/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/031001.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 1, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 194
Headlines
ACRES GAMING: NV Court Refuses Motion To Enjoin Merger With IGT
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: SEC Files Cease-And-Desist Order Over Fraud
AKORN INC.: Cease-And-Desist Proceeding Over Stock Fraud Filed
AUSTRALIA: Ruling Issued v. Mass-Marketed Tax Scheme Promoters
AVANEX CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BARNEY'S NEW YORK: Reaches Settlement For CA Unfair Trade Suit
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Agreement For Securities Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: VT Diocese Working To Settle Sex Abuse Lawsuits
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Advocates Laud Landmark Sex Abuse Settlement
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Negative State Review Scores Patient Care
CUTTER & BUCK: SEC Settles Administrative Proceeding V. Ex-CFO
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: To Settle Lawsuit Over Dust Damage Claims
ERNST & YOUNG: SEC Files Securities Proceedings V. Ex-Employees
EXTREME NETWORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Attorneys Say Many of Fund Claims Were Fake
HANDSPRING INC.: Reaches Settlement For IPO Lawsuit in S.D. NY
HANDSPRING INC.: Faces Two DE Securities Suits Over Palm Merger
HANDSPRING INC.: Dismissed as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit
IBM: Cancer Scare Suit Could Influence Similar Future Litigation
JAPAN: Court Orders $1.7M Compensation For Poison Gas Victims
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Poised To Settle Burst.Com Antitrust Suit
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Agrees to Settle Securities Suits For $70M
NORTH CAROLINA: Approves Compensation For Sterilization Victims
NVIDIA CORPORATION: SEC Settles Proceeding Against Former CFO
OHIO: Black Firefighter Candidates Commence Race Bias Lawsuit
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Agreed To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia Agrees To Pay $206,000 to Diabetics
TRADE-WINDS ENVIRONMENTAL: Agrees To Settle NY Employee Lawsuit
VERISIGN: Consumers Lodge Antitrust Lawsuit over Domain Redirect
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICAL: MA Attorney Lodges Securities Charges
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
CHECK POINT: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
EMERSON RADIO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
JANUS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ
STRONG FINANCIAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYCOM LTD.: Lasky & Rifkind Launches Securities Suit in NJ Court
*********
ACRES GAMING: NV Court Refuses Motion To Enjoin Merger With IGT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Supreme Court refused to enjoin the merger between
Acres Gaming, Inc. and International Game Technology (IGT), as
requested by plaintiffs in a class action filed against Acres
Gaming and its directors, titled "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 470016.
The suit was filed in the Clark County, Nevada District Court
against the Company and its directors, alleging that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to
stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger
transaction between the Company and IGT and seeks to enjoin
and/or void the merger agreement among other forms of relief.
On September 19, 2003, the judge presiding over the case denied
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to
prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger. On
September 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme
Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin the Company
from holding its stockholder vote on the merger.
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: SEC Files Cease-And-Desist Order Over Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission entered an Order
Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, and
Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Analytical Surveys, Inc.
(ASI).
ASI consented to the entry of the Order without admitting or
denying the findings of the Commission. In the Order, the
Commission found that ASI violated reporting, books and records,
and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws.
More specifically, the Commission found that on or about October
1, 1998 through on or about December 31, 1999, ASI's employees
misallocated direct contract costs to overhead on certain
contracts, improperly shifted costs from contract to contract,
and improperly lowered estimates of total direct costs on
certain contracts.
The Commission also found that as a result of this conduct, ASI
filed fiscal 1999 quarterly reports and a fiscal 1999 annual
report that contained inflated revenue and earnings figures.
The Commission further found that ASI employees frequently
changed estimates of total direct costs with no review by others
and no written record of the reason for the change; that each of
ASI's facilities was supposed to review its direct cost
estimates monthly, but one facility essentially stopped
conducting reviews in or about 1998; that ASI's accounting staff
did not regularly review charges to overhead or fluctuations in
cost estimates for propriety and accuracy; and that ASI had no
internal audit function.
AKORN INC.: Cease-And-Desist Proceeding Over Stock Fraud Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission ordered
Akorn, Inc., a Louisiana corporation headquartered in Buffalo
Grove, Illinois that manufactures and markets pharmaceuticals,
to cease and desist from violating certain federal securities
laws that require companies to file accurate periodic reports
with the Commission and to keep accurate books and records and
to maintain sufficient internal controls.
In the Order, the commission found that, in Akorn's Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, Akorn issued
audited financial statements that were not accurate and were not
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Akorn's problems resulted from numerous internal control and
books and records deficiencies that prevented the company from
accurately recording, reconciling and aging its receivables from
its wholesale drug distributor customers who comprised 60
percent of Akorn's accounts receivables during 2000.
Despite these problems, Akorn did not establish a reserve for
those accounts receivable nor did it disclose any impairment of
those receivables. In its 2000 Form 10-K, Akorn failed to
disclose this impairment to its accounts receivable, Akorn's
largest asset, and materially overstated its accounts receivable
balance by at least $7 million. Thereafter, in its Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2001, Akorn increased its
accounts receivable reserve for doubtful accounts by $7.5
million or 10 percent of reported net sales for fiscal year
2000, but explained the increase as resulting from a change in
estimate "(b)ased upon its recent unsuccessful efforts to
collect past due balances."
Akorn did not disclose that the reserve increase resulted from
its lack of internal controls and its failure to accurately
compute, age and monitor its accounts receivable.
Akorn consented to the entry of the Order Instituting Cease-and-
Desist Proceedings, Making Findings and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order without admitting or denying the Commission's
findings. In addition, Akorn undertook to hire an independent
consultant to report on internal controls involving the
company's accounts receivable.
AUSTRALIA: Ruling Issued v. Mass-Marketed Tax Scheme Promoters
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of small investors who lost $2 million in a Queensland
cotton project have won a class action that could open the way
for a wave of litigation against the promoters of mass-marketed
tax schemes, the Australian Financial Review reports. A recent
Federal Court decision is one of the first judgments against a
promoter of the mass-marketed tax schemes that caught up more
than 40,000 people and put $2 billion in tax revenue at risk
during the late 1990s.
"The decision will send a message to the promoters and operators
of managed investment schemes," said plaintiff lawyer Michael
Duffy of Maurice Blackburn Cashman, the law firm which
represented 83 investors.
The findings apply to the responsible entity of the scheme,
Corporate Investment Australia Funds Management Ltd (CIAFM), and
the project's custodian, Cardinal Financial Securities Limited
(now in liquidation). Former federal agriculture minister John
Kerin was a director of CIAFM, but Judge Ray Finkelstein made no
findings against him.
CIAFM and Cardinal are also being sued by dozens of investors in
TrackNet, a failed tax-effective technology venture. The cotton
case was brought by investor Justin Spangaro, who put $56,940
into the project after learning about the scheme from his
financial planner. Mr. Spangaro bought shares and participating
interests in the Australian Cotton Project, which was to operate
a cotton farm on the banks of the Condamine River in southern
Queensland.
"But the project failed to attract enough investor interest by
the declared deadline," Mr. Duffy, plaintiffs' lawyer, said.
"Despite the fact that the company failed to buy the land, plant
the seed or get anywhere close to harvesting cotton, it has not
returned any money to investors. The court found that most of
the investor monies should have been returned when the project
failed to reach its minimum subscription by the publicized
deadline."
Under the existing system of "joint and several liability,"
investors can try to recover the full amount of their loss from
"deep pockets" defendants such as the insurance company behind a
financial planner or promoter, who often may be insolvent.
Under the principle of "proportionate liability," defendants
will be liable only for the share of the loss they have caused,
shifting the risk of insolvency from defendants to the
plaintiffs.
While the federal government is pushing through a financial
licensing regime to protect consumers, Mr. Duffy said those
reforms "will be outweighed by proportionate liability, which
shifts the risk from promoters to investors."
AVANEX CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avanex Corporation agreed to settle a consolidated securities
class action filed against it, certain of its officers and
directors, and various underwriters in its initial public
offering (IPO) in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned "In re Avanex Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 01 Civ. 6890."
The consolidated amended complaint in the action generally
alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in Avanex's IPO. Plaintiffs have brought claims for
violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws
against those underwriters, and also against Avanex and certain
of its directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Avanex's common
stock between February 3, 2000, and December 6, 2000.
Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment
banks and 250 other companies. All of these "IPO allocation"
securities class actions currently pending in the Southern
District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings as "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."
On October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's directors
and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a
tolling agreement. The issuer defendants filed a coordinated
motion to dismiss all common pleading issues, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part in an order dated February
19, 2003. The court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b)
or Section 11 claims against the Company.
A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including Avanex, which
has been approved (subject to the conditions noted below) by a
special committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.
BARNEY'S NEW YORK: Reaches Settlement For CA Unfair Trade Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barney's New York, Inc. settled a class action filed against it
in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of
San Diego. The complaint alleged two causes of action for
purported violations of California's Civil Code and Business and
Professions Code relating to the alleged requesting by the
Company of certain information.
The complaint sought relief on a class basis under the statutes
permitting a plaintiff to recover a fine, in the discretion of
the court, and such other damages, which each member of the
class may have suffered as a result of our alleged conduct. The
complaint further sought an accounting of all moneys and profits
received by the Company in connection with the alleged
violations as well as injunctive relief with respect to the
alleged practices. Certification of the class and attorneys
fees were sought by the complaint as well.
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Agreement For Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bottomline Technologies, Inc. agreed to settle the securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it and:
(1) Daniel M. McGurl,
(2) Robert A. Eberle,
(3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
(4) Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.,
(5) CIBC World Markets and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
The consolidated suit, titled "In re Bottomline Technologies
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," asserts
claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The amended complaint asserts, among other things, that the
description in the Company's prospectus for its initial public
offering was materially false and misleading in describing the
compensation to be earned by the underwriters of its offering,
and in not describing certain alleged arrangements among
underwriters and initial purchasers of the Company's common
stock from the underwriters.
The amended complaint seeks damages (or, in the alternative,
tender of the plaintiffs' and the class' Bottomline common stock
and rescission of their purchases of the Company's common stock
purchased in the initial public offering), costs, attorneys'
fees, experts' fees and other expenses.
In July 2002, Bottomline, Mr. McGurl and Mr. Eberle joined in an
omnibus motion to dismiss, which challenged the legal
sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims. The motion was filed on
behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named in
similar lawsuits. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the court
heard oral argument on the motion in early November 2002.
On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the
motion to dismiss as to the Company. In addition, in early
October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl and Robert A. Eberle were
dismissed from this case without prejudice.
A special litigation committee of the board of directors of
Bottomline has authorized Bottomline to negotiate a settlement
of the pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum
of understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers. Any such settlement would be
subject to approval by the court.
CATHOLIC CHURCH: VT Diocese Working To Settle Sex Abuse Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont's Roman Catholic Church is working to settle a lawsuit
filed last December by 34-year-old former Massachusetts resident
Paul Babeu, who alleges that as a teenager he was abused by
former Ludlow pastor, Rev. George Paulin on an overnight visit
to Vermont's Northeast Kingdom, in the late 1980s, AP Newswire
reports.
According to a report published last year by the New Yorker
magazine, former Massachusetts priest Richard Lavigne, a
convicted child molester, drove Mr. Babeu to Vermont to leave
him alone with Rev. Paulin. Mr. Babeu said that family members
reported the incident to then-Vermont Catholic Bishop John
Marshall, who responded in a letter to them dated March 13,
1987, "I was disappointed and disturbed in learning about the
allegations against Paulin, inasmuch as I have never heard any
rumor, innuendo or complaint directly or indirectly that would
indicate that he possessed pedophilic tendencies."
Mr. Babeu heard nothing more for 16 years. Then Vermont's
Catholic diocese said last year it was placing Rev. Paulin on
leave at the same time as the State Attorney General's office
began investigating decades of alleged priest misconduct.
The diocese's lawyer, William M. O'Brien of Winooski, said he
hoped the church could move on to settle at least three other
lawsuits. "We are anxious to resolve every case," Mr. O'Brien
said, "but that has to do a lot with the plaintiffs'
expectations and demands."
The Diocese of Burlington doesn't have insurance for such cases,
so it will have to be able to pay for any settlements with
resources on hand. The diocese has about $23.4 million in
assets, not including property held by individual parishes,
according to a 2002 audit.
"We are in negotiations with the Burlington Diocese,"
Plaintiff's attorney Thomas Bixby told the Rutland Herald.
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Advocates Laud Landmark Sex Abuse Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The $500,000 settlement proposed by the Archdiocese of Miami for
a lawsuit filed on behalf of an 11-year old boy who accused
Diocese priest Rev. Trevor Smith of molesting him in a nursing
home, could lead to other settlements. The offer represents the
first settlement of its kind for the archdiocese, which faces
more than two dozen similar lawsuits, the SunSentinel.com
reports.
When a case like this is settled it says, `Yes, we believe you.
We made some mistakes and we're trying to correct them,'" said
Hollywood attorney Jeff Herman, who represents the family.
"This was a number that we believe was fair and provides closure
for this young victim."
Atty. Herman filed the lawsuit on the child's behalf in Miami-
Dade County Circuit Court in September 2002, shortly after the
boy told his mother that Rev. Smith, the priest they had turned
to for years for spiritual guidance, had been molesting him when
they visited a relative at the Villa Maria Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center in Miami.
Unlike the hundreds of settlements that have been reached
between church officials and their accusers nationwide, in this
case the boy's family is not bound by the confidentiality
agreements that typically accompany such agreements.
"It's important that everything is transparent so that the
victims know that there's no reason to be afraid or to hide
anything," said Atty. Herman, who is pursuing 11 other cases of
sexual abuse against the Miami Archdiocese. "I don't believe in
hush money."
In a statement released Thursday, the Miami Archdiocese said the
settlement was not an admission of guilt. "However, based on
the advice of our legal counsel and factoring in the cost of
protracted litigation, the Archdiocese decided to resolve this
matter without further litigation," the statement said.
