/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030519.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 19, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 97 Headlines ALASKA: Economist Asserts Market Forces Lowered Salmon Prices APPLE COMPUTER: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits AVISTA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Consumer Suit BIOTECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek Stock Suits Consolidation CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Lawsuit CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Suit CIT GROUP: Shareholders Commence Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY CONNECTICUT: Corrections Settles Officers' Sex Harassment Suit EI DUPONT: Proceedings Start in Benlate Birth Defects Lawsuits EI DUPONT: FL Court Approves Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement EQUITY ONE: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Suits Over IRT Co. Merger HANDSPRING INC.: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit in FL HUFFY CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval NEXTEL PARTNERS: MDL Court Dismisses Mobile Phone Lawsuit NEXTEL PARTNERS: Consumers File Suit Over Wireless Service Fees NEXTEL PARTNERS: FL Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA High Court To Rule on Arbitration for Suit PACIFICARE HEALTH: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Managed Care Lawsuit PAINT INDUSTRY: Firms To Add Lead Paint Warning Labels PREMIUM TICKETS: Cubs Ticket Lawsuit Granted Class Certification PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Satisfies Blue Line Farms Settlement Terms REGISTER.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit REGISTER.COM: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Claims in Suit REGISTER.COM: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in DE Court ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Silzoner Coated Products TENFOLD CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit TOBACCO LITIGATION: IL Court Asked to Hear Certification Issue WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suits V. Fox Paine Merger New Securities Fraud Cases ALLIANT ENERGY: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY CORE LABORATORIES: Goodkind Labaton Lodged Securities Suit in NY CORE LABORATORIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR ********* ALASKA: Economist Asserts Market Forces Lowered Salmon Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- A University of Alaska resource economist said world market forces drove down the prices Bristol Bay fishermen received for their sockeye salmon harvest, the Associated Press Newswires reports. "I have never seen conspiracy" as a factor in lowering the sockeye salmon prices, Gunnar Knapp, a University of Alaska economist, told jurors hearing a class action alleging price fixing in the world's largest red salmon fishery. Mr. Knapp said salmon prices crashed because of rapid growth in wild and farm salmon stocks and declining value of the Japanese yen. "Changes in the price of Bristol Bay salmon from 1989 to 1995, were fully consistent with market forces," said Professor Knapp. Professor Knapp was the latest economist called in the case brought by 4,500 Bristol Bay fishermen against the Seattle-based processors and the Japanese importers. The fishermen's lawsuit centers on whether the processors and importers conspired to lower prices to fishermen to increase their own prices by using shared price information. Professor Knapp said he is no expert on what would constitute a conspiracy, but that he was shocked by conclusions drawn by one of plaintiffs' economists that there was a conspiracy. "The market for Bristol Bay sockeye salmon is complicated," said Professor Knapp. "Plaintiffs have ridiculously simplified a complex market." The professor said he has concluded that the sockeye salmon fishery is an industry subject to a lot of year- to-year change, with many factors affecting the price, including the growth of the farmed salmon industry. Professor Knapp is recognized as an expert in Alaska, Russian, Japanese and world salmon markets. He has researched, written and lectured extensively on the subject since 1991. The trial in Superior Court, Anchorage, Alaska, before Judge Peter A. Michalski, began February 3. Judge Michalski has ordered that the case go to the jury May 27. APPLE COMPUTER: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss three securities class actions filed against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer. These lawsuits are substantially identical, and purport to bring suit on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000, and September 28, 2000. The complaints allege violations of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was heard by the Court on September 13, 2002. On December 11, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, with leave to plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the Company's motion is currently scheduled for July 2003. AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington consolidated the securities class actions filed against Avista Corporation and: (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to disclose certain business practices that Avista Corporation was allegedly engaging in with EPMI and PGE. The plaintiffs assert that such alleged misstatements and omissions have occurred in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other information made publicly available by the Company, including press releases. The suits assert claims on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period between November 23, 1999 and August 13, 2002. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and vigorously defend against these lawsuits. AVISTA CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Consumer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the consumer class action filed against Avista Corporation and other purchasers and sellers of wholesale electricity and national gas in the western United States intend to ask the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to dismiss the suit. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of all persons and businesses residing in Washington who were purchasers of electric and/or natural gas energy from any period beginning in January 2000 to the present. The complaint alleges that due to the deregulation of the California energy market, the defendants were able to unlawfully manipulate the wholesale energy market resulting in supply shortages and high energy prices across the western United States, including Washington. The complaint further alleges that high energy prices have resulted in profits for the defendants at the expense of rate- paying consumers in Washington. The complaint seeks treble damages, attorney fees and costs, and an order that defendants immediately remedy the alleged unlawful practices relating to the purchase and sale of wholesale energy that affects rate- paying consumers in Washington. The complaint further seeks an order enjoining the defendants from continuing any alleged unlawful practices relating to the purchase and sale of wholesale energy that affects rate-paying consumers in Washington. The defendants have moved to consolidate this case with similar actions filed elsewhere and to seek transfer of these cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss this complaint and vigorously defend against this lawsuit. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss this complaint on May 1, 2003 and indicated that it will present its motion and proposed order of dismissal without prejudice to the Court on May 23, 2003. BIOTECHNOLOGY GENERAL: Plaintiffs Seek Stock Suits Consolidation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Biotechnology General Corporation and three of its officers face several securities class actions filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between April 19, 1999 and August 2, 2002, and seeks unspecified money damages. The complaint asserts that the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading because the Company restated its earnings and financial statements for the years ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as reflected in the Company's Form 8- K and accompanying press release issued August 2, 2002 and Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002. Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate the actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all allegations of wrongdoing asserted against it and understands that the individual defendants intend to defend as well. CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in one of the consumers' suits against Cingular Wireless, Inc. appealed the granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants to the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit alleges personal injuries, including brain cancer, from wireless phone use. In September 2002, the court in one such case granted defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert testimony and granted summary judgment for defendants. The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit and believes that these matters will not be material to its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. CINGULAR WIRELESS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of five class actions filed against Cingular Wireless, Inc. and various affiliated entities alleging adverse health effects caused by wireless phone use and alleging fraudulent conduct, participation in conspiracies and other wrongful conduct by wireless phone manufacturers, service providers and others. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and/or injunctive and equitable relief. In March 2003, the court dismissed each of the suits on federal preemption grounds. The Company will defend vigorously against the suit and does not believe that it will have a material adverse effect on its financial position or business operations. CIT GROUP: Shareholders Commence Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- CIT Group, Inc., its chief executive officer and its chief financial officer face several class actions asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit contains allegations that the registration statement and prospectus prepared and filed in connection with the IPO were materially false and misleading, principally with respect to the adequacy of the Company's telecommunications-related loan loss reserves at the time. The suits purport to be brought on behalf of all those who purchased CIT common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek, among other relief, unspecified damages or rescission for those alleged class members who still hold CIT stock and unspecified damages for other alleged class members. The Company believes that the allegations in each of these actions are without merit and that its disclosures were proper, complete and accurate. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. CONNECTICUT: Corrections Settles Officers' Sex Harassment Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- At a recent news conference, Commissioner Theresa Lantz of Connecticut's Department of Corrections characterized the recent settlement of a sexual harassment class action by female corrections officers against their male coworkers as a landmark move. "This action (agreement) seeks to change the culture of sexual harassment in the department," Ms. Lantz said. "This (agreement) goes a long way to re-establish the confidence of the women who work for us." Under the terms of the settlement, an independent outside consultant will be hired to investigate the allegations of sexual harassment. The Permanent Commission on the Status of Women will select the investigator. The Correction Department would mete out punishment to male correction officers found guilty of harassment. "This agreement will serve as a model for other states," said state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who helped negotiate the pact. The state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities began investigating the charges late last year, after a group of female correction officers accused prison officials of routinely mishandling or ignoring their complaints and retaliating, as well, against women for filing the accusations. New Haven attorney David Rosen, one of the women's lawyers, said the next step in the lawsuit is to determine the scope of sexual harassment in the state prisons. As many as 2,000 women may have been the targets of such abuse, he said. "We are holding fire on the monetary damages we intend to seek until we determine how widespread the problem is," Mr. Rosen said. "We believe that under the last (prison) administration, it had become endemic. If that is the case, the figure would be substantial." Attorney Antonio Ponvert of the Bridgeport law firm Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, also declined to name a figure, but said he believed it will top several million dollars. EI DUPONT: Proceedings Start in Benlate Birth Defects Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- EI Dupont de Nemours and Company faces five cases pending involving allegations that Benlate 50 DF Fungicide caused birth defects to children exposed in utero. One case was tried in Florida resulting in a verdict of $4 million against the Company. The verdict was reversed at the intermediate appellate level because the plaintiffs' scientific support for causation was insufficient. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. The federal court in West Virginia dismissed another case on the same grounds of insufficient scientific support for causation. It has been appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The remaining three cases are pending in Delaware. Two of these cases were dismissed for not being timely filed and were appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court. In April of 2003, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the dismissals and remanded these two cases, involving six plaintiffs, to the trial court for further proceedings. The third case pending in Delaware has been scheduled for trial in November of 2003. EI DUPONT: FL Court Approves Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court in Florida granted preliminary approval to the settlement of a securities fraud class action filed against EI Dupont de Nemours and Company and its then- Chairman. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that DuPont made false and misleading statements and omissions about Benlate 50 DF, with the alleged effect of inflating the price of DuPont's stock between June 19, 1993, and January 27,1995. The court certified the case as a class action. In March 2003, DuPont entered into an agreement to settle this case for $77.5 million. On March 14, 2003, the court gave preliminary approval to the settlement. There will be a fairness hearing on May 30, 2003, during which the parties will seek final approval of the settlement. EQUITY ONE: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Suits Over IRT Co. Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Equity One, Inc. asked the Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia to dismiss the class actions and derivative suits filed against it following the execution of the merger agreement with IRT Property Company. The suit also names as defendants IRT and its board of directors. The suits allege claims of breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant directors, unjust enrichment and irreparable harm. The complaints sought declaratory relief, an order enjoining consummation of the merger, and unspecified damages. Although the Georgia court did not grant the plaintiffs the equitable relief requested and permitted the completion of the merger, two of these lawsuits are still pending and second amended complaints have been filed in each such suit. The third lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. On April 23, 2003, the Company filed motions to dismiss each of the shareholders suits. Although it believes that these suits are without merit and intends to continue to defend them vigorously, there can be no assurance that the pending litigation will be resolved in its favor. HANDSPRING INC.: Named as Defendant in CSFB Stock Lawsuit in FL --------------------------------------------------------------- Handspring, Inc. was named as a defendant in a securities class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit also names as defendant 50 of CSFB's clients, numerous officers of CSFB and its clients including one current and one former Company officer. The complaint asserts wrongdoing relating to various initial public offerings in which Credit Suisse First Boston was involved between 1999 and 2001. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the Company and/or its named current and former officers, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Neither the Company nor its officers have responded to the complaints. HUFFY CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles granted final approval to the settlement of the class actions filed against Huffy Corporation for alleged violations of labor practices. The settlement was negotiated after protracted negotiations and was preliminarily approved by the court on January 28, 2003. The settlement was given final court approval, pending compliance with the terms of the class settlement agreement, and a Judgment of Dismissal was issued on April 7, 2003. The Claims Administrator will issue its report as to claims made and on the amount of payments to be made in the second quarter, 2003, not to exceed $7,700 for the Company. NEXTEL PARTNERS: MDL Court Dismisses Mobile Phone Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation dismissed the class action filed against Nextel Partners, Inc. and several other wireless carriers and manufacturers of wireless telephones. The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things, manufactured and distributed wireless telephones that cause adverse health effects. On March 5, 2003, the MDL court granted the defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims on preemption grounds. To the Company's knowledge, the plaintiffs have not yet appealed the MDL court's order. The Company disputes the allegations of the complaint, will vigorously defend against the action, and intends to seek indemnification from the manufacturers of the wireless telephones if necessary. NEXTEL PARTNERS: Consumers File Suit Over Wireless Service Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Nextel Partners faces a class action filed in the District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, alleging that the Company falsely and deceptively increased its prices for wireless service. The suit also names as defendants Nextel Communications, and Nextel West Corporation. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin such practices and seek a refund of monies paid by the class based on the alleged deception. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees, expenses and, if permitted, punitive damages. The Company believes the allegations are groundless and will vigorously defend against the action. NEXTEL PARTNERS: FL Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nextel Partners, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida. The suit also names as defendants Nextel Communications and Nextel South Corporation. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by allegedly deceptively and misleadingly characterizing charges on subscriber bills. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin such practices and seek a refund of monies paid by the class based on the alleged deception. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company believes the allegations are unfounded and will vigorously defend against the action. PACIFICARE HEALTH: CA High Court To Rule on Arbitration for Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on Pacificare Health Systems, Inc.'s petition to review a lower court's decision refusing arbitration for a class action filed against the Company and its California subsidiary. The suit was filed in November 1999 in San Francisco Superior Court, relating to the period from November 2, 1995 to the present and purporting to be on behalf of all enrollees in our health care plans operating in California, other than Medicare and Medicaid enrollees. The amended complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business acts in violation of California law, engaged in false, deceptive and misleading advertising in violation of California law and violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. It also alleges that the Company received unjust payments as a result of its conduct. The amended complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, an order requiring the defendants to inform and warn all California consumers regarding the Company's financial compensation programs, unspecified monetary damages for restitution of premiums and disgorgement of improper profits, attorneys' fees and interest. The Company moved to compel arbitration and the Superior Court denied the motion. The Company filed an appeal from this denial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision. Thereafter, the Company filed a petition asking the California Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's decision, and the California Supreme Court granted the petition. Oral argument before the California Supreme Court occurred on February 4, 2003. The Company expects a ruling from the California Supreme Court in May 2003. The Company denies all material allegations in the amended complaint and intends to defend the action vigorously. PACIFICARE HEALTH: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Managed Care Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to dismiss the Managed Care multi-district litigation pending against it and other managed care companies. Dr. Dennis Breen, Dr. Leonard Klay, Dr. Jeffrey Book and several other health care providers, along with several medical associations, including the California Medical Association, later joined the proceeding as plaintiffs. These health care providers sued several managed care companies, including the Company, alleging that the companies have systematically underpaid providers for medical services to members, have delayed payments, and that the companies impose unfair contracting terms on providers and negotiate capitation payments that are inadequate to cover the costs of health care services provided. The Company sought to compel arbitration of all of Dr. Breen's, Dr. Book's and other physicians' claims against it. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration against all of these claims except for claims for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for their RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims that stem from contractual relationships with other managed care companies. On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court held that the District Court should have compelled arbitration of the Direct RICO Claims filed by Dr. Breen and Dr. Book, and the Company believe that this ruling will apply to the Direct RICO Claims brought by other providers who have contracts with us as well. On September 26, 2002, the court certified the litigation as a class action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted the Company's petition to appeal the certification, but no date for oral argument of the appeal has been set. The Company has filed a new motion to dismiss directed at the plaintiffs' second amended complaint. That motion remains pending. Discovery in this litigation has recently commenced. The Company denies all material allegations and intends to defend the action vigorously. PAINT INDUSTRY: Firms To Add Lead Paint Warning Labels ------------------------------------------------------ An agreement was reached recently by the National Paint and Coating Association and attorneys general from 46 states, whereby, starting this fall, paint manufacturers across the country will follow in the footsteps of the tobacco industry by placing warning labels on their products. The labels will caution consumers that scraping old paint can create toxic lead dust, the Detroit Free Press reports. The labels will be placed on the tops and sides of cans reading in part: "WARNING! If you scrape, sand or remove old paint you may release lead dust. LEAD IS TOXIC." The use of these warnings on the paint makers' products is aimed at combating lead poisoning, widely cited as the biggest environmental threat facing children in the United States. Under the terms of the settlement, besides using the warning labels, paint manufacturers will pay for hundreds of educational seminars nationwide on safe renovation practices. The free seminars will be aimed at homeowners, contractors, landlords and housing workers. In addition, the paint industry has promised to arrange discounts on safety equipment such as masks and special vacuum cleaners that pick up small lead particles. The paint industry and the lawmakers took five months to negotiate the landmark $200 million plan. Companies that years ago participated in the manufacture of leaded paint are facing numerous class-action lawsuits around the country. In another kind of legal action, states and cities are suing the manufacturers for creating a public nuisance by continuing to put lead in their products long after the dangers of the metal were known. Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox cited a Free Press series on lead poisoning that ran in the newspaper in January, as he made his recent announcement of the settlement. Mr. Cox called the new measure "a big step toward reducing the public health risks associated with lead paint." A major source of lead in the environment is dust from paint in homes built before 1978, the year when paint manufacturers stopped adding lead to paint, which had been done to make their products last longer. PREMIUM TICKETS: Cubs Ticket Lawsuit Granted Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sophia Hall of Cook County Circuit Court ruled, in a significant setback for the Cubs and their controversial ticket- selling policy, that the lawsuit brought by two fans who believe the Cubs had scalped tickets to them, would have class action status, according to a report by the Chicago Sun-Times. The trial date, not yet set , is expected to be in July, after Paul Bauch, attorney for plaintiffs, has a chance to notify everyone who has bought tickets at Premium of the class action. Therefore, the case no longer is about just the two fans who filed the lawsuit alleging the Cubs scalped tickets or committed consumer fraud, but instead could include anyone who has bought tickets from Wrigley Field Premium Tickets, Inc., a brokerage firm set up by the Cubs. Judge Hall ruled that the following legal questions potentially more than just Peter Cavoto and Gerald Carr, who filed the lawsuit: (1) Whether the Cubs had scalped tickets; (2) whether Premium was a qualified broker; (3) whether the Cubs were involved in Premium's business practices; and (4) whether people who had bought tickets at Premium suffered financial damage. James Klenk, an attorney representing the Cubs, said he did not think the case called for class action status, because there was such a small number of tickets involved, as well as different interests. The case revolves around the Illinois Ticket Scalping Act, which prohibits people who are putting on sporting events or entertainment acts from selling tickets above face value. Premium Tickets, Inc. does sell tickets above face value, as high as $1,500 on a $45 ticket to a Cubs-Yankees game in June. The Cubs argue that they are not the ones selling tickets at that price but that Premium is. They have set up Premium as a separate company to compete with other ticket brokers. If the Cubs lose this case, then anyone who bought a ticket at Premium, for less than $100, could be in line for $100 under scalping laws. Anyone who bought a ticket at Premium for more than $100 could get the difference between what they paid and the face value, under consumer fraud laws. PRO-FAC COOPERATIVE: Satisfies Blue Line Farms Settlement Terms --------------------------------------------------------------- Pro-fac Cooperative, Inc. successfully satisfied the terms of the settlement of a class action filed against it, Birds Eye Foods, Mr. Mike Shelby and "Does" 1-50" in the Multnomah County Court in Oregon by Blue Line Farms. "Does" 1-50 represents directors, officers and agents of the corporate defendants, alleging various claims related to the operation of PF Acquisition II, Inc., a former subsidiary of Pro-Fac that conducted business under the name AgriFrozen Foods. The complaint was subsequently amended to eliminate "Does" 1- 50 as parties. The relief sought included a demand for damages of $50.0 million. On December 23, 2002, the Company, Birds Eye Foods, and the other defendants reached an agreement in principle as to the terms of a settlement of the Blue Line Farms litigation, as well as of related claims under Oregon's grower lien statute pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon, known as the Seifer Trust litigation. The Seifer Trust litigation also named the Company and Birds Eye among its named defendants. The parties in the Blue Line Farms litigation negotiated a settlement agreement, approved by the court. Other settlement conditions were satisfied on or before April 14, 2003. REGISTER.COM: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Register.com, Inc. and: (1) Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer Richard D. Forman, (2) former Vice President of Finance and Accounting, Alan G. Breitman, (3) Goldman Sachs & Co. and (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc The suit seeks unspecified damages as a result of various alleged securities law violations arising from activities purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public offering. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the individual defendants from the case without prejudice based on stipulations of dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the individual defendants. On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company. The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies before one judge in the Southern District of New York. REGISTER.COM: Plaintiffs to Appeal Dismissal of Claims in Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs will appeal the dismissal of two counts of a class action filed against Register.com, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, alleging that the Company's SafeRenew program violates New York law. The Company's SafeRenew program was implemented in January 2001 on an "opt-out basis" to.com, .net and .org registrations registered through the www.register.com website, and was subsequently expanded to cover certain ccTLDs registered through this website. Under the terms of the Company's services agreement, at the time a covered registration comes up for renewal, the Company attempts to charge a registrant's on-file credit card a one year renewal fee and, if the charge is successful, to renew the registration for that additional one-year period. The Company believes that the SafeRenew program was properly adopted as an effort to protect its customers' online identities. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the SafeRenew program violates New York General Obligations Law Section5-903, and also claimed breach of contract, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff further sought to enjoin the Company from automatically renewing domain name registrations, an award of compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits (plus interest), cost and expenses, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages. The Company later filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On April 17, 2003, the motion was granted as to two counts (declaratory judgment and breach of contract), but denied as to two other counts (unjust enrichment and money had and received). On April 28, 2003, Register.com filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. On May 2, 2003, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department of the two counts that were dismissed. REGISTER.COM: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in DE Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Register.com, Inc. faces several class actions filed by individual stockholders of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The suit also names as defendants each of the individual members of the Company's board of directors. The suits allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors in connection with certain publicly disclosed indications of interest in the acquisition of Company. The complaints further allege that the directors are not fulfilling their fiduciary duties in connection with their review and response to such indications of interest and seek an order requiring the defendants to, among other things, undertake an appropriate evaluation of the Company's worth as a merger or acquisition candidate and to take all appropriate steps to effectively sell of the Company. Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the members of the Board from continuing their purported breaches of fiduciary duty and unspecified damages from the defendants. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Silzoner Coated Products -------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces several suits filed patients alleging defects in the Company's mechanical heart valves and valve repair products with Silzoner coating. Some of these cases are seeking monitoring of patients implanted with Silzoner coated valves and repair products who allege no injury to date. Some of these cases have been settled, some have been dismissed, and others are ongoing. Some of these cases, both in the United States and Canada, are seeking class action status. The Company voluntarily recalled products with Silzoner coating on January 21, 2000, and sent a Recall Notice and Advisory concerning the recall to physicians and others. In 2001, the US Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ruled that certain lawsuits filed in US federal district court involving products with Silzoner coating should be part of Multi-District Litigation proceedings under the supervision of US District Court Judge John Tunheim in Minnesota. As a result, actions in federal court involving products with Silzoner coating have been and will likely continue to be transferred to Judge Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Certain plaintiffs requested Judge Tunheim to allow some cases to proceed as class actions. Judge Tunheim issued a ruling on plaintiffs' motions for class certification on March 27, 2003. In his ruling, Judge Tunheim conditionally certified one class of plaintiffs (US persons who have a Silzone heart valve which is still implanted) and conditionally certified a second class of plaintiffs (US persons who received a Silzone heart valve and who have sustained physical injuries due to the valve). The Company believes that the ruling is inconsistent with the applicable laws and precedents, and is pursuing its appellate remedies. In the meantime, cases involving Silzoner products not seeking class action status which are consolidated before Judge Tunheim are proceeding in accordance with the scheduling orders he has rendered. There are other actions involving products with Silzoner coating in various state courts that may or may not be coordinated with the matters presently before Judge Tunheim. The lawsuits in Canada are proceeding in accordance with separate schedules issued by the applicable provincial courts. A hearing concerning the certification of a class action in Ontario, Canada, is currently scheduled for June 2003. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of the various cases involving Silzoner products, the Company believes that it has adequate product liability insurance to cover the costs associated with them. The Company further believes that any costs not covered by product liability insurance will not have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial position or liquidity, but may be material to the consolidated results of operations of a future period. TENFOLD CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed against Tenfold Corporation, certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and the Company's officers and directors violated the securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the offering's registration statement and by engaging in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock in the after-market subsequent to the initial public offering. Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998. The individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002, were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the Rule 10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the Company. The Company is vigorously defending this action and expects that the costs of defense and/or resolution exceeding its self- insured retention of $250,000 will be covered by insurance. Although no assurance can be given that this matter will be resolved in the Company's favor, it believes that the resolution of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. TOBACCO LITIGATION: IL Court Asked to Hear Certification Issue -------------------------------------------------------------- Cigarette maker Philip Morris USA has petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to bypass a lower appeal court and hear its appeal of an adverse verdict in a class action. Philip Morris contests the merits of 'light' cigarettes, arguing that the suit should never have been allowed to proceed as a class action in the first place, the Associated Press Newswires reports. The case received a bench trial before Madison County Judge Nicholas Byron, who ordered Philip Morris to pay 1.1 million Illinois smokers $10.1 billion for deceiving plaintiff smokers into believing light cigarettes are less harmful than regular brands. Philip Morris's appeal strategy -- challenging the class certification of the light cigarettes case -- to a certain extent goes to the core of Madison County's reputation as being overly friendly to class actions. Madison County developed this reputation over the years as some of its locally elected judges, said the critics, certified classes that judges in other jurisdictions would have rejected. Certifying a class means, in short, allowing a class action to proceed after the court has made a determination that all plaintiffs in the lawsuit suffered from the same wrongdoing in the same way. Philip Morris attorneys said they will try to convince the Illinois Supreme Court that the light cigarette smokers never should have been lumped together as a class, because studies have shown that smokers inhale varying amounts of tar and nicotine. In addition, each plaintiff must have spent differing amounts of money on cigarettes, depending on their habits. "The vast majority of federal and state courts in the United States have ruled that the law does not permit tobacco cases to be tried as class actions," said William Ohlemeyer, a vice president and associate general counsel for Philip Morris. If the petition filed by Philip Morris is approved by Illinois' High Court, company will be able to bypass the 5th District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon and appeal Judge Byron's verdict directly to the Supreme Court. Stephen Tillery, lead attorney for the Illinois smokers said he had not decided whether to challenge the petition. WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suits V. Fox Paine Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs withdrew their lawsuits against WJ Communications, Inc. and its directors after Fox Paine LLC withdrew its offer to acquire the Company in March 2003. Four lawsuits, three of which are purported class actions, were filed in connection with Fox Paine's proposal to purchase all of the shares of the Company's common stock not held by Fox Paine and their affiliates. Fox Paine was also named as a defendant in these lawsuits. One of the actions, which is not a purported class action, was filed by the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Malcolm J. Caraballo. Among other things, these lawsuits sought an injunction against the consummation of the proposed transaction and an award of unspecified compensatory damages. On March 27, 2003, Fox Paine withdrew their Acquisition Proposal. Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County filed a notice and order of dismissal stating that the plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice. The plaintiffs in the suits filed in the Superior Court of the also stipulated to a voluntary dismissal of each of these lawsuits without prejudice. New Securities Fraud Cases ALLIANT ENERGY: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE:LNT) common stock from January 29, 2002 through July 18, 2002, inclusive. The case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, against defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint brings claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Alliant Energy Corporation and certain of its officers and directors charging them with issuing false and misleading statement concerning Alliant's business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous press releases in which they falsely touted the performance of Allaint's non-regulated businesses and represented that those businesses would compensate for expected 2002 weakness in its utilities operations. The complaint further alleges that the Company also represented that its unregulated businesses were integral to the Company's operations and were key to the Company's expected annual growth rate of 7%-10%. Such statements were materially false and misleading when made, the complaint alleges, because defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the unregulated businesses were suffering from serious problems, that such businesses were a material drain on the Company overall and could not compensate for any weaknesses in the regulated businesses and that the Company could not meet its 2002 earnings targets by the results of its utilities businesses alone. On July 18, 2002, Alliant Energy shocked the market by announcing that it was cutting its 2002 earnings expectations by over 35%. The market reacted swiftly to this news, pushing the price of Alliant Energy down from a close of $23.78 per share on July 18, 2002, to $18.22 per share on July 19, a drop of over 23%, on unusually heavy trading volume. A few months after the end of the Class Period, the Company announced that it would sell many of its non-utility assets as part of an effort to refocus its business around the Company's utilities operations. For more details, contact David Leifer by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-mail: dleifer@whesq.com ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Allou Healthcare, Inc. (AMEX:ALU) between June 22, 1998 and April 9, 2003, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com CORE LABORATORIES: Goodkind Labaton Lodged Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class action pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the stock of Core Laboratories NV (NYSE:CLB) during the period May 6, 2002 through March 31, 2003, inclusive. Excluded from the class are defendants and its affiliates. The named defendants are the Company, David M. Demshur and Richard L. Bergmark. The complaint charges Defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides products to the petroleum industry. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the financial results of the Company which caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially high prices. Specifically, the complaint alleges that between May 6, 2002 through March 31, 2003, inclusive, defendants issued press releases and filed documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission that reported financial results with overstated sales figures, understated cost of net income and earnings overstated its ability to collect accounts receivable and otherwise violated generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). For more details, contact Henry J. Young by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone: (212) 907-0700 by E-mail: hyoung@glrslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.glrslaw.com CORE LABORATORIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York (03 CV 3354) on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Core Laboratories, N.V. (NYSE:CLB) from May 6, 2002 through March 31, 2003, inclusive. The complaint names as defendants the Company, David M. Demshur, and Richard L. Bergmark. 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 statements to the market during the class period thereby artificially inflating the price of Core securities. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net income and earnings per share; (2) that the Company had overstated its ability to collect on certain accounts receivable; (3) that the Company had improperly delayed the booking of expenses and foreign exchange translation losses from certain field locations; and (4) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income and financial results was materially overstated at all relevant times. On March 31, 2003, after the markets had closed trading for the day, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it would be restating its financial results for prior 2002 quarterly operating results. Following this announcement, shares of Core common stock fell $1.31 per share, or more than 12.5%, to close at $9.09 per share. For more details, contact Damon Williams or Nancy Kaboolian Esq. By Phone: LLP at 800-889-3701 or (212) 889-3700 or by E-mail: dwilliams@abbeygardy.com or nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR --------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ESIOE) between September 17, 2002 and April 15, 2003 inclusive. The complaint names as defendants the Company, David Bolender, James T. Dooley and Joseph Reinhart. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period thereby artificially inflating the price of Electro 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 Electro had reported artificially inflated financial results for the quarters ended August 31, 2002 and November 30, 2002; (2) that Electro was improperly accounting for sales, thereby overstating its sales figures and was understating the cost of sales, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and its own revenue recognition policies; and (3) that Electro lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company. As a result of the foregoing, the Electro 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, Electro 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 common stock fell from $15.17 per share to $12.51 per share, a one-day decline of over 17%. For more details, contact Damon Williams or Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 800-889-3701 by E-mail: dwilliams@abbeygardy.com or nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 2003. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *