/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030710.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 10, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 135 Headlines AMERICAN AIRLINES: Call-Center Workers Sue Over Changed Policies CLARION COUNTY: May Be Sued Over Unjust Property Assessments EUNIVERSE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Friday FLORIDA: Naples Man Sues Brokers for Violating Drivers' Privacy HEALTHSOUTH: Trying To Avoid Litigation, Begin Restructuring HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Lawyers, Doctors Meet To Discuss Lawsuit HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls More Than 277,000 Cars in South Korea INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholders' Litigation MAYNE GROUP: Recalling Pan Products Resupplied to the Public MCI/WORLDCOM: Wins District Court Nod for $750M SEC Settlement MCI/WORLDCOM: Files Supplemental Disclosure Statement MCI/WORLDCOM: Gray Panthers "Disappointed" Over Settlement PDS GAMING: Third Lawsuit Filed Over Proposed Management Buyout PUBLIC SERVICE: Judge To Decide on State Board Intervention SARA LEE: Lead Plaintiff Petitions for Fraud Suit Due July 14 SEITEL INC: Reaches Agreement-In-Principle With Ranch Capital ST. PAUL: W.Va. Lawsuit Alleges Insurer's Financial Misdealings SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits SYNSORB BIOTECH: Court Fixes Settlement Hearing on September 12 TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Monitoring Trial Nearing End UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Accused of Illegal Body Dumping New Securities Fraud Cases ADMINISTAFF INC: Milberg Weiss Commences Lawsuit in S.D. Texas ADMINISTAFF INC: Glancy & Binkow LLP Launches Lawsuit in S.D. TX POLYMEDICA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit POLYMEDICA CORP: Charles J. Piven Launches Securities Suit in MA READ-RITE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA ********* AMERICAN AIRLINES: Call-Center Workers Sue Over Changed Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two Tucson-based call-center employees filed a class action lawsuit against American Airlines charging that American improperly changed vacation and holiday policies causing some employees to lose time off they had earned, according to The Arizona Republic. Reservation agents Nancy Geiger and Laura Davis filed suit in Pima County Superior Court on behalf of all the estimated 14,000 American Airlines customer service center employees. CLARION COUNTY: May Be Sued Over Unjust Property Assessments ------------------------------------------------------------ Clarion County faces possible litigation involving claims of unjust tax assessments on properties. Florida resident Ed Nusser, who owns property in East Brady, said he has researched the situation over the past year and discovered the assessments of mobile homes he looked into were higher than what they should be, according to The Derrick & News Herald. He said he is in the early stages of planning a class-action lawsuit against the county. Nusser said he found his seasonal residence was being taxed for a basement it doesn't have. He said he appealed the matter and was refunded six years' worth of taxes. Nusser also claimed he investigated 12 mobile residences in East Brady and found that each was assessed between two and 10 times higher than what they should have been. He said he is seeking refunds for all affected property owners in the county. EUNIVERSE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Friday ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders have until Friday, July 11, 2003 to seek appointment by the Court as one of the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of eUniverse, Inc. (Nasdaq:EUNI) during the period between July 31, 2002 and May 5, 2003, inclusive. eUniverse, Inc., Brad D. Greenspan and Joseph L. Varraveto are named as defendants in the Complaint. The Complaint charges that defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly reported sales and earnings. In particular, it is alleged that defendants overstated the Company's revenues and net income for the second and third quarters, and possibly the first, of the Company's fiscal year ended March 31, 2003. Before the market opened on May 6, 2003, eUniverse issued a press release announcing that it intends to restate its financial statements for the second and third quarters, and possibly the first, of fiscal 2003, and that the restatement will result in a material adverse change to its previously reported financial results. In response to the Company's announcement, the Nasdaq stock market halted trading in the Company's stock until eUniverse satisfies Nasdaq's request for additional information. Furthermore, on May 8, 2003, eUniverse announced that the Securities & Exchange Commission has opened an informal inquiry into the matter, and that director Jeffrey C. Lapin, who had served on the Company's Audit Committee, had resigned. For questions, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of the Pomerantz firm at 888-476-6529 (or (888) 4-POMLAW), toll free, or at agtolan@pomlaw.com by e-mail. FLORIDA: Naples Man Sues Brokers for Violating Drivers' Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- A Naples man is suing five information brokers, claiming they violated a federal privacy law by taking personal information from Florida drivers' records, reported Associated Press Newswires. Robert V. Rosen, the plaintiff, is seeking class- action certification for the lawsuits. The five lawsuits have been filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers. They allege the companies obtained Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle records in violation of the federal Driver Privacy Protection Act. Those records include people's names, addresses, birth dates and other information detailed on motor vehicle titles, the lawsuits claim. The suits are part of a campaign challenging the state's handling of the records; however, the Florida motor vehicle department is not a defendant in any of the cases. The named defendants are ChoicePoint Inc., Acxiom Corp., eFunds Corp., Seisint Inc. and Reed Elsevier Inc., the parent company of Lexis Nexis. The five lawsuits are seeking fines of $2,500 for each instance in which the companies distributed information from Florida drivers' records. Mr. Rosen is listed as co-plaintiff in three similar suits filed in Tampa by a St. Petersburg man. HEALTHSOUTH: Trying To Avoid Litigation, Begin Restructuring ------------------------------------------------------------ HealthSouth's new leaders are meeting with shareholders and creditors this week to persuade them that strong operations will help the company avoid bankruptcy if it can restructure debt and navigate the shoals of class action lawsuits and government investigations related to massive accounting fraud, according to Associated Press Newswires. Officials at HealthSouth, where investigators have uncovered a $2.5 billion accounting fraud so far, are telling shareholders and creditors that its core businesses remain solid; that the outpatient surgery and hospital chain can avoid bankruptcy so long as the company manages the class-action lawsuits and government probes from the fraud. Interim chairman Joel C. Gordon said the company remains "solid and profitable," with an expectation of consolidated net revenue reaching $4.1 billion at the end of the next 12 months. This update, presented to creditors and shareholders, was the first significant update of HealthSouth's financial fitness since March, when federal regulators accused the company and its now-ousted chief executive Richard M. Scrushy of faking $2.5 billion in profits between 1997 and 2002, to meet Wall Street expectations. Chief restructuring officer Bryan Marsal outlined a plan that calls for draconian cost cuts, tighter spending and the selling of noncore assets. Mr. Marsal said an ongoing fact-finding review, aimed at determining the extent of the fraud, found that Medicare reimbursements apparently were not affected. Mr. Scrushy has not been charged with a crime, but 11 former executives, including five former chied financial officers, have pleaded guilty in the accounting scandal. The new leadership hopes to establish a different kind of corporate structure, Mr. Marsal said. Interim CEO Robert P. May said board members acted quickly to remove Mr. Scrushy and fire auditor Ernst & Young. They named an interim leadership team; hired accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers to conduct a forensic audit; placed high- powered law firm Skadden Arps on retainer and contracted turnaround expert Alvarez & Marsal to help stabilize the business. Lawyer Steven Rothschild said, "While we have been cooperating, we cannot rule out that the company may be charged criminally. That certainly could be the death knell for the company." HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Lawyers, Doctors Meet To Discuss Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for Cigna Corporation and doctors who claim the company cheated them out of reimbursements met recently in federal court in Miami, but no settlement yet appears likely, reported Reuters News. Cigna and Aetna Inc. are attempting to break away from the other members of the healthcare industry sued by the doctors in order to settle the class-action lawsuit brought against them by some 700,000 doctors who claim HMOs meddle in doctors' care of patients by arbitrarily denying specialist referrals and cutting short hospital stays in order to trim costs. A federal judge gave preliminary approval in May to Aetna's $100 million pact to settle with the doctors, thereby eliminating that health plan from the broader lawsuit. Aetna agreed to pay doctors faster and to set up an appeals process for doctors to protest rejected claims. Miami federal Judge Federico Moreno late last year blocked Cigna from settling with a smaller group of doctors in Illinois to escape culpability in the class-action lawsuit against health- maintenance organizations. Judge Moreno said Cigna needed to settle with all the doctors at once instead of on a regional basis. Attorneys for many other big health plans, including UnitedHealth Group Inc. and WellPoint Health Networks Inc., have vowed to fight the charges. HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls More Than 277,000 Cars in South Korea ------------------------------------------------------------ Hyundai Motor is recalling 277,455 compact cars and sport utility vehicles sold in South Korea for free repair over problems related to engines and other parts, tells Reuters. The move involves: 1) Avante XD and Tuscani compact models, recalled because of a defect related to their engines 2) Sport utility vehicles such as the Santa Fe and Trajet models, recalled to replace parts related to its exhaust system, The Ministry of Construction and Transportation said in a statement, "Hyundai voluntarily decided to recall them to improve its image as those problems may be reported when the vehicles are used for more than 10 years or so." INSIGNIA FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Stockholders' Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Insignia Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE: IFS) and CBRE Holding, Inc. announced they have reached an agreement in principle with certain stockholders of Insignia that provides for the settlement of purported class action litigation recently commenced by such stockholders against Insignia, the directors of Insignia, CBRE Holding and an affiliate thereof and Island Fund I LLC. The parties expect to enter into a memorandum of understanding reflecting their agreement in principle within the next few days. This settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of Insignia in connection with the proposed merger between Insignia and CB Richard Ellis, an affiliate of CBRE Holding, or the timing of the special meeting of stockholders of Insignia scheduled for July 22, 2003, at the offices of Proskauer Rose LLP, 1585 Broadway, New York, New York 10036, at 9:00 a.m. local time, to vote upon a proposal to adopt the merger agreement among Insignia, CBRE Holding and certain of its affiliates and to approve the merger. If the merger is approved, the closing of the merger is expected to occur on July 23, 2003. As previously disclosed in the merger proxy statement, which was first mailed to stockholders of Insignia on June 24, 2003, between May 22, 2003 and May 30, 2003, certain of Insignia's stockholders filed three purported class actions with the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, New Castle County, against Insignia, CBRE Holding and an affiliate thereof, the directors of Insignia and Island Fund in connection with the proposed merger and the purchase by Island Fund of certain real estate investment assets from Insignia immediately prior to the merger upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in a purchase agreement among Island Fund, CBRE Holding and Insignia. If the sale to Island Fund is completed prior to the merger and certain conditions in the merger agreement are satisfied, the consideration in the merger will be increased from $11.00 to $11.156 per share of common stock of Insignia. Island Fund is an entity affiliated with Andrew L. Farkas, Insignia's Chief Executive Officer, and other executive officers of Insignia. On June 26, 2003, the three purported class actions were consolidated, and on June 30, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. In addition to the allegations made and remedies sought in the separate complaints, the amended consolidated complaint alleged, among other things, that (1) the special committee of the board of directors of Insignia failed to meaningfully represent the interests of the public stockholders of Insignia by agreeing to the terms of the purchase agreement with Island Fund without having an independent third party appraise the real estate investment assets and by not having appropriately discussed or considered the impact of Mr. Farkas' employment agreement and benefits on the merger consideration to be received by the public stockholders of Insignia; and (2) the proxy statement is materially false and misleading for several reasons, including the failure to disclose any meaningful information concerning the real estate investment assets that are being sold to Island Fund (such as the original purchase price, location and size of these assets), the failure to provide sufficient information regarding the other industry participant with whom Insignia has had contacts concerning a potential business combination, and the failure to disclose in meaningful fashion the facts surrounding the extension of Mr. Farkas' employment agreement signed in December 2002. On July 1, 2003, Insignia and the other defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs providing for the settlement of the consolidated complaint. In connection with this settlement, Insignia agreed to provide additional information to its stockholders, which information is contained below in this press release and should be read in conjunction with the merger proxy statement. In return, the plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal of the amended consolidated complaint and to withdraw all motions filed in connection with such complaint. In addition, Insignia agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel in an amount to be approved by the court. The parties have not yet agreed upon the amount of legal fees and expenses that plaintiffs will seek, but the parties' position on the amount will be set forth in a notice to be sent to Insignia stockholders prior to a hearing before the court to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' fee application. This payment will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid in the merger. The settlement is subject to the approval of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. Insignia and CBRE Holding deny Plaintiffs' allegations in the amended consolidated complaint and have agreed to settle the purported class action litigation in order to avoid costly litigation and eliminate the risk of any delay to the closing of the merger. Insignia's Reasons for Agreeing to the Sale of Its Real Estate Investment Assets to Island Fund for an Aggregate Consideration of Less Than Their Book Value Insignia agreed to sell its real estate investment assets to Island Fund for aggregate consideration that is less than the $64.5 million book value of these assets as of March 31, 2003, and is near the low end of the $50.0 to $111.2 million valuation range attributed to these assets by Bear Stearns, the financial advisor to the special committee of Insignia's board of directors, in its analysis of these assets for the purpose of Bear Stearns' opinion with respect to the fairness, from a financial point of view, of the merger consideration to the stockholders of Insignia. Insignia agreed to do so because it believes that the transaction with Island Fund presented the best alternative reasonably available under the circumstances in order to increase the merger consideration to its stockholders above $11.00 per share of common stock. Among other things, Insignia considered the following factors: * Despite efforts by Insignia to market and sell all of the real estate investment assets, the offer made by Island Fund was the only offer for all of the real estate investment assets, interested potential purchasers for some of the assets were difficult to find and the Insignia stockholders likely would not receive any additional merger consideration unless all or substantially all of such assets were sold prior to or simultaneously with the merger. * Even if Insignia had been able to find multiple purchasers that would enter into purchase agreements resulting in an increase in the merger consideration, the failure to close any one of those transactions prior to the closing of the merger could result in the failure to obtain any increased merger consideration for Insignia's stockholders. * The principals of Island Fund that include Mr. Farkas, James A. Aston, Ronald Uretta and Jeffrey P. Cohen, who are executive officers of Insignia, were already familiar with the real estate investment assets. Insignia believed that this familiarity increased the likelihood that a closing of the sale to Island Fund could occur on or prior to the closing of the merger and result in the Insignia stockholder receiving additional merger consideration. * Bear Stearns' valuation of Insignia's real estate investment assets was based in part on the assumption that these assets will be sold in an orderly liquidation over an extended period of time according to each asset's business plan, and not a sale in the short period between the signing and the closing of the merger agreement. Under the terms of the merger agreement, any sale of Insignia's real estate investment assets must close and cash proceeds must be received by Insignia on or prior to the closing date of the merger in order to increase the merger consideration above $11.00 per share of common stock. Although an orderly liquidation of Insignia's real estate investment assets over a longer period of time might have resulted in greater aggregate consideration for such assets than provided for in the purchase agreement with Island Fund, such a liquidation most likely would have resulted in Insignia receiving a significant portion of the cash proceeds from such sales after the closing of the merger, in which case, under the terms of the merger agreement, there would not have been any increase in the merger consideration to be received by Insignia's stockholders. * Insignia's real estate investment assets principally are indirect interests in real property that are highly leveraged and speculative, resulting in a wide range of possible valuations. * Most of the real estate investment assets consist of minority, non-controlling interests that Insignia holds in office space, retail, industrial, apartment and hotel properties, which, coupled with the volatility and uncertainty of the real estate market, adversely affected Insignia's and any potential buyer's ability to evaluate and predict the ability to recover and obtain a return on these investments. CBRE Holding's Reasons for Agreeing to the Sale of Real Estate Investment Assets to Island Fund CBRE Holding intended for the real estate investment assets to be sold at the earliest time that such a sale would be commercially reasonable. CBRE Holding's reasons for entering into the purchase agreement with Insignia and Island Fund to sell the real estate investment assets prior to the merger and agreeing to amend the merger agreement to provide that a portion of the sale proceeds would be received by Insignia's stockholders, instead of retaining the real estate investment assets to sell to one or more other parties after the closing of the merger and being able to keep all of the proceeds of such sales, are the following: * The continued ownership of the real estate investment assets by CBRE Holding would represent real estate investments significantly greater than those currently held by CBRE Holding and generally would not be consistent with its business strategy of continuing to focus its lines of business in the commercial real estate services industry. * CBRE Holding's continued ownership of the real estate investment assets and the marketing of these assets for sale to third parties after the merger would be a significant distraction for CBRE Holding's senior management and prevent them from focusing exclusively on business opportunities available to CBRE Holding in the commercial real estate services business. * CBRE Holding's desire to avoid the risk of a future reduction in the value of the real estate investment assets due to potential adverse developments in the specific real estate markets in which the real estate investment assets were located or in the United States real estate market generally. * The sale of all of the real estate investment assets to Island Fund was significantly more certain to be completed than potential future sales to one or more unidentified third party buyers after the completion of the merger. * CBRE Holding believed at the time it entered into the purchase agreement, after discussions with personnel in its valuation line of business, that in light of the relatively short time frame in which CBRE Holding desired to dispose of such assets it was not likely to receive a higher price for the real estate investment assets than the price being paid by Island Fund. Although CBRE Holding consulted with certain of its employees regarding the potential value of the real estate investment assets, CBRE Holding did not ascribe particular values to any of the assets or otherwise conduct any appraisals of the values of such assets. * CBRE Holding believed that Island Fund was the only party that would be willing to buy all of the real estate investment assets in a single transaction, and that future sales of the portions of the real estate investment assets to multiple buyers could involve significant selling expenses, as well as a greater distraction to members of CBRE Holding's senior management team. * The cash proceeds from a sale of the real estate investment assets to Island Fund prior to the closing of the merger represented a financially superior alternative to the cash financing that CBRE Holding would be required to obtain from its stockholders in the absence of such a sale in order to partially finance the merger. Reasons CBRE Holding Decided Not to Invest in Joint Ventures Proposed by Andrew L. Farkas with respect to the Real Estate Investment Assets Between December 24, 2002 and February 9, 2003, CBRE Holding discussed participating in one or more joint ventures with Mr. Farkas and other third parties that would hold some or all of the real estate investment assets after the closing of the merger. On February 9, 2003, Raymond Wirta, the Chief Executive Officer of CBRE Holding, informed Mr. Farkas that CBRE Holding did not wish to invest in the joint ventures that had been proposed by Mr. Farkas on February 3, 2003, and that its strong preference at such time would be for Insignia to sell all of its interests in the real estate investment assets and not retain any joint venture interest. The reasons for CBRE Holding's decision to no longer consider an investment in the joint ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas were the following: * The aggregate contributions that would be made by CBRE Holding in connection with the two joint ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas represented a retained investment of approximately $27.4 million in the real estate investment assets, and CBRE Holding believed that an investment of this size in the real estate investment assets was inconsistent with both its business focus on commercial real estate services, as well as its financing needs in connection with the merger with Insignia. * The joint ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas contemplated that Mr. Farkas would raise approximately $35.55 million of cash financing from third party investors between the signing of definitive joint venture documents and the closing of the merger. CBRE Holding believed that the absence of firmly committed financing arrangements at the time definitive documents would be signed did not provide sufficient certainty that the joint ventures could be implemented prior to the closing of the merger. * Based upon the promotional interests and other fees included in the joint venture proposal of Mr. Farkas, CBRE Holding did not consider an investment in the joint ventures to be sufficiently economically attractive for CBRE Holding. * CBRE Holding did not believe that definitive agreements regarding the joint ventures proposed by Mr. Farkas could be negotiated by the parties in the limited time available to them prior to February 12, 2003 (the deadline the parties had imposed for the conclusion or termination of discussions regarding the merger as a result of the public announcement of negotiations), especially in light of the significant negotiations that remained with respect to the merger agreement and the related financing documents. Insignia's Discussions with Another Industry Participant Regarding a Potential Business Combination In November 2002, Insignia was approached by another industry participant regarding a possible transaction in which Insignia would be acquired. On December 17, 2002, the board of directors of Insignia met to discuss, among other things, the status of the discussions with both CBRE Holding and the other industry participant. The board was advised that no formal offer had been made by the other industry participant and then discussed some of the pros and cons of a potential transaction with that party. The board's view was that a transaction with the other industry participant was not a viable possibility because the other industry participant's market capitalization was small and it did not appear to have the necessary financial resources to complete a transaction to acquire Insignia. Nevertheless, the board decided to allow the other industry participant to conduct due diligence in order to increase the likelihood of a possible offer from the other industry participant. On December 27, 2002, the other industry participant entered into a confidentiality agreement with Insignia, but declined to enter into an agreement restricting or prohibiting each party's ability to hire the other party's employees, similar to that entered into by CBRE Holding. In the following weeks, counsel to the other industry participant conducted due diligence and reviewed the materials in the data room, but the other industry participant never indicated the price per share that it would be willing to pay Insignia's stockholders in a sale transaction or otherwise made a definitive offer relating to any transaction to acquire Insignia or any part of its business. Nature of Insignia's Real Estate Investment Assets The real estate investment assets that are subject to the purchase agreement with Island Fund are generally those that relate to Insignia's principal investment activities, which include: * Insignia's minority investments of 1% to 30% in approximately 31 office space, retail, industrial, apartment and hotel properties; * Insignia's minority investments of 25% to 33% in four office development projects and a related parcel of undeveloped land; * Insignia's wholly owned investments in real property in Norman, Oklahoma, and in the U.S. Virgin Islands; and * Insignia's investments in two private equity funds that invest primarily in real estate debt securities. A list of the assets and properties underlying Insignia's interests that are subject to the purchase agreement with Island Fund, including their respective book values as of December 31, 2002 and as of March 31, 2003, and, where applicable, the location and size of the underlying real property, is set forth in the table attached as Annex A. Amended Employment Agreement of Andrew L. Farkas The employment agreement of Mr. Farkas under which he is entitled to the payments and benefits described in the merger proxy statement was amended in December 2002. Although Insignia's discussions with CBRE Holding regarding the proposed merger were ongoing at the time the amendment was executed, the outcome of these discussions at that point was uncertain and Mr. Farkas' original agreement was about to expire on December 31, 2002. In addition, the terms of the amended agreement were approved in principle by the compensation committee of Insignia's board of directors in February 2002, well before Insignia commenced the discussions with CBRE Holding that led to the proposed merger. The agreement in principle reached with Mr. Farkas concerning the amendment to his employment agreement and the financial terms of that agreement were disclosed to Insignia's stockholders in the proxy statement, dated April 15, 2002, relating to the 2002 annual meeting of stockholders of Insignia. Insignia's compensation committee, at a December 18, 2002 meeting, again approved the terms of the amendment to Mr. Farkas' employment agreement. Mr. Farkas' amended employment agreement was described in Insignia's Annual Report on Form 10- K/A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2003. Mr. Farkas' amended employment agreement extended his employment with Insignia until December 31, 2005, and its terms are otherwise similar in all material respects to the terms agreed upon in principle with Mr. Farkas in February 2002. About Insignia Financial Group, Inc. Insignia Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE: IFS), based in New York, is among the world's foremost real estate services and investment banking firms with a leadership position in the commercial sector. Its major operating units are: Insignia/ESG, one of the largest providers of commercial real estate services in the United States; Insignia Richard Ellis, one of the premier real estate services firms in the United Kingdom; and Insignia Bourdais, one of France's premier commercial real estate services companies. Insignia also deploys its own capital, together with the capital of third-party investors, in principal investment activities, including co-investment in existing assets and real estate development, and provides investment management services to investment funds sponsored by the Company. Additional information about the Company is available on the corporate Web site at www.insigniafinancial.com. About CB Richard Ellis Headquartered in Los Angeles, CB Richard Ellis is one of the world's leading real estate services companies. With approximately 9,500 employees, CB Richard Ellis serves real estate owners, investors and occupiers throughout approximately 250 owned and affiliated offices in 47 countries. CB Richard Elllis' core services portfolio includes property sales, leasing and management, corporate services, facilities and project management, mortgage banking, investment management, capital markets, appraisal and valuation, research, and consulting. CBRE Holding, the parent of CB Richard Ellis, reported net revenues of $1.17 billion in 2002. For more information about CB Richard Ellis, visit its Web site at http://www.cbre.com MAYNE GROUP: Recalling Pan Products Resupplied to the Public ------------------------------------------------------------ Australia's Mayne Group Ltd. (A.MAY) is recalling more than 350 over-the-counter products made by Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (A.PPH), which the company accidentally resupplied to the public, Dow Jones reports. This move is being done after Mayne received reports that some of its previously recalled Pan manufactured products had been recently sold in Queensland to the general public. The Therapeutic Goods Administration in April suspended Pan Pharmaceuticals' license to manufacture medicines for six months due to breaches of safety and quality guidelines, including the substitution of ingredients. As a result, the TGA ordered the urgent recall of hundreds of vitamin and nutritional supplements, pain relievers and other products that Pan Pharmaceuticals manufactured and supplied in Australia. The case represented Australia's largest ever medical product recall, according to Dow Jones. MCI/WORLDCOM: Wins District Court Nod for $750M SEC Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- MCI (WCOEQ, MCWEQ) received U.S. District Court approval for its amended proposed settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The settlement calls for a civil penalty to the company of $2.25 billion to be satisfied by a $500 million cash payment and $250 million in common stock to shareholders and bondholders upon emergence from Chapter 11 protection. In his ruling, Judge Rakoff stated: "The Court is aware of no large company accused of fraud that has so completely divorced itself from the misdeeds of the immediate past and undertaken such extraordinary steps to prevent such misdeeds in the future." Referring to the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Judge Rakoff said the SEC "with the full cooperation of the company's new management and significant encouragement from the Court- appointed Corporate Monitor (Richard C. Breeden, Esq.), has sought something different: * Not just to clean house but to put the company on a new and positive footing; * Not just to enjoin future violations but to create models of corporate governance and internal compliance for this and other companies to follow; * Not just to impose penalties but to help stabilize and reorganize the company and thereby help preserve more than 50,000 jobs and obtain some modest, if inadequate, recompense for those shareholder victims who would otherwise recover nothing whatever from the company itself." The following statement should be attributed to Michael D. Capellas, MCI chairman and chief executive officer: "We have made significant strides in rebuilding our company and we believe today's ruling is a positive reflection of the hard work and dedication of MCI's 55,000 employees, the loyalty of our customers and the support of our creditors. We have committed to being a role model of corporate governance and the significant changes we have already implemented are a testament to that commitment. "The approved SEC settlement marks a significant milestone in the company's emergence from Chapter 11 protection, which remains on track for later this fall." About WorldCom, Inc. WorldCom, Inc. (WCOEQ, MCWEQ), which currently conducts business under the MCI brand name, is a leading global communications provider, delivering innovative, cost-effective, advanced communications connectivity to businesses, governments and consumers. With the industry's most expansive global IP backbone and wholly-owned data networks, WorldCom develops the converged communications products and services that are the foundation for commerce and communications in today's market. For more information, go to http://www.mci.com. MCI/WORLDCOM: Files Supplemental Disclosure Statement ----------------------------------------------------- MCI (WCOEQ, MCWEQ) filed new revised exhibits to the Supplement to Disclosure Statement which it filed on July 3, 2003 with the U. S. Bankruptcy Court. The Supplement filing includes a description of the company's previously announced amended settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which was approved by the U.S. District Court. Also included are a proposed settlement between the company and a group of financial institutions that would resolve pending litigation, as well as the revised projected financial information supporting the company's plan of reorganization. The company's revised financial guidance projects 2003-2005 revenue will be $24.5 billion, $24.6 billion and $25.0 billion respectively. This compares to previously projected 2003-2005 revenue of $24.7 billion, $25.8 billion and $27.8 billion respectively. The revenue reductions are primarily in the company's consumer and small business segments, reflecting intense pricing competition fueled by new entries of unlimited bundles, aggressive new DSL offerings and rapid adoption of national Do Not Call legislation. Collectively these impacts have reduced consumer and small business effective rates in key markets by as much as 40 percent since April 2003. Projections for the company's large and global business segments remain relatively unchanged for 2003 and 2004, reflecting continued customer loyalty. Projected earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for 2003-2005 are now expected to be $2.7 billion, $3.7 billion and $4.1 billion respectively, reflecting the lower revenue projections partially offset by lower sales, general and administrative expenses. This compares with previously projected EBITDA of $2.8 billion, $4.1 billion and $5.4 billion respectively. "While we have been meeting our plan, we believe these adjustments better reflect the changing market conditions," said Bob Blakely, MCI chief financial officer. "Our cash position remains strong and customer loyalty in our large and global customer base remains solid. Moving forward, we remain on track to emerge from Chapter 11 protection later this fall." Under the revised financial projections the return to WorldCom bondholders remains virtually unchanged, with lower EBITDA being offset by a projected improved cash position. "We have reviewed the company's revised financial projections and continue to remain fully supportive of MCI's Plan of Reorganization," said Mark Neporent, Managing director and chief operating officer of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. and co- chair of MCI's Unsecured Creditors Committee. "MCI's management team has made tremendous progress on the company's reorganization efforts in a very short amount of time. We look forward to their continued success in bringing the company out of Chapter 11 protection and driving future stakeholder value." MCI/WORLDCOM: Gray Panthers "Disappointed" Over Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Will Thomas, director of the Corporate Accountability Project of the Gray Panthers, issued the following statement: "Judge Rakoff's unfortunate decision to ratify the SEC- MCI/WorldCom settlement comes on the heels of MCI/WorldCom's de facto admission of guilt -- $250 million in new company stock to those who lost $176 billion, including pensioners and 401(k) holders. The new arrangement offers eight cents a share to all those ripped-off investors. It's simply another sweetheart deal arranged for MCI/WorldCom in the Federal government's ongoing campaign to keep the company afloat at all costs. We're disappointed by Judge Rakoff's decision, but we're far from discouraged. The campaign to hold MCI/WorldCom accountable for its $11 billion fraud is far from over. Congress is now questioning the failure of the General Services Administration to debar MCI/WorldCom from Federal contracting; we know there is hope that retirees, taxpayers, and investors will see the company held to account for its epic fraud. Senators Collins, Hatch, Kennedy, and Santorum deserve much praise and credit for their leadership on this issue. The American people were promised that Washington was serious about cleaning up the fraud in corporate boardrooms. The Gray Panthers want to see results. We won't stop in our efforts to see to it that MCI/WorldCom is barred from Federal contracting and off the gravy train." PDS GAMING: Third Lawsuit Filed Over Proposed Management Buyout --------------------------------------------------------------- PDS Gaming Corporation (Nasdaq:PDSG) announced that it has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed by a shareholder in District Court, Clark County, Nevada. The complaint alleges that the members of the Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties in approving a letter of intent with respect to a proposal submitted by a management group to acquire shares of common stock of the Company as announced in the Company's press releases dated February 24, 2003 and February 26, 2003. The Company believes the allegations are without merit. This is the third such complaint against the Company relating to the proposed management acquisition. Each of the two prior lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed by the respective plaintiffs in response to the Company's motion to dismiss. A special committee of the Company's Board of Directors, consisting of its independent directors and the management group continue to negotiate toward a definitive agreement. The proposal is subject to, among other things, the execution of a definitive agreement, approval by a committee of the Company's independent directors and by a majority of the Company's shares not owned by the management group, the procuring of all necessary consents of the Company's commercial lenders and the trustees under the indentures covering the Company's outstanding debt securities, the securing of required approvals from all gaming regulatory agencies, the obtaining of the necessary financing, and the receipt by the Company of a favorable fairness opinion from an investment bank. For additional information, contact Peter Cleary, Interim Chief Financial Officer by Mail: 6171 McLeod Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89120 or by Phone: (702) 736-0700. PUBLIC SERVICE: Judge To Decide on State Board Intervention ----------------------------------------------------------- The state of New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities (BPU) may learn this week whether it will gain jurisdiction over a class- action lawsuit that claims thousands of gas supply lines and meters used by Public Service Electric & Gas are dangerously close to driveways, reported Associated Press Newswires. Superior Court Judge Ronald Bookbinder will consider the request during a hearing the end of this week in Mount Holly, New Jersey. Keith Sheehan, a deputy state attorney general representing the BPU, made the request to intervene in legal papers filed in June. Mr. Sheehan said the agency should be allowed to intervene because the lawsuit is a matter of public importance that affects natural gas customers statewide. The BPU has regulatory control of the utility, Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G), including jurisdiction over line placement and safety issues. The location of gas lines and meters, which in some instances are just inches away from town houses and condominium driveways, came under scrutiny earlier this year, on February 24, after a Mount Laurel woman's car skidded on ice and severed her gas line. The subsequent explosion and fire destroyed three homes and damaged two others in the Springwood Village complex. The driver was not hurt and none of her neighbors were injured. Residents of Springwood Village filed the lawsuit in March, demanding that PSE&G move or shield gas meters and gas lines that are in dangerous locations. The utility then asked the BPU to intervene because it has specific knowledge of the issues involved. However, the residents' attorneys also say the court should decide the remedy, as well as determine whether liability and damages are necessary in the residents' lawsuit. SARA LEE: Lead Plaintiff Petitions for Fraud Suit Due July 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- Chicago law firm Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. reminds investors that lead plaintiff petitions for securities fraud lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who purchased Sara Lee Corporation are due July 14, 2003. The Complaint that Much Shelist has filed alleges that Sara Lee 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 during the Class Period. Also named in the Complaint are C. Steven McMillan, Sara Lee's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and Lambertus M. de Kool, its Chief Financial Officer. According to the Complaint, these misstatements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of Sara Lee securities while Company insiders sold over $23 million of their own stock. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the statements concerning the Company's operations and prospects were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose: (a) that, despite the Company Reshaping program, Sara Lee was still burdened with numerous poorly performing businesses and would have to reevaluate its various businesses. Accordingly, Sara Lee did not have "the right mix of businesses" in that several material businesses were "not growing" or were "in significant decline"; (b) that the Sara Lee's underperforming businesses were causing the Company to experience declining results and, as a result, Sara Lee would not be growing at the rates represented to the market; (c) due to a lack of proper internal or financial controls, Sara Lee failed to identify or recognize those businesses or brands among its portfolio of companies that would need to be "run dramatically differently in the future"; and (d) based on the foregoing, Sara Lee lacked any reasonable basis upon which to project it (i) would experience "double-digit operating income increase" for fiscal 2003 among its "five lines of business" or (ii) have diluted EPS for fiscal 2003 in the range of $1.54 to $1.60. On April 24, 2003, Sara Lee shocked the market when it issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter ending March 31, 2003. The Company announced that it was reducing earnings for fiscal 2003 to $1.50 to $1.52 per share, significantly below consensus expectations of $1.59. In response to this announcement, the price of Sara Lee common stock closed down $1.94 from the previous day's ending price. For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden or Michael E. Moskovitz at Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., by calling a toll-free number 1-800-470-6824, or by sending an e-mail to investorhelp@muchshelist.com. SEITEL INC: Reaches Agreement-In-Principle With Ranch Capital ------------------------------------------------------------- Seitel, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SEIE; TORONTO: OSL) announced it has reached an agreement-in-principle with Ranch Capital L.L.C. for a consensual reorganization of the Company's capital structure, including all $255 million outstanding principal amount of Seitel's senior notes, which Ranch Capital previously purchased. Ranch Capital, as the successor to the noteholders that filed the involuntary bankruptcy petitions against the Company and several of its U.S. subsidiaries, has agreed to extend the time to respond to the petition to July 21, 2003, to permit preparation of a proposed plan and related disclosure statement to be filed with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court with respect to the reorganization. Ranch has agreed in principle to fund the proposed plan. The proposed plan would (i) pay in full on agreed terms all of the Company's senior secured debt, which total approximately $12 million; (ii) pay cash equal to approximately 71% of allowed unsecured claims which are owing or are guaranteed by entities that conduct Seitel's principal operations; (iii) pay cash equal to a percentage to be determined but not more than 71% of allowed unsecured claims which are owing or are guaranteed by entities not presently conducting operations or which have no substantial assets; and (iv) subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, distribute approximately $10.2 million in cash to the holders of equity interests in Seitel. The Company estimates that all allowed unsecured claims in all classes would total approximately $265 million, including the $255 million of senior notes purchased by Ranch Capital. Pursuant to the proposed plan, the existing common stock would be canceled, and upon consummation of the proposed plan, 100% of the new common stock of the Company would be issued to Ranch Capital in consideration for its funding of the proposed plan. Including all of its components, the transactions contemplated by the proposed plan have an aggregate value of approximately $287 million. As previously disclosed, the Company's Canadian subsidiaries are not parties to the bankruptcy proceedings and the proposed plan and the payouts described above do not impact any operations or creditors of Seitel's Canadian subsidiaries. As noted above, the proposed plan provides for payment of approximately $10.2 million in cash to holders of equity interests in Seitel. This distribution, if allocated solely in respect of the existing common stock, would represent $.40 per share. The exact payout per share, if any, depends on the amount, if any, which may become payable pursuant to the class action litigation presently pending against the Company, and is conditioned upon the affirmative vote of shareholders and confirmation of the proposed plan. If the proposed plan were not confirmed or if shareholders were to vote against the proposed plan and it were to be confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court despite their rejection of it, no distribution would be made to existing shareholders. ST. PAUL: W.Va. Lawsuit Alleges Insurer's Financial Misdealings --------------------------------------------------------------- A few executives at what once was the nation's biggest medical malpractice insurer, St. Paul, reaped more than $45 million in bonuses, salaries and stock options from a business strategy that cost more than 40,000 U.S. doctors their coverage, a recently unsealed West Virginia lawsuit alleges, reports Associated Press Newswires. The lawsuit, seeking class-action status, was filed recently in Kanawha County Circuit Court against insurer, St. Paul. The lawsuit links a series of dealings by its top executives to the company's decision in 2001, to abandon the doctors it insured, including more than 1,000 in West Virginia. The alleged dealings include the 2000 purchase of MMI, a significant insurance competitor. For expanding St. Paul's share of the malpractice market, the deal earned three executives $1.44 million in bonuses, the lawsuit said. It also cost St. Paul $638 million within two years to keep insurance regulators from shutting down MMI's financially troubled U.S. subsidiary, the lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit also targets the transfer of $1.1 billion in premiums paid by the doctors to boost St. Paul's earnings. The pillaging of these reserves helped executives to reap $5.2 million in bonuses for meeting projections in 1999 and 2000 alone, the lawsuit alleges. Attorney Neil Dilloff, defendants' representative, and who is with the Baltimore law firm Piper Rudnick, "There is no driving pecuniary force that led them to make a stupid acquisition [of MMI]," said Mr. Dilloff. "It's a very shortsighted theory." The lawsuit was originally filed last year by three Charleston surgeons: Eric Mantz, Willis Trammell and Tod Witsberger. Originally, they sued over the handling of their "tail" insurance policies after St. Paul stopped selling insurance nationwide in December 2001. This form of malpractice insurance covers claims filed after a doctor retires, dies or otherwise stops practicing. The lawsuit charges St. Paul promised free tail coverage, then charged premiums for it and then withdrew it when it quit the market. When the plaintiffs added two more doctors, it sought class- action status and expanded the scope of the amended lawsuit to include the alleged financial misdealings. Because the amended lawsuit quoted internal company documents, it remained sealed until a judge's ruling late last month. SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Walls, sitting in Newark, threw out two securities fraud lawsuits against bankrupt cheese maker Suprema Specialties' former executives, board of directors, outside auditor and three investment banking firms that handled the company's November 2001 public stock offering, reports The Star- Ledger. Judge Walls states the complaints did not contain enough details of alleged wrongdoing. However, attorneys for the class-action case and an institutional investor can still file amended complaints until late August. SYNSORB BIOTECH: Court Fixes Settlement Hearing on September 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- A securities fraud lawsuit against Synsorb Biotech Inc. has been filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the company's common stock from April 4, 2001 through and including December 10, 2001. A hearing shall be held before the Honorable Lawrence McKenna, United States District Judge, on September 12, 2003, at 10:00 a.m. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, to determine whether an order should be entered (i) certifying this action as a class action on behalf of the above-defined Class for settlement purposes; (ii) finally approving the proposed settlement of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this Action against Defendants Synsorb Biotech Inc., David Cox, Bill Hogg, and Dr. Murray Ratcliffe on the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 30, 2003 (the "Settlement"); (iii) dismissing this Action with prejudice; and (iv) awarding counsel fees and reimbursement of expenses to counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class. The proposed Settlement affects the rights of Class Members as defined by the Stipulation of Settlement and as provisionally certified by the Court on June 6, 2003 (the "Preliminary Approval Order"). The total settlement fund is $550,000, with legal fees and expenses not to exceed 30% of the Gross Settlement Fund. Timely filed objections to the Settlement, if any, will be heard at the hearing. Members of the Class who do not oppose the Settlement need not appear at the hearing. The final order of the Court will be binding on all members of the Class who do not opt out of the Settlement. Members of the Class who do not opt out of the Settlement will be deemed to have released all Defendants and will be unable to pursue any other claims against the Defendants concerning the claims settled in this action. If you are a member of the Class who wishes to opt out you must do so by sending a written notice to: Claims Administrator, Synsorb Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O. Box 9000 #6122, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, by August 29, 2003. For queries, contact Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class: Michael Jaffe, Esq., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016; by Phone: 212-545-4600 or by E-mail: Jaffe@whafh.com. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Medical Monitoring Trial Nearing End -------------------------------------------------------- Six months has passed since the class action trial began in New Orleans to determine whether the tobacco industry should pay for the medical monitoring of seemingly healthy smokers, as well as quit-smoking programs. The jury has heard the testimony, and the attorneys are now prepared to present their closing arguments, reports the Associated Press Newswires. Defendants include R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and Brown & Williamson. As in other suits against the tobacco industry, plaintiffs contend that the cigarette-makers hid the dangers of smoking from the public, manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers addicted and targeted youths with advertising designed to cultivate new generations of smokers. The lawsuit does not ask for individual payments for smokers. There has been no estimate of what a loss might cost the tobacco industry. However, a smaller class action in West Virginia seeking only medical monitoring carried a potential price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars. Although attorneys for the smokers in the West Virginia case prevailed in their argument that a person with a five-year, pack-a-day habit has a higher risk of contracting lung cancer, still, a jury found routine screening for such cancer and other lung diseases unnecessary. Instead, jurors accepted the defense's contention that smokers concerned about their health should just quit. If the industry in the Louisiana case is found liable, a second phase of the trial will be held to determine how much the industry would have to pay to set up the monitoring program. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Accused of Illegal Body Dumping --------------------------------------------------------- The University of California at Los Angeles is about to be sued by 8000 people who claim it illegally dumped the corpses of relatives donated to its medical school, according to the Herald Sun. Thousands of family members accuse UCLA of breach of contract, negligence and fraud over the way it disposed of bodies willed to the respected university's medical school for medical science. Accordingly, they say bodies were stuffed with medical waste, folded and packed into the university's on-site crematorium three to four at a time. Allegedly, the ashes were also improperly scraped into a bin, mixed with animal remains and taken to a Los Angeles County dump for disposal. But UCLA attorneys argue that those who agreed to donate their bodies were never promised a full burial and that a planned burial-at-sea program never took place. A hearing on the case is scheduled for September 22. However, a judge urged the family members and UCLA to settle the seven-year-old proposed class action suit before it goes to court, warning it would do more harm than good. The judge said a lawsuit with so many plaintiffs would be extremely complex and that it would require up to 12,000 trial days. New Securities Fraud Cases ADMINISTAFF INC: Milberg Weiss Commences Lawsuit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Administaff Inc. (NYSE:ASF) publicly traded securities during the period between May 2, 2001 and July 31, 2002. The complaint charges Administaff and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Administaff is a professional employer organization that provides a comprehensive personnel management system encompassing a broad range of services, including benefits and payroll administration, health and workers' compensation insurance programs, personnel records management, employer liability management, employee recruiting and selection, employee performance management and employee training and development services. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations artificially inflating the price of Administaff securities. The complaint further alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts: (a) that Administaff was improperly calculating pricing on worksite employees for employers with declining costs; (b) that Administaff's accounting did not match costs with pricing on healthcare insurance such that future results would be adversely affected by the inadequate pricing; and (c) that Administaff was improperly grossing up revenues with worksite employee payroll costs. On Aug. 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff shocked the investing public when it released its financial and operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2 million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call estimates of $0.04 earnings per share. Market reaction was swift and negative, with Administaff stock falling from a close of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of $4.20 on Aug. 1, 2002, or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy trading. For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg Weiss by Phone: 800/449-4900, by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com. ADMINISTAFF INC: Glancy & Binkow LLP Launches Lawsuit in S.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased securities of Administaff, Inc. (NYSE:ASF) between May 2, 2001 and July 31, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges Administaff and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial performance caused Administaff's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Administaff is a professional employer organization that provides a comprehensive personnel management system encompassing a broad range of services, including benefits and payroll administration, health and workers' compensation insurance programs, personnel records management, employer liability management, employee recruiting and selection and employee performance management. Plaintiff alleges that the statements disseminated by the defendants during the Class Period misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a) Administaff was improperly calculating pricing on worksite employees for employers with declining costs; (b) Administaff's accounting did not match costs with pricing on healthcare insurance, such that future results would be adversely affected by the inadequate pricing; and (c) Administaff was improperly grossing up revenues with worksite employee payroll costs. When Administaff's true financial performance was revealed on August 1, 2002, the Company's stock declined to $4.20 per share, compared to the Class Period high of $36.48. The stock has never recovered to Class Period levels and continues to trade in the $9 per share range. For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com POLYMEDICA CORP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders of PolyMedica Corporation (Nasdaq: PLMD) from July 23, 2001 through June 30, 2003. The lawsuit alleges that PolyMedica overstated earnings by capitalizing direct response advertising costs related to the acquisition of new customers rather than expensing them as incurred. Consequently, PolyMedica recorded such advertising costs as assets rather than as expenses. On June 30, 2003, after the stock market closed, PolyMedica issued a press release announcing that as a result of discussions with the SEC regarding the expensing of the Company's direct response advertising costs, PolyMedica may be forced to restate results for the fiscal years 2002 and 2003. On this news, shares of PolyMedica, which had closed at $45.86 on June 30, 2003, opened for trading on July 1, 2003, at $38.56, down $7.30, or 15.9%. PolyMedica shares closed later that day at $37.39 per share for a loss of $8.47 per share, or 18.5%. For queries, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, by Phone: (405) 235-1560, by Fax: (405) 239-2112, or by E-mail: wfederman@aol.com POLYMEDICA CORP: Charles J. Piven Launches Securities Suit in MA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of PolyMedica Corporation (Nasdaq:PLMD) between July 23, 2001 and June 30, 2003, inclusive. 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 information, contact Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com or by Phone: 410/986-0036. READ-RITE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Read-Rite Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: RDRTQ; formerly Nasdaq: RDRT - news) publicly traded securities during the period between October 30, 2001 and June 6, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges certain of Read-Rite's officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Read-Rite is an independent supplier of magnetic recording heads for the hard disk drive ("HDD") and tape drive markets. The Company designs, manufactures and markets magnetic recording heads as head gimbal assemblies ("HGAs") and incorporates multiple HGAs into head stack assemblies. Read-Rite's products are sold primarily for use in 3.5-inch HDDs for desktop computer devices, for high-performance enterprise HDDs used in network and mainframe applications, as well as for consumer electronic devices such as game stations or personal video recorders. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements about the Company, and as a result Read-Rite's stock traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $39 on January 9, 2002, before the Company announced it would file for bankruptcy. The true facts which were known to each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company's 40 GB/platter inventory was overstated by $16.7 million; (b) the Company's Philippine real estate holdings were overstated by approximately $6.8 million; (c) the Company needed to restructure its operations and the associated charges would cost the Company in excess of $20 million and would cause an earnings shortfall in coming quarters; (d) the Company's Q2 FY03 loss was grossly understated; (e) the Company was experiencing massive technical problems associated with its 40GB/per platter programs. Moreover, the Company was experiencing these problems well before January 2002 and beyond April 2002 when defendants claimed such problems were fixed; and (f) the Company was underfunded and could not complete the production of its 80GB programs. For queries, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221- 5438, by Phone: (toll free) 1-888-551-9944, by Fax: 1-501-312-8505, by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the Firm's Web site: http://www.cauleygeller.com. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html ********* 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 * * *