/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030324.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 24, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 58 Headlines AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial For FL Insurance Fraud Suit Not Yet Scheduled BROWN TOM: Named As Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit in WY State Court CALIFORNIA: Attorney General Files Fraud Suit V. Hollywood Fundraiser CALLAWAY GOLF: KS Consumers Sue Over New Product Introduction Policy CAPITOL ONE: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit CATHOLIC CHURCH: CA Attorney General To Review San Diego Abuse Lawsuits COMARCO INC.: Recalls 125,000 Detachable Plugs For Electrocution Hazard CUTTER & BUCK: WA Court Orders Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated CUTTER & BUCK: Officers, Directors Face Derivative Lawsuit in WA Court GREAT LAKES: IN Court Grants Final Approval To Bromine Suit Settlement HERTZ CORPORATION: AL Court Hears Oral Arguments For Dismissal of Suit HERTZ CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Certify Consumer Lawsuit HERTZ CORPORATION: Denies Allegations in Station Managers Lawsuit in NY INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 401(K) Plan Members Commence ERISA Suit in OR Court METHODE ELECTRONICS: Agrees To Settle Shareholder Lawsuit in DE Court NEXPRISE INC.: Court To Rule On Suit Dismissal Without Oral Arguments PERKINELMER INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Electric Rate Charges PORTLAND GENERAL: Court To Hear Appeal of Remand of Energy Traders Suit PGE: WA Consumers Commence Lawsuit For Consumer Protection Violations REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: Faces Suit Over Second Mortgage Loans in NJ Court S. ROTHSCHILD & CO.: Recalls 37,000 Hooded Jackets For Choking Hazard SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court to Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit SUPERGEN INC.: FDA Warns About Misleading Facts in Mitozytrex Release TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit VERSANT INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit WALT DISNEY: Voluntarily Recalls 40,000 Woody Dolls For Choking Hazard New Securities Fraud Cases ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY CAMINUS CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY CAMINUS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Stull Stull Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TN ********* AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial For FL Insurance Fraud Suit Not Yet Scheduled --------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for the damages portion of a class action filed against two of American Medical Security Group, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiaries has not been rescheduled. A mistrial was declared by the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida. The suit was filed in February 2000 against American Medical Security, Inc. (AMS) and United Wisconsin Life Insurance Company (UWLIC). The suit alleges that the Company failed to follow Florida law when it discontinued writing certain health insurance policies and offering new policies in 1998. Plaintiffs claim that the Company wrongfully terminated coverage, improperly notified insureds of conversion rights and charged improper premiums for new coverage. Plaintiffs also allege that UWLIC's renewal rating methodology violated Florida law. In a final judgment entered April 24, 2002, the court found, among other things, that the policy issued by the Company outside Florida was not exempt from any Florida rating laws and ordered that the question of damages be tried before a jury. On September 9, 2002, the court declared a mistrial in the damages portion of the lawsuit on the grounds that the trial could not be completed within the time constraints of the court. On September 27, 2002, the Circuit Court Judge recused himself from the case. A new judge has been assigned to the case but a trial date for the damages portion of the lawsuit has not been rescheduled. BROWN TOM: Named As Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit in WY State Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Brown Tom, Inc. is party to an action filed in Sweetwater County Court, Wyoming by three overriding royalty interest owners seeking certification as a class of all non-governmental entities which are paid royalties or overriding royalties by the Company in Wyoming. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act by improperly deducting gas transportation costs in calculating royalties and overriding royalties on Wyoming production and by failing to properly itemize all deductions taken on its payee reports. The issue in the case is whether transportation of natural gas off the lease to market is deductible transportation or non- deductible gathering within the meaning of the Act. In January 2003, the Wyoming Supreme Court agreed to answer two certified questions in a separate lawsuit which are: (1) what is meant by the term "gathering" as that term is employed in the Act in defining nondeductible "costs of production," and (2) when do the causes of action for recovery of the reporting penalty and for improper deductions under the Act accrue. Because of the preliminary nature of the proceedings, it is not possible to fully determine the ultimate loss exposure or probable outcome of this litigation. CALIFORNIA: Attorney General Files Fraud Suit V. Hollywood Fundraiser --------------------------------------------------------------------- California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against Hollywood fundraiser Aaron Tonken, alleging he has defrauded charities and their donors, diverted donations to bank accounts he controlled and refused to account for more than $1.5 million in contributions to six charitable events he agreed to produce. "This lawsuit details a sordid scheme to steal money from worthy charities, use it for improper purposes, and refuse to account for the donations," said Mr. Lockyer. "In bringing this action, our first priority is to shut down Tonken's operation to ensure he and other defendants cannot continue to defraud charitable causes and their generous donors. Allowing egregious misconduct like this to go unchecked can chill charitable donations and harm the organizations they support." The defrauded charitable organizations include the Kids Campaign, the Joan English Fund for Women's Cancer Research, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Betty Ford Center, City of Hope, Inner-City Games Foundation, Westside Waldorf School, the Isabelle and Leonard Goldenson Association, and the Robert H. Lorsch Foundation Trust. The ripped off charities include organizations supported by celebrities such as singer Rod Stewart, the pop music group *Nsync and the cast of the TV show Ally McBeal. The complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeks a permanent injunction barring Mr. Tonken and the other defendants from engaging in charitable fundraising, or disbursing donations from the events cited in the lawsuit, until they provide a full accounting of the money. The complaint also asks the court to award general damages of at least $1.7 million, unspecified punitive damages and civil penalties of at least $350,000. Defendants in the case include: (1) Mr. Tonken, (2) Aaron Tonken & Associates, his commercial fundraising firm, (3) Cynthia Gershman, trustee of the Cynthia Gershman Foundation, (4) Los Angeles-area lawyer Kevin Clarke and (5) Los Angeles resident Robert Freedman. Under statutory and common law, commercial fundraisers for charities owe a fiduciary duty both to donors and the charities for which they solicit money. Additionally, they must ensure contributions are used for the charitable purposes for which they are raised. State law also requires such fundraisers to register with, and provide annual financial reports to, the Attorney General's Office. The lawsuit alleges Mr. Tonken and his firm fraudulently solicited charitable donations, diverted donations to non-charitable purposes, improperly commingled funds, refused to account for the money and failed to comply with registration and financial reporting mandates. The complaint further alleges Ms. Gershman, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Freedman aided and abetted Mr. Tonken. Ms. Gershman also breached her fiduciary duty to the Gershman Foundation and engaged in self-dealing, the lawsuit states, by allowing Mr. Tonken to spend Foundation money to repay personal loans to Ms. Gershman, and to pay for Ms. Gershman's public relations expenses. Cases detailed in the complaint include: (i) Family Celebration 2001 - President Clinton and Hillary Clinton served as honorary chairpersons; TV producer David E. Kelley and actress Michelle Pfeiffer as chairpersons. Beneficiaries included charities designated by the Ally McBeal cast and *Nsync. Mr. Tonken produced the event, which was held April 1, 2001 and which raised at least $1.5 million. The complaint alleges Mr. Tonken diverted some of the donations to accounts he controlled. To date, an unknown amount of the diverted contributions has not been turned over to the charities; (ii) Celebrating Diana - This Tonken-produced event was supposed to benefit the Joan English Fund for Women's Cancer Research, the Robert H. Lorsch Foundation Trust and charities designated by TV producer Loreen Arbus. Tonken took in at least $550,000 in donations, loans and expense payments for the event and has failed to account for any of the money. The event never was held. The complaint alleges Mr. Tonken and Mr. Clarke diverted a substantial portion of the $550,000 to improper uses, including directing $200,000 to Mr. Freedman. Mr. Tonken falsely told the event's fiscal agent he needed the $200,000 to secure the appearance of former South Africa President Nelson Mandela; (iii) Hollywood Gala Salute to Milton Berle - This event, also produced by Tonken, was supposed to raise money for the Westside Waldorf School, Women of Washington and charities designated by actress Whoopi Goldberg. No money raised from the event, which took place July 22, 2001, has gone to the Westside Waldorf School or Women of Washington. The complaint alleges Mr. Tonken diverted $100,000 of the contributions to Clarke's law firm, the Ronin Law Group. (iv) Unified in Great Cause for an Evening to Remember - Produced by Mr. Tonken, this event was supposed to benefit the City of Hope, Inner-City Games Foundation and Knowledge Is Power. The event was held at Rod Stewart's home September 19, 2002. To date, no donations from the event have been made to the City of Hope or Inner-City Games. It is unclear how much money, if any, went to Knowledge Is Power; (v) The Kids Campaign Event - This Tonken-produced event was supposed to benefit the Kids Campaign, the Mark Wahlberg Youth Foundation and the Children's Craniofacial Association. Mr. Tonken solicited $100,000 in donations for the express purpose of underwriting the event. The complaint alleges Mr. Tonken subsequently convinced the Kids Campaign to give $60,000 of that money to Mr. Freedman, under the false pretense the money would help cover the event's expenses. The event has not taken place, and Mr. Tonken has refused to provide an accounting. CALLAWAY GOLF: KS Consumers Sue Over New Product Introduction Policy -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Callaway Golf Sales Company faces a class action pending in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, on behalf of Kansas consumers who purchased select Callaway Golf products covered by the New Product Introduction Policy. Callaway Golf Company is also named in the Kansas case. The plaintiff in the Kansas case seeks damages and restitution for the alleged class under Kansas law. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, management is unable to estimate the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability, amounts which may be covered by insurance, or the financial impact with respect to the suit. Management believes at this time that the final resolution of the suit will not have a material adverse effect upon the Company's consolidated annual results of operations or cash flows, or financial position. CAPITOL ONE: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Capitol One Financial Corporation asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to dismiss the second amended consolidated securities class action pending against them and several of the Corporation's executive officers. The first consolidated suit alleged that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint asserted a class period of January 16, 2001, through July 16, 2002, inclusive. The amended complaint alleged generally that, during the asserted class period, the Company misrepresented the adequacy of its capital levels and loan loss allowance relating to higher risk assets. In addition, the amended complaint alleged generally that the Company failed to disclose that it was experiencing serious infrastructure deficiencies and systemic computer problems as a result of its growth. On December 4, 2002, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint with leave to amend. Pursuant to that order, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on December 23, 2002, which asserted the same class period and alleged violations of the same statutes and rule. The second amended complaint also added a new individual defendant and asserted violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to this case. The Company moved to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint on January 8, 2003. At the present time, management is not in a position to determine whether the resolution of this case will have a material adverse effect on either the consolidated financial position of the Company or its results of operations in any future reporting period. CATHOLIC CHURCH: CA Attorney General To Review San Diego Abuse Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------------- California Attorney General Bill Lockyer will review, for possible prosecution, several San Diego County cases alleging sexual abuse by clerics in the Roman Catholic diocese. The Attorney General agreed to accept the cases at the request of San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. "Sexual assaults by priests are among the worst crimes because they are not only violent, they also involve a violation of the victim's trust," Mr. Lockyer said in a press release. "My office will do a thorough and fair review of the alleged sexual abuse incidents by a number of priests in San Diego County and do everything possible to provide justice." The San Diego District Attorney's Office referred three separate cases to the Attorney General for prosecutorial review. Before deciding whether to prosecute, the Attorney General's office will review the cases over the next several weeks and consult with prosecutors and investigators in the District Attorney's Office, as well as local law enforcement agencies that investigated the cases. In addition to the three cases referred by District Attorney Dumanis, numerous other Diocese-related sexual assault investigations are currently being conducted by local law enforcement agencies throughout San Diego County. The Attorney General's office also will be responsible for making prosecutorial decisions on any cases referred to his office by local investigating agencies. COMARCO INC.: Recalls 125,000 Detachable Plugs For Electrocution Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Comarco, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling to replace about 125,000 detachable plugs on power adapters. The plug can break open and expose live wires, posing an electrocution or electric shock hazard to consumers. The Company has received 12 reports of the plugs breaking open, though no injuries have been reported. The recalled AC plugs, which were sold with 70-watt AC power adapters, have the word "ChargeSource" printed on top of the plug. The black adapters have a model name of "Targus" and model number of PA-AC-70W-2, which can be found on a label on the back of the adapter. The name "Targus" also appears in white letters on the front of the adapter. The adapters were manufactured in the United States. Major retail stores nationwide sold the adapters between July 2002 and March 2003 for between $90 and $120. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 859-7928 between 7 am and 7 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit the company's Website: http://www.regcen.com/comarco CUTTER & BUCK: WA Court Orders Securities Fraud Lawsuits Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against the Company on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from June 23, 2000 to August 12, 2002. The suits also name as defendants: (1) Harvey N. Jones, and (2) Stephen S. Lowber The suits uniformly alleges liability under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on the grounds that the defendants caused the Company to falsely report its results for fiscal years 2000-2002 through improper revenue recognition, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter story. On November 12, 2002, the Tilson Growth Fund filed a motion asking the court: (i) to consolidate the three shareholder class action suits into a single proceeding before the Honorable Robert Lasnik, United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Washington, for pretrial and trial proceedings; (ii) to enter an Order requiring the defendants to preserve documents; (iii) to appoint Tilson Growth Fund as the lead plaintiff under Section 21D(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (iv) to approve Tilson Growth Fund's selection of plaintiff's lead and liaison counsel. On February 20, 2003, the court granted the motion to appoint the Tilson Growth Fund as lead plaintiff, ordered the cases to be consolidated, denied the Tilson Growth Fund's motion for the appointment of liason counsel and directed the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint within 60 days. The Company believes the ultimate resolution of these other routine matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations. CUTTER & BUCK: Officers, Directors Face Derivative Lawsuit in WA Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cutter & Buck, Inc.'s current and former officers and directors face a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, for King County. The complaint names as defendants certain of the Company's current and former directors and the Company's former CFO: (1) Frances M. Conley, (2) Michael S. Brownfield, (3) Larry C. Mounger, (4) James C. Towne, (5) Harvey N. Jones, (6) Martin J. Marks, (7) Stephen S. Lowber and (8) Cutter & Buck, Inc., The suit, filed purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleges that the individual defendants are liable to the Company for breach of their fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and unjust enrichment in connection with the events giving rise to the Company's restatement of its financial statements. It seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorney fees as well as equitable relief. The Company believes the ultimate resolution of these other routine matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations. ESSEF CORPORATION: Working To Settle All M/V Horizon Passenger Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Essef Corporation is close to settling all lawsuits relating to alleged exposure to Legionnaires bacteria by passengers aboard the cruise ship M/V Horizon. Twenty-eight separate lawsuits involving 29 primary plaintiffs, a class action, and claims for indemnity by Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc. (Celebrity) were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. The M/V Horizon is a ship operated by Celebrity. The lawsuits included a class action brought on behalf of all passengers aboard the ship during the relevant time period, individual "opt-out" passenger suits, and a suit by Celebrity. Celebrity alleges in its suit that it has sustained economic damages due to loss of use of the M/V Horizon while it was dry-docked. The claims against the Company and its involved subsidiaries are based upon the allegation that Essef designed, manufactured, and marketed two sand swimming pool filters that were installed as a part of the spa system on the Horizon, and allegations that the spa and filters contained bacteria that infected certain passengers on cruises from December 1993 through July 1994. A settlement was later reached in the class action. With regard to the individual "opt-out" passenger suits, the claims of one plaintiff were tried under a stipulation among all remaining parties providing that the liability findings would be applicable to all plaintiffs and defendants. The claims of this plaintiff were unusual because he alleged that he developed complications that profoundly impaired his mental functioning. No other plaintiff asserted similar claims. The trial resulted in a jury verdict finding liability on the part of the Essef defendants (70%) and Celebrity and its sister company, Fantasia (together 30%). Compensatory damages in the total amount of $2.7 million were awarded, each defendant being accountable for its proportionate share of liability. The Essef defendants' proportionate share is covered by insurance. Punitive damages were separately awarded against the Essef defendants in the total amount of $7 million, with 60% awarded to all remaining plaintiffs and 40% to Celebrity. The Essef defendant filed post-trial motions challenging the verdict which were denied in February 2002 and has subsequently filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit. All of the remaining individual cases have been resolved through either settlement or trial. The only remaining unresolved case is that brought by Celebrity for interruption of its business. That case has been placed on hold pending a resolution of post-trial motions. At the current time, the Company is optimistic that remaining suits will be resolved within available insurance coverage. With regard to Celebrity's claim against Essef, Westchester, one of Essef's insurance carriers, has issued a notice of rights letter. GREAT LAKES: IN Court Grants Final Approval To Bromine Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted final approval to the settlement proposed by Great Lakes Chemical Corporation to settle a consolidated class action against it, claiming treble damages arising out of an alleged conspiracy concerning the pricing of bromine and brominated products. The court later certified a class of direct purchasers of certain brominated products. On September 10, 2002, the Company agreed to settle the federal suit. The settlement agreement affects direct purchasers from the Company of brominated diphenyl oxides (decabromodiphenyl oxide, octabromodiphenyl oxide and pentabromodiphenyl oxide) and their blends, (tetrabromobisphenol-A and its derivatives and all methyl bromide products and their derivatives) in the United States between January 1, 1995 and April 30, 1998. The Company agreed to a $4.1 million cash payment and $2.6 million in vouchers for the future purchase of decabromodiphenyl oxide and/or tetrabromobisphenol-A, to be distributed to class members. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company remitted the cash portion to an escrow account on November 8, 2002, subject to final approval of the settlement agreement by the federal court. After notice to class members, the federal court gave final approval to the settlement in January 2003. The plaintiffs have submitted a plan of distribution for court approval. The plan included a form of voucher agreed to by the Company. Additionally, five similar cases are pending against the Company in the Superior Court for San Francisco County claim alleged violations of California competition laws. These cases were stayed pending resolution of the federal cases, and are not impacted by the federal settlement. The Company has denied that the cases were legitimately filed as class actions and denies all liability. HERTZ CORPORATION: AL Court Hears Oral Arguments For Dismissal of Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama heard oral arguments for the dismissal of a class action filed against The Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent A Car and other rental companies, on behalf of all persons in the United States who rented from the defendant car rental companies and, as part of that rental, purchased optional insurance products. The suit, originally filed in state court, was removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District Court of Alabama, Northern Division. The Company and the other defendants then filed a series of motions which sought dismissal of the various causes of action based upon the judge's initial ruling that a private right of action does not exist under Alabama law for the alleged unlicensed sale of insurance. A final order of dismissal was entered in January 2000, and the plaintiffs subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, Georgia. In January 2002, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and directed the district court to remand the case to the court from which it had been removed (Circuit Court of Coosa County, Alabama). Following the remand, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Oral arguments were heard on that motion on August 20, 2002, but the court has not yet rendered its decision. HERTZ CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Certify Consumer Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York to certify as a class action the suit pending against the Hertz Corporation on behalf of persons who rented private passenger vehicles from the Company in New York under rental agreements containing provisions which allegedly violate the express provisions of Section 396-z of the General Business Law of New York and New York's consumer fraud statute (i.e., Section 349 of the General Business Law). More specifically, it is alleged that rental agreements used by the Company in New York included provisions that impose liability upon renters beyond the statutorily permitted amounts and that the rental agreements failed to disclose to renters their rights and responsibilities concerning vehicle damage. The parties have agreed to bifurcate class discovery and damages discovery and have engaged in a limited amount of class discovery. The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment. Reply briefs are to be filed shortly. HERTZ CORPORATION: Denies Allegations in Station Managers Lawsuit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz Corporation faces a nationwide opt-in collective action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of all Senior Station Managers, Station Managers and "B" Station Managers employed by the Company throughout the United States, contesting their exempt classification and seeking payment of overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint also contains a subclass for all such managers employed in New York for alleged violations of state labor laws. The Company served its answer to the complaint and denied the substantive allegations. Discovery has now commenced. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the suit. INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its present and former directors and officers. The suit was filed by a purported class of Interpublic stock purchasers shortly after the Company's August 13, 2002 announcement regarding the restatement of its previously reported earnings for the periods January 1, 1997 through March 31, 2002. The purported classes consist of Company shareholders who purchased Company stock in the period from October 1997 to October 2002. Specifically, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its present and former directors and officers allegedly made misleading statements to its shareholders between October 1997 and October 2002, including the alleged failure to disclose the existence of additional charges that would need to be expensed and the lack of adequate internal financial controls, which allegedly resulted in an overstatement of the Company's financial results during those periods. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that such false and misleading statements constitute violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The consolidated amended complaint also alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's acquisition of True North Communications, Inc. No amount of damages is specified in the consolidated amended complaint. On February 6, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On February 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion. The motion is currently pending. LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 401(K) Plan Members Commence ERISA Suit in OR Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and certain of its directors and officers, face a putative class action filed in United States District Court for the District of Oregon, on behalf of persons who are participants and beneficiaries of the Louisiana-Pacific Corporation 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan. Plaintiffs generally alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of disclosure requirements and obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in relation to investments in the Company's common stock acquired or held through the Plan. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable and injunctive relief and a declaration that the defendants violated duties, obligations and responsibilities imposed upon them as fiduciaries and co-fiduciaries and the disclosure requirements under ERISA. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their suit and dismissed the directors but named the LP employees who served on the Pension Administration Committee. Further, the plaintiffs seek to represent all participants and beneficiaries of the Hourly 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan as well as the Salary 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan. The allegations made, and damages sought, are generally the same as in the original suit. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit. Based upon the information currently available, the Company believes that the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, cash flows or liquidity. METHODE ELECTRONICS: Agrees To Settle Shareholder Lawsuit in DE Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Methode Electronics, Inc. reached a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action filed against it and certain of the Company's directors on behalf of all holders of the Company's Class A common stock and derivatively on behalf of the Company in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The suit alleged that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties of disclosure, care and loyalty by approving an agreement between the Company and certain shareholders of the Company that control a majority of the Class B shares (the "McGinley Family Shareholders"), pursuant to which the Company agreed, among other things, to make a tender offer for the repurchase of all of its Class B common stock at a price of $20 per share. The agreement was approved by a special committee of Class A directors of the Methode board of directors and entered into on August 19, 2002. Plaintiff further alleged in the suit that the Company's board approved the tender offer, caused the Company to enter into certain employment agreements with the Company's chairman of the board and certain of its officers, and failed to disclose and misrepresented certain information in connection with the Company's 2002 Proxy Statement, as part of a scheme to entrench the incumbent board and management. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged in the suit that the directors of the Company, by approving the repurchase of the Class B common stock, diverted a corporate opportunity away from the Company and the Class A stockholders. Plaintiff sought, among other things, to enjoin the repurchase of the Class B common stock, as well as other equitable relief. On December 26, 2002, the Special Committee approved an amendment to the agreement, pursuant to which the Company agreed to call a special meeting of the Class A shareholders for the purpose of seeking the approval of the tender offer by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Class A shares present or represented by proxy at the meeting (excluding the shares held by the McGinley Family Shareholders). The Company filed a preliminary proxy statement for the special meeting on February 21, 2003, with the Securities & Exchange Commission. Thereafter, plaintiff's counsel stated their intention to file an amended complaint challenging the amended agreement and the disclosures made in the preliminary proxy statement. On March 17, 2003, the parties in the suit entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the suit on the terms set forth therein. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, defendants agreed, among other things, that: (1) they would only proceed with the Tender Offer if it receives approval by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Class A shares present or represented by proxy at a special meeting (excluding the shares held by the McGinley family); (2) to make certain revisions to the disclosures in the proxy statement to be delivered to stockholders in connection with the special meeting requested by Plaintiff; and (3) for the Company to declare a special dividend of $0.04 per Class A share to the Class A shareholders within 60 days following consummation of the Tender Offer. The memorandum of understanding also provides for the dismissal of the suit with prejudice and release of claims against defendants. The settlement as provided for in the memorandum of understanding is contingent upon, among other things, approval by the court. NEXPRISE INC.: Court To Rule On Suit Dismissal Without Oral Arguments --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California will issue a ruling on the dismissal motions filed by Nexprise, Inc. for a consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of its officers and directors without oral argument from both parties. Beginning in March 2001, several suits were filed on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased the Company's securities during time periods from December 13, 1999 through December 6, 2000. One of the lawsuits also names as a defendant the lead underwriter for the Company's offering of convertible notes. The lawsuits generally allege that the Company and certain individuals violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements during 2000, including in the Company's registration statement for its convertible notes offering. The suits were later consolidated. No discovery has taken place, and the court has not set a trial date. The Company believes that the claims are without merit. Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative suit was filed in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County against certain of the Company's present and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and insider trading. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against which no recovery is sought. After a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, the parties stipulated to a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the federal consolidated action. PERKINELMER INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PerkinElmer, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss a consolidated securities class action pending against it, Gregory L. Summe, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President, and Robert F. Friel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of himself and purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002, claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various statements made during the putative class period by the Company and its management were misleading with respect to the Company's prospects and future operating results. On February 24, 2003, defendants served a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiffs will serve an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on or before April 7, 2003. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuit. The Company is currently unable, however, to determine whether resolution of this matter will have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations, or reasonably estimate the amount of the loss, if any, that may result from resolution of this matter. PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Electric Rate Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company faces two class actions on behalf of two classes of electric service customers. One suit seeks to represent current PGE customers that were customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to October 1, 2001 and the other seeks to represent PGE customers that were customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to October 1, 2001, but who are no longer customers. The suits seek damages of $190 million for the current class and $70 million for the former class, from the inclusion of a return on investment of the Trojan Nuclear Plant in the rates the Company charges its customers. The Company intends to vigorously defend these cases. PORTLAND GENERAL: Court To Hear Appeal of Remand of Energy Traders Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the appeal on the remand of the consolidated master complaint filed against Portland General Electric Company and various individuals, utilities, generators, traders of electricity to California State Court. The suit alleges activities related to the purchase and sale of electricity in California in 2000 and 2001 violated California antitrust and unfair competition laws. The complaint seeks, among other things, restitution of all funds acquired by means that violate the law and payment of treble damages, interest, and penalties. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC, (2) Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC, (3) Duke Energy Moss Landing, LLC, (4) Duke Energy South Bay, LLC, (5) Duke Energy Oakland, LLC, (6) Reliant Energy Services, Inc., (7) Reliant Ormond Beach, Inc., (8) Reliant Energy Etiwanda, Inc., (9) Reliant Energy Ellwood, Inc., (10) Reliant Energy Mandalay, Inc., and (11) Reliant Energy Coolwater, Inc. In April 2002, the Duke Parties filed a cross complaint against the Company and other utilities, generators, traders and other entities not named in the Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases (Cross-defendants), alleging that they participated in the purchase and sale of electricity in California during 2000-2001 and seeking complete indemnification and/or partial equitable indemnity on a comparative fault basis for any liability that the court may impose on the Duke Parties under the Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases. Legal and equitable relief is sought, with no specific monetary amount claimed. The Reliant Parties have filed a similar cross complaint against PGE and the other Cross- defendants. The cases were removed to California federal court. The Duke Parties, Reliant Parties, and Cross-defendants have stipulated to place the cross complaints in abeyance until 30 days after a ruling on their motions to dismiss the Master Complaint by either the California state courts or the federal courts. On December 13, 2002, the United States District Court in California signed an order granting the plaintiff's motions to remand the cases to the California state court but the order was not immediately implemented. The Duke and Reliant Parties filed an appeal to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and applied to the District Court for a stay of the remand to the California state court. On January 24, 2003, the District Court denied the application for a stay and deferred certain motions for reconsideration. On February 20, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Order deciding it had jurisdiction to hear the appeals from the District Court's December 13, 2002 remand order. The Ninth Circuit also issued a stay of the remand order pending the outcome of the appeals and set a briefing schedule that will not be completed until mid-September 2003. As stated above, the cross complaint against PGE will be continued in abeyance until 30 days after a ruling is entered on the motions to dismiss the Master Complaint. PGE: WA Consumers Commence Lawsuit For Consumer Protection Violations --------------------------------------------------------------------- Portland General Electric Company faces a class action filed on behalf of consumers in the State of Washington. It was filed against participants in the Pacific Northwest electric power markets, including PGE, in Washington State Court. The suit alleges violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, fraud by concealment, and negligence. The relief sought includes treble damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief to prohibit the unlawful practices alleged. No monetary amount is specified. The plaintiff has agreed to extend the time for PGE to respond until after April 2, 2003. REPUBLIC BANCSHARES: Faces Suit Over Second Mortgage Loans in NJ Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Republic Bancshares, Inc. was named as one of 35 investor defendants in a class action filed on behalf of several Missouri residential real estate owners or borrowers, in the United States District Court in New Jersey-Trenton Vicinage. The plaintiffs obtained second mortgage, High LTV Loans from Century Financial, Inc., during the 1997-1998 timeframe. During this period, the Bank purchased 112 loans from Century totaling approximately $5.4 million. The plaintiffs allege that Century charged illegal loan origination fees and closing costs in violation of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loans Act. Under the purchase agreement with Century, all fees and costs Century collected, it retained. The plaintiffs are seeking both actual and punitive damages. The plaintiff in this case purchased certain mortgage-backed notes with a face amount of $7.5 million that were collateralized by High LTV Loans and issued by Keystone Owner Trust 1998-P2. The Bank is the servicer of record for the mortgages underlying the trust. The plaintiff later sold its investment for an amount higher than its purchase price. The plaintiff is alleging that a correction made to the amounts remitted by the mortgage holders diminished the value of its investment and is seeking $500,000 in damages. The lawsuit includes claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. Discovery is continuing in this matter. The Bank believes the lawsuit to be without merit, and has yet to reach any conclusion regarding its validity. S. ROTHSCHILD & CO.: Recalls 37,000 Hooded Jackets For Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------------- S. Rothschild & Co., Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling for repair about 37,000 girls' iridescent, hooded winter jackets. The rubber petal and metal snap can break off of the jacket, posing a choking hazard to young children. The Company has received two reports of the rubber petal coming off the jacket, including one child who reportedly put the petal in her mouth. The snaps have come off in subsequent testing. The recalled jackets are blue, lilac, pink, raspberry and magenta and include sizes XS/2T - L4T, 2/4 - M/5-6 - L/6X, 3/6 - 6/9 - 12M - 18M 24M, and S/2T - M/3T - L/4T - XL/5T. The style numbers, which can be found on a tag attached to the left sleeve, are 52913, 52813J, 12913K, B2913, 32813, 12816C, 3281J, 82819D, 82816D, and 32816C. The jacket labels include the words, "Little Impressions," "Rothschild," "Izzi's Kids," or "Clockwise." The recalled jackets were made in India. Major retail stores nationwide sold the jackets from May 2002 through December 2002 for about $25 to $45. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 301-3411 between 8 am and 3:30 pm ET Monday through Friday to arrange for the jacket to be repaired and returned free of charge. SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court to Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SilverStream Software, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, several of its former officers and directors, and the underwriters who handled its two public offerings. The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of certain former Company stockholders who purchased shares of Company common stock between August 16, 1999 and December 6, 2000, alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In particular, the suit alleges, among other things, that there was undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of the Company's public offering. The suit is closely related to several hundred other complaints that the same plaintiffs have brought against other issuers and underwriters. All issuers, including the Company, later filed a motion to dismiss the suit. The Company believes that it and its former officers and directors have meritorious defenses to the claims made in the complaints and intends to contest the claims against them vigorously. While there can be no assurance as to the ultimate disposition of the litigation, the Company does not believe that its resolution will have a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. SUPERGEN INC.: FDA Warns About Misleading Facts in Mitozytrex Release --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers and health care practitioners about misrepresentations in a SuperGen, Inc. press release dated November 15, 2002, in connection with a recently approved cancer drug, Mitozytrex (mitomycin for injection). The press release, entitled "FDA approves SuperGen's New Drug Application to Market Mitozytrex (MitoExtra)" and disseminated by SuperGen, Inc., exaggerates the efficacy of Mitozytrex and fails to include the significant risks associated with the use of the drug. Indeed, the press release does not even mention acute adverse reactions that can result from administration of Mitozytrex, which include fever, anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. The press release also fails to disclose that Mitozytrex is associated with more serious adverse events, such as myelosuppression and hemolytic uremic syndrome. A boxed warning included in the Mitozytrex package insert reads: "Bone marrow suppression, notably thrombocytopenia and leukopenia, which may contribute to overwhelming infections in an already compromised patient, is the most common and severe of the toxic effects of mitomycin." "Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS), a serious complication of chemotherapy, consisting primarily of microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and irreversible renal failure has been reported in mitomycin. The syndrome may occur at any time during systemic therapy with mitomycin as a single agent or in combination with other cytotoxic drugs, however, most cases occur at cumulative doses greater than or equal to 60 mg of mitomycin. Blood product transfusion may exacerbate the symptoms associated with this syndrome." The press release issued by SuperGen also makes unsupported claims that Mitozytrex is a "supergeneric" from the company's Extra technology platform and that the Extra technology is "designed to enhance generic drugs," that is, create "improved generics, or supergenerics." Mitozytrex is bioequivalent to the innovator mitomycin. It differs from the innovator formulation only in that Mitozytrex contains the excipient hydroxypropyl-beta-cyclodextrin (HPCD). No data submitted by the company provided evidence that Mitozytrex is superior to existing marketed formulations of mitomycin, and there is no evidence that the addition of HPCD yields any clinical advantage over existing formulations of mitomycin. Despite the absence of any evidence of such a benefit, SuperGen's release states that "SuperGen's Extra technology is designed to 'shield' the drug from the injection site, thus providing the patient protection from tissue ulceration." This statement is unsupported. The adverse events associated with Mitozytrex in the bioequivalence study conducted before approval were consistent with those mentioned in the product labeling for the innovator mitomycin. In addition, the repeat dose study provided no evidence that the safety profile of Mitozytrex is different from the innovator mitomycin. In fact, one patient in this study did experience tissue necrosis at the injection site. SuperGen, Inc., claims in its press release that the company's Extra technology could offer other important advantages over existing generics, such as "increased solubility, stability and shelf life." The instructions for reconstitution of Mitozytrex and the innovator mitomycin, however, are identical in terms of steps required and time necessary for dissolution. The only difference is that Mitozytrex calls for a slightly smaller amount of sterile water - an inconsequential difference. With regard to stability and shelf life, storage conditions for unreconstituted Mitozytrex and the innovator mitomycin are identical. Finally, even though the FDA rejected the name, "MitoExtra," as the proprietary name for SuperGen's brand of mitomycin for injection, the company presents the name "MitoExtra" as the drug's trade name in the press release. FDA rejected this name because it suggests clinical benefits that have not been substantiated by data. Notwithstanding this rejection, the name "MitoExtra" is used "to market Mitozytrex (MitoExtra)." SuperGen also uses the name "MitoExtra" interchangeably with "Mitozytrex" as the proprietary name. The FDA-approved name for the drug, as it appears in the approved product labeling, is "Mitozytrex (mitomycin for injection)." The FDA believes the characterizations of Mitozytrex (mitomycin for injection) warrant clarification of the record. The company's press release concerned an oncology drug, and the FDA has a practice of focusing enforcement resources on misleading information about products intended for life-threatening conditions. Moreover, the company's press release is particularly egregious in that it includes not only misleading statements about the benefits of the company's drug compared to other similar versions, but also statements that are demonstrably false. Under the circumstances, the FDA determined it was imperative to correct the record, and to do so in a manner that would reached as many of the same recipients of the original false and misleading messages. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, gives FDA authority to disseminate information to the public regarding drugs and other products within FDA's jurisdiction to address imminent health dangers or gross deception. To protect the public health, FDA is notifying the public that a particular product has not been found by the agency to have benefits that its manufacturer claims. TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed against Turnstone Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The Louisiana School Employees' Retirement System filed the first suit in March 2001, alleging claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The case also names as defendants the underwriters of the Company's September 21, 2000 secondary offering of common stock. The complaint alleged that the defendants issued false and misleading statements in the Company's prospectus issued in connection with its secondary offering. Four other suits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the same court. These latter complaints allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements during the class period of June 5, 2000 through January 2, 2001, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. All five cases were consolidated before Judge Saundra B. Armstrong in the Northern District of California in October 2001. By order dated December 3, 2001, Judge Armstrong designated Radiant Advisors, LLC as lead plaintiff and the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP as co-lead counsel for the consolidated actions. The lead plaintiff filed two separate consolidated amended complaints on March 19, 2002. On June 20, 2002, Judge Armstrong issued an order for plaintiff to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed with prejudice for plaintiff's failure to file one consolidated amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a certificate of counsel in response to the order on June 27, 2002. The Company filed a response on July 3, 2002. On August 30, 2002, Judge Armstrong struck the two separate amended complaints previously filed by the lead plaintiff and ordered that a single amended complaint be filed. The lead plaintiff filed a single amended complaint on September 13, 2002. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 8, 2002. On February 4, 2003, Judge Armstrong issued an order denying in part and granting in part, with leave to amend, the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company disputes the allegations in the suit, but cannot give any assurance that it will be successful in its defense of the suit. If it is unsuccessful, these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of operations, it revealed in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Even if it is successful in defending against these claims, the litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management's attention and resources, which could adversely affect its results of operations. TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of stock. The suit, filed on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased the Company's common stock during its initial public offering between January 31 and December 6, 2000, alleges generally that the prospectus under which the securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and commissions received by the underwriters and asserts claims against the defendants under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934. The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently pending in the Southern District of New York. Michael Szymanowski was later appointed lead plaintiff in the action. In July 2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. The Company, collectively with the other issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motions to dismiss with respect to substantially all of the plaintiffs' claims, including those against the Company. Each of the Company's current and former officers who were named in the New York securities class action has entered into a tolling agreement, effective as of July 20, 2002, with the plaintiff. Pursuant to the tolling agreement, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the Company's current and former officers from the lawsuit in exchange for a tolling of the statute of limitations with respect to any claims that may be asserted against them through the earlier of thirty days after the termination of the tolling agreement or September 30, 2003. On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the Company's current and former officers from the lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations in the suit, but cannot give any assurance that it will be successful in its defense of lawsuit. If the Company is unsuccessful, the suit could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of operations. VERSANT INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action pending against Versant, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and directors. The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, in connection with public statements about Versant and its financial performance. In December 2001, the court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to state a claim in their securities fraud action. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 2, 2002, the plaintiffs, now as appellants, filed an opening brief alleging the dismissal was in error and should be reversed. The Company filed its answering brief on July 12, 2002, and the appellant filed their reply brief on August 9, 2002. Oral arguments were heard on January 14, 2003 and on January 23, 2003 the appeals court affirmed the dismissal. WALT DISNEY: Voluntarily Recalls 40,000 Woody Dolls For Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 40,000 Woody dolls sold at the WALT DISNEY WORLD(r) Resort in Lake Buena Vista, Florida, DISNEY'S VERO BEACH Resort, Magic of Disney and Flight Fantastic shops located at the Orlando International Airport and Disney's Worldport shop located at Pointe Orlando. The Woody doll's clothing has buttons that can detach, posing a choking hazard for young children. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts has received one report of a child removing a button from the Woody doll. No injuries have been reported. The recalled doll is a cowboy named Woody, a character in the animated films Toy Story and Toy Story II. The Woody doll is a soft- bodied doll with soft plastic head, hands, boots and hat; wearing blue jeans a red/yellow-checked shirt, a black/white-spotted vest with a sheriff's badge; a red-patterned bandana and is 13 inches tall. A label sewn into the left side seam of the doll reads, "WALT DISNEY WORLD (r)" on one side and "(c)DISNEY, ALL NEW MATERIALS, POLYESTER FIBERS," several State license numbers, and "WALT DISNEY ATTRACTIONS, LAKE BUENA VISTA, FL, PRODUCT OF CHINA" on the other side. Only the Woody dolls described above are included in the recall. These recalled soft dolls were sold from January 2000 through January 2003 for about $12. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 228-3664 between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit their Website: http://www.waltdisneyworld.com. New Securities Fraud Cases ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq:AKLM), from January 11, 2002 through September 19, 2002, inclusive. Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous statements, which described the Company's increasing income and improving financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company was engaging in aggressive sales practices, known as channel stuffing, whereby it induced customers to take product that they neither wanted, needed or could sell in the short-term; (2) that the Company was currently experiencing severe and continued operating problems at the Company's internal studios regarding the development, content, cost, market testing, distribution and sales of the Company's products; (3) that the Company was currently experiencing decreased demand for the Company's products, including Turoc: Evolution and Aggressive In-Line, among others, resulting in the Company's inability to meet revenue and earnings guidance provided by defendants for fiscal 2002 and beyond; (4) that the Company's distribution and retails sales tracking information systems were inadequate, causing the Company to materially underestimate the Company's allowances for sales returns and price concessions; (5) that the Company's development of computer games with mature themes, including BMX XXX, among others, had materially impeded the Company's ability to access broad-based retail channels for the Company's products, thus impeding the Company's ability to meet revenue and earnings forecasts; and (6) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions, projections and forecasts concerning the Company and its operations were lacking in a reasonable basis at all times. The class period ends on September 19, 2002, when Acclaim shocked the market by issuing a press release announcing that the Company now expected to report an operating loss for the 4th quarter of 2002, primarily because of sharply lower revenues that fell below defendants' guidance by 25%, among other reasons. In addition, the Company lowered its guidance for the first and second quarters of its 2003 fiscal year, as well as for the 2003 fiscal year. Market reaction to defendants' belated disclosures was swift and severe. Upon hearing the news, the market for Acclaim common shares collapsed, losing over 29% of their value in a single day's trading to close at $1.56 per share on September 19, 2002 and losing over 73% of their value when compared to the class period high of $5.85 per share reached on April 19, 2002. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com CAMINUS CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Caminus Corporation (Nasdaq:CAMZ) securities between February 12, 2002 and July 8, 2002, inclusive, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by Phone: 215-886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net CAMINUS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, 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 the common stock of Caminus Corporation (Nasdaq:CAMZ), from February 12, 2002 through July 8, 2002, inclusive. The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between February 12, 2002 and July 8, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Caminus' securities. Specifically, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's future prospects and describing how demand for the Company's products continued to be strong. As alleged in the suit, these statements were each materially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented, among other things, the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company's business was coming under increasing pressure as many of Caminus' clients were deferring product purchases and/or determining not to proceed at all with planned purchases; (2) that the Company's strategic consulting business was not performing to the Company's expectations and would not be able to contribute the revenues and earnings that were anticipated; and (3) that the market for Caminus' products was quickly deteriorating as many energy companies were being heavily scrutinized by regulatory authorities, experiencing declining financial condition and grappling to fix the deficiencies in their respective businesses. Moreover, energy trading -- an area where Caminus provided software systems -- was in steep decline as many of the major players exited the field amid scandal. On July 8, 2002, the last day of the class period, Caminus shocked the market when it announced that revenues for the second quarter would be $7 million less than previously promised and that the Company now would experience a loss, as compared to the $0.03 per share profit previously represented. The Company attributed the earnings shortfall to "delays in timing of several sizeable software deals." The market's reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive, with shares of Caminus common stock falling from $5.95 per share to $2.99 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Stull Stull Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, against Georgeson Shareholder, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiaries, Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc. and Georgeson Shareholder Securities Corporation and AT&T Corporation, on behalf of all security holders who, during the period from December 2000 through the present, exchanged MediaOne Corp. shares for shares of AT&T pursuant to the June 2000 merger between AT&T and MediaOne, using Georgeson as the exchange agent. The complaint alleges that defendant AT&T authorized defendant Georgeson to engage in a "post-merger clean-up," pursuant to which Georgeson disseminated notices urging shareholders who had not already done so, to promptly exchange their MediaOne shares for AT&T shares. Plaintiff further alleges that Georgeson's notices misled shareholders into believing that they were required to exchange their shares through Georgeson, or else to forfeit all value of the shares, and further allege that Georgeson charged an exorbitant "processing fee" for this service, amounting to twelve percent (12%) of the value of each shareholder's stock. In fact, however, shareholders could have exchanged their shares directly through the transfer agent or other brokers at little or no cost. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2002 or by E- mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ssbny.com. KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased securities of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE:KG) between April 26, 1999 and March 11, 2003, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of King securities. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Jefferson Gregory, (2) Joseph Gregory and (3) James Lattanzi Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants misrepresented that the prices paid by governmental Medicaid agencies were the "best price" (the cheapest price offered to distributors and other purchasers) for a particular drug, resulting in government overpayment for the drugs. The complaint also alleges that King misstated and/or omitted facts regarding revenue subject to "pharmaceutical rebate" payments provided by the Company. On March 11, 2003, King disclosed that it was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and certain materials have been subpoenaed, including: the Company's "best price" lists, documents related to the pricing of the Company's pharmaceutical products to any governmental Medicaid agency, and documents regarding the accrual and payment of rebates on Altace, the Company's blood-pressure drug. On this news, the price of King Pharmaceutical's stock dropped 23% in a single day to close at $12.32. For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or by E-mail: NKaboolian@abbeygardy.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 2003. 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 * * *