/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030306.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 6, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 46 Headlines ALASKA: Economist Says Underpayment For Sockeye Salmon Exceeds $384M BANK OF AMERICA: MO Court Okays Securities Settlement, Dismisses Suit BANK OF AMERICA: TX Court Dismisses Claims In Enron Securities Lawsuit BAYER AG: Holocaust Lawyer To Help Settle 100 Baycol Cases Out of Court CANADA: Quebec To Sue Generic Drug Firms Over Kickbacks To Pharmacists CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Many Investor Suits Over Role in Enron Collapse CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Numerous Suits Over Underwriting Activities in NY GOODY'S FAMILY: Formulates Consent Decree For Race Discrimination Suit HAMILTON BANCORP: Shareholders File Suit Alleging Misleading Statements IBM: Recalls 56,000 Computer Monitors Due To Overheating, Fire Hazards INTUIT INC.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set June 2003 in C.D. CA MURRAY INC.: Recalls 270,000 Riding Lawn Tractors For Burn, Fire Hazard OXFORD HEALTH: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit For Securities Violations in NY SMITHFIELD FOODS: Suit Charges Non-Compliance With Merger Requirements TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Claim in Securities Suit TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Firm Didn't Claim "Lights" Were Safer UNITED AIRLINES: Workers Sue Trustees For Failing To Protect Interests UNITED STATES: New Security System Draws Activists' Skepticism New Securities Fraud Cases ATMEL CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA BIO-TECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in NJ BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX CORVIS CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY CORVIS CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA CORVIS CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Suit in MO INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MO MCSI INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. OH ROYAL AHOLD: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY ROYAL AHOLD: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ROYAL AHOLD: Charles Piven Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY ROYAL AHOLD: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY SAWTEK INC.: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL VERITAS SOFTWARE: Emerson Poynter Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA ********* ALASKA: Economist Says Underpayment For Sockeye Salmon Exceeds $384M -------------------------------------------------------------------- Economist Jeffrey Leitzinger of Los Angeles, testified as an expert witness in a $1 billion class action on behalf of the fishermen. He said that damages for the underpayment caused by fixing prices for sockeye salmon harvests between 1989 and 1995, should exceed $384 million, the Associated Press Newswires reports. The fishermen were underpaid an average of 42 cents a pound for 932,460,599 pounds of red salmon, said Mr. Leitzinger. The trial in the Superior Court in Anchorage, now in its fifth week, stems from a class action filed on behalf of 4,500 commercial fishermen who hold permits to fish the waters of Bristol Bay for sockeye salmon. The lawsuit contends that the Seattle-based processors and the Japanese importers conspired to fix the prices in the lucrative Bristol Bay fishery. The court is allowing introduction of evidence dating back to 1989, but Superior Court Judge Peter Michalski ruled that plaintiffs could only collect damages for four years back from the date the complaint was filed in the summer of 1995. Mr. Leitzinger testified that after the 1988 sockeye season, the behavior of the processors and importers indicated the existence of a conspiracy. Mr. Leitzinger said his opinion was based on five factors: (1) the alignment of prices, (2) no loss of market share to defendants, (3) the shift of monetary risk to the fishermen, (4) extensive price communications and (5) suppression of competition among the processors on trial The economist also testified that he had noted evidence introduced earlier at the trial of how processors withheld services which would have helped smaller processors be competitive. "That kind of conduct," said Mr. Leitzinger, " is a telltale sign of the existence of a conspiracy." He also said that when you have a system where everyone in an industry knows what everyone else is doing, there is no need to post a competitive price. Importer didn't just announce they would pay lower prices to processor, but told them to pay their suppliers less. The trial began February 3, and is expected to take at least three months. So far, more than a dozen defendants have settled out of court for an amount totaling more than $40 million. Those funds are being held in escrow until the trial has ended. Then, Judge Michalski will decide how the funds will be distributed. BANK OF AMERICA: MO Court Okays Securities Settlement, Dismisses Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the securities class action filed against the Bank of America Corporation and certain of its officers and directors following the merger of NationsBank Corporation and BankAmerica Corporation in September 1998. The suit was filed on behalf of: (1) persons who purchased NationsBank or BankAmerica shares between August 4, 1998 and September 30, 1998, (2) persons who purchased shares of the Corporation between October 1 and October 13, 1998, and (3) persons who held NationsBank or BankAmerica shares as of the merger The claims on behalf of the purchasers and the persons who held NationsBank shares as of the merger principally rested on the allegation that the Company or its predecessors failed to disclose material facts concerning a $1.4 billion financial relationship between BankAmerica Corporation and D.E. Shaw & Co. that resulted in a $372 million charge to the Company's earnings in the quarter ending September 30, 1998. The claims of the persons who held BankAmerica shares as of the merger principally rested on the allegation that the defendants misrepresented a "takeover" of BankAmerica Corporation as a "merger of equals." In November 2002, the court entered a final judgment dismissing the actions with prejudice. The court entered the judgment after approving a settlement providing for payment of $333.2 million to the classes of purchasers and holders of NationsBank shares and $156.8 million to the classes of purchasers of BankAmerica and Corporation shares and holders of BankAmerica shares (all amounts to bear interest at the 90-day Treasury Bill Rate from March 6, 2002 to the date of payment). There remain pending several actions in California that have been stayed since April 2000, when the Missouri Federal Court enjoined the plaintiffs in those actions from purporting to prosecute their claims on behalf of a class. Several class members, including two lead plaintiffs, are appealing from the Missouri court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. BANK OF AMERICA: TX Court Dismisses Claims In Enron Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed several claims in the consolidated securities class action filed against Bank of America Corporation, and other commercial and investment banks, over