the open market during the period May 17, 2001 through January 31, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff alleges that Tellium's Registration Statement and other public statements during the Class Period repeatedly touted the Company's $300 million Agreement with Quest Communications International Inc., stating, for example, that Qwest had committed to "purchase a minimum of $300 million of our optical switches over the first three years of the contract." The Registration Statement, however, failed to disclose that the Qwest Agreement had a "Termination for Convenience" clause, which allowed Qwest, at its sole option, to terminate or suspend the Agreement or any part thereof for any reason. The true facts were first disclosed on January 31, 2002, when defendants shocked the market by disclosing that it could not rely on revenues from the Qwest Agreement to achieve its financial guidance for 2002. This statement contradicted defendants' earlier statements during the class period that assured investors that the Company's projected 2002 revenues would come from its existing customers. Following this disclosure, the market price of Tellium's common stock fell almost 18%, to close at $4.48 per share, down approximately 84% from the class period high of $27.10. For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-451-9668 or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com TELLIUM INC.: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Tellium, Inc. (Nasdaq:TELM) publicly traded securities during the period between May 17, 2001 and February 1, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges Tellium, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Qwest agreed to purchase Tellium products, in return, Qwest executives received lucrative shares of Tellium in conjunction with its IPO, a fact that was not disclosed to the public; (2) Qwest did not need the large number of switches they had ordered from Tellium and, in fact, had no strong obligation to purchase more switches in the future and could avoid their contractual obligations with relative ease; (3) after issuing positive statements about the Company's financial standing, defendants Bunting and Glassmeyer unloaded large amount of their shares; and (4) because the Company issued false and misleading statements about Tellium's business and the Qwest contract, the Company's shares have been traded at artificially inflated prices, as high as $29 per share. For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 by E-mail: clowther@whesq.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 * * *