/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030305.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 5, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 45 Headlines AETNA INC.: Trial for RICO, ERISA Suits Set September 2003 in FL Court AETNA INC.: Trial For Provider RICO, ERISA Lawsuits Set December 2003 ALCOA INC.: To Settle Worker's Racial Discrimination Suit in N.D. Ohio ALCOA INC.: NY Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit, Plaintiff To Appeal ANIMAL FEEDS: FDA Finds High Dioxin Levels in Feeds' Mineral Components B&B INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Milk Products Due To Prohibited Drug Content BAXTER HEALTHCARE: FDA Says Particles in Blood Pose No Threat to Safety CALIFORNIA: Jail Charged With Taping Strip Searches Of Minor Offenders DIGITAL ORIGIN: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit EI DU PONT: Trial in Securities Lawsuit Set For June 2003 in FL Court FORD MOTOR: Dallas Attorney Asserts Public Mislead About Safety Shields INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Lawsuit Settlement Held in NY INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Asks High Court To Review Certification of PA Suit NABI BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Three Suits Over AWP Manipulation in CA NEW JERSEY: Property Reassessments Arouse Newark Residents Ire, Action OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Claim in Securities Suit OXFORD HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Six-Year-Old Securities Fraud Suit RYANAIR: May Face Lawsuit, Other Surprises For Flight Cancellations SERVIER: Reaches Agreement To Settle Canada Suit Relating to Diet Drugs TEXAS: Merge of Medical Malpractice, General Tort Reform Bills Possible TREVOR LAW: Attorney General Files Action For Unfair Business Practices Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases CARREKER CORPORATION: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX INTERCEPT INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA MICROTUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX MONTEREY PASTA: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in MA Court PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA ROYAL AHOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY RURAL CELLULAR: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court TELLIUM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MA ********* AETNA INC.: Trial for RICO, ERISA Suits Set September 2003 in FL Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for twelve class actions against Aetna, Inc. is set to commence on September 22, 2003 in the United States District Court in Florida. The suits allege violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and seek relief under common law theories and/or state unfair trade statutes. Each of former Aetna, the Company (including certain health maintenance organizations that Aetna acquired from The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential), and Richard L. Huber (the former chairman of former Aetna) are named as defendants in one or more of the lawsuits. The suits allege generally that defendants failed to adequately inform members about defendants' managed care practices, including payments to providers and utilization management practices. Certain suits also contain charges relating to the disclosure and determination of usual, customary and reasonable charges for claims and related claims payment practices. In September 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class for the suits. Merits discovery on the suits commenced in September 2002. The Company intends to continue to defend the suits vigorously. AETNA INC.: Trial For Provider RICO, ERISA Lawsuits Set December 2003 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the lawsuits pending against Aetna, Inc. and other insurance providers is set for December 8,2003 in the United States District Court in Florida. The suits allege generally that the Company and each of the other defendant managed care organizations employ coercive economic power to force physicians to enter into economically unfavorable contracts, impose unnecessary administrative burdens on providers and improperly deny claims in whole or in part, and that the defendants do not pay claims timely or do not pay claims at proper rates. The suits further charge that the Company and the other defendant managed care organizations conspired and aided and abetted one another in the alleged wrongdoing. In addition, a lawsuit brought on behalf of the American Dental Association alleges improper disclosure and determination of usual, customary and reasonable charges for dental claims and related claims payment practices. The suits allege violations of: (1) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), (2) the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), (3) state unfair trade statutes, (4) state consumer fraud statutes, (5) state laws regarding the timely payment of claims, and (6) various common law doctrines The lawsuits seek various forms of relief, including unspecified damages, treble damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs in the suits generally seek to represent purported nationwide classes and subclasses of physicians and other providers who currently or formerly provided services to members of the Company and/or Prudential. Certain lawsuits also purport to bring class actions on behalf of physicians and/or other providers in a particular state, and plaintiffs in cases originally filed in state courts seek to have those cases remanded to state courts for separate trial. On September 26, 2002, the Florida court issued an order certifying a global RICO class and certain sub-classes in the matter it has designated as the lead provider case. That order is the subject of a pending appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Merits discovery on the suits commenced in September 2002. ALCOA INC.: To Settle Worker's Racial Discrimination Suit in N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alcoa, Inc. agreed to settle a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against it and the International UAW, on behalf of 400 African-American employees of Cleveland Works, alleging discrimination in Cleveland's apprenticeship program. Plaintiffs sought certification of the class, declaratory and injunctive relief, lost wages, entry into apprenticeship programs, compensatory and punitive damages and costs and expenses of litigation. The complaint was served on May 23, 2002 and answered on June 12, 2002. Plaintiffs have not moved for class certification. On January 15, 2003, the parties jointly advised the court that a settlement agreement providing monetary and injunctive relief had been reached and that it would be presented to the court for approval. ALCOA INC.: NY Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit, Plaintiff To Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the amended shareholder class action pending against Alcoa, Inc., its Board of Directors, certain officers of the Company, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's independent accountants. The suit, originally filed as a derivative suit by plaintiff Victoria Shaev on behalf of the Company, alleged, among other things, that the Company's proxy statement dated March 8, 1999 contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the proposed Alcoa Stock Incentive Plan. In March 2001, the court granted without prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. In May 2001, Ms. Shaev served an amended complaint making the same allegations as in the previous complaint but styling the complaint as a class action on behalf of shareholders. The company served a motion to dismiss on June 25, 2001. The suit was dismissed on the factual and legal merits of the matter. A notice of appeal has been filed by the plaintiff. ANIMAL FEEDS: FDA Finds High Dioxin Levels in Feeds' Mineral Components ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that its dioxin-monitoring program has found elevated levels of dioxin in some mineral components used in animal feeds. In response to notification from FDA about the