The boy's mother said, in a statement, that her son was doing
better and hoped "with time he will put all of this behind him."
She said that her sons have decided to discontinue their plans
for confirmation and communion "or attending church for that
matter. We are still hurt Catholics that can no longer trust
the people that run the Catholic church," she wrote.
Atty. Herman reached the settlement with the archdiocese in only
one year, which advocates for alleged victims of abuse by
priests say is rare.
"In a case like this, with a younger priest and younger victims,
church officials, I think, have a great incentive to settle
before multiple victims come forward," said David Clohessy,
executive director of Survivor's Network of Those Abused by
Priests, an advocacy organization for victims of priests'
sexual abuses.
A civil settlement does not protect Smith from any possible
criminal investigation. "Civil issues are civil issues," said Ed
Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's
Office, which is investigating the case. "Every priest
allegation that has been brought to our attention has been
reviewed."
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Negative State Review Scores Patient Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Hospital of Boston faces a negative state review,
which criticized its handling of four cases in the past 13
months, the Associated Press reports.
Three people died, including a 5-year old boy having an
epileptic seizure, where doctors thought someone else was in
charge. Two years ago, the hospital was blamed for "systems
problems" that partially caused the death of a toddler, who
suffered fatal brain damage while waiting overnight for surgery.
The Harvard-affiliated teaching hospital is regarded as the
finest in its field and as a place of cutting-edge medicine and
apparent miracles, but it is now facing one of its lowest
moments after the state review criticized the way it is
operating. The hospital now faces a license review for Medicare
treatment.
The hospital apologized in a statement, saying it was
"profoundly saddened that we did not provide the high level of
care to these patients." It has promised changes to make sure
the same problems are never repeated, AP reports.
Several prominent hospitals have faced similar challenges in the
past few months. The Duke University Medical Center in North
Carolina is also under investigation by the federal Medicare
agency, after 17-year-old Jesica Santillan died after a
transplant operation there in which she was given organs that
did not match her blood type.
At Duke University Hospital, a flash fire burned a 2-day-old
baby, and an infant suffered burns from overheated air in an
incubator. Last year, New York's Mount Sinai Hospital suspended
its liver transplant program using living donors when a donor
died from an infection due in part to inadequate supervision.
The program was allowed to resume this year, AP reports.
According to the Institute of Medicine, an estimated 98,000
people die each year from preventable medical errors. Experts
say these incidents only show a problem afflicting even the best
institutions - providing exceptional treatment to a few patients
is often easier than guaranteeing adequate routine care for each
of the thousands they treat every year.
"Being at a place like Emory or Harvard, we often look at
quality and safety in terms of the brilliant things we do,"
William Bornstein, chief quality officer at Atlanta's Emory
Healthcare, which includes Emory University Hospital told AP.
"That's very important, but an equally important part is the
routine stuff, the communications, the systems we put in place
to ensure safety."
Experts add that teaching hospitals are more vulnerable to
breakdowns, because their expertise attracts particularly
complex medical problems and their teaching mission requires
them to involve medical students and young doctors as part of
their training.
Several experts on medical organizations say the problems at
Children's are no surprise. They assume them to be present
elsewhere because hospital procedures are still too vulnerable
to human error.
"You can bet at that hospital and any hospital there are people
all day long who are being heroes, protecting people from
errors," Dr. Donald Berwick, president and chief executive of
the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and a professor of
pediatrics and health care policy at Harvard Medical School told
AP. "A test gets lost, but they find it. There's a
miscommunication, but they try again and get it. A wrong drug
gets sent, but they see it and go back to the pharmacy."
Children's spokeswoman Michelle Davis agreed the issue was
systems, not people. "We have outstanding staff that are some
of the most skilled and experienced people in caring for
children, but we need to have systems that support them, and our
systems failed," she told AP.
CUTTER & BUCK: SEC Settles Administrative Proceeding V. Ex-CFO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission instituted,
and simultaneously settled, administrative proceedings against
Stephen Scott Lowber, the former Chief Financial Officer of
Cutter & Buck Inc. (Cutter), an upscale sportswear company based
in Seattle, Washington.
Mr. Lowber consented, without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings, to a Commission order suspending him from
appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant.
The proceedings were based on a federal court injunction entered
against Mr. Lowber, by consent, on August 29, 2003.
The Commission's complaint in the federal action had alleged
that Mr. Lowber, a certified public accountant, engaged in
actions that resulted in Cutter filing materially false
financial statements for the fiscal years ended April 30, 2000
and April 30, 2001.
According to the complaint, Cutter shipped $5.7 million in
products to three distributors who had no obligation to pay for
the goods unless Cutter found customers for the goods,
improperly recognizing revenue in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
According to the complaint, Mr. Lowber knew or was reckless in
not knowing that the distributors did not have the financial
ability to pay for the products. The complaint further alleged
that, when the distributors subsequently returned the products
to Cutter, Mr. Lowber directed Cutter personnel to record the
returns in a manner that would conceal them from the company's
independent auditors.
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: To Settle Lawsuit Over Dust Damage Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
German automaker DaimlerChrysler AG has agreed to pay $200,000
to settle a class action brought by mobile home residents, who
blamed the automaker's Trenton Engine Plant for spewing paint-
eating dust over their homes and vehicles, the Detroit News
reports.
Wayne Circuit Court Judge Michael F. Sapala last month ordered
that the suit, filed by Detroit attorney Peter W. Macuga II, in
Ocotber 2002, on behalf of three residents in Parkview Estates
Mobile Home Park on West Jefferson near Van Horn in Trenton, be
elevated to class action status, meaning the original plaintiffs
and all others so affected. If the settlement is approved
during a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, October 8, each of the
140 plaintiffs will receive $800.
The dispute began back in August 2002, according to Robert
Demyanovich, chairman of the Trenton Environmental Advisory
Board, when about 27 residents of Parkview Estates attended a
meeting of the advisory board complaining about a dust that
damaged the paint on their cars and mobile homes.
"Some of us had to have our cars rubbed out," Parkview Estates
resident Bob Williams, 64, one of the original plaintiffs in the
case told the Detroit News. "Some people were worried about
their health."
DaimlerChrysler contends the dust did not come from its Trenton
operations. "We really don't believe it was coming from us,"
Chrysler Group spokeswoman Kathy Graham told the Detroit News.
"We'll go through with it so we can close the chapter on this
and move on."
ERNST & YOUNG: SEC Files Securities Proceedings V. Ex-Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) instituted two
administrative proceedings against three current and former
Ernst & Young (E&Y) employees, alleging that the three engaged
in unethical and improper professional conduct under Rule
102(e)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
The Commission's orders instituting the proceedings allege that
former E&Y audit partner Thomas Trauger, assisted by senior
manager Oliver Flanagan and manager Michael Mullen, altered the
E&Y working papers for the fiscal year 2000 audit of E&Y client
NextCard, Inc. The alterations and deletions were made months
after the audit had been completed and the working papers had
been signed and archived. NextCard was a publicly-traded, San
Francisco-based issuer of credit cards over the Internet.