its role in the collapse of energy giant Enron Corporation. The suit also names as defendants certain current and former Enron officers and directors and certain lawyers and accountants. The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On May 8, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court later granted in part, dismissing the claims asserted under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act. A Section 11 claim on a single securities offering remains pending against the Company. BAYER AG: Holocaust Lawyer To Help Settle 100 Baycol Cases Out of Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A lawyer for plaintiffs in the class action against Bayer AG over the cholesterol drug Baycol (also known as Lipobay) said he will attempt to settle about 100 cases out of court, Reuters reports. Michael Witti, who became prominent for helping Holocaust victims gain compensation from the German government and industry three years ago, said he would get his clients the same amount of money per head paid in Baycol cases in the United States. "I believe five percent of the 2,000 Baycol patients I represent in Germany are cases of serious damage and will be settled out of court," Mr. Witti, one of Germany's most prominent lawyers, told Reuters in a telephone interview from Berlin. "I will aim to get the same deal for them as US patients have got out of Bayer." The pharmaceutical firm faces over 7,000 lawsuits, filed after it recalled its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol in August 2001. The drug is now linked to over 100 deaths. Earlier this month, the German firm settled almost 500 of these lawsuits out of court for about $125 million. Mr. Witti said he would attempts to settle the first cases in Germany within two months, and expected the first payments in summer. US courts tend to pay much more in compensation cases than European ones. He said he was waiting only for documents to be finalized before starting talks with Bayer. Mr. Witti is also trying to get the German cases consolidated with American cases currently pending in a Minneapolis court. "We will try and include the German cases in the US hearing. If they do not do this on the grounds that you need a US passport in order to receive damages from Bayer, it will be a real pity," he told Reuters. "We think Bayer will not be stubborn, for a very good reason: it's cheap to settle these cases now . It must settle cases of heavy damage before they become part of a class action as I believe it could end up paying 10 times as much later." He continued that he sees a clear legal parallel between the Holocaust cases and their international class on the one hand, and Baycol on the other. He further said Bayer's problems might be exacerbated by the current cold climate in US-German relations due to differences over Iraq. "The current political friction between Germany and the U.S. is bad for Bayer . Anti-German lobbyists could create problems for them now," Mr. Witti told Reuters. "We're not aware of settlement attempts by Michael Witti," a Bayer spokesman said, Reuters reports. CANADA: Quebec To Sue Generic Drug Firms Over Kickbacks To Pharmacists ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Quebec government plans to file a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court in Canada by the end of June, demanding compensation from generic drug manufacturers who allegedly have been paying kickbacks to pharmacists, The Toronto Star reports. It is believed the case will have national repercussions. A Montreal law firm already is seeking court authorization for a class action. The generic drug makers have been giving rebates, discounts and gifts to pharmacists who promote their products, alleged Nathalie Pitre, a spokeswoman for the Regie de l'assurance-maladie du Quebec. These are practices forbidden under Quebec law, and we will demand reimbursement, Ms. Pitre told the Toronto Star. La Presse, the Montreal daily, reported recently that generic drug makers spent about $500 annually on such incentives for pharmacists throughout Canada. The newspaper said 85 percent of Quebec pharmacists accepted various kinds of benefits worth 30 to 50 percent of the value of the medicines. The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association issued a statement noting that generic companies operate in a competitive market, selling their products to pharmacies in Quebec. "Like any business, they market and promote their products to their customers," the statement said. Such practices may be legal in some provinces, but Quebec law explicitly forbids them, the Toronto Star states. The Montreal law firm of Kugler Kandestin is asking for court authorization for a class action against the generic drug manufacturers on behalf of consumers who allegedly paid inflated prices. "It's an awful lot of money, and it's been going on at least since 1995, if not earlier, said Gordon Kugler, a partner with the law firm. He said that the class action is for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers who have overpaid in a regulated industry. Mr. Kugler observed it is possible similar practices are engaged in across Canada, but they might not be illegal in all the other provinces. In the House of Commons for the federal government, Conservative MP Loyola Hearn said such practices might be keeping generic drug prices artificially high across Canada, and asked whether a federal investigation was planned. Revenue Minister Elinor Caplan said Ottawa works closely with the provinces, and "whenever evidence is brought forward of non-compliance or inappropriate activity, action is taken." CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Many Investor Suits Over Role in Enron Collapse --------------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc. and its underwriting arm Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (SSB) faces numerous lawsuits over its role in the collapse of energy giant Enron Corporation in late 2001. In April 2002, the Company and, in one case, Salomon Smith Barney Inc. (SSB) were named as defendants along with, among others, commercial and/or investment banks, certain current and former Enron officers and directors, lawyers and accountants in two putative consolidated class action complaints that were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking unspecified damages. One action, brought on behalf of individuals who purchased Enron securities, titled "NEWBY, ET AL. V. ENRON CORP., ET AL.," alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The other action, brought on behalf of current and former Enron employees, titled "TITTLE, ET AL. V. ENRON CORP., ET AL.," alleges violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as claims for negligence and civil conspiracy. On May 8, 2002, the Company and SSB filed motions to dismiss the complaints. In December 2002, the motions to dismiss the NEWBY complaint were denied. The motion to dismiss the complaint in TITTLE remains pending. In July 2002, the Company, SSB and various of its affiliates and certain of their officers and other employees were named as defendants, along with, among others, commercial and/or investment banks, certain current and former Enron officers and directors, lawyers and accountants in a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Yosemite Notes and Enron