problem, both the supplier of one of the mineral components (zinc oxide) and the mineral premix blender contacted their customers and urged that they immediately stop further distribution of their products made with this mineral component. The implicated zinc oxide premixes were used in livestock, aquaculture, and poultry feed and feed products. An additional mineral component (copper oxide) is also being investigated as a possible source of dioxin. Both mineral components currently under investigation are reclamation products from industrial metal production. Because mineral premixes are diluted greatly in the finished animal feed, it is unlikely that human health effects would occur from this limited exposure. At this point in the investigation, FDA does not believe this poses a human health risk. Based on present information, FDA has requested the recall of certain animal feed and feed products. The recalled products were distributed to feed manufacturers and suppliers in Canada and eleven states, namely: (1) California, (2) Iowa, (3) Illinois, (4) Minnesota, (5) Missouri, (6) Mississippi, (7) Nebraska, (8) New York, (9) Philadelphia, (10) Utah and (11) Washington The investigation of this incident is continuing and, as further information is learned, additional recalls of other products may be necessary. FDA is currently investigating whether similar products are being used in other FDA-regulated feed, and whether other feed products incorporated the mineral components. FDA is working cooperatively with state feed regulators and other relevant federal agencies to trace the distribution of these products. B&B INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Milk Products Due To Prohibited Drug Content ----------------------------------------------------------------------- B & B International Connections, Inc. recalled 500ml glass bottles of "Mozhayiskoe" (Product of Russia) Sterilized Milk and 1 liter packages of 3.2% "Milaya Mila" (Product of Russia) Sterilized Milk because they contain sulfonamide, a drug prohibited in food producing animals and lactating dairy cattle. In addition, people who have sensitivities to sulfa drugs may run the risk of allergic reactions if they consume these products. The milk was distributed to retail stores in the New York metropolitan area. "Mozhayiskoe" sterilized milk is packaged in 500ml glass bottles with the following codes: October 23, 2002 and November 12, 2002. "Milaya Mila" sterilized milk is packaged in a 1-liter tetra pack (box) with the code December 12, 2002. Both product packages are labeled entirely in Russian. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors revealed the imported products contained sulfonamide, a drug prohibited for use in lactating dairy cattle and food producing animals. For more information, contact the Company by Mail: 2829 West 21st Street, Brooklyn, NY 11224. BAXTER HEALTHCARE: FDA Says Particles in Blood Pose No Threat to Safety ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that there was no evidence that the contaminated blood discovered by two regions of the American Red Cross, containing unusual particulate matter in some blood components, primarily red blood cells (RBCs), poses a threat to blood safety at this time. The contamination was discovered on January 30, when the American Red Cross asked hospitals in Georgia and northern Florida to stop using recently collected blood because some contained white particles visible inside the bags, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states. The quarantine eventually extended from Illinois and Missouri to Kentucky and Tennessee. The blood allegedly had mysterious white clumps in it, but the FDA said it had no evidence yet linking the blood mystery to any harm. The person who died, for instance, was already severely ill long before receiving a transfusion, and some of the other reports included allergic reactions and infections that are fairly routine transfusion side effects, the Associated Press reports. Findings to date indicate that the particles are composed of normal blood substances and that rates of adverse reactions to transfusions have not increased since the blood particles have been observed. All analyses to date of possible infectious agents, chemical contaminants, or blood bag defects have found no abnormalities that indicate a public health risk. Increasing evidence suggests that many of the particles observed may be explained by the use of certain standard, accepted procedures for preparation of red blood cells for transfusion. Reports of unusual particles initially came from two regions of the American Red Cross (ARC) and involved blood bags from only one manufacturer. However, additional surveillance resulted in similar reports from other ARC and non-ARC centers in many parts of the country and in collection bags from several manufacturers. Early reports of adverse events in patients who received blood that might have conceivably contained such particles raised the question of whether they could be harmful. However, follow up investigations by the blood centers have so far failed to provide any evidence of any increase in adverse reactions among patients who may have received potentially implicated blood transfusions. In addition, testing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found no evidence of infectious agents or increased levels of a limited number of chemicals. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, a major blood bag manufacturer, in cooperation with the ARC and FDA, has extensively tested their processes and materials, and these tests have identified no unexpected materials or conditions. FDA laboratories have also independently tested some collection bags of the type for which questions of particulates were raised, and have detected normal contents in the blood bags and no contaminants or unexpected chemicals to date. Studies on both the safety and on the cause of the particulates are ongoing. FDA, CDC, NIH, American Association of Blood Banks (AABB), ARC, America's Blood Centers, state health departments and a number of individual blood centers are all sharing information and many are conducting studies to try to determine why these blood particles are being seen and to detect any possible risk to blood safety. In one study, to address a possible effect on transfusion safety, the Georgia Division of Public Health, with technical assistance from the CDC, FDA, ARC and AABB, surveyed blood transfusion services in Georgia about the occurrence of adverse events associated with blood transfusion during January 2002 through January 2003. This rate did not significantly change over the 13-month period, and did not increase during January 2003 when the particulates were first noticed. One theory under investigation by FDA and the blood centers is that the observed particles can result from certain physical conditions of blood handling. Whole blood is composed of red blood cells, plasma, white cells, and platelets. It is a long-term practice in the blood industry, when blood platelets are not being prepared from whole blood, to allow the platelets to remain in red blood cell units during and after processing to remove plasma. With the availability in recent years of automated methods for platelet collection that yield more platelets from fewer donors, whole blood donations are less commonly used as a source of platelets. In these whole blood donations, it is more efficient to leave the platelets in the RBC fraction of the blood. It is known that platelets sometimes form visible particulates. Preliminary studies show that the presence of these platelet particles is most common following the preparation of units using methods that allow the platelets to remain with the red blood cells. Some veteran blood bankers think that the observed particles are not unusual, though it is unclear whether the frequency of this phenomenon has increased. Other possible contributing causes of the observed particles have not been completely ruled out and are still being studied in the laboratory and the field. Additional ongoing investigations include further studies both to detect any potentially related adverse events and to better understand how different methods of blood preparation may contribute to particle formation. These studies may help FDA to determine whether any changes in current practices are desirable. While these investigations are ongoing, FDA's current thinking is that it is appropriate for blood collection establishments to inspect all blood and blood components using the enhanced procedures that have been in place for the last several weeks. Until these issues are resolved more definitively, FDA believes it is appropriate for blood collection establishments to continue to quarantine any suspect products as a precautionary measure, or else filter the products using procedures that are adequate to remove white cells. Current evidence suggests that such procedures will remove all or most of the observed particulates. Dependent on further studies of the particulate matter, FDA may issue guidance to the blood industry on appropriate measures needed to keep the blood supply as safe as possible while not unnecessarily affecting the availability of blood products, which are vital to the public health. CALIFORNIA: Jail Charged With Taping Strip Searches Of Minor Offenders ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Mark Merin, who filed a lawsuit two years ago on behalf of seven people arrested for allegedly failing to disperse during a protest at the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, recently won that bout in court. Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Thomas Cecil ruled that the county and Sheriff Lou Blanas were liable for damages in the case because strip searches are prohibited in the course of detaining minor offenders, the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek, CA) reports. The lawsuit is now a class-action lawsuit, and a trial to determine the amount of damages is scheduled to begin March 24. However, Mr. Merin said the case has become more complex, because he noticed video cameras in the search area when he toured the jail in December. When he asked questions he was told the cameras were inoperative. However, in the course of answering written questions, attorneys representing the county and Sheriff Blanas said the cameras had been in use since April 2001. Mr. Merin said that he will use that fact to argue for punitive damages, which could mean that the class action, which may end up with thousands of plaintiffs, may be seeking damages in the millions against Sheriff Blanas. "He (Sheriff Blanas) does not seem to care what the law is, or even about basic human dignity," said Mr. Merin. "This shows total disregard for privacy rights." County representatives now acknowledge the use of cameras, saying that the strip searches are necessary for safety purposes and the videotaping is needed to maintain a record of what happens during a search. "They are simply a reasonable means of protecting staff and detainees in the event a question ever arises as to what transpired," said Terence Cassidy, an attorney who heads the county's defense team. DIGITAL ORIGIN: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' claims in the consolidated securities class actions pending against Digital Origin and one of its former directors, Charles Berger. The suit, which also names Splash Technology, certain of Splash's directors and executives and certain of Splash's selling shareholders as defendants, alleges, among other things, that the defendants made or were responsible for material misstatements, and failed to disclose information concerning Splash's business, finances and future business prospects in order to artificially inflate the price of Splash common stock. The suit further alleged that the Company engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the price of Splash common stock to reap an artificially large return on the sale of the common stock in order to pay off its debt. The suit was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the appeals court. EI DU PONT: Trial in Securities Lawsuit Set For June 2003 in FL Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the securities class action pending against E.I. Du Pont de Nemours is set for June 2003, in the United States District Court in Florida. The suit alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions about Benlate(R) 50 DF, with the alleged effect of inflating the price of the Company's stock between June 19, 1993, and January 27, 1995. The district court has certified the case as a class action. Discovery has concluded. The Company denies the allegations of fraud and misconduct, and intends to continue defending itself in ongoing matters. While management recognizes that it is reasonably possible that additional losses may be incurred, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. FORD MOTOR: Dallas Attorney Asserts Public Mislead About Safety Shields ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dallas City Attorney Madeleine Johnson said the Ford Motor Company is misleading the public into believing that installation of safety shields around the fuel tanks of the Crown Victoria police cars will make them safer. Ms. Johnson said that the truth is that a Crown Victoria, equipped with the safety shield, failed its crash test, the Associated Press Newswires reports. "Instead of the success Ford claimed for it, the crash test obviously was an abject failure and calls seriously into question Ford's claims that the new fuel tank shields are enough to solve Crown Vic fuel tank safety problems," Ms. Johnson said. Ford did not reveal that during the crash testing there had been 40 ounces of leakage, federal standards set the limit at one ounce, she continued. The city of Dallas has sued Ford in order to determine whether the Crown Victoria police cruiser is safe for law enforcement use. The legal action was taken after a Dallas police officer died in October, when a motor vehicle plowed into the rear end of his slowly moving Crown Victoria, and an explosion occurred. The city learned about the leakage of gas during a crash test during deposition testimony, taken before a Cleveland court, from Ford officials in connection with some class actions involving Crown Victorias. Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said in reply to Ms. Johnson's charge, that Ford never admitted in the deposition testimony that the Crown Victoria flunked the test in the 75 mph crash. There was leakage, said Ms. Kinley, but the safety shields were never designed to prevent leakage. "The shields are not designed to keep fuel from leaking. Any vehicle would do that in that type of crash," said Ms. Kinley. She then described the kind of crash for which the safety shield is designed. In some impacts, the fuel tank is crushed and the gas often oozes out of the seams to other areas, but that is not what usually causes a fire. The shields are intended to block sharp metal objects that may puncture the tank during high speed, rear-end crashes. Such an impact creates a metal-on-metal spark that leads to fire. The shields did what they were supposed to do; they did not fail the test, Ms. Kinsley asserted. The parents of Dallas police Officer Patrick Metzler filed suit against Ford last week. They accused Ford of negligence in their son's death, alleging that he would have survived the crash if a protective shield had been installed around the car's gas tank. At least 14 law enforcement officers nationwide have died from fuel-fed fires in Crown Victoria rear-end collisions. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Lawsuit Settlement Held in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County heard a fairness hearing for the settlement proposed by International Paper Company, in the six class actions filed against Champion, which the Company acquired, and 10 members of Champion's board of directors. The suit was filed on behalf of Champion shareholders and alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger with UPM-Kymmene Corporation and the merger proposal from International Paper. The parties later signed a stipulation of settlement providing for the settlement and final disposition of the suit. Pursuant to the stipulation, International Paper will donate $100,000 to a law school designated by the court to fund educational programs in support of corporate governance and shareholder rights. International Paper will also pay such attorneys' fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel as may be awarded by the Court, up to $300,000. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Asks High Court To Review Certification of PA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company filed a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking a review of an appeals court decision upholding class certification for a consolidated antitrust lawsuit. Two suits were filed in May 1999 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the former Union Camp Corporation and other manufacturers of linerboard. These suits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for linerboard and corrugated sheets during the period October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995. These lawsuits seek injunctive relief as well as treble damages and other costs associated with the litigation. The cases were later consolidated. The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases sought certification on behalf of both corrugated sheet purchasers and corrugated container purchasers. In September 2001, the district court certified both classes. Defendants filed a petition appealing the certification order, which the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in its discretion, granted. In September 2002, the appeals court affirmed the district court's certification decision. On January 14, 2003, the defendants filed a petition for certiorari seeking a review of the appeals court decision. Discovery in the case is ongoing. NABI BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Three Suits Over AWP Manipulation in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nabi Biopharmaceuticals was named as one of over 40 pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical defendants in three class actions, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, two filed in the County of San Francisco and one filed in the County of Alameda. The cases each involve claims that insurers and consumers of defendants' products made overpayments for those products based on an alleged manipulation of Average Wholesale Price (AWP), a standard which governs amounts that physicians, hospitals and other providers receive as reimbursement for purchases of defendants' products. The plaintiffs seek damages, equitable relief and disgorgement of profits. The three lawsuits are in their preliminary stages, and no class has been certified. To date, the Company been served in only one of the three suits. The lawsuits do not allege that the Company collected monies from the putative plaintiffs. The Company believes that, to the extent the putative plaintiffs made any payments based on AWP, such payments were made to physicians, hospitals and other providers, not to the Company. The Company denies any liability and intends to vigorously defend the suits. NEW JERSEY: Property Reassessments Arouse Newark Residents Ire, Action ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In Newark, New Jersey, tens of thousands of property reassessments, both residential and commercial, have been sent out to the owners, and "now, what" is indeed the question, since for 42 years this is the furthest that efforts to institute revaluation of property have ever come, The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ) reports. So real does the heightened tax bill seem, that a group of residents recently filed a class action contending that the city should be able to get at least $120 million for property tax relief from the collection of payroll and parking taxes. The Newark City Council is preparing to challenge the results of the new assessments just as it has done over the four decades. A council consultant is investigating the possibility of a lawsuit against Certified Valuations, the firm hired by the state to reassess Newark's properties, in which allegations would be made that the inspections were not done properly. As was expected, more than 1,000 people gathered recently on the steps of City Hall to protest. Many property owners have contacted East Ward Councilman Augusto Amador for help. So far, said Mr. Amador, he has put together a database of 300 people who want help appealing their property assessment. "The inspections of the houses were either not performed or were not performed properly," said Mr. Amador. "I would not say they were dishonest. They were negligent." Newark has gone longer than any New Jersey municipality without revaluating its property. In the 1970s, a group of council members were arrested after refusing to institute revaluation. In 2000, the City Council reluctantly approved a resolution allowing the state to take money from the budget to pay Certified Valuations. Only the threat that the city faced losing millions of dollars in special tax revenues if the council did not approve the resolution, wrung approval from that body. Council members said they realize Newark's date with revaluation has come, but they want to be sure the residents are treated fairly, equitably. Mayor Sharpe James said he understands the concerns of residents concerning revaluation. He said his plan to merge the city's watershed and water utilities into a nonprofit would enable the city to float bonds that would provide the city with revenue and thereby relieve the residents' burden. "Passage of the Water Optimization bill will provide $90 million that immediately will mitigate the effects of revaluation and reduce property taxes," Mayor James said. While many residents' tax bills will increase, others, who were paying too much, will see a decline. Newark's average assessment is $12,000, and the average tax bill is about $2,994. Dennis Gale, professor of public administration and political science at Rutgers-Newark, said the city, which has seen growth in development over the last few years, needs a revaluation to continue growing. "Newark cannot proceed with its renaissance without a better system of collecting taxes," said Professor Gale. "An equitable property tax system is going to send a message to developers that things have equalized and maybe Newark deserves a second look." OVERTURE SERVICES: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Claim in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss one of the claims in the consolidated securities class action pending against Overture Services, Inc., certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering, and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and improper practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified damages. The suit was later amended to include claims under Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act of 1934. Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous public companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock since the mid-1990s. All of these lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin. On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards. On October 8, 2002, the court entered an order of dismissal as to all of the individual defendants in the Company IPO litigation, without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company. The Company continues to deny the allegations against it and believes that it has meritorious defenses to the amended complaint. OXFORD HEALTH: Reaches Settlement in Six-Year-Old Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Oxford Health Plans, Inc. (OHP) agreed in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the 1997 securities class action litigation pending against the Company for $225 million. The settlement is subject to the execution of documents for filing with the court and approval by the court after notice to the class. The excess insurance carriers for the first $25 million under the Company's previously disclosed $200 million excess insurance policies have agreed to contribute $25 million to the settlement, but the other carriers under the policies have refused to contribute to this settlement. Accordingly, the Company will be required to pay $200 million of the settlement and, as previously disclosed, will be required to pay the excess insurance carriers an additional premium of $8 million. The Company will fund the settlement (including the additional premium and litigation expenses) with cash and financing. "We are pleased to put this matter behind us and focus entirely on the future of Oxford. We do not believe that funding of this settlement will have a significant effect on our existing share repurchase program during the remainder of 2003," said Charles G. Berg, president and chief executive officer, in a statement. The Company previously incurred a charge of $151.3 million, representing its previous $161.3 million settlement offer net of $10 million in primary directors and officers insurance coverage, and a $20 million charge for additional legal expenses related to trial. In connection with the settlement announced today, the Company expects to incur an additional pre-tax charge of between $40 and $45 million in the first quarter of 2003, which charge, along with prior charges, will fully cover all of the Company's expenses relating to settlement costs, legal fees expenses. As previously disclosed, the Company had offered $161.3 million to the plaintiffs representing the full amount of the retention under the insurance carriers' interpretation of the excess insurance policies. Under the insurance carriers' interpretation of the excess insurance policies, the Company was obligated to pay the $161.3 million retention and the additional $8 million premium, and, if the excess insurance carriers fully participated in the $225 million settlement, the Company would have been obligated to pay approximately $6.4 million in co- insurance. Accordingly, the Company's settlement without the full benefit of the excess insurance coverage will result in the Company paying an additional approximately $32.3 million. The Company is considering its options with respect to the excess insurance carriers that refused to contribute to the settlement, including the possibility of bringing legal action against these carriers for recovery of at least $32.3 million under the terms of the excess insurance policies. These securities class actions, which were brought in 1997 following the October 27, 1997 decline in the price of the Company's common stock, are described in more detail in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. RYANAIR: May Face Lawsuit, Other Surprises For Flight Cancellations ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ryanair, which took over Buzz airline on January 31, told 100,000 passengers who had bought tickets on Buzz for April, that their flights have been canceled, following its takeover of the airline, The Guardian reports. However, Hampster solicitors, Ian Guyster & Co., are considering launching a class action on behalf of the angry customers. The law firm says that the airline's act is a breach of contract, and, as such, the airline is liable for more than just the original airfare under the rules of contract law. "On the face of it, the claims that will be made against the airline seem virtually unanswerable. We would need to know more about the contractual arrangements between Ryanair and Buzz before starting proceedings, but I hope enough irate passengers come forward to make a group action worthwhile," said Ian Guyster of Ian Guyster & Co. As indicated above, Ryanair told passengers of the cancelled April flights that the airline would refund only the original fare to people who had bought Buzz tickets for April. Mr. Guyster has said that what is involved is a breach of contract, and that the courts abide by the basic rule that if someone breaches a contract, the victim can choose between being put in the position he would have been had the contract not been made, or he may choose having the cost of performing the contract another way. This means, among other things, that those who elect to take their trips on alternative airlines will be able to claim the difference in fares. People who cannot obtain a flight to or from the same airport as they had booked with Buzz, will be entitled to reasonable transport costs. The same principle operative as to these matters is applicable to such matters as making new arrangements: if this is particularly time-consuming or inconvenient, for example, further compensation may be payable. However, as Mr. Guyster also indicated above, more would need to be known about how Ryanair and Buzz arranged their contractual arrangements as to their responsibilities to their passengers under the law. SERVIER: Reaches Agreement To Settle Canada Suit Relating to Diet Drugs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian pharmaceutical company Servier agreed to settle the national class action filed on behalf of Canadian patients who used the weight loss medications Ponderal and Redux. The agreement in principle was reached under the supervision of Justice Warren K. Winkler of the Ontario Superior Court, and is made without any admission of liability. The settlement, once finalized, will be subject to Court approval. The national class is represented by the Toronto law firm of Rochon Genova. The British Columbia Sub-class is represented by the law firm of Klein Lyons. The Company is represented by the law firm of Ogilvy Renault. Documentation is currently being finalized under the continuing supervision of Justice Winkler. Further information will be made available when the details are finalized. TEXAS: Merge of Medical Malpractice, General Tort Reform Bills Possible ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rep. Joseph Nixon, R-Houston, said he plans to merge the two bills he is sponsoring: medical malpractice insurance and general tort reform, the Associated Press Newswires reports. Such a union would encourage dealing with the two matters in a more efficient and comprehensive fashion, Mr. Nixon said. "It makes a lot of sense; it gives everyone an opportunity to thoroughly vet how all the tort reform is going to work and interact," he continued. Critics are calling the plan a political strategy that would use the less controversial malpractice insurance bill to carry to passage the more controversial tort lawsuit changes that have no discernible bearing on the malpractice insurance crisis or public access to health care. Rep. Steven Wolens, D-Dallas, said in Saturday editions of the Austin American-Statesman, "This is not good for doctors, it is not good for the medical profession and it is not good for Texas. They (the legislators) shouldn't do it." House Bill 3 aims, according to the report, to solve the crisis caused by recent large increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums, which some doctors say are driving them out of business. The bill places a cap on the award malpractice plaintiffs could receive for such noneconomic damages as pain and suffering. The bill contains numerous other provisions making it harder for patients to sue their doctors. House Bill 4 is a general bill "aimed at making it harder for Texans to sue anyone at all," according to the report. The provisions shift the balance of power in lawsuits toward the defendants with restrictive class action rules, and by shielding manufacturers from lawsuits if their products meet state or federal standards and by limiting the fees of plaintiffs' lawyers. Rep. Nixon says all the "stuff" would pass independently, and it will pass together. "This is just an opportunity to consider it all in a clear and coordinated fashion," said Mr. Nixon. Because Republican Governor Rick Perry has designated medical malpractice a crisis, the merged bill can be passed and enacted at an accelerated pace. "I don't see the justification for burdening HB3 (medical malpractice) with this mammoth bill (HB4, general tort reform), which is really a hodgepodge of tort reform ideas that have been rejected in prior sessions," said Thomas Jacks, a trial lawyer and former president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association. Joseph Cunningham, a Waco doctor, who is chairman of the Texas Medical Association's Council on Legislation, said the group is "going to support the leadership" in its efforts to pass malpractice legislation in whatever form it deems best. If the combined bill passes the House, it is unclear how the Senate will respond to the joining of so many unconnected proposals, Mr. Jacks said. TREVOR LAW: Attorney General Files Action For Unfair Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------------- California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a consumer protection action against the Trevor Law Group of Beverly Hills, alleging the firm committed unfair business practices in slapping thousands of small businesses with abusive lawsuits filed solely to obtain nuisance settlements and attorneys fees. The Attorney General filed his complaint under the Unfair Competition Act (UCA) - Business and Professions Code Section 17200 - the same statute the Trevor Law Group used to sue auto repair shops, restaurants and markets in the Los Angeles area. "The Trevor Law Group operates a shakedown operation designed to extract attorneys fees from law-abiding small business owners," Mr. Lockyer said in a statement. "With its unlawful practices, the Trevor Law Group has abused one of the state's most important consumer protection statutes and dishonored attorneys who practice law in the public interest." The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on behalf of the people of California, seeks full restitution of money acquired by the defendants as a result of their violations of Section 17200. The lawsuit also asks the court to impose civil penalties of not less than $1 million. Additionally, the complaint requests the court to order the defendants to drop all lawsuits that they have brought under the UCA and false advertising law. Finally, the Attorney General's complaint seeks a permanent injunction barring the defendants from filing new lawsuits under the UCA and false advertising statute without court approval. The action also names as defendants: (1) the Consumer Enforcement Watch Corporation (CEWC), the organization used by the Trevor Law Group as the plaintiff in their cases, (2) Damian Trevor, (3) Shane C. Han, (4) Allan Hendrickson, and (5) CEWC owner Ron Jamal Kort The complaint alleges the Trevor Law Group and CEWC have "abused the process of law" and unlawfully exploited a UCA provision that permits private plaintiffs to represent the public in bringing actions for unfair or unlawful business practices. The defendants have filed 22 lawsuits in which they have named as defendants 2,207 auto repair shops, more than 1,000 restaurants and markets, and 210,000 "Does," or unnamed plaintiffs, according to the complaint. In the lawsuits that name multiple defendants, the complaint alleges there is no connection among the businesses, nor is there a relationship between the businesses and their alleged misconduct. That lack of connection violates Code of Civil Procedure Section 379. "Defendants represent they are in the business of enforcing consumer laws through litigation," the complaint states. "Defendants are actually in the business of extracting money from small businesses under the guise of purporting to enforce consumer protection laws . defendants' real purpose is to obtain monetary payment for themselves to which they are not entitled." According to the complaint, the defendants formed the CEWC in April 2002 to serve as named plaintiff in their Section 17200 lawsuits. They then filed the actions based solely on notices of regulatory violations they found on government agencies' Websites - violations the regulators deemed insufficient to warrant disciplinary action. Shortly after filing the suit, the complaint alleges, the Trevor Law Group and CEWC used form letters to contact the businesses to try to obtain quick settlements. They told auto repair shop owners the cases typically settled for $6,000 to $26,000. The settlement range they provided restaurant and market owners was $7,000 to $13,000. If all the named businesses settled at the low end of the ranges, the complaint notes, the Trevor Law Group and CEWC still would realize a $20.2 million windfall. The form letters also falsely told business owners that settling the case would protect them from similar lawsuits filed by other plaintiffs. Further, the complaint alleges, the Trevor Law Group and CEWC demanded the settlements be kept secret from the public, whose interests the defendants purported to serve. Finally, according to the complaint, the Trevor Law Group and CEWC entered into an illegal agreement which called for the firm to share with CEWC some of the money it received from settlements. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- March 6-7, 2003 VACCINE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Boston Commons, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 13-14, 2003 MOLD INSURANCE LITIGATION CONFERENCES - FEATURING A KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY MELINDA BALLARD Bridgeport Continuing Education Los Angeles Contact: 818-505-1490 March 17-18, 2003 FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 20-21, 2003 FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 23-24, 2003 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE Bridgeport Continuing Education Long Beach Contact: 818-505-1490 March 27-28, 2003 ASBESTOS LITIGATION Hotel Nikko, San Francisco Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com April 2-5, 2003 INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, AZ Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 4-5, 2003 TOXIC TORT IN CALIFORNIA Bridgeport Continuing Education San Francisco Contact: 818-505-1490 April 4-5, 2003 TOXIC TORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IN CALIFORNIA Bridgeport Continuing Education Contact: 818-505-1490 April 8, 2003 SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 10-11, 2003 HANDLING CONSTRUCTION RISKS 2003: ALLOCATE NOW OR LITIGATE LATER Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. April 15, 2003 WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 28-29, 2003 EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 28-29, 2003 BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES Hotel Nikko, San Francisco Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com May 1, 2003 TOXIC TORT IN CALIFORNIA Bridgeport Continuing Education Los Angeles Contact: 818-505-1490 May 1-2, 2003 ASBESTOS LITIGATION 2003 Andrews Publication New Orleans Grande Hotel, New Orleans Contact: seminar@andrewspub.com May 5-6, 2003 THE CURRENT STATE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IN PA & NJ Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 7-8, 2003 MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES Bridgeport Continuing Education San Francisco Contact: 818-505-1490 May 14-15, 2003 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE Bridgeport Continuing Education San Jose Contact: 818-505-1490 June 2-3, 2003 BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 2-3, 2003 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 9, 2003 ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 12-13, 2003 CCA-TREA-TED WOOD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 12-13, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE American Law Institute Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 June 16-17, 2003 LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. June 16-17, 2003 ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 26-27, 2003 THE CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT Northstar Conferences The Westin Embassy Row, Washington, DC Contact: 866-265-1975; 212-596-6006; cservice@northstarconferences.com August 1, 2003 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. September 8-9, 2003 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 19-21, 2003 THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE Northeastern University School of Law Contact: scuri@tplp.org TBA Water Contamination Litigation Conference Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA Fair Labor Standards Conference Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ March 06-31, 2003 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION LITIGATION IN TEXAS CLE Online Seminar Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 06-31, 2003 NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA CLE Online Seminar Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 2, 2003 TOXIC MOLD: WHAT REAL ESTATE PRACTITIONERS NEED TO KNOW NOW Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. April 15, 2003 LITIGATING POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER ABA-CLE Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org May 14, 2003 CLASS ACTION BASICS ABA-CLE Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOR LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ______________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases CARREKER CORPORATION: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Carreker Corporation (Nasdaq:CANIE) between May 20, 1998 and December 10,2002, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002. According to the complaint, throughout the class period, Carreker filed financial statements with the SEC which represented that the Company was consistently delivering numerous consecutive quarters of record, double-digit growth, which the Company attributed to the strong demand for its products and Carreker's business model. In addition, according to the complaint, the Company expressly assured investors of its "dedication to transparent reporting practices" and highlighted the supposed "quality and integrity of (Carreker's) accounting and corporate governance practices." These statements were materially false and misleading, according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that the Company had been improperly recognizing revenues throughout the class period, thereby artificially inflating its revenues, income and earnings per share. On December 10, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that it was investigating whether revenues were improperly recognized by being booked at once instead of ratably over a period of time, as required by applicable generally accepted accounting principles. This belated disclosure severely and negatively impacted Carreker's stock price, causing it to fall by 22.6% in one day on extremely heavy trading volume, from a December 9 close of $5.08 per share to close at $3.93 per share on December 10. Subsequently, the SEC initiated an investigation, which is ongoing, into the Company's accounting practices. On January 28, 2003, the Company announced that it would be restating the financial reports it has filed since 1998. For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: (866) 264-3995 or by E- mail: gademi@ademilaw.com INTERCEPT INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of securities of InterCept, Inc. (Nasdaq:ICPT) between September 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003. The suit is brought against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material disclosures due to their false assurances that the adult pornography internet portion of their merchant processing business was insignificant and due to their failure to disclose that VISA regulations implemented on November 1, 2002, which were targeted specifically to address risks of internet pornography card processing, had caused a material loss of business. Specifically, olaintiff alleges that defendants knew by the time their fourth quarter earnings estimate was issued on November 4, 2002 that they would suffer a material loss of business because defendants were aware by November 1, 2002 which of their customers had met the deadline to become sponsored merchants under the new VISA regulations. In a January 9, 2003 press release, INTERCEPT announced that it was revising its fourth quarter 2002 earnings per share estimate downward to $0.92 to $0.98 from its earlier, November 4, 2002, estimate of $1.11 to $1.15. The Company cited "reduced revenues in our merchant area result(ing) primarily from the iBill operations, which experienced a large loss of merchant customers following the implementation of a new credit card association rule in mid-November." Following these disclosures, shares of INTERCEPT declined from the class period high of $19.11 per share to close near $7.00 per share on January 10, 2003 on unusually high volume. By the close of trading on January 10, 2003, the stock had lost more than half of its value just prior to the disclosure. For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta Georgia, 30309 by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free) or by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com MICROTUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Microtune, Inc. (Nasdaq: TUNE) from April 22, 2002 to February 20, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges Microtune, 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 issued numerous statements and filed quarterly reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial performance. These statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company had materially overstated its revenue by immediately recognizing as revenue certain sales which should have been categorized as deferred revenue, as payment was not assured and in fact was not made for substantial periods of time; (2) that the Company failed to disclose that a material portion of its revenues had not in fact been paid for; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements issued during the class period were materially false and misleading. On February 20, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, after the close of regular trading, Microtune shocked the market by announcing that its loss for the fourth quarter of 2002, the period ending December 31, 2002, was $80.2 million, or almost double the loss of $47 million which it had reported in the same period of the prior year. Despite having shipped $16.1 million of product during the fourth quarter of 2002, the Company announced that it would only be reporting revenues of $2.2 million "as a result of charges relating to five customers, including (a) credits granted and/or (b) lack of timely payments." As a result of this development, the Company announced that its Board of Directors has directed its audit committee to conduct an inquiry of the events that led to these "material negative charges." The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of Microtune fell more than 35%, to approximately $1.20 per share, a far cry below their class period high of $13.81 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, 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 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 MONTEREY PASTA: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud 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 Monterey Pasta Company (NasdaqNM: PSTA) common stock between July 11, 2002 and December 16, 2002, inclusive. The suit alleges that defendant 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 July 11, 2002 and December 16, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Monterey Pasta securities. For more details, 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 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in MA Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Parametric Technology Corporation (Nasdaq: PMTC) from October 19, 1999 through December 31, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges that the 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 October 19, 1999 and December 31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Parametric common stock. Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial performance. The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that since fiscal 1999, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and its own revenue recognition policies, the Company had cumulatively overstated its previously recognized maintenance revenue from its service contracts by approximately $33.4 million; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On December 31, 2002, after the close of regular trading, Parametric shocked the market by announcing that it had identified "$20 to $25 million of previously recognized maintenance revenue which should have been deferred and recognized in fiscal 2003 and later periods." Accordingly, the Company announced, it "expects to report a corresponding reduction in maintenance revenue in prior periods, primarily in fiscal year 2002." The next day of trading, on January 2, 2003, shares of Parametric closed at $2.19 per share, after hitting an intraday low of $1.95, as compared with a class period high of $32.88 per share, reached on December 16, 1999. Subsequent disclosures revealed that the Company would be restating its financial results from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2002 because a cumulative total of $33.4 million in maintenance revenue had improperly been reported as revenue during that time. For more details, 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 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Parametric Technology Corporation (Nasdaq:PMTC) between October 19, 1999 and December 31, 2002 inclusive, in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. The complaint charges that defendants violated Federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between October 19, 1999 and December 31, 2002. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, Parametric issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC, which described the Company's supposedly increasing revenues and financial performance. These statements were materially false and misleading when made, the complaint alleges, because the Company had overstated its revenue since fiscal 1999, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and because the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was unable to accurately determine and report the Company's financial condition. On December 31, 2002, after the close of regular trading, Parametric issued a press release announcing a "$20 to $25 million of previously recognized maintenance revenue which should have been deferred and recognized in fiscal 2003 and later periods." Accordingly, the Company announced, it "expects to report a corresponding reduction in maintenance revenue in prior periods, primarily in fiscal year 2002." In reaction, on January 2, 2003, shares of Parametric closed at $2.19 per share, after hitting an intraday low of $1.95, as compared with a class period high of $32.88 per share, reached on December 16, 1999. For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: (866) 264-3995 or by E- mail: gademi@ademilaw.com. ROYAL AHOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Koninklijke Ahold N.V. d/b/a Royal Ahold, Inc. (NYSE: AHO) between June 7, 2001 and February 24, 2003, 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 between June 7, 2001 and February 24, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Ahold American Depositary Receipts (ADR's). The complaint alleges that in 2001 and 2002 Ahold issued quarterly press releases reporting the Company's results of operations and financial condition. These press releases and it public filings with the SEC represented that the Company was growing at a breakneck pace. The complaint further alleges that on February 24, 2002 Ahold shocked the market; it issued a press release announcing that Ahold's operating earnings for fiscal year 2001 and expected operating earnings for fiscal year 2002 "have been overstated by an amount that the company believes may exceed U.S. $500 mln," and that the overstatements would require the restatement of Ahold's financial statements for fiscal year 2001 and the first three quarters of 2002. The release further stated that the Company was investigating the legality of certain transactions at its Argentine Disco unit, and that the investigation had uncovered certain transactions that were "questionable." The Company further announced that, "in view of the above" its CEO and CFO were resigning; the Company was deferring the announcement of its full year financial results scheduled for March 5, 2003; and that Ahold's auditors had suspended the fiscal year 2002 audit pending completion of these investigations. On this news, the price of Ahold securities plummeted. As illustrative, the ADRs closed at $10.69 on Friday, February 21, 2003. The Company's announcement was released at about 2:30 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Monday, February 24, 2002. The ADRs opened on the next trading day at $4.36, fell to $3.60 and closed the day at $4.16, down 61% from the previous day's closing price. For more details, 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 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 RURAL CELLULAR: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Rural Cellular Corporation (NASDAQ: RCCC) publicly traded securities during the period between May 7, 2001 and November 12, 2002. The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused Rural Cellular's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. Then, on November 12, 2002, after the market closed, defendants revealed that Rural Cellular's fiscal 2001 through Q2 2002 results had been materially misstated and would have to be restated. Rural Cellular has now admitted that it inappropriately recorded transactions included in its FY 2001 through Q2 2002 results, and has restated those results to remove millions in improperly reported income (which illegally decreased the Company's losses) such that its FY 2001 through Q2 2002 financial statements were not a fair presentation of Rural Cellular's results and were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules. For more details, 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 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 TELLIUM INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Tellium, Inc. (Nasdaq: TELM) from May 17, 2001 through February 1, 2002, inclusive. The complaint 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 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 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 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 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in MA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities class action against Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (Nasdaq:TKTX), alleging the biopharmaceutical firm issued false and misleading statements to the public regarding the chances for approval of a new drug. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all investors who bought Transkaryotic common stock from January 4, 2001 through January 14, 2003. The lawsuit claims the Company misled the public about its chances of achieving US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market Replagal, an enzyme therapy for the treatment of Fabry disease. Shareholders contend that the company knew throughout the class period that the FDA considered its clinical trial data on Replagal to be unreliable. Some of the facts began to emerge on October 2, 2002, nearly two years after the FDA's findings, when Transkaryotic admitted: (1) that the FDA had determined the drug's primary pain reduction data was "uninterpretable" and (2) that Transkaryotic had decided to rely on other data -- gathered from cardiac and renal clinical trials -- in its FDA application. Six days later, Transkaryotic further acknowledged that the FDA had also advised the company in early 2001 that it did not consider Replagal's cardiac or renal data sufficient to support approval. In response to the initial announcement, Transkaryotic common stock plummeted from its closing price of $33.25 per share on October 2, 2002 to $12.75 at the end of the next trading day. Transkaryotic and the FDA disclosed additional facts on January 14, 2003, during an Advisory Committee hearing. At that meeting, the FDA stated its reasons for believing that the pain data was not interpretable and further, that it had informed Transkaryotic of its reasoning at least as early as January 2001. Trading in Transkaryotic common stock was halted during the Advisory Committee meeting. It closed at $6.49 per share on January 15, 2003. For more details, contact Leslie R. Stern or Nicole S. Robbins by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 or (617) 542-8300 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.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 * * *