The orders allege that Mr. Trauger directed Mr. Flanagan and Mr.
Mullen to alter the NextCard working papers as well as delete
information from them. He also instructed Mr. Flanagan to
destroy documents inconsistent with the changes he was
directing, and Mr. Flanagan complied in part. The alterations
and deletions made it appear as though E&Y had thoroughly
considered all of the appropriate issues and available facts
relating to NextCard's allowance for loan losses (allowance) and
NextCard's securitization of receivables.
The Order further alleges that the alterations and deletions
were in response to the October 2001 announcement by NextCard
that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) were requiring
NextCard's bank subsidiary, NextBank, to revise certain
accounting treatments affecting the allowance and
securitizations. After altering the working papers for
NextCard's 2000 audit, Mr. Trauger, Mr. Flanagan, and Mr. Mullen
provided the altered documents to E&Y's legal department for
production in response to a subpoena from the OCC and later
subpoenas from the FDIC and SEC.
The SEC seeks an order denying Mr. Trauger and Mr. Mullen the
privilege of appearing or practicing before the SEC.
Simultaneously with the institution of the separate
administrative proceedings against him, Mr. Flanagan agreed to
settle with the SEC. Without admitting or denying the findings
of the SEC, Mr. Flanagan, who resides in Ireland, consented to
an order denying him the privilege of appearing or practicing
before the Commission. Pursuant to the order, Mr. Flanagan may
request that the SEC consider his reinstatement after three (3)
years.
EXTREME NETWORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. reaches agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
as "In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),
related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)." on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from April 8, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.
It names as defendants the Company, six of its present and
former officers and/or directors, including its CEO and several
investment banking firms that served as underwriters of its
initial public offering and October 1999 secondary offering.
Subsequently, plaintiffs and one of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal of that defendant without prejudice.
The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:
(1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and
(2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
predetermined prices.
The Securities Act allegations against the Company defendants
are made as to the secondary offering only. The amended
complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued.
No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations were made
in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public
offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.
The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.
On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss. The court denied the motions to dismiss the claims
in its case under the Securities Act of 1933. The court denied
the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 10(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and 184
other issuer defendants, on the basis that the complaints
alleged that the respective issuers had acquired companies or
conducted follow-on offerings after their initial public
offerings.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims under Section
10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
the remaining Company Defendants and 59 other individual
defendants, on the basis that the respective amended complaints
alleged that the individuals sold stock.
The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Extreme Network Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment
by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.
The settlement will require approval of the court, which cannot
be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to
object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement. If the
settlement is not approved, the Company cannot assure you that
it will prevail in the lawsuit. Failure to prevail could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows in the future.
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Attorneys Say Many of Fund Claims Were Fake
----------------------------------------------------------------
A "huge number" of claimants in the $3.75 billion trust fund set
up by Wyeth, Inc. for people who took the fen-phen diet drugs
Pondimin and Redux may not have suffered heart-valve damage as
claimed, and shouldn't be paid, an attorney for the trust
revealed, the Associated Press reports.
About 6 million people took the two drugs before Wyeth recalled
them in 1997. Several lawsuits later, Wyeth agreed to set up
the trust fund for the class. Wyeth has already paid more than
$13 billion in claims related to the drugs.
More than 100,000 people applied for the claims, and sent
telltale echocardiograms that would entitle them to be part of
the fund. However, last fall, federal judge Harvey J. Bartle
III ordered a total review after finding a high percentage of
unjustified claims, causing payments to hundreds to be tossed
out. He also blocked two New York law firms from collecting
shares of the settlement after ruling that they had submitted
unjustified claims.
"A huge number were problematic," Richard L. Scheff, an attorney
for the Philadelphia-based trust handling the distribution of
the settlement told the Associated Press. "There is an enormous
task to be done to separate the wheat from the chaff."
The trust also sued a Kansas City doctor who had been assisting
with the filing of claims, saying she diagnosed thousands of
people as being ill without properly evaluating their health.
Trust officials also set up a toll-free hotline for people to
report fraud, threatened to turn over evidence of wrongdoing to
prosecutors and asked lawyers to have doctors reevaluate
thousands of cases to confirm their diagnoses.
Some lawyers with clients who applied for a share of the
settlement have been surprised by the ferocity of the crackdown.
Attorney Joseph Langston, who represents about 2,000 clients in
the settlement, told AP he plans to have all of his claims re-
examined to avoid running into problems with the auditors.
"We're instructing our cardiologists to read these
echocardiograms again, and only certify cases where there is no
question that the person suffered some damage," Mr. Langston
said. "We are going to do this more strictly, more narrowly."
Under the original terms of the settlement, the trust largely
left the work of determining who had been hurt by the drugs to
cardiologists hired by the law firms, and only 15 percent of the
claims submitted were audited. The rest were to be paid without
question or review, AP reports.
"The assumption was that everyone would be honest," Mr. Scheff
said. Now, every claim must go through the audit process. Mr.
Scheff declined to say what percentage of claims was being
rejected, but he described the number as "zillions."
Wyeth spokesman Lowell Weiner declined to comment on the audit,
AP states.
HANDSPRING INC.: Reaches Settlement For IPO Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Handspring, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, two of its officers,
the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.
The suit asserted that the prospectus for the Company's June 20,
2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged
actions by the underwriters for the offering. The suit alleged
claims against the Company and two of its officers under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
On October 9, 2002, the Company officers named as defendants
were dismissed without prejudice from these cases by court
order. On July 9, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of
Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would
provide, among other things, a release of the Company and its
officers, and the Company's s agreement to assign to the
plaintiffs certain potential claims Handspring may have against
its underwriters.
HANDSPRING INC.: Faces Two DE Securities Suits Over Palm Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Handspring, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court, New Castle County, on behalf of Handspring
stockholders against it, Palm, and a number of individuals
alleged to be directors of Handspring.
Both actions contain substantially identical allegations that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company and its stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger of Handspring and Palm that was publicly announced on
June 4, 2003, and that Palm aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duty.
On June 23, 2003, an amended complaint was filed in one the two
lawsuits. This amended complaint did not change the substantive
allegations, but omitted as individual defendants persons who
were not directors of Handspring.
The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed merger, to rescind
the merger if it is not enjoined, to recover unspecified
compensatory damages, and award unspecified attorneys' fees and
costs. There is no date fixed for the defendants to respond
either to the complaints or to plaintiffs' written discovery
requests. Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for preliminary
injunction, and there is no trial date.
HANDSPRING INC.: Dismissed as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Handspring, Inc., one of its current officers and one of its
former officers were dismissed as defendants in the class action
filed against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and
approximately 50 of its clients, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint asserted 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.
IBM: Cancer Scare Suit Could Influence Similar Future Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case to be filed next week against IBM, the world's largest
computer maker, on behalf of former factory employees who
contracted cancer allegedly caused by chemicals used in one of
its San Jose plants could settle longstanding questions about
the safety of electronics manufacturing and influence the way
semiconductor and electronics firms do business, the Mercury
News.com reports.
The suit was filed on behalf Alida Hernandez, James Moore and
Maria Santiago, who have been battling breast cancer or non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma, and the survivors of a fourth, Suzanne
Rubio, who died from cancer in 1991. The suit alleges that the
Company knew cancer-causing chemicals used in one of its San
Jose plants poisoned the four while they worked on a disk drive
assembly line, and then masterfully covered it up.
"The case could be precedent-setting," said Craig Bloomgarden, a
toxic tort and environmental litigator with Steefel, Levitt &
Weiss LLP, a San Francisco-based legal firm that has defended
large corporations in similar cases.
If the plaintiffs win, more lawsuits will follow, Bloomgarden
said. If they lose, he said, hundreds of other pending lawsuits
-- and the evidence they might bring to light -- will disappear.
Retired IBM employee Sammie Burch, who keeps in touch with more
than 100 of her former colleagues from the Cottle Road plant in
San Jose, where she spent 15 years working in the manufacturing
"clean rooms," says that, these days, her group e-mails center
more on "gloom and doom," the health problems of many of her
former co-workers.
Plaintiff James Moore, who still wears a Rolex watch IBM gave
him for 25 years of service, says that IBM betrayed workers by
not fully informing them of the dangers presented by the
chemicals they handled and inhaled, Mercury News reports. Mr.
Moore now suffers from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
Richard Clapp, an epidemiologist at Boston University who
analyzed an IBM "corporate mortality file" detailing the causes
of death for more than 30,000 workers, said in his review that
IBM workers have died of lymph, blood and breast cancer at rates
higher than the general population. He also said IBM must have
known this for decades.
However, health and legal experts insist this case could be
difficult for the plaintiffs to win. "It's difficult to prove
that particular health effects are traceable to particular
exposures," said Lorenz Rhomberg, a highly regarded cancer risk
assessor who often testifies on behalf of both corporations and
workers in lawsuits regarding chemical exposure. "Cancer has
been linked to myriad factors, including age, genetics,
individual lifestyle and home environment."
It is so prevalent that the average person has a roughly 1 in 3
chance of developing cancer in his or her lifetime, he said.
However, Ms. Hernandez, who suffered from headaches, blackouts,
liver troubles and eye problems while working for IBM and
developed breast cancer after retiring, is convinced her job
made her sick. "I wish," she told the Mercury News, "I could
turn back the clock where I'd never known IBM."
IBM officials, who say their company did nothing wrong, believe
the case - scheduled to go to trial October 14 in Santa Clara
County Superior Court - should already be closed. "These cases
simply do not belong in court," IBM spokesman Bill Hughes told
Mercury News. "There is no legal or scientific support for
them."
The semiconductor industry has never sponsored a study of the
link between cancer and fab workers, and has fought outside
inquiries. The largest public study was in 2001 when the Health
and Safety Executive of the United Kingdom responded to
employees' concerns at a National Semiconductor site in
Scotland. The well-regarded study found elevated rates of
breast, lung, brain and stomach cancer in 4,388 workers.
JAPAN: Court Orders $1.7M Compensation For Poison Gas Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
In what lawyers for the plaintiffs call a historic verdict,
Tokyo District Court Judge Yoshihiro Katayama awarded $1.7
million in damages to a group of Chinese nationals for injuries
or deaths of relatives caused by chemical shells and other
weapons abandoned in China by the Japanese army after World War
II, AP Newswire reports.
The decision came months after another Japanese court rejected a
similar claim by a different group of Chinese - the first legal
ruling on a legacy of the war that remains a sore spot between
Japan and China five decades later.
"We were finally given justice," said 58-year old, Li Chen, one
of 13 plaintiffs who were awarded a total of $1.7 million. "I
strongly urge the Japanese government to not appeal this
ruling."
Mr. Chen, 58, said he has suffered from respiratory
difficulties, dizziness and nausea since he dug up a World War
II-era Japanese poison gas shell while dredging a river bed in
1974. He and the 12 other plaintiffs, including the relatives
of two men who were killed when a buried explosive shell in a
road building site went off, sued the Japanese government in
1996.
According to Japanese estimates, over 700,000 Japanese chemical
weapons abandoned by the Imperial Japanese Army after its defeat
in World War II, have killed China at least 2,000 Chinese since
1945.
Japan has admitted it produced about 7,000 tons of poison gas,
mainly mustard gas and lewisite - an arsenic-based fluid that
causes blisters - and stockpiled large amounts in China during
the 1930s.
Bound by a 1999 international convention, the Japanese
government has promised to dispose of these weapons but holds
that all Chinese claims to war-related compensation were settled
in 1972 when Tokyo established diplomatic relations with
Beijing's communist leaders.
The Tokyo District Court echoed that argument in May when it
rejected a demand by five Chinese for compensation in the first
such ruling.
Japanese government officials said they would study the decision
before deciding whether to appeal.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Poised To Settle Burst.Com Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation might eventually settle the antitrust suit
filed against it by Burst.com, over the manufacture of its
multimedia software named "Corona," AP Newswire reports.
Following months of failed talks on multimedia transfer over the
internet, Burst.com finally filed suit, alleging that Corona,
announced in late 2001 and now known as Windows Media 9, does
the same thing and uses ideas Burst shared with Microsoft during
the discussions. The lawsuit also accuses Microsoft of shutting
out potential competitors like Burst through exclusive deals and
other practices that build on Microsoft's dominance with
Windows. The suit seeks unspecified damages and an end to
Microsoft's use of the technology.
Though Microsoft denies any wrongdoing, experts believe it's a
matter of time before Microsoft seeks a settlement. This
follows a ruling last month from the bench of US District Judge
Frederick Motz in Baltimore who ordered the world's largest
software company to search its database for any deleted e-mails
relating to those discussions with Burst.
"Microsoft has been lately on a sort of settling spree, and I
think they might take a serious look at settling this case with
Burst," Matt Rosoff, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, an
independent research firm in Kirkland, Washington, near
Microsoft's Redmond headquarters, told AP.
In December, Judge Motz ordered Microsoft to ship Windows with
the latest version of Sun's Java programming language. The
preliminary injunction was later overturned on appeal, though
the case itself is pending.
Bob Lande, director of the American Antitrust Institute in
Washington, told AP Judge Motz's past actions indicate the judge
is leery of Microsoft's arguments. "This judge hasn't believed
them in the past, so he's going to approach their arguments with
a bit of skepticism," he said.
The case, moved from San Francisco to Baltimore as part of a
consolidation of similar lawsuits against Microsoft, is not
expected to go to trial for another year, barring a settlement.
Microsoft has already settled antitrust lawsuits with the
federal government and all but one state that had sued over its
use of the Windows operating system to muscle out rivals,
including competitors to its Web browser. The settlement gives
rivals more room to offer competing software features on Windows
computers.
Microsoft also faces an antitrust lawsuit from Sun Microsystems
Inc., along with 12 private, state class actions filed on behalf
of consumers.
In separate settlements, the company has agreed to pay AOL Time
Warner Inc., $750 million over a drop in the market share of its
Netscape browser as Microsoft's Internet Explorer grew, and have
come to terms with rival operating systems developer Be Inc. who
argued they could not compete with Microsoft who had agreements
with major computer makers to use Windows.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler won't comment on the likelihood
of a settlement with Burst, AP states, but said, "We're always
open to looking at reasonable ways to settle ongoing
litigation."
The Burst dispute is over technology it believes could
potentially power next-generation video-on-demand services.
Its' streaming technology pushes data, through compression and
other means, faster than what consumers are able to watch or
hear. The extra information is stored on the user's computer
and gets called upon to smooth out any disruptions resulting
from network congestion.
The e-mail dispute is over evidence Burst is trying to get from
Microsoft as part of the pretrial discovery process. Burst
attorney Spencer Hosie contends there are "profound gaps" in e-
mails that Microsoft had produced. Mr. Hosie wants e-mails,
mostly from fall 1999 through early 2001, relating to
meetings about Burst's technology.
Mr. Hosie said he has 70 e-mails that went back and forth
between the companies but has not been produced by Microsoft
during discovery. He believes even more e-mails exist. "These
were e-mails that absolutely undeniably existed once, but for
some reason are no longer at Microsoft System," Mr. Hosie told
the judge during an August hearing.
Mr. Desler told AP the company has cooperated and has already
submitted more than 300,000 pages of documents. "This is
essentially Burst's speculation that a large group of e-mails
may exist," Mr. Desler said. "And that's just what it is -
speculation."
Microsoft attorney John Treece argued at the time that "looking
for e-mails on file server backup tapes is highly unlikely to be
successful, but absolutely certain to be enormously time-
consuming and expensive."
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Agrees to Settle Securities Suits For $70M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Securities software-maker Network Associates, Inc. agreed to
settle for US$70 million several securities class actions, filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against the Company and:
(1) William Larson,
(2) Prabhat Goyal and
(3) Peter Watkins
The suit, filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's stock between July 19 and December 26,
2000, asserts causes of action (and seeks unspecified damages)
for alleged violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b)/ SEC Rule
10b-5 and Exchange Act Section 20(a), an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (February 4,2003) states.
In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants engaged in
improper practices designed to increase the Company's revenues
and earnings and that, as a result of those practices, the
Company's class period financial statements were false and
misleading and failed to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The settlement is subject to completion of final settlement
documentation and court approval following notice to members of
the class and an opportunity for class members to object.
"This settlement represents a significant milestone in Network
Associates' move from past issues to future opportunities," said
George Samenuk, chairman and chief executive officer of Network
Associates. "I am incredibly proud of the team who has worked
tirelessly to resolve these historical issues, and I look
forward to a great future for Network Associates as we move
ahead with the business and our focus on our customers."
NORTH CAROLINA: Approves Compensation For Sterilization Victims
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley quietly approved a list of
recommendations to compensated survivors from among the
thousands of North Carolina residents who were involuntarily
sterilized by the state over five decades, in the form of
education benefits through the University of North Carolina and
access to a health care fund, AP Newswire reports.
Gov. Easley also approved a plan to help those who were
sterilized negotiate the maze of medical records needed to
confirm their stories. He apologized in December for the
actions of the Eugenics Board of North Carolina, which
ordered sterilizations of about 7,600 people from 1929 through
1974.
Most of the victims were poor women who were often talked into
sterilization by social workers. Inaccurate labels of "feeble-
mindedness" were often used as justification based on eugenics,
the movement to solve social problems by preventing the "unfit"
from having children.
The cost of the measures hasn't been determined. Several
victims, who say they are not happy with the way Gov. Easley
handled the process, deciding on the compensation package
without notifying either the public or the victims and the
members of the study committee, continue to push for financial
reparations. State Rep. Larry Womble has introduced a bill that
would create a legislative study commission to consider this.
Some people say reparations are unrealistic at a time when the
state is dealing with falling revenues, climbing unemployment
and the recovery from Hurricane Isabel. However, Rep. Womble
said he is "keeping hope alive".
"I'm not so naive as to not realize that there are other
priorities, but at the same time this should take top priority,"
he told AP.
NVIDIA CORPORATION: SEC Settles Proceeding Against Former CFO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission instituted,
and simultaneously settled, an administrative proceeding against
Christine B. Hoberg (Hoberg), former CFO of Nvidia Corporation.
Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Ms.
Hoberg consented to the entry of the Order Instituting
Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions (Order), suspending her from appearing or
practicing before the Commission as an accountant, with a right
to request reinstatement after a period of five years.
The Order finds that Ms. Hoberg, pursuant to a separately filed
district court action, was permanently enjoined from violating
Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and was ordered to pay $494,332.84 in disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains, and $75,000 in civil penalties.
The Commission's complaint in the separate district court action
alleges that Ms. Hoberg engaged in actions that resulted in
Nvidia filing a materially false financial statement in the
Company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2000. The
complaint alleged that Ms. Hoberg engaged in improper accounting
practices that materially increased Nvidia's gross profit, net
income and earnings per share for the quarter in a departure
from generally accepted accounting principles. As alleged,
these practices included participating in structuring a
transaction to conceal Nvidia's obligation to repay certain cost
reductions from a supplier in future periods.
In addition, the complaint alleged that Hoberg failed to
disclose material information regarding Nvidia's books and
records to Nvidia's independent auditors.
OHIO: Black Firefighter Candidates Commence Race Bias Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four black firefighter candidates have filed a discrimination
lawsuit against the city of Akron, Ohio, after learning they
will not be hired despite their having passed the Fire
Department's exam, the Akron Beacon Journal reports. The
lawsuit, filed recently in Summit County Common Pleas Court,
claims a history of discrimination aimed at keeping black
candidates from becoming city firefighters, and asks for class
action status.
Leveall Foster, William Graham, Aaron Prude and Deshawn Walton
are asking Judge James Williams to stop Akron from certifying
the results of the June examination given to the candidates.
Each of the plaintiffs claims he scored a passing grade but was
told he would not advance to the next steps in the hiring
process.
Akron attorney Dennis R. Thompson, who filed the lawsuit on
behalf of the candidates, said he wants 13 years of firefighter
hiring tests reviewed before the latest class is certified. Mr.
Thompson said past tests have resulted in few black hires and a
great disparity in scores between black and white candidates.
"We have no problem with them hiring firefighters, just as long
as they hire the best candidates. We are not looking for a leg
up. We are just asking for a level playing field," said
plaintiffs' attorney Dennis Thompson.
In a hearing last Friday before Judge Jane Bond, the city agreed
to delay certifying the class until a hearing can be held
sometime this week.
The lawsuit is also seeking a determination on whether "past
discriminatory practices exist and what corrective measures are
necessary." The lawsuit also asks for an order mandating that
the city hire and give back-pay to blacks who have taken the
test since 1990, but were "not hired due to past discriminatory
practices" by the city.
The lawsuit further claims that since a consent decree regarding
the hiring of blacks lapsed in 1988, the city "has returned in
its practices of not recruiting or hiring qualified" blacks
within the Fire Department. Since 1995, only five of the 95
firefighters hired have been black, the suit claims, and since
2000, none of the 32 hires has been black. The lawsuit
questions the fairness of the exam and cited statistics that
appear to show black candidates fail the test at a greater rate
than whites.
In June, about 200 candidates took the written exam, the first
step in the Fire Department's hiring process. The scores are
ranked and the results are certified, allowing some to advance
to background checks and physical fitness exams.
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Agreed To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oplink Communications, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, now captioned, "In re Oplink
Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-9904."
In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) violated
section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that its registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.
The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.
Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs,
against hundreds of other public companies, or Issuers, that
went public in the late 1990s, the IPO Lawsuits. On August 8,
2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes
before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern
District of New York.
On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to
dismiss the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among
others). On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order
dismissing its named officers and directors from the IPO
lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling the
statute of limitations with respect to these officers and
directors until September 30, 2003.
On February 19, 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and
almost all of the Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim against it. The Section 10(b) claim was
dismissed without leave to amend.
In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Issuers
and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits. In
addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the event
that the Plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in settlement
or judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the IPO
Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1 billion from the
insurers for the Issuers. Although the Company have approved
this settlement proposal in principle, it remains subject to a
number of procedural conditions, as well as formal approval by
the court.
PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia Agrees To Pay $206,000 to Diabetics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under a settlement approved by a federal judge, the city of
Philadelphia has agreed to pay $206,000 to diabetics who allege
they were denied proper medical care while detained by police,
AP Newswire reports.
The lawsuit, which included more than 250 diabetics, was first
brought by Stephen Rosen, the diabetic owner of an adult
cabaret, who said he nearly died when denied medical care after
a 1999 arrest for a liquor code violation.
The city will send checks to 256 claimants ranging from $200 to
$5,000, Alan Yatvin, the lawyer who filed the original lawsuit
on behalf of Mr. Rosen, told AP. Eight of the most seriously
injured plaintiffs, including Mr. Rosen, chose not to
participate in the settlement, which also calls for police and
city lockup staff to undergo new training on how to handle
people with diabetes.
As part of the agreement, the city will provide all diabetic
adults who are arrested or detained a blood-glucose test,
medically needed food or medicine, and hospital care if needed.
Police changed procedures for handling people with diabetes
after the lawsuit was filed, and people who are arrested and
identify themselves as diabetic are taken to facilities with
medical care, Jeffrey Scott, divisional deputy city solicitor,
told the judge.
TRADE-WINDS ENVIRONMENTAL: Agrees To Settle NY Employee Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trade-Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc. agreed to settle a
class action, titled "Nicolai Grib and Vladislav Kazarov v.
Trade-Winds Environmental Restoration, Inc. and Gulf Insurance
Company" filed in the New York State Supreme Court, County of
New York, where it was named as a third party defendant. The
suit was filed on behalf of a class of plaintiffs claiming
to be entitled to additional wages while working for a
subcontractor of Trade-Winds.
The Company settled this dispute in fiscal 2003 for
approximately $500,000. The settlement is included in accrued
expenses and payment is expected in fiscal 2004.
VERISIGN: Consumers Lodge Antitrust Lawsuit over Domain Redirect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet redirection service VeriSign, Inc. faces a lawsuit
filed by longtime Internet litigator Ira Rothken, on behalf of a
California e-mail and device synchronization software provider,
who allege that VeriSign is abusing its power over the domain
name system, ZDWire Plus reported.
"VeriSign's redirection of .com and .net traffic not only is
earning, or is intended to earn, profits for VeriSign, but it
subverts the basic infrastructure of the Internet, to the
detriment of numerous entities," the suit says. Its actions
have exceeded and continue to exceed the scope of its authorized
monopoly status--its establishment of SiteFinder redirection
service was not acting in compliance with any clearly
articulated government program, the suit states.
"The action violates many of the architectural principles that
have so successfully supported the phenomenal growth of the
Internet to date," Lynn St. Amour, president of the Internet
Society, wrote in a letter Friday to the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the body responsible for
domain name policy.
Criticism has been harsh and bitter from competitors and many
broad Internet technical circles which say the action interferes
with other Net applications. Ordinarily, a Web browser
translates a domain name such as www.news.com into an Internet
address by checking domain name servers across the world that
hold this information, much like a phone directory that equates
names with telephone numbers. Previously, if a name did not
exist - whether misspelled or simply unassigned -Web browsers
would find themselves at the familiar DNS (domain name system)
error page. Some Web browsers and browser add-ons would
redirect these mistakes to another search page or suggest
possible alternatives.
The new VeriSign service points all misspellings to the same
SiteFinder search page, however, making it difficult or
impossible for other companies to provide those browser
redirection services. Critics say it also could harm spam
filters, some of which relied on the old system to block e-mail
that came from false addresses. The service appeared on the Web
as a surprise last week, replacing the familiar error pages
typically found when a Web surfer mistypes an Internet address.
Other suits have been filed against the domain name company on
behalf of private companies or individuals, but Friday's was the
first to seek class-action status.
A VeriSign representative declined to comment, saying the
company does not remark on pending litigation, ZDWire reports.
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICAL: MA Attorney Lodges Securities Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts
filed a one-count Information charging Andrew S. Marks, of
Wayland, Massachusetts, with unlawful insider trading in
connection with his September 2001 sale of stock in Vertex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Cambridge-based biotechnology company.
The Information alleges that Mr. Marks, who at the time was
Vertex's highest-ranking attorney, learned on September 20,
2001, that Vertex planned to announce the suspension of clinical
trials of one of its promising drugs on September 24. According
to the Information, on September 21, Mr. Marks liquidated all of
his Vertex stock despite having previously acknowledged in
writing that the impending release would not be viewed favorably
by Wall Street and that he should not sell his Vertex shares.
According to the Information, at the time he traded, Mr. Marks
was the designated attorney for employees to contact regarding
compliance with Vertex's employee securities trading policy. In
that capacity, the Information alleges, Mr. Marks wrote Vertex's
CEO an email on September 20, advising him to make sure that an
employee who had requested permission to trade had no knowledge
of the impending press release.
According to the Information, Marks' email went on to say, "I
guess I am troubled about any employee trading prior to that
release because it is likely to have an effect on the stock
(looks like I can't sell any shares) and, depending on the
degree of that effect, could create the perception of insider
trading."
The Information alleges that, on September 21, less than 24
hours after writing this email to the CEO, Mr. Marks sold 20,900
shares of Vertex at an average price of $22.81 per share,
receiving $476,765. According to the Information, Mr. Marks
traded in breach of a fiduciary duty not to trade in Vertex's
stock while in possession of material, nonpublic information
regarding Vertex.
As a result of the conduct described in the Information, the US
Attorney has charged Mr. Marks with violating the antifraud
provisions of federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
On December 3, 2002, the Commission filed a complaint against
Marks in the US District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, alleging that Mr. Marks violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the same trades that are the subject of the Information.
The Commission's complaint seeks injunctive relief,
disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties and
seeks an order barring Mr. Marks from acting as an officer or
director of any publicly-traded company. That litigation is
currently pending.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
October 2-3, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.
October 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com
October 13, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 13-14, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM:
PHARMACEUTICAL & MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 16-17, 2003
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Westin Copley Plaza, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 20, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 21, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE AND INSOLVENCY
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 23 - 24, 2003
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND
COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York Marriott East Side
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com
October 24, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
San Francisco, CA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
October 27-28, 2003
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
November 10-11, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 13-14, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 17, 2003
WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 17-18, 2003
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 18, 2003
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 18, 2003
DAUBERT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11-13, 2003
EMERGING SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 14-16, 2003
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
The Plaza Hotel, New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com
January 22-23, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Orlando (Walt Disney World)
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
April 14-17, 2004
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
October 06-30, 2003
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 06-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 06-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of the One Group family of funds owned and operated by Bank One
Corporation (NYSE: ONE), and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:
(1) One Group Technology Fund (Nasdaq:OGTAX),
(Nasdaq:OGTBX), (Nasdaq:OGTCX), (Nasdaq:OGTIX);
(2) One Group Health Sciences Fund (Nasdaq:OHSAX),
(Nasdaq:OHSBX), (Nasdaq:OHSCX), (Nasdaq:OHSIX);
(3) One Group Diversified International Fund
(Nasdaq:PGIEX), (Nasdaq:ONIBX), (Nasdaq:OGDCX),
(Nasdaq:WOIEX);
(4) One Group International Equity Index Fund
(Nasdaq:OEIAX), (Nasdaq:OGEBX), (Nasdaq:OIICX),
(Nasdaq:OIEAX);
(5) One Group Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:PGSCX),
(Nasdaq:OGFBX), (Nasdaq:OSGCX), (Nasdaq:OGGFX);
(6) One Group Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:PSOAX),
(Nasdaq:PSOBX), (Nasdaq:OSVCX), (Nasdaq:PSOPX);
(7) One Group Market Expansion Index Fund (Nasdaq:OMEAX),
(Nasdaq:OMEBX), (Nasdaq:OMECX), (Nasdaq:PGMIX);
(8) One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OSGIX),
(Nasdaq:OGOBX), (Nasdaq:OMGCX), (Nasdaq:HLGEX);
(9) One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:OGDIX),
(Nasdaq:OGDBX), (Nasdaq:OMVCX), (Nasdaq:HLDEX);
(10) One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund (Nasdaq:PECAX),
(Nasdaq:ODMBX), (Nasdaq:ODMCX), (Nasdaq:WOOPX);
(11) One Group Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OLGAX),
(Nasdaq:OGLGX), (Nasdaq:OLGCX);
(12) One Group Large Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:OLVAX),
(Nasdaq:OLVBX), (Nasdaq:OLVCX), (Nasdaq:HLQVX);
(13) One Group Diversified Equity Fund (Nasdaq:PAVGX),
(Nasdaq:OVBGX), (Nasdaq:ODECX), (Nasdaq:OGVFX);
(14) One Group Equity Index Fund (Nasdaq:OGEAX),
(Nasdaq:OGEIX), (Nasdaq:OEICX), (Nasdaq:HLEIX);
(15) One Group Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq:OIEIX),
(Nasdaq:OGIBX), (Nasdaq:OINCX), (Nasdaq:HLIEX);
(16) One Group Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:OGASX), (Nasdaq:OAMAX),
(Nasdaq:OAMBX), (Nasdaq:OGAFX);
(17) One Group Investor Growth Fund (Nasdaq:ONGAX),
(Nasdaq:OGIGX), (Nasdaq:OGGCX), (Nasdaq:ONIFX);
(18) One Group Investor Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq:ONGIX),
(Nasdaq:ONEBX), (Nasdaq:ONECX), (Nasdaq:ONGFX);
(19) One Group Investor Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:OGIAX),
(Nasdaq:OGBBX), (Nasdaq:OGBCX), (Nasdaq:OIBFX);
(20) One Group Investor Conservative Growth Fund
(Nasdaq:OICAX), (Nasdaq:OICGX), (Nasdaq:OCGCX),
(Nasdaq:ONCFX);
(21) One Group Tax-Free Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PMBAX),
(Nasdaq:PUBBX), (Nasdaq:PRBIX);
(22) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OAMAX),
(Nasdaq:OAMBX), (Nasdaq:OGAFX);
(23) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OKYAX),
(Nasdaq:ONKBX), (Nasdaq:TRKMX);
(24) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PGLAX),
(Nasdaq:ONLBX), (Nasdaq:OGLFX);
(25) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PEIAX),
(Nasdaq:OMIBX), (Nasdaq:WOMBX);
(26) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:ONOHX),
(Nasdaq:OOHBX), (Nasdaq:HLOMX);
(27) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:OQWAX), (Nasdaq:OGWBX), (Nasdaq:OGWFX);
(28) One Group Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq:OTBAX),
(Nasdaq:OTBBX), (Nasdaq:OMICX), (Nasdaq:HLTAX);
(29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:ONTAX), (Nasdaq:ONFBX), (Nasdaq:HLTIX);
(30) One Group Short-term Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:OGLUX), (OVBXB), (Nasdaq:OSTCX),
(Nasdaq:HLLVX);
(31) One Group High Yield Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OHYAX),
(Nasdaq:OGHBX), (Nasdaq:OGHGX), (Nasdaq:OHYFX);
(32) One Group Income Bond Fund (Nasdaq:ONIAX),
(Nasdaq:OINBX), (Nasdaq:OBDCX), (Nasdaq:HLIPX);
(33) One Group Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PGBOX), (Nasdaq:OBOBX),
(Nasdaq:OBOCX), (Nasdaq:WOBDX);
(34) One Group Government Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGGAX),
(Nasdaq:OGGBX), (Nasdaq:OGVCX), (Nasdaq:HLGAX);
(35) One Group Mortgage Backed Securities Fund
(Nasdaq:OMBAX), (Nasdaq:OMBIX);
(36) One Group Intermediate Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGBAX),
(Nasdaq:OBDBX), (Nasdaq:OIMCX), (Nasdaq:SEIFX);
(37) One Group Treasury & Agency Fund (Nasdaq:OTABX),
(Nasdaq:ONTBX), (Nasdaq:OGTFX);
(38) One Group Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGLVX), (OVBXB),
(Nasdaq:OSTCX), (Nasdaq:HLLVX);
(39) One Group Ultra Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:ONUAX),
(Nasdaq:ONUBX), (Nasdaq:OGUCX), (Nasdaq:HLGFX);
(40) One Group Market Neutral Fund (Nasdaq:OGNAX);
(41) One Group Ohio Municipal Money Market Fund
(Nasdaq:HLOMX), (Nasdaq:ONOHX), (Nasdaq:OOHBX);
(42) One Group Michigan Municipal Money Market Fund
(Nasdaq:WMIXX), (Nasdaq:PEMXX);
(43) One Group Municipal Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:HTOXX),
(Nasdaq:OGIXX);
(44) One Group Prime Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:HLPXX),
(Nasdaq:HPIXX), (Nasdaq:OPBXX), (Nasdