/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030423.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 23, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 79 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees Sue Over "Uniform" Practices in CA, PA ANNUITY & LIFE: Named As Defendant in Securities Lawsuits in CT Court ARIZONA: Suit Criticizes Secrecy Of Decision To Close Gold Dust School BATTAT INC.: Recalls 300,000 Toy Drumstick Sets Due To Choking Hazard BROWN SHOE: Trial in Environmental Suit Over CO Facility Set Early 2003 BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Court Certifies Key Portions of Hearing Loss Suit CARDBOARD COMPANIES: Court Allows Antitrust Lawsuit To Proceed To Trial CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Named As Defendant in Travel Agents Lawsuit in NC DYNACRAFT INDUSTRIES: Recalls BMX Bicycles For Injury, Accident Hazard FIRST UNION: Court Hears Appeal on Injunction of Gotham Partners Merger FIRST UNION: Shareholders Commence Suit V. Gotham Partners Merger in NY FIRST UNION: OH Shareholders Commence Suit Over Gotham Partners Merger HIGH SPEED: DE Court Grants Approval To Stockholder Lawsuit Settlement MINNEAPOLIS: Community Group Launches Federal Lawsuit Over Police Abuse NORDSTROM INC.: Status Conference in Antitrust Suit Set July 2003 in CA NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in SD Court PEC SOLUTIONS: Shareholders File Suits For Securities Violations in VA SOUTH KOREA: Accounting Fraud Excluded As Basis For Class Action Suits THOMSON INC.: Recalls Home Entertainment Amplifiers Due To Shock Hazard TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Asks Court To Block $3B in IL Damages TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in MA Court WHITE WAVE: Recalls 250T Cases of Soy Milk For Chemical Contamination Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ACCREDO HEALTH: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. TN ACCREDO HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Zimmerman Reed Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN ASTROPOWER INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in DE Court CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in OR Court FLEMING COMPANIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in AL HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in AL I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Much Shelist Commences Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TN NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in S.D. NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in SD ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA SKECHERS USA: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA SUPERGEN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA SUPERGEN INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA VITALWORKS INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT VITALWORKS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees Sue Over "Uniform" Practices in CA, PA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Inc. faces three suits that have been filed where a purported class of employees and former employees of the Company allege that the Company required its associates to wear a "uniform" which in two of the three actions is allegedly in violation of California law. Two complaints were served on February 4, 2003 and February 10, 2003 in the Superior Courts of San Francisco County and Los Angeles County, respectively. The third action was filed the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 14, 2003, the "uniform," which when purchased, allegedly drove associates' wages below the federal minimum wage. In each claim, the plaintiff, on behalf of his or her class, seeks injunctive relief and economic, liquidated damages in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that the actions against it are without merit. However, the Company does not believe it is feasible to predict the outcome of these proceedings. The timing of the final resolution of these proceedings is also uncertain. ANNUITY & LIFE: Named As Defendant in Securities Lawsuits in CT Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Annuity & Life Re Holdings, Ltd. and certain of its present and former officers and directors face several securities class actions pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 12, 2001 and November 19, 2002. The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial performance. The Company has not yet responded to these lawsuits. ARIZONA: Suit Criticizes Secrecy Of Decision To Close Gold Dust School ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit filed against the third-largest school district in Arizona, on behalf of Gold Dust Elementary School parents, claims the Paradise Valley Unified School District governing board members decided which Paradise Valley school would close by means of closed- and back-door meeting or, more specifically, they made up their minds among themselves or in closed conferences with administrators, The Arizona Republic reports. Sue Skidmore, a defendant in the lawsuit and a board member, said she believes the board has done nothing wrong. "My perception is the board acted with integrity, and the board is not out to get any one community," Ms. Skidmore said. The Paradise Valley Unified School District is facing a $3.5 million budget deficit, and closing a school, the district said would save $850,000. Already, the school has handed 39 teachers pink slips. The district has debated which school to close since February, when eight schools were identified as candidates for closure. Last year, Gold Dust was targeted for closing, but pleas from parents saved the school, and a new state law outlining the process for school closures was passed in the Legislature. Lead plaintiff Suzanne Dallimore said that when the list of eight schools came out, it was clear that minds already had settled on Gold Dust. She and parents filed public records requests for enrollment figures and other date on which the board had based its decision. However, the district has not been forthcoming, said Ms. Dallimore. "We are not suing (the board) to make it keep Gold Dust open . we are suing the governing board for making a decision [based] on bad information," she continued. BATTAT INC.: Recalls 300,000 Toy Drumstick Sets Due To Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------------- Battat Incorporated is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 300,000 sets of toy drumsticks sold with the Parents Bee Bop Band drum sets. The end piece of the drumstick handle can break off, posing a choking hazard to young children. Additionally, the screw at the end of the drumstick can loosen and detach, posing a choking hazard. The Company has received about 240 reports of drumsticks breaking and children mouthing the small pieces, including one report of a child who began to choke. The centipede-shaped drumsticks were sold with the Parents Bee Bop Band drum set. They're about 10-inches long and were sold in either lime green or blue with black stripes. Model numbers involved in this recall are PM9137T2 and PM91372. The model numbers can be found above the UPC code on the packaging. Target, Sam's Club and smaller retailers sold the Parents Bee Bop Band drum sets nationwide from November 2001 through March 2003 for about $25. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 617-9137 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday. BROWN SHOE: Trial in Environmental Suit Over CO Facility Set Early 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the class action filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc. is set for early 2003 in the Colorado State Court (District for the City and County of Denver). The suit relates to the Company's Colorado facility and alleges claims for trespass, nuisance, strict liability, negligence and exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents that are contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas adjacent to and near the site. In July 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and scheduled a trial for early 2003. The plaintiffs are seeking damages of approximately $80 million for diminution in property values and remediation damages to their property, and unspecified damages, such as for loss of use and enjoyment and discomfort. The Company is vigorously contesting this lawsuit, believes it has meritorious defenses and the specified claims are without merit. The Company is not able to assess the ultimate outcome of these matters, but it does not believe the outcome of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, based upon the Company's current assessment of its legal position and anticipated recoveries from, and/or allocations of damages (if any) to, third parties. It is possible, however, future results of operations for any particular quarter or annual period could be materially affected by changes in facts or assumptions related to this matter. BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Court Certifies Key Portions of Hearing Loss Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A US District Court judge certified key portions of a class action against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNI) claiming the company conspired with Oregon attorneys representing thousands of railroad employees to fix settlement amounts for workers with hearing- loss claims. The action follows on the heels of the judge's nearly complete dismissal of Burlington Northern's motion to have the case dismissed, which was handed down Tuesday, April 15. The suit, filed in US District Court on March 26, 2001, claims the Company entered into a secret deal that facilitated easy settlements for awards drastically smaller than those of similar claims in actual court cases. In exchange, the Company received the lawyers' cooperation and an agreement not to take the claims of present and future clients to court. The court has already ruled against a motion brought by the law firm alleged to have conspired with Burlington Northern. Oregon-based law firm Bricker Zakovics Querin Thompson & Ritchey PC (BZQ) asked the court for summary judgment and, on March 10, 2003, the court rejected nearly every aspect of their motion. "We are encouraged by the court's rulings," said Steve Berman, the attorney from Seattle-based law firm Hagens Berman representing the workers. "We look forward to proving to the court that these two organizations conspired to defraud thousands of workers." Judge Marsha Pechman's April 15, 2003 order dismissing Burlington Northern's arguments found sufficient evidence of the alleged conspiracy for the suit to move to trial. The class certification order, signed on April 16, removed the final obstacle for more than 2800 railway workers who used BZQ to handle hearing-loss claims to seek compensatory damages in court. The judge certified a class action against BZQ for those who reside in Washington state, and also certified a broad class of BN employees from Washington, Oregon and Montana who entered into settlement agreements with BN to rescind those agreements. Plaintiffs in Montana and Oregon are still permitted to bring individual suits against BZQ. The majority of class members -- approximately 2000 -- live in Washington state. The suit, filed on behalf of workers by Steve Berman and attorney Sim Osborn, also of Seattle, claims Burlington Northern and BZQ conspired to decide hearing-loss settlement amounts by a secret, predetermined formula, saving Burlington Northern hundreds of millions of dollars in claims while illegally curbing employees' rights. BZQ failed to inform workers of the settlement formula and that the amounts offered by Burlington Northern were far below similar claims decided in court, and neglected to inform them that they had agreed never to prosecute their claims in court, according to the suit. The suit seeks to release an estimated 2800 workers from settlement agreements reached with BN, giving the workers the opportunity to refile their cases. The court has already ruled that if the settlements are rescinded workers will not have to repay amounts already received in settlement. The suit also seeks to have BZQ forfeit the fees they earned in these allegedly fraudulent settlements, estimated to exceed $10 million. According to the suit, the hearing-loss formula was based on a scale ranging from "profound hearing loss" to "minimal loss." This formula was used to determine the amount of money that an employee would receive. The suit states that these amounts were up to ten times less than awards given to similar hearing-loss claims that went to trial. All claims were capped at $65,000, and not a single claim of the 2800 cases settled for more than that amount. The complaint alleges that when one employee could not get BZQ to commit to try his case, he hired a different lawyer and won $150,000 in a jury trial, an amount five times what he would have received under the formula. To conceal the conspiracy, BZQ and Burlington Northern refused to release clients' files, even when those clients were not bound by confidentiality agreements, the suit states. BZQ specializes in representing injured railroad workers and is listed by several railroad workers' unions as "designated council," meaning that the union approves the firm as counsel for injured railroad workers who are union members. According to the suit, Burlington Northern knew as early as 1966 that hearing loss from excessive noise was an occupational hazard for railway workers, but failed to acknowledge the issue. The suit charges that Burlington Northern did not address the hearing-loss issue for fear of prompting employee claims. Later, when Burlington Northern became concerned that it faced hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure because of hearing- loss claims, it coordinated the scheme as a way to reduce liability, the lawsuit claims. In the claims against BZQ, the court certified the class action for those plaintiffs who live in Washington state. The court has not certified the case as a class action against BZQ in Oregon and Montana. For more details, contact Steve Berman of Hagens Berman by Phone: 1-206-623-7292, Sim Osborn of Osborn & Smith by Phone: 1-206-441-4110 or contact Mark Firmani of Media by Phone: 1-206-443-9357 or by E-mail: http://www.hagens-berman.com CARDBOARD COMPANIES: Court Allows Antitrust Lawsuit To Proceed To Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Supreme Court allowed an antitrust class action filed against several cardboard companies to proceed to trial, by rejecting a petition by the defendants to review the certification for the suit, the Associated Press reports. The suit names as defendants: (1) Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, (2) Temple Inland Inc.'s Gaylord Container Corporation unit, (3) Georgia Pacific Corporation, (4) International Paper Co., (5) Packaging Corporation of America and (6) other companies Several suits were commenced in 1998, alleging that the large paper companies conspired to cut the output of linerboard, used as a backing on cardboard, to artificially drive up the prices for cardboard sheeting and boxes. A number of smaller companies that purchase both cardboard boxes and cardboard sheeting, including Garrett Paper Inc. and General Refractories Co., filed the suits, which were later consolidated in the United States District Court in Pennsylvania. The court granted certification and the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the certification. Former independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who is most famous for investigating former President Bill Clinton for perjury, represented the paper companies' appeal to the Supreme Court to block the antitrust suit, arguing the purchasing companies don't meet the requirements for a class action, AP reports. Mr. Starr argued that the purchasers couldn't prove they were all wronged in the same way. A statute of limitations challenge was also raised. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Named As Defendant in Travel Agents Lawsuit in NC ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Airlines, Inc. was named as one of the defendants in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of US travel agents, challenging the reduction and ultimate elimination of travel agent base commissions by certain air carriers, including the Company and other domestic and international air carriers. The amended complaint alleges an unlawful agreement among the airline defendants to reduce, cap or eliminate commissions in violation of federal antitrust laws during the years 1997 to 2002. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages, injunctive relief and their attorneys' fees. The class was certified on September 18, 2002. Discovery has been completed and the trial of this lawsuit is currently scheduled to begin on September 2, 2003. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. A final adverse court decision awarding substantial money damages, however, would have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. DYNACRAFT INDUSTRIES: Recalls BMX Bicycles For Injury, Accident Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dynacraft Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 52,900 BMX bicycles. The stems on these bicycles can loosen during use, causing riders to lose control and fall. The Company has received 35 reports of stems loosening on these bicycles, resulting in one report of an injury (a broken finger). The recall includes two models of 20-inch BMX bicycles. The Next Voltage-model bicycles are metallic green, have model number 8535-99 and were manufactured between March 2002 and June 2002. The Vertical Street Blade-model bicycles are dark blue and chrome colored, have model number 8527-99 and were manufactured between March 2002 and April 2002. The model name is written on the bicycle frame, and a label on the frame near the crank housing shows the model number and manufacture date. Wal-Mart stores sold the Next Voltage-model bicycles nationwide, including Puerto Rico, from May 2002 through November 2002 for about $70. Pamida stores sold the Vertical Street Blade-model bicycles nationwide from April 2002 through April 2003 for about $80. For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 288-1560 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.dynacraftbike.com FIRST UNION: Court Hears Appeal on Injunction of Gotham Partners Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court heard oral arguments on First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments' appeal of a lower court's injunction against their planned merger with Gotham Golf Partners LP. In April 2002, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of New York in New York County on behalf of a purported holder of its convertible preferred shares. Among the allegations made by the plaintiff is that the proposed transaction with Gotham Golf was approved by First Union's Board of Trustees in violation of duties owed to the holders of First Union's convertible preferred shares. The suit seeks, among other things, unspecified damages, an injunction of the proposed transaction and the court's certification of the lawsuit as a class action. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were the Company, its five then trustees and Gotham Partners. The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. An oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held in July 2002. Discovery on the case was stayed pending the ruling of the court on the motion to dismiss. On November 1, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that a special shareholders meeting was to be held November 25, 2002, for the purpose of shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff filed a motion to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued to enjoin the November 25, 2002 shareholder vote to consider the Merger Agreement. A hearing on the motion was held on November 20, 2002. On November 21, the New York Supreme Court of New York County issued an order granting motions for preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, denying defendant's motion to dismiss, and scheduling a hearing for November 26 to determine whether to grant further relief to plaintiff with respect to the transactions contemplated under the Merger Agreement. The special meeting of shareholders was convened as scheduled on November 25, with the vote on the proposed merger transaction tabled and the meeting adjourned until November 27, at which time the vote was held and First Union's common shareholders approved the proposed transaction by the requisite majority vote. The New York Supreme Court of New York County held a three-day hearing on November 26, 27 and December 3, 2002. On December 6, 2002, the court issued an order reaffirming its preliminary injunction barring the proposed merger of First Union with and into Gotham Golf. The court's order also extended indefinitely the preliminary injunction previously granted with respect to the proposed merger transaction and directed the parties to the lawsuit to attend a preliminary conference for the purpose of scheduling discovery. The Company filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. In addition, the Company filed an auxiliary motion for expedited appeal regarding this matter with the Appellate Division, which motion was denied. The Company, Gotham Partners and the other defendants in the litigation filed joint appellate briefs in support of the reversal of the injunction. Plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of the injunction. Oral argument with respect to the appeal was held before a judicial panel of the Appellate Division - First Department of the New York Supreme Court on March 11, 2003. There is no specific timetable for the appellate court to render its decision. It is not possible to predict the outcome of the appellate process with respect to lifting the injunction. In the event that the Appellate Division rules that the injunction should not be lifted, the case will proceed to trial on the merits. In the event that the injunction imposed by the trial court were lifted and dissolved, it is the intention of First Union and, to the best of its knowledge, Gotham Partners and the other Gotham Partners-affiliated parties to the proposed merger transaction, to take the steps necessary to consummate the proposed transaction. FIRST UNION: Shareholders Commence Suit V. Gotham Partners Merger in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments was served with a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on behalf of a purported holder of its common shares, on behalf of himself and the common shareholders as a class. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the lawsuit is maintainable as a class action and a certification that the plaintiff, Robert Fink, is the representative of the class. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the Company, Gotham Partners, the companies affiliated with Gotham Partners and First Union that are parties to the Merger Agreement, William Ackman and the four current Trustees of First Union. Among the allegations asserted are breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting thereof in connection with the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between Gotham Partners and the Company. The relief requested by the plaintiff includes an injunction preventing the defendants from proceeding with consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger if it occurs, an accounting for any profits realized by the defendants as a result of the actions complained of, an order permitting the creation of a shareholders' committee composed of Company common shareholders and their representatives to manage the affairs of First Union, compensatory damages and the costs and disbursements of plaintiff's counsel. On February 14, 2003, the parties to this lawsuit stipulated that the defendants need not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint for an indefinite period of time. The stipulation is revocable by the plaintiff at any time. The Company believes that the purpose of the stipulation was to delay court proceedings in this lawsuit until the outcome of the appeal of the injunction entered in a prior lawsuit is decided by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court. The Company regards the lawsuit as without merit and plans to vigorously defend against the allegations. The Company will oppose any attempt by the plaintiff to interfere with the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, which was approved by more than 64% of the outstanding First Union common shares of First Union and by approximately 98% of the common shares voted at a special meeting of shareholders held on November 27, 2002. FIRST UNION: OH Shareholders Commence Suit Over Gotham Partners Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------------- First Union Real Estate and Mortgage Investments and certain of its trustees face a class action originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on behalf of the Company's common shareholders. The suit also names as defendant, Gotham Partners LP. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the lawsuit is maintainable as a class action and certification that the plaintiff, K-A & Company, Ltd., is the representative of the class. Among the allegations asserted are breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting thereof in connection with the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the Company and Gotham Partners. This lawsuit was removed by notice filed by defendants to the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The relief requested by the plaintiff includes an injunction preventing the defendants from proceeding with consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger if it occurs, an accounting for any profits realized by the defendants as a result of the actions complained of, an order permitting the creation of a shareholders' committee composed of the Company's common shareholders and their representatives to manage the affairs of the Company, compensatory damages and the costs and disbursements of plaintiff's counsel. The Company regards the lawsuit as without merit. HIGH SPEED: DE Court Grants Approval To Stockholder Lawsuit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement of the class action filed against High Speed Access Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: HSAC) at a hearing on April 16, 2003. No objections to the settlement were filed, and any appeals must be filed by May 16, 2003. The suit names as defendants the Company, its then directors, certain former directors, Charter Communications, Inc. and Paul Allen. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants and Charter. The suit specifically alleges that, among other things, the cash purchase price initially proposed by Charter, $73.0 million, was grossly inadequate and that "(t)he purpose of the proposed acquisition is to enable Charter and Allen to acquire (the Company's) valuable assets for their own benefit at the expense of (the Company's) public stockholders." The suit also alleges that the $81.1 million purchase price under the Asset Purchase Agreement was "grossly inadequate," and that Charter and Mr. Allen acted in a manner calculated to benefit themselves at the expense of the Company's public shareholders, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states. As previously announced, the Company intends to make an initial cash distribution of $1.40 per share to its stockholders in late May 2003, but will not make any liquidation distributions until the court's approval of the settlement (including any appeals) is final in all respects. The Company will announce the record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to the initial May 2003 liquidating distribution at a later date. MINNEAPOLIS: Community Group Launches Federal Lawsuit Over Police Abuse ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A Minneapolis community group, known as Communities United Against Police Brutality, filed a class action over alleged abuses by police officers. Coinciding with the filing of the federal lawsuit is the formal withdrawal of a Hennipen County District Court lawsuit, filed earlier this year, which had sought the start of mediation with the city and police officials, the St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) reports. The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of Daryl Robinson, an African- American man, who claims he was assaulted by a Minneapolis police officer on September 11, 2001. The lawsuit claims the assault was racially motivated and unprovoked by the plaintiff. According to the lawsuit, city officials, including the police department's internal affairs division, took no action on Mr. Robinson's complaints. The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of anyone who has an allegation of illegal treatment by the Minneapolis police. The suit also asks the court to order appropriate training, supervision and monitoring programs relating to police conduct -- all measures that the community group had wanted to gain through mediation. "We are moving into an arena that the city cannot control," said Michelle Gross, a member of the community negotiating team and a leader of Communities United. In November, the Minneapolis City Council voted to instruct police officials to mediate with the community group. However, talks were halted by disagreements over who would represent the group in discussions. At a news conference, Ms. Gross said she became convinced that the city and police officials would never consent to mediation unless they could control the makeup of the opposing side. NORDSTROM INC.: Status Conference in Antitrust Suit Set July 2003 in CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Status conference for a consolidated consumer antitrust class action filed against Nordstrom, Inc. and other department store and specialty retailers has been set for July 2003 in the California Superior Court in Marin County. The suit alleges that the retail price of the "prestige" cosmetics sold in department and specialty stores was collusively controlled by the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act. Plaintiffs seek treble damages and restitution in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during the period four years prior to the filing of the amended complaint. Defendants, including the Company, have answered the amended complaint denying the allegations. The defendants have produced documents and responded to plaintiffs' other discovery requests, including providing witnesses for depositions. Plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification. Pursuant to an order of the court, plaintiffs and defendants have participated in mediation sessions. NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in SD Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Northwestern Corporation and certain of its present and former officers and directors face a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of South Dakota, Southern Division on behalf of its shareholders. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys fees and costs as well as accountants and experts fees based on allegations that the defendants misrepresented the Company's business operations and financial performance and overstated its revenue and earnings by, among other things: (1) maintaining insufficient reserves for accounts receivables at Expanets, (2) failing to disclose billing problems and lapses and data conversion problems, and (3) failing to make full disclosures of problems (including the billing and data conversion issues) arising from the implementation of Expanets' EXPERT system The lawsuit was recently filed and has not yet been served. The Company cannot currently predict the impact or resolution of this litigation, which could be material, and the initiation of this lawsuit may harm its business and financial condition. PEC SOLUTIONS: Shareholders File Suits For Securities Violations in VA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PEC Solutions, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from October 22,2003 and March 14,2003. The suits uniformly charge the Company and certain of its officers with making or being aware of false and misleading statements which had the effect of inflating the market price of our stock, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. SOUTH KOREA: Accounting Fraud Excluded As Basis For Class Action Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A ranking South Korean official said lawmakers from both the opposition and ruling parties are in the process of putting fraudulent accounting practices as grounds for filing a class action on hold for one or two years, Asia Pulse reports. The proposed class action bill is being deliberated in Parliament, but, in its final stage, will probably exclude "bad bookkeeping" as a cause for starting a class action because many Korean companies need time to get their bookkeeping in order. "The reliability and accuracy of accounting in the past was probably not up to par, and if a law is passed for such violations right now, there will be considerable confusion in the corporate and financial sectors," said the ranking official. The official added this did not mean the government was turning a blind eye to this cause of action indefinitely, but was giving businesses a chance to make adjustments and correct past practices. The opposition Grand National Party (GNP), which possesses a clear majority in the 273-seat National Assembly, said last week it will approve the bill if strict preconditions are met beforehand. These include: (1) Giving financial regulators a say in deciding whether or not class actions can be conducted; (2) Making it mandatory for those instigating a lawsuit to place a deposit with authorities which will be forfeited if they are proven wrong in court; (3) Guidelines should be in place on the amount of damages that can be filed for against companies. THOMSON INC.: Recalls Home Entertainment Amplifiers Due To Shock Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomson, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 50,000 home entertainment amplifiers. The amplifier can overheat due to a lack of ventilation, which can cause melting of the plastic front cover and pose a shock hazard to consumers. The Company has received 12 reports of the amplifiers overheating, some of which resulted in melting of the plastic front cover or faceplate. No injuries have been reported. The recalled RCA(r) 650-Watt Home Entertainment amplifiers include model numbers RT2600, RT2600DVD and RT2600DVD5 and serial numbers beginning with 220 through 230. The model and serial numbers can be found on a label on the back of the unit in the lower left corner. The recalled units may also have an "A" as the last character in the model number. The amplifier units are silver and are about 17 inches wide, 16 inches deep, and 5 inches high. The amplifiers were manufactured in China. Radio Shack, Best Buy, and other retailers sold the amplifiers from May 2002 through March 2003 for between $300 and $380. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 613-0897 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rca.com/recall. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Philip Morris Asks Court To Block $3B in IL Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA asked Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois to permanently block US$3 billion in punitive damages assigned to the state of Illinois, in the $10.1 billion light cigarette suit award, saying the state relinquished further claims against it when it joined 45 other states in a settlement with tobacco firms in 1998, Reuters states. The petition was the latest in Philip Morris' efforts to reduce the landmark damage award, which was handed by Madison County judge Nicholas Byron in a class action charging the tobacco giant with misleading smokers that "light" cigarettes are less harmful than regular brands. The verdict sparked fears that the Company would have to resort to bankruptcy and default on its payments for a 1998 settlement with several states. Last week, Judge Byron ordered Philip Morris to pay only half of the appeal bond amidst these concerns, and amidst a petition filed by 33 states signed a friend-of-the-court brief asking Judge Byron to reduce the bond, as the non-payment would affect their respective state budgets. Several states had threatened to sue the company if it missed this week's payment, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states. Cook County Circuit Court Judge James Henry initially issued a 10-day temporary restraining order that blocked Illinois from obtaining the punitive damages award, saying the state had released any claims against tobacco companies in the 1998 settlement agreement, Reuters reports. Judge Henry ended the temporary restraining order on Friday, which expired and had become moot after Madison County Judge Nicholas Byron on Monday sliced the $12 billion appeal bond in half. TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in MA Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. (Nasdaq: TKTX) faces a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Middlesex County in Cambridge, Massachusetts, along with its Board of Directors. Many of the allegations underlying the claims made in this lawsuit appear to be somewhat similar to the allegations asserted in a previously described purported class action lawsuit against the company. The complaint alleges that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the company and injunctive relief. The Board of Directors intends to contest the suit vigorously, and the Company believes that the directors have highly meritorious defenses to the allegations set forth in the complaint. WHITE WAVE: Recalls 250T Cases of Soy Milk For Chemical Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------------- White Wave, Inc. is voluntarily recalling 250,000 cases of Vanilla Silk brand soy milk for contamination with a caustic, sodium hydroxide-based material used to clean and sanitize manufacturing equipment, the Associated Press reports. The half-gallon containers were packaged in several plants and sold throughout the United States. The codes "Jun 17 03" or "Jun 18 03" and "H CD-70" or "J CD-70" are stamped at the top of each recalled container. The first set of numbers is the expiration date, while the second set is a company code. Two people were treated for drinking the soy milk but neither case was serious, company spokesman David Marguiles said Thursday, according to an AP report. The chemical affects the taste and smell of the soy milk so much customers are not likely to drink it, he said. People who do drink it will probably experience a burning sensation or nausea. The Company has ordered the soy milk removed from store shelves and are paying consumers who bought the product a full refund. It also recommended that those who experience nausea or other symptoms to contact their health care providers. No other Vanilla Silk, Silk or White Wave products are involved in the recall. For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-488-9283 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whitewave.com. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- April 28-29, 2003 EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 28-29, 2003 BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES American Conference Institute Hotel Nikko, San Francisco Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com May 1, 2003 TOXIC TORT IN CALIFORNIA Bridgeport Continuing Education Los Angeles Contact: 818-505-1490 May 1-2, 2003 ASBESTOS LITIGATION 2003 Andrews Publication New Orleans Grande Hotel, New Orleans Contact: seminar@andrewspub.com May 3, 2003 2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION Continuing Education of the Bar Coast Anaheim Hotel, Anaheim Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com May 5-6, 2003 THE CURRENT STATE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IN PA & NJ Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 7-8, 2003 MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES Bridgeport Continuing Education San Francisco Contact: 818-505-1490 May 10, 2003 2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION Continuing Education of the Bar Wilshire Grand Hotel & Centre, Los Angeles, CA Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com May 14-15, 2003 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL UPDATE Bridgeport Continuing Education San Jose Contact: 818-505-1490 May 15-16, 2003 D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute TriBeCa Grand Hotel, New York Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com May 17, 2003 2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION Continuing Education of the Bar Red Lion Hotel, Sacramento, CA Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com May 20, 2003 FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 31, 2003 2003 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION Continuing Education of the Bar Crowne Plaza Hotel, San Francisco, CA Contact: 1-800-232-3444; http://www.ceb.com June 2-3, 2003 BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 2-3, 2003 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 7, 2003 USING MEDITATION TO RESOLVE MOLD CLAIMS - AN ATTORNEYS GUIDE BridgeportCE Omni Los Angeles Hotel Contact: 1-818-505-1490; www.reconferences.com June 9, 2003 ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 12-13, 2003 ARSENIC AND CCA-TREATED WOOD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 12-13, 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE American Law Institute Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 June 16-17, 2003 LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. June 16-17, 2003 ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 16-17, 2003 MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES Bridgeport Continuing Education San Francisco Contact: 818-505-1490 June 19-20, 2003 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Chicago Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com June 24-25, 2003 SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS American Conference Institute Crowne Plaza Times Square, New York Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com June 26-27, 2003 THE CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT Northstar Conferences The Westin Embassy Row, Washington, DC Contact: 866-265-1975; 212-596-6006; cservice@northstarconferences.com July 15, 2003 LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 31-August 1, 2003 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. August 1, 2003 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. September 8-9, 2003 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 8-9, 2003 NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 15-16, 2003 SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003 Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. September 19-21, 2003 THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE Northeastern University School of Law Contact: scuri@tplp.org September 22-23, 2003 BAD FAITH CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 2-3, 2003 SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003 Practising Law Institute PLI New York Center Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu. November 6-7, 2003 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com November 13-14, 2003 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 17, 2003 Water Contamination Litigation Conference Mealey Publications Pasadena Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 18-19, 2004 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com The Fairmont, San Francisco, California Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com June 10 & 11, 2004 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com TBA Fair Labor Standards Conference Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ April 06-30, 2003 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION LITIGATION IN TEXAS CLE Online Seminar Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 06-30, 2003 NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA CLE Online Seminar Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 09-10, 2003 LITIGATION MEMBER BENEFIT ABA-CLE Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org April 15, 2003 LITIGATING POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER ABA-CLE Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org May 08-10, 2003 EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIONS IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ABA-CLE Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org May 14, 2003 CLASS ACTION BASICS ABA-CLE Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ______________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases ACCREDO HEALTH: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in W.D. TN ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Accredo Health, Inc. (Nasdaq:ACDO) between June 16, 2002 and April 7, 2003, inclusive. It has been alleged that the Company, David D. Stevens, its Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and Joel R. Kimbrough, its Chief Financial Officer, violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of Accredo's securities. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that Accredo was failing to timely record an impairment in the value of certain receivables that it recently acquired, resulting in the Company reporting artificially inflated financial results throughout the class period; (2) that Accredo's published financial statements during the Class Period were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and were therefore materially false and misleading; and (3) that the Company would not have been able to meet its stated earnings guidance had it properly reserved for its accounts receivables. Based on the above, the earnings guidance and positive statements concerning Accredo were lacking in a reasonable basis and were therefore materially false and misleading. On April 8, 2003, before the market opened, Accredo announced that it was reducing its previously issued earnings guidance and that it was examining the adequacy of reserves for accounts receivables it recently acquired. In response to this announcement, the price of Accredo common stock plunged over 43% in one day to close at $14.29, after having closed at $25.40 the previous day. Allegedly, during the class period, Accredo insiders sold more than $12 million worth of their Accredo stock while in possession of the facts about the Company. For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: (800) 470-6824 or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com ACCREDO HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, against Accredo Health, Inc. (Nasdaq:ACDO). The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 16, 2002 and April 7, 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 between June 16, 2002 and April 7, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Accredo common stock. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company was failing to timely record an impairment in the value of certain receivables that it had acquired in a recent acquisition; (2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements published during the class period were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). During the class period, Accredo insiders sold more than $12 million worth of their Accredo stock while in possession of the true facts about the Company. On April 8, 2003, prior to the opening of the market, Accredo shocked the market by announcing that it was reducing its previously issued earning guidance and that it was examining the adequacy of reserves for accounts receivables that it acquired in a recent acquisition. On this news, the price of Accredo common stock down over 43%, to close at $14.29, down from $25.40. For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or (212) 889-3700 or by E-mail: Nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com. ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Zimmerman Reed Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP initiated a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (Nasdaq:ADCT) from November 2, 2000 through March 28, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that ADC and certain of its officers issued materially false statements and omitted material facts concerning ADC's earnings and financial condition. Specifically, defendants represented that ADC would continue to achieve significant growth and that ADC, unlike its competitors and customers, would remain largely unaffected by a widespread downturn in the telecommunications industry which occurred in 2000. ADC is a Minnesota-based company that offers value-added solutions of network equipment, software and systems integration services. The shareholder alleges that defendants, despite contrary public statements, knew the Company was not immune from the telecommunications downturn in that sales in the first quarter of 2001 (November, December, January) were declining rapidly, inventory was rising, competitors were experiencing a downturn, consumers were deferring purchases and the Company's investments in small technology companies was rapidly deteriorating. Further, as a result of the downturn, the Company made plans to embark on cost-cutting activities which ultimately resulted in significant layoffs. However, despite those plans, it was not until March 28, 2001, that defendants substantially lowered fiscal 2001 earnings guidance, cut as many as 4,000 jobs and closed some facilities. On this news, the Company's stock plummeted to $8.21 per share, a decline of over 60% from the class period high. For more details, contact Robert C. Moilanen or Carolyn Anderson by Phone: 800-755-0098 or 612-341-0400 or by E-mail: RCM@zimmreed.com. ASTROPOWER INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in DE Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of AstroPower, Inc. (Nasdaq: APWR) between February 22, 2002 and August 1, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain officers of the Company. During the class period, the Company asserted that it would be able to benefit from the rising demand for solar power products and described its revenue and earnings growth as strong. The complaint alleges that the Company could not effectively control its expanding and progressively complex operations through, among other things, its inability to allot resources amongst its various manufacturing facilities to successfully meet regional demand or to adapt its production capacity to actual demand. Therefore, at the same time that AstroPower was reporting its excellent position to take advantage of the rising demand for solar products, it was actually competing less effective than its rivals. Furthermore, to continue the impression that its operations were successful, the Company reported artificially inflated revenue and earnings by, among other things, recording revenue before shipping products, contrary to its stated principles of revenue recognition. On August 1, 2002, after the close of trading, AstroPower announced its results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002. Reported revenue and net income had not increased. Second quarter income was $365,000, or $0.02 per diluted share in comparison with $1.7 million, or $0.07 per diluted share in the year-earlier second quarter and revenue of $20.4 million represented only a one percent increase over reported revenue for the prior quarter and was roughly $4.9 million lower than analysts' consensus estimate. For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to AstroPower. CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Lantronix, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:LTRX) between August 30, 2000 and September 11, 2002, both dates inclusive. Credit Suisse First Boston, Frank Quattrone and Kevin A. McCarthy are named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants: (1) issued and maintained a "Buy" recommendation on Lantronix securities without any rational economic basis; (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining these recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that prevented them from providing independent and objective analysis. The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact, the price of Lantronix securities was artificially inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer damages. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com. CREDIT SUISSE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Atmel Corporation securities (Nasdaq:ATML) between July 22, 1999 and August 6, 2001, both dates inclusive. Credit Suisse First Boston, Frank Quattrone and Tim Mahon are named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants: (1) issued and maintained a "Buy" recommendation on Atmel securities without any rational economic basis; (2) failed to disclose that they were issuing and maintaining these recommendations to obtain investment banking business; and (3) concealed significant, material conflicts of interest that prevented them from providing independent and objective analysis. The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact, 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 Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com. ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in OR Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq:ESIO) between September 17, 2002 and March 20, 2003, inclusive. It has been alleged that the Company, David Bolender, James T. Dooley and Joseph Reinhart violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of ESIO's securities. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that ESIO had reported artificially inflated financial results for the quarters ended August 31, 2002 and November 30, 2002; (2) that ESIO was improperly accounting for sales, thereby overstating its sales figures and, in addition thereto, was understating the cost of sales, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and its own revenue recognition policies; and (3) that ESIO lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company. As a result of the foregoing, the ESIO financial statements published during the class period did not contain "all adjustments ... necessary for a fair presentation" of its financial position. On March 20, 2003, after the close of the market, ESIO issued a press release, announcing that it would be restating its financial statements for the first and second fiscal quarters. In response to this announcement, the price of Electro Scientific common stock fell from $15.17 per share to $12.51 per share, a one-day decline of over 17%. For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: (800) 470-6824 by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com FLEMING COMPANIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. TX ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE:FLM) securities in connection with Fleming's June 17, 2002 public offering. The complaint charges Fleming's officers, directors and its underwriters and auditors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Fleming was the largest US distributor of consumer package goods in the wholesale grocery industry, where it operated a network of "multi-tier" distribution centers throughout the United States and western Canada. The complaint alleges that in connection with the Offering, Fleming issued 9.2 million shares of common stock at $19.40 per share and $200 million in Notes. The Fleming Securities were sold pursuant to a Registration Statement and Prospectus, as amended, which contained false and misleading statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made therein not misleading. The Registration Statement materially misstated the Company's financial results of operation by, among other things, including financial statements that misrepresented and/or omitted the true facts, including: (1) That Fleming was taking unauthorized deductions on invoices received from vendors which reduced recognition of expenses associated with the cost of goods sold and understated accounts payable; (2) That Fleming had lengthened the amortization period for long- term assets by increasing the capitalization rate for interest costs and by lowering the allowance for credit losses, in violation of GAAP. The Registration Statement also represented that Fleming's retail operations were profitable at a time when the Company was, in fact, losing money on its retail business and was in the process of divesting itself of those operations. As a result of these misrepresentations, the Fleming Securities were inflated in connection with the Offering, and plaintiff and other persons who purchased the Fleming Securities in the Offering paid inflated prices and were damaged thereby. On July 30, 2002, less than two months after defendants sold more than $378 million worth of the Fleming Securities to the public, Fleming issued a release announcing that, contrary to the prior positive statements contained in the Registration Statement, defendants were in fact evaluating strategic alternatives for dealing with the Company's money-losing retail operations. Recently, Fleming filed for protection under the Bankruptcy Code. For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone: 800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com/cases/flemingcompanies/. HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in AL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired HealthSouth Corporation securities (OTC: HLSH) between February 25, 1998 to March 19, 2003, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous false and misleading financial statements that revenues and profits were increasing while in fact the Company was in financial distress. The complaint further alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts that: (1) after HealthSouth's initial public offering in 1986, the Company began to artificially inflate its earnings to match Wall Street analysts' expectations and maintain the market price of HealthSouth's common stock and (2) between 1999 and the second quarter of 2002, the Company intentionally overstated its earnings by at least $1.4 billion. For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-mail: HLSH@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com. HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in AL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, on behalf of all securities purchasers of HealthSouth Corporation (NYSE:HRC) publicly traded securities during the period between February 25, 1998 and March 19, 2003, inclusive. Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous statements which described the Company's increasing revenues and profits. 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 since at least fiscal 1997, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the Company had materially overstated the Company's revenues and profits in order to meet or exceed Wall Street analysts' expectations and to artificially inflate the price of HRC's stock; (2) that since at least fiscal 1999 in violation of GAAP the Company had materially overstated the Company's revenues, earnings, assets and equity by at least $1.4 billion in furtherance of its scheme to report revenues that met or exceeded Wall Street analysts' expectations and to artificially inflate the price of HRC's stock analysts; and (3) that as a result, the value of the Company's periodic net income, assets and shareholders' equity were materially misstated at all relevant times. The class period ends on March 19, 2003, the day following the SEC's filing of a civil fraud action against HRC and Mr. Scrushy alleging that "... shortly after 1986, and at Scrushy's instruction, the company began to artificially inflate earnings to match Wall Street expectations and maintain the market price for HRC's stock." On March 19, 2003, prior to the market's opening, HRC issued a press release announcing that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation served a search warrant at the company's corporate headquarters. Also on March 19, 2003, the SEC issued notice that trading in HRC's common stock had been suspended, the stock's last reported closing was at $3.91 per share on March 18, 2003, compared to a Class Period high of $30.5625 reached on May 1, 1998. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Much Shelist Commences Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of i2 Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:ITWOE) (formerly ITWO) between April 18, 2000 and January 24, 2003, inclusive. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Sanjiv S. Sidhu, (2) Gregory A. Brady, (3) William M. Beecher, (4) Nancy F. Brigham and (5) David C. Becker The defendants allegedly violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of i2's securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, in press releases and in filings with the SEC, i2 reported increasing revenues and "record" financial results. These statements were each materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company had materially overstated its revenue by improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer contracts and (ii) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company. As a result of the foregoing, i2's financial statements issued during the Class Period were materially false and misleading. On January 27, 2003, before the opening of trading, i2 shocked the market when it announced that it would re-audit its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 because of "recent information developed during the audit committee's ongoing investigation of certain allegations regarding the company's revenue recognition with respect to certain customer contracts and its financial reporting for those years." The Company further reported that it had notified the SEC of these allegations, and that the SEC staff has begun an informal inquiry into these matters. The Company also advised investors that they should not rely on the financial information contained in its annual reports on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 or in its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31, 2000 through September 30, 2002. Common shares of i2 plunged from a close of $1.26 on January 24, 2003 to a close of $0.92 on January 27, 2003, the next trading day, resulting in a single-day decline of more than 26%, on very heavy trading volume. Reportedly, on or about April 7, 2003, the Nasdaq stock market furnished i2 with a notice of intent to delist its common stock, stating that the Company's inability to timely file its annual report on Form 10-K violates its rules. For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: (800) 470-6824 by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired i2 Technologies, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:ITWO) during the period from April 18, 2000 through January 24, 2003, both dates inclusive. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Sanjiv S. Sidhu, (2) Gregory A. Brady, (3) William M. Beecher, (4) Nancy F. Brigham, and (5) David C. Becker The complaint 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, defendants ignored warnings from former executive officers of i2 that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue from several customer contracts. Defendants nevertheless continued to report "record" financial results throughout the class period in press releases and filings with the SEC. Moreover, during the class period, i2 completed several multi-billion acquisitions using its common stock as currency, and the officers of i2 named as defendants in the complaint, along with other i2 insiders, sold to the unsuspecting public hundreds of thousands of shares of i2 stock at artificially inflated prices for tens of millions of dollars in proceeds. Before the market opened on January 27, 2003, more than a year after defendants had been notified of i2's improper revenue recognition, i2 disclosed that it would re-audit its financial statements for 2000 and 2001, and informed investors that they should not rely on previously issued financial statements pending the re- audit. Following this disclosure, i2 stock fell more than 26%. The complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements the price of i2 securities was artificially inflated throughout the class period, causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer damages. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com. KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TN ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE:KG) between April 26, 1999 through March 10, 2003, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the Company's acquisition of Jones Pharma, Inc. during the class period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued statements regarding the Company's financial performance and future prospects and the strong demand for its branded pharmaceutical products, notably Altace and Levoxyl. The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to disclose: (1) that certain of its rebate and pricing practices subjected it to heightened governmental scrutiny; (2) that the Company had understated the level of generic competition for Levoxyl; and (3) that the Company had engaged in questionable sales to VitaRx and Prison Health Services during 1999 and 2000. On March 11, 2003, King Pharmaceuticals announced unexpectedly that it was the subject of an SEC investigation for its pricing and rebate practices. As a result of this announcement, the price of King Pharmaceuticals common stock declined to $12.17 per share from $15.90 per share. For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888/844-5862 or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.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. (Nasdaq:KG) between April 26, 1999 and March 11, 2003. The class included shareholders who exchanged Jones Pharma, Inc. shares for King shares in connection with the August 2000 merger. Defendants are charged with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities Exchange Act of 1933. The complaint names as defendants: (1) Jefferson Gregory, (2) Joseph Gregory and (3) James Lattanzi For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or (212) 889-3700 or by E-mail: NKaboolian@abbeygardy.com. NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in S.D. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased securities of NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE: NOR) between August 2, 2000 and December 13, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges NorthWestern and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning NorthWestern's business operations and financial performance caused NorthWestern's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. NorthWestern provides value-added energy and communications services, including air conditioning, heating, ventilation, plumbing and related services to residential and business customers nationwide. The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants misrepresented the Company's revenue and earnings by maintaining insufficient reserves for accounts receivables at the Company's communications subsidiary Expanets, and by failing to make full disclosures of problems with the implementation of a new "information technology system infrastructure." NorthWestern's problems were revealed on December 13, 2002, when the Company issued a press release disclosing that NorthWestern would dramatically miss its earnings estimates for 2002. The press release blamed the earnings shortfall on "the need to significantly increase reserves for accounts receivable" and "billing adjustments" at the Company's communications subsidiary, Expanets. Moreover, the Company press release revealed that defendants estimated the NorthWestern would need to increase its reserves "by at least $50 million" and that financial results for 2002 could not be reported until a year-end audit was completed. On the same day as these disclosures, NorthWestern's stock plummeted 37% from the previous day's close, on higher than normal trading volume. 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. NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in SD ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of purchasers of NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE:NOR) publicly traded securities during the period between February 7, 2002 and March 31, 2003. The complaint charges NorthWestern and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the class period, defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the financial and operational condition of the Company. In fact, throughout the class period, while many of the Company's competitors were announcing revised guidance, NorthWestern consistently stated that the Company's proprietary business model was allowing NorthWestern to continue to achieve "improved performance" and earnings of between $2.30 to $2.55 per share by the end of 2002. Both prior to and throughout the class period, management of the Company consistently represented that its subsidiaries, including Expanets and Blue Dot, were achieving and would continue to achieve these results. In fact, however, investors would ultimately learn at the close of the class period, which defendants had managed to conceal throughout the class period, that: (1) The Company's non-utility subsidiaries were not performing according to plan, with at least 20% of Blue Dot's locations performing so poorly that they would be sold or closed within the foreseeable future, and with Expanets running its reserves about $66 million short of its rapidly escalating delinquencies; (2) defendants had artificially inflated the Company's balance sheet as well as its reported earnings and EPS figures, by failing to write down the impairment of, and take necessary reserves for, its failing Blue Dot and Expanets businesses, which impairments and reserve adjustments ultimately resulted in a massive $880 million charge; (3) through a complicated scheme of questionable accounting and subsidiaries owned partially by senior management, losses at both Blue Dot and Expanets were subverted and reallocated to owners of minority interests or shareholders in the Company's subsidiary, which allowed the Company to keep these losses off its balance sheet, and to artificially inflate earnings and income and mask the poor performance of NorthWestern throughout the class period; and (4) defendants had materially misstated the conditions of both Blue Dot and Expanets, which were not poised for nor experiencing "long-term growth" nor "value creation," but were rather in poor financial and operational condition, with at least 20% of Blue Dot's locations terminal and with an unknown amount of other locations also in poor condition, and with almost $302 million in charges and reserves required to be taken by Expanets, in addition to an approximate $289 million charge required for Blue Dot. As a result of the foregoing, at no time during the Class Period did defendants have a good faith basis to project earnings anywhere near $2.55 per share for fiscal year 2002. For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone: 800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Redback Networks, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:RBAK) between June 14, 1999 through March 8, 2000, both dates inclusive. Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Paul Johnson are named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants Robertson Stephens and its analyst Paul Johnson issued materially false and misleading statements, analyst reports, and "Buy" recommendations on Redback. For example, defendants praised Redback's acquisition of Siara Systems, Inc. (Siara) while failing to disclose that Mr. Johnson owned Siara stock and that he stood to reap approximately $4.8 million from the acquisition. Moreover, the complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' biased analyst reports and ratings on Redback, and their failure to disclose Mr. Johnson's conflicts of interest, the price of Redback securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period, thereby causing plaintiff and members of the Class to suffer damages. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com. ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Sycamore Networks, Inc. securities (Nasdaq:SCMR) between January 10, 2000 through September 7, 2000, both dates inclusive. Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Paul Johnson are named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants Robertson Stephens and its analyst Paul Johnson issued materially false and misleading statements, analyst reports, and "Buy" recommendations on Sycamore. For example, Defendants praised Sycamore's acquisition of Sirocco Networks, Inc. (Sirocco) while failing to disclose that Mr. Johnson owned Sirroco stock and that he stood to reap approximately $1.9 million from the acquisition. Moreover, the complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' biased analyst reports and ratings on Sycamore, and their failure to disclose Mr. Johnson's conflicts of interest, the price of Sycamore securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period, thereby causing plaintiff and members of the Class to suffer damages. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com SKECHERS USA: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Skechers USA, Inc. (NYSE: SKX) between April 3, 2002 and December 9, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges Skechers and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning Skechers' revenue and earnings caused Skechers' stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. The complaint alleges that, starting in 2002, Skechers began assuming the role of distributor of its products in several international markets including Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Benelux region and Austria. Unencumbered by a third-party distributor, Sketchers was able to increase its profit margin on sales without moving any additional inventory. Although temporarily enjoying increased profits, Skechers' overall merchandise sales ultimately began to slow and the Company was forced to significantly reduce earnings accordingly. The market, unprepared for the temporary effect Skechers' distributor role would have on its earnings, was stunned when the Company, after having posted record revenue in first- and second-quarter 2002, began revising its earnings and ultimately recorded a loss. Moreover, while Skechers stock was soaring as a result of the market's favorable reaction to the increased profits, individual defendants who knew the truth about the Company's long-term outlook sold substantial personal holdings in the Company and reaped more than $42 million of profits from stock sales during the class period. For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Skechers. SUPERGEN INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Super Gen, Inc. (Nasdaq:SUPG) from April 18, 2000 through March 14, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the efficacy of MitoExtra(tm) was exaggerated; (2) the drug had significant risks associated with its use; (3) that its "Extra" technology platform did not create "improved generics or supergenerics;" (4) that the Company submitted no data to support its claim that MitoExtra(tm) is superior to existing cancer drugs; and (5) that the name "MitoExtra(tm)" was rejected by the FDA Such materially false and misleading statements caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the class period and caused damages to the class members. On March 14, 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a warning to the public concerning SuperGen's cancer drug, Mitozytrex. At the heart of the FDA's warning was that SuperGen marketed Mitozytrex to the public with exaggerations about the efficacy of Mitozytrex and without advising the public of the significant risks associated with the use of the drug. The FDA also took issue with SuperGen's characterization that its "Extra" technology platform did not create "improved generics or supergenerics," as previously claimed by the Company. Market reaction to these revelations was swift. Immediately following the announcement, shares of the Company fell from $3.09 to a class period low of $2.55 with an unusually high trading volume of 1,712,400 shares. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com SUPERGEN INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of SuperGen Inc. (Nasdaq: SUPG) common stock during the period between April 18, 2000 and March 13, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the efficacy of MitoExtraT was exaggerated; (2) the drug had significant risks associated with its use; (3) that its "Extra" technology platform did not create "improved generics or supergenerics;" (4) that the Company submitted no data to support its claim that MitoExtraT is superior to existing cancer drugs; and (5) that the name "MitoExtraT" was rejected by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Such materially false and misleading statements caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the class period and caused damages to the class members. On March 14, 2003, the FDA announced a warning to the public concerning SuperGen's cancer drug, Mitozytrex. At the heart of the FDA's warning was that SuperGen marketed Mitozytrex to the public with exaggerations about the efficacy of Mitozytrex and without advising the public of the significant risks associated with the use of the drug. The FDA also took issue with SuperGen's characterization that its "Extra" technology platform did not create "improved generics or supergenerics," as previously claimed by the Company. Market reaction to these revelations was swift. Immediately following the announcement, shares of the Company fell from $3.09 to a class period low of $2.55 with an unusually high trading volume of 1,712,400 shares. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com VITALWORKS INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of VitalWorks, Inc. (Nasdaq: VWKS) from April 24, 2002 through October 23, 2002, inclusive. The complaint alleges that VitalWorks, a provider of information management technology and services targeted to healthcare practices and organizations, as well as certain of its officers and directors, issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's increasing revenues and future prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that VitalWorks was experiencing a marked increase in customer attrition, and that demand for VitalWorks' products and services had materially declined. These misrepresentations and omissions caused the price of VitalWorks stock to be artificially inflated throughout the class period, and enabled officers and directors of VitalWorks to sell approximately $6.8 million worth of VitalWorks stock at artificially inflated prices. On October 23, 2002, VitalWorks announced that it had failed to achieve pre-announced third quarter 2002 revenues and was lowering revenue guidance for the remainder of fiscal year 2002. Additionally, VitalWorks reported that it had lowered fiscal year 2003 revenue guidance by over 10%. On October 24, 2002, the first day of trading after VitalWorks' announcements, the price of VitalWorks common stock dropped over 56% in value to close at $3.13 per share. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class Members. For more details, contact James E. Miller or James C. Shah by Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877-891-9880 by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classactioncounsel.com. VITALWORKS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired VitalWorks, Inc. securities (NASDAQ: VWKS) between April 24, 2002 and October 23, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges 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 materially false and misleading statements to the market between April 24, 2002 and October 23, 2002. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, VitalWorks repeatedly touted the alleged strong demand for its products and services, and represented that recent regulations affecting healthcare providers, along with a lucrative co-marketing agreement with an imaging company, would provide it with material recurring revenues. These representations were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing declining demand for the Company's products and services in general and that the regulations-related and imaging revenues would not be significant in the near term. On October 23, 2002, after the close of trading, the Company announced that its 2002 and 2003 results would be materially less than its previous guidance due to poor regulatory-related revenues and a longer buying cycle caused by customer order postponements. In reaction to this announcement, VitalWorks' stock price plummeted by over 56% in one day, falling from a closing price of $7.18 per share on October 23, to close at $3.13 per share on October 24, 2002, on unusually heavy trading volume (14.1 million shares). During the class period, VitalWorks insiders sold a total of 830,161 shares of VitalWorks common stock at artificially inflated prices, reaping total proceeds in excess of $6.8 million. For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: VWKS@bernlieb.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 * * *