Credit-Linked Notes, among other securities, titled "HUDSON SOFT CO., LTD. V. CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON CORPORATION, ET AL.." The amended complaint alleges violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages. Additional actions have been filed against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates, along with other parties, relating to its role in the Enron collapse including: (1) three actions brought in different state courts by state pension plans, alleging violations of state securities law and claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment; (2) an action by banks that participated in two Enron revolving credit facilities, alleging fraud, gross negligence, and breach of implied duties in connection with defendants' administration of a credit facility with Enron; (3) an action brought by several funds in connection with secondary market purchases of Enron debt securities, alleging violations of the federal securities law, including Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and claims for fraud and misrepresentation; (4) a series of putative class actions by purchasers of NewPower Holdings common stock, alleging violations of the federal securities law, including Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; (5) an action brought by two investment funds in connection with purchases of Enron-related securities for alleged violations of state securities and unfair competition statutes; (6) an action brought by several investment funds and fund owners in connection with purchases of notes of the Osprey I and Osprey II Trusts for alleged violation of state and federal securities laws and claims for common law fraud, misrepresentation and conspiracy; (7) an action brought by several investment funds and fund owners in connection with purchases of notes of the Osprey I and Osprey II Trusts for alleged violation of state and federal securities laws and state unfair competition laws and claims for common law fraud and misrepresentation; (8) an action brought by the Attorney General of Connecticut in connection with various commercial and investment banking services provided to Enron; (9) a putative class action brought by clients of SSB in connection with research reports concerning Enron, alleging breach of contract; (10) actions brought by several investment funds in connection with the purchase of notes and/or certificates of the Osprey Trusts, the Marlin Trust, and the Marlin Water trust, as well as the purchase of other Enron or Enron-related securities, alleging violation of state and federal securities laws, and common law civil conspiracy and fraud; (11) an action brought by a retirement and health benefits plan in connection with the purchase of certain Enron notes, alleging violation of federal securities law, including Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, violations of state securities and unfair competition law, and common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; and (12) an action brought by two broker/dealers in connection with the purchase of certain notes, alleging violation of federal and state securities laws. Several of these cases have been consolidated with the NEWBY action and stayed pending the court's decision on the pending motions of certain defendants to dismiss NEWBY. Additionally, Citigroup has provided substantial information to, and has entered into substantive discussions with, the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding certain of its transactions with Enron. Citigroup and certain of its affiliates also have received subpoenas and requests for information from various other regulatory and governmental agencies and Congressional committees, as well as from the Special Examiner in the Enron bankruptcy, regarding certain transactions and business relationships with Enron and its affiliates. Citigroup is cooperating fully with all such requests. CITIGROUP INC.: Faces Numerous Suits Over Underwriting Activities in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc., its underwriting arm, Salomon Smith Barney, and certain executive officers and current and former employees have been named as defendants in numerous putative class action complaints by purchasers of various securities in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suits allege the defendants violated federal securities law, including Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection with published investment research, including: (1) Global Crossing, Ltd., (2) WorldCom, Inc., (3) AT&T Corporation, (4) Winstar Communications, Inc., (5) Rhythm NetConnections, Inc., (6) Level 3 Communications, Inc., (7) Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., (8) XO Communications, Inc., and (9) Williams Communications Group Inc. Almost all of these actions are pending before a single judge in the Southern District of New York for coordinated proceedings. The court has consolidated these actions into nine separate categories corresponding to the companies named above. Additional actions have been filed against Citigroup and certain of its affiliates, and certain of their current and former directors, officers and employees, along with other parties, including: (1) three putative class actions filed in state courts and federal courts on behalf of persons who maintained accounts with SSB asserting, among other things, common law claims, claims under state statutes, and claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, for allegedly failing to provide objective and unbiased investment research and investment management, seeking, among other things, return of fees and commissions; (2) approximately fifteen actions filed in different state courts by individuals asserting, among other claims, common law claims and claims under state securities laws, for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection with published investment research, including Global Crossing and WorldCom, Inc.; (3) approximately five actions filed in different state courts by pension and other funds asserting common law claims and statutory claims under, among other things, state and federal securities laws, for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection with published investment research, including WorldCom, Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc.; and (4) more than two hundred arbitrations asserting common law claims and statutory claims under, among other things, state and federal securities laws, for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection with published investment research. GOODY'S FAMILY: Formulates Consent Decree For Race Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Goody's Family Clothing Inc (Nasdaq NM: GDYS) reached a settlement for the racial discrimination class action filed against it and Robert M. Goodfriend, its chairman of the board and chief executive officer. The Company has submitted a proposed consent decree to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia for its preliminary approval. The proposed consent decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the lawsuit, alleging that the Company discriminated against a class of African-American employees at its retail stores through the use of discriminatory selection and compensation procedures and by maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment. The proposed settlement provides for a payment by the Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as well as the Company's implementation of certain policies, practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training of employees. The Company expects that $3.1 million of such payment will be covered by its insurance. The proposed consent decree explicitly provides that it is not an admission of liability by the Company and the Company continues to deny all of the allegations. HAMILTON BANCORP: Shareholders File Suit Alleging Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Vianale & Vianale has filed suit on behalf of some of the shareholders of the former Hamilton Bank against that bank's holding company Hamilton Bancorp and three of its former executives, alleging that the investors were misled by statements painting "a false picture of the bank's compliance with the regulators," according to a report by The Miami Herald. In the last six months of Hamilton Bank's "once-high-flying" life in Miami, shares were still being bought up by shareholders who were misled as to the seriousness of the dispute with the regulators. Executives continued to resist meeting regulators' demands. Lastly, Hamilton Bank issued almost a dozen press releases and financial reports, many of which, as the lawsuit's complaint contends, gave the impression that the bank had put its problems behind it. The shareholders' lawsuit represents this narrow period of time, the class period - the final six months before the bank was closed. "The company was continuing to misrepresent . that it was cooperating with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, . that it was putting in internal controls and providing against loan losses," said Kenneth J. Vianale, attorney for the shareholder group. Fed up, at last, with an almost consistent pattern of resistance and non-compliance, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency closed Hamilton Bank on January 11, 2001. Named in the lawsuit, as well as the former holding company Hamilton Bancorp, are: (1) former Hamilton Chairman and CEO Eduardo A. Masferrer, (2) former Executive President Juan Carlos Bernace and (3) former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Lucius T. Harris Nearly every depositor recovered funds when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation liquidated the bank and millions of dollars in loan payments were recovered. However, the shareholders lost everything. The Securities and Exchange Commission recently cited the Company's failure to file earning statements and issued a final ruling revoking the registration of Hamilton Bancorp, holding company for Hamilton Bank. IBM: Recalls 56,000 Computer Monitors Due To Overheating, Fire Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IBM is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling to repair 56,000 computer monitors. The monitor's circuit board can overheat and smoke, posing a fire hazard to consumers. The Company has received five reports of monitors overheating and smoking, including one report of minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. The recalled IBM monitors include the G51 CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) and G51t Touch Screen CRT models. The G51 and G51t monitors have the following model numbers on a label on the back of the unit: 6541-02N, 6541-02E, 6541-02S, 6541-Q0N, 6541-Q0E, and 6541-Q0S. The label on the back of the recalled G51 models also has a date of manufacture between June 1997 and September 1997. The "IBM" logo can be found on the front of the units, which were manufactured in China and Malaysia. IBM, MicroTouch Systems, and major retail stores nationwide, including Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, and Radio Shack, sold the monitors from June 1997 through December 1998 for about $370. For more information, contact the IBM Repair Center by Phone: (866) 644-3155 between 9 am and 7 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit the Company's Website: http://www.ibm.com/pc/g51recall. INTUIT INC.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set June 2003 in C.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fairness hearing for the settlement proposed by Intuit, Inc. has been set for June 2003 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. The court has already granted preliminary approval for the agreement. The suit alleged violations of various federal and California statutes and common law claims for invasion of privacy based upon the alleged intentional disclosure to third parties of personal and private customer information entered at Intuit's Quicken.com Web site. The complaints sought injunctive relief, orders to disgorge profits related to the alleged acts, and statutory and other damages. A similar lawsuit, Almanza v. Intuit Inc. was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Bernardino County, Rancho Cucamonga Division. On January 6, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval to a settlement between the Company and the plaintiff's counsel in all of the remaining cases. The proposed settlement terms are not material to the Company. The Company currently believes that the ultimate amount of liability, if any, for any pending claims of any type (either alone or combined) will not materially affect its financial position, results of operations or liquidity. MURRAY INC.: Recalls 270,000 Riding Lawn Tractors For Burn, Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 270,000 riding lawn tractors. The fuel tank can crack and leak fuel, posing a burn and fire hazard to consumers. Murray has received 101 reports of fuel tanks leaking. No injuries have been reported. The recalled lawn tractors were sold under the MURRAY(r) and STANLEY(r) brand names and have 38-, 40-, 42-, 46-, and 52-inch cutting decks. The brand name is printed on the front or side of the lawn tractor and the model number can be found on a nameplate under the seat. The following models are included in this recall: 405014X92, 405015X92, 40508X92, 425007X92, 42515X92, 42516X92, 425302X92, 425303X92, 425614X92, 42576X92, 465305X92, 465603X92, 46581X92, 425605X692, 465606X692, 525607X69, 405002X8, 425003X8, 425008X8, 425009X8, 42544X8, 38560X181, 42583X6, 465616X6, 40541, 465617, 40541X99, 425611X99, 465612X99, 465615X99, 465622X99, 425003X71, 465619X71, 465620X71 Retail and hardware stores, including Wal-Mart and Home Depot, sold the lawn tractors nationwide from November 2000 through January 2003 for between $800 and $1,500. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 876-1634 between 8 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the company's Website: http://www.murray.com. OXFORD HEALTH: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit For Securities Violations in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Oxford Health Plans Inc., one of the New York area's biggest health insurers, agreed recently to pay $225 million to settle a securities fraud suit brought by investors, according to a report by The New York Times. Oxford Health said in a statement that it would pay $200 million of the settlement and that its insurers would pay $25 million. The Company expects to take an additional pretax charge of $40 million to $45 million for the first quarter of 2003, to fully cover its legal expenses. The settlement closes a legal case that has burdened Oxford Health for almost six years. The class actions brought by investors was scheduled for trial next week, but Oxford Health's agreement to settle for $64 million more than had been offered last year seemed to encourage the parties to reach settlement. Investors had sued Oxford Health after its stock fell by 63 percent on October 27, 1997, following an announcement that the company would have a third-quarter loss because of billing delays and errors. Oxford Health, initially, had offered $161.3 million to settle the lawsuits and investors had sought as much as $2 billion in damages. SMITHFIELD FOODS: Suit Charges Non-Compliance With Merger Requirements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Smithfield Foods, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed by the United States Justice Department, charging the Company with failing to properly notify antitrust enforcers about stock purchases it made during its attempts to buy rival IBP Inc. in 2000, Reuters reports. IBP rejected the Company's bid in favor of a competing bid from Tyson Foods, Inc. in January 2001, after a brief bidding war. Under US antitrust laws, in some cases, a company is required to pre-notify antitrust authorities if they are planning to buy stock as part of a possible merger. That transaction could be exempt if the stock deal is "solely for the purpose of investment." The department said that was not the case in the Smithfield stock acquisitions, Reuters reports. "Companies cannot evade (the requirement) by ignoring the plain language of the exemption," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Deborah Majoras said in a statement. The Company had no immediate comment on the lawsuit, according to Reuters. TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Claim in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed one of the claims in the consolidated securities class action pending against Telecommunication Systems, Inc., certain of its current officers and a director, and several investment banks that were the underwriters of its initial public offering. The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period August 8, 2000 through December6, 2000, alleges that the underwriters agreed to allocate common stock offered for sale in the Company's initial public offering to certain purchasers in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those purchasers to make additional purchases of common stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants violated Sections11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that the underwriters violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The claims against the Company of violation of Rule 10b-5 have been dismissed with the plaintiffs having the right to re-plead. The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit, and believes that more than 300 other companies have been named in nearly identical lawsuits that have been filed by some of the same law firms that represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Company. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Firm Didn't Claim "Lights" Were Safer --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cigarette maker Philip Morris is on trial in a non-jury trial before Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron, in Madison County, Illinois, for allegedly defrauding smokers of light cigarettes by claiming light cigarettes are safer than regular cigarettes. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are expected to ask for a judgment in the billions, according to a report by the Belleville News-Democrat (IL). Lawyers for Philip Morris, who began presenting their defense on February 13, contend that Philip Morris never claimed light cigarettes are safer. "There is no such thing as a safe cigarette. If you are concerned about your health, you should quit," said John Mulderig, a Philip Morris attorney, during an interview. The consumer fraud class action began January 21, and attorneys on both sides expect the trial to end in a week or two. The class action claims Philip Morris defrauded about 1.1 million Illinois smokers by leading them to believe Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights produce less nicotine and tar than regular cigarettes. The lawsuit, which seeks punitive damages, alleges that the light cigarettes are actually more harmful, because people draw on them harder to get a desired level of nicotine. Plaintiffs' attorneys believe if punitive damages are awarded against Philip Morris, the company will have to take light cigarettes off the market or rename them. The defense argued that the federal government labeled light cigarettes as safer, based on government tests. However, the plaintiff attorneys claim the company has designed light cigarettes to perform well on machine tests, all the while knowing people would still get just as much tar and nicotine from puffing harder, as tests show smokers of light cigarettes do. Richard Carchman, a scientist who works as a consultant for Philip Morris, testified this week that tests do not show that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than regular Marlboro. UNITED AIRLINES: Workers Sue Trustees For Failing To Protect Interests ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A group of United Airlines employees recently filed a lawsuit against the trustees of the airline's employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), alleging that the plan's trustees failed to protect the employees' interests, thereby costing them billions of dollars in lost investments, according to a report by Reuters English News Service. The proposed class action was filed in the United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois, alleging that the committee that ran ESOP was not acting objectively when it chose to hold stock in United's parent corporation, UAL Corporation, as it plunged in value. UAL filed the largest bankruptcy in aviation history in December 2002. Hagens Berman, a Seattle law firm, represents the United employees. The firm recently released a written statement presenting the details of the lawsuit. United, which is 55 percent-owned by its employees, did not immediately return calls for comment. The lawsuit claims that "the plan trustees fell short of their duty when they failed to move ESOP holdings to less risky, more appropriate investments, all the while failing to disclose that the stock was an imprudent investment." State Street Bank, the plan's independent trustee, began to sell UAL stock last fall when it determined the plan had too much capital invested in UAL shares. United's ESOP now holds about 20 million UAL shares. State Street Bank has been in court since December, in fact, to get authorization to sell more shares in order to protect shareholder value, since generally the shares are rendered worthless in a bankruptcy. However, a bankruptcy judge ruled last week that State Street cannot sell more shares, because the sales would jeopardize an important tax benefit to United. UNITED STATES: New Security System Draws Activists' Skepticism -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States government and transportation officials have formulated a new system that would check background information and assign a threat level for every passenger of a commercial flight, the Associated Press reports. The Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II) was ordered by US Congress after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Delta Air Lines will try it out at three undisclosed airports beginning next month, and a comprehensive system could be in place by the end of the year, with transport officials saying a contractor will be picked soon to build the nationwide computer system. The system will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists. Activists have protested the institution of the computer system, saying the potential for unconstitutional invasions of privacy and for database mix-ups that could lead to innocent people being branded security risks runs high. "This system threatens to create a permanent blacklisted underclass of Americans who cannot travel freely," Katie Corrigan, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union told AP. There also is concern that the government is developing the system without revealing how information will be gathered and how long it will be kept. The system's defenders say it will determine who is potentially dangerous while ensuring law-abiding citizens aren't given unnecessary scrutiny. Transportation officials say the system will use databases that already operate in line with privacy laws and won't profile based on race, religion or ethnicity. "What it does is have very fast access to existing databases so we can quickly validate the person's identity," Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta told AP. An oversight panel is also being formed. The Transportation Security Administration assured that they will set up procedures to resolve complaints by people who say they don't belong on the watch lists. Transportation Department spokesman Chet Lunner told AP a Federal Register notice saying the background information will be stored for 50 years is inaccurate. He said such information will be held only for people deemed security risks. Jay Stanley, an ACLU spokesman, was skeptical. "When it says in print, 50 years, we'd like to see something else in print to counter that," he told AP. Capt. Steve Luckey, an airline pilot who helped develop the system, told AP CAPPS II will help discern a passenger's possible intentions before he gets on a plane. Unlike the current system, in which data stays with the airlines' reservation systems, the new setup will be managed by TSA. Only government officials with proper security clearance will be able to use it. CAPPS II will collect data and rate each passenger's risk potential according to a three-color system: green, yellow, red. When travelers check in, their names will be punched into the system and their boarding passes encrypted with the ranking. TSA screeners will check the passes at checkpoints. The vast majority of passengers will be rated green and won't be subjected to anything more than normal checks, while yellow will get extra screening and red won't fly, the Associated Press reports. Paul Hudson, executive director of the Aviation Consumer Action Project, which advocates airline safety and security, is skeptical the system will work. "The whole track record of profiling is a very poor to mixed one," Mr. Hudson told AP, noting incorrect profiles of the Unabomber and the Washington-area snipers. New Securities Fraud Cases ATMEL CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Atmel Corporation (Nasdaq:ATML) between January 20, 2000 and July 31, 2002 against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, George Perlegos, and Donald Colvin. The suit alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Atmel's financial results during the class period. In particular, the Complaint alleges that from April 1999 until sometime in 2001, Atmel supplied its key customer, Seagate, with computer chips that were used in the millions of disk drives that Seagate sold to the public. Unbeknownst to Seagate and the investing public, Atmel's chips were defective and caused Seagate's disk drives to fail, as outlined in a lawsuit filed by Seagate at the end of the class period. In its lawsuit, Seagate alleges that it sustained millions of dollars in damages as a result of Atmel's defective computer chips, and that Seagate's damages continue to grow as the extent of the problem becomes known. During the class period, defendants failed to disclose the widespread problem with its computer chips, and in fact, reported record profitability and revenues. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the price of Atmel securities was artificially inflated throughout the class period, causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer damages. For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone: (888) 873-3999 or (404) 873-3900 by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com BIO-TECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Bio-Technology General (Nasdaq: BTGC) from April 19, 1999 through August 2, 2002, inclusive. The suit alleges that Bio-Technology, a company that researches, develops, manufactures and markets bio-pharmaceutical products, and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements concerning Bio-Technology's earnings and revenue. Specifically, Bio- Technology falsely reported earnings during 1999, 2000, and 2001 through inappropriate revenue recognition practices, including recognizing revenue on shipments to distributors when significant uncertainties existed concerning the realization of the invoiced amounts. On August 2, 2002, defendants announced that reported financial results would be restated to eliminate revenue that had been improperly recorded. The Company has now restated its results for each of the years ended December 31, 1999, December 31, 2000 and December 31, 2001. For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 1-800-797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in N.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all purchasers of Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE:BBI) securities between April 24, 2002 and December 17, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning Blockbuster's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company was being negatively affected by a decline in rental game margins; (2) that the Company's fiscal 2003 projections did not include Video-on-Demand impact on the Company's revenue and income; (3) that the Company's core rental business was eroding due to declining DVD purchase prices; and (4) as a result, defendants did not and could not have genuinely believed their projections for the Company's financial results for fiscal 2002 and beyond were accurate when made. As a result of these false statements, Blockbuster's stock traded at artificially high levels during the class period allowing the individual defendants to sell more than $13 million of their own shares. On December 18, 2002, however, Blockbuster shocked the market when it revealed that its revenue would be a fraction of its previous forecast, resulting in a decline of the price of the Company's stock of more than 25% in one day. For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 by E-mail: AVozzolo@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.faruqilaw.com CORVIS CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Corvis Corporation (Nasdaq: CORV) publicly traded securities during the period between August 22, 2000 and January 29, 2001, inclusive. The suit charges that Robertson Stephens and its analyst Paul Johnson violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants repeatedly issued false and misleading "Buy" recommendations on Corvis, while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships to sell their Corvis shares. Moreover, the suit alleges that Mr. Johnson had invested in the limited partnerships which he privately advised to sell their Corvis shares. As a result of defendants' actions, the suit charges that Corvis shares traded at artificially elevated prices during the class period, and that plaintiff and the class were damaged. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com CORVIS CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Corvis Corporation (Nasdaq: CORV) from August 22, 2000 through January 29, 2001, inclusive. The suit alleges that Robertson Stephens Inc. and its former managing director and stock analyst Paul Johnson violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing false and misleading "Buy" recommendations regarding Corvis during the class period. Specifically, Paul Johnson issued "Buy" recommendations on Corvis to the public while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships in which he had invested to sell their Corvis shares. For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 1-800-797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net CORVIS CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Corvis Corporation (Nasdaq: CORV), between August 22, 2000 and January 29, 2001, inclusive. The suit charges Robertson Stephens, Inc. and its former managing director and senior research analyst, Paul Johnson, with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants repeatedly issued false and misleading "Buy" recommendations on Corvis -- a maker of optical networking equipment -- while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships to sell their Corvis shares. The complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price of Corvis common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or stabilized during the class period, inflicting damages on investors who purchased the stock at the time, relying on the integrity of the market price of the stock. On January 9, 2003, the SEC and the National Association of Securities Dealers charged Paul Johnson for issuing Buy ratings on Corvis to the public while privately advising a group of Robertson Stephens limited partnerships (in which Johnson had invested) to sell their Corvis shares. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com. INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Suit in MO ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of institutions, individuals and other investors who purchased the common stock and other securities of Interstate Bakeries Corp. (NYSE:IBC) between September 17, 2002 and December 17, 2002, in the United States District Court in Missouri. In addition to IBC, the suit names as defendants the senior officers and directors of the Company during the class period, namely: (1) Frank W. Coffey, (2) Mark Dirkes, (3) James R. Elsesser, (4) Robert P. Morgan, (5) Charles A. Sullivan, (6) Richard D. Willson and (7) Paul E. Yarick The suit charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding IBC's business and financial condition during the class period. Specifically, the suit alleges that, inter alia, defendants mislead investors and the market regarding IBC's sales of critical products, the Company's ability to increase prices of certain products without adversely impacting market share and profits and IBC's ability to maintain profits in the face of higher ingredient and commodity prices. For more details, contact James E. Miller or James C. Shah by Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877-891-9880 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com INTERSTATE BAKERIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MO ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Interstate Bakeries Corporation (NYSE:IBC) from September 17, 2002 and December 17, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges Interstate Bakeries Corporation 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 regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects. Specifically, defendants claimed that the Company was experiencing a rebound in the sales of its sweet cake products, which had slowed down in the previous quarter, and described how the Company would be able to increase prices for certain bread products and maintain its anticipated level of profitability in the face of increasing commodity prices. 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 the beginning of the class period, the Company was actually experiencing a negative variance with respect to cake sales as compared to the prior year and, therefore, had not seen any indication of any rebound in cake sales; and (2) the Company did not maintain sufficient centralized control over price increases to ensure that the Company could raise prices on bread products without damaging profitability; defendants knew that an increase in prices typically would result in a sacrifice in market share and the Company actually was exposed to significant risk with respect to its ability to attain profits based upon commodity prices. On December 17, 2002, the last day of the class period, IBC shocked the market by reporting extremely poor second quarter earnings, which it attributed primarily to weak sales of its sweet cakes. Following this announcement, shares of IBC common stock plunged in value by over 35%, from $23.16 per share on December 16, 2002, to $15.00 per share on December 17, 2002, on extremely heavy trading volume that was almost fifty (50) times more active than normal. Prior to the disclosure of the Company's true financial condition, certain of the individual defendants and other IBC insiders sold shares of their personally held common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $16 million. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com MCSI INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. OH ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division on behalf of purchasers of MCSI, Inc. (Nasdaq: MCSI) stock during the period between July 24, 2001 and February 26, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning MCSI's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that MCSI touted the success of its businesses -- particularly the high-margin systems integration business. These statements were false and misleading as they failed to disclose that MCSI's business was actually corroding and that its integration business was not operating on as a successful level as represented. As a result, the price of the Company's securities were artificially inflated throughout the class period, allowing insiders to sell massive amounts of stock following two follow-on public offerings. On February 26, 2002, however, the Company shocked the market by reporting a 29% decline in shares for the fourth quarter of 2001. In reaction to this announcement, shares of MCSI common stock plunged by 40%, falling from $17.35 per share close on February 25, 2002 to a close of $10.40 per share on February 26, 2002. For more details, contact David Scott or Neil Rothstein by Phone: 1-800-404-7770 or by E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com or nrothstein@scott-scott.com ROYAL AHOLD: Chitwood & Harley Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of securities of KONINKLIJKE AHOLD N.V. d/b/a ROYAL AHOLD, Inc. (NYSE:AHO) between May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003. The suit is brought against AHOLD, certain of its officers and directors, and its subsidiary, US Foodservice, Inc. During the class period, defendants issued many statements and filed reports with the SEC which depicted the Company's net income and financial performance. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted and/or misrepresented several undesirable facts, such as that, during the class period, AHOLD had significantly overstated its operating earnings for its US Foodservice division. The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls resulting in an inability to determine the true financial condition of AHOLD, which lead to the value of the Company's net income and financial results being materially overstated at all pertinent times. On February 24, 2003, before the market opened for trading, AHOLD announced that it discovered over $500 million in "overstatements of income related to promotional allowance programs", which will require the Company to restate its previously issued financial reports for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. On the day of this disclosure, shares of AHOLD declined over 60%, to close at $4.16 per share, on volume of more than 16 million shares traded, or nearly thirty times the average daily volume. The market capitalization loss on this one day alone was over $4 billion. For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone: (888) 873-3999 or (404) 873-3900 by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com ROYAL AHOLD: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Koninklijke Ahold, N.V. (Nasdaq:AHO) common stock between May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003, 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, thereby artificially inflating the price of Ahold securities. For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz, LLP by Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com. ROYAL AHOLD: Charles Piven Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the 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 May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003, inclusive, against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and its accountants, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. During the class period, defendants issued many statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which depicted the Company's net income and financial performance. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted and/or misrepresented several undesirable facts, such as that, during the class period, AHOLD had significantly overstated its operating earnings for its U.S. Foodservice division. The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls resulting in an inability to determine the true financial condition of AHOLD, which lead to the value of the Company's net income and financial results being materially overstated at all pertinent times. On February 24, 2003, before the market opened for trading, AHOLD announced that it discovered over $500 million in "overstatements of income related to promotional allowance programs," requiring the Company to restate its previously issued financial reports for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Following this report, shares of AHOLD declined over 60%, to close at $4.16 per share, on volume of more than 16 million shares traded, or nearly thirty times the average daily volume. For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com ROYAL AHOLD: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Koninklijke (translated as "Royal") Ahold, N.V. (NYSE:AHO) securities between March 6, 2001 through February 21, 2003, inclusive, The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning Ahold's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Ahold failed to disclose that the Company had materially overstated its income by improperly including far higher promotional allowances-provided by suppliers to promote their products-than the Company had actually received in payment. Moreover, the Company engaged in certain transactions which were possibly illegal and were improperly accounted for. As a result, the price of the Company's securities were artificially inflated throughout the class period. On February 24, 2003, however, Ahold shocked the market by announcing that it would restate its financial results for its fiscal year, 2001 and for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2002. Defendant revealed, among other things, that due to overstatements of income related to promotional programs, earnings have been overstated by at least $500 million. Following the release of this news, Ahold's stock price declined in excess of 60% to close at $4.16 per share, significantly below the class period high of $32.65. For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.faruqilaw.com SAWTEK INC.: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sawtek, Inc., now a subsidiary of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (Nasdaq: TQNT) between January 27, 2000, and May 24, 2001, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida against the Company and: (1) Kimon Anemogiannis, (2) Gary A. Monetti and (3) Raymond A. Link 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 January 27, 2000, and May 24, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. For more details, contact Kenneth J. Vianale or Julie Prag Vianale by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801, Boca Raton, Florida 33486 by Phone: (561) 391-4900 by E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com VERITAS SOFTWARE: Emerson Poynter Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Veritas Software Corporation (Nasdaq:VRTS) common stock during the period between January 24, 2001 and January 16, 2003, inclusive. The suit alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial results during the class period. In particular, it is alleged that the Company improperly accounted for transactions with AOL Time Warner whereby the Company's revenue and income was materially overstated during the class period. The transactions in question involve a $50 million software purchase by AOL Time Warner and a $20 million advertising purchase from AOL Time Warner. On January 17, 2003, the Company announced the restatement of its 2000, 2001, and 2002 financial results as a result of the improper accounting. The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements the price of VERITAS securities were artificially inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other members of the Class to suffer damages. The complaint names as defendants the Company and: (1) Gary L. Bloom, (2) Kenneth E. Lonchar, and (3) Paula A. Sallaberry For more details, contact Tanya Autry by Phone: (800) 663-9817 (Toll Free) or by E-mail: shareholder@emersonfirm.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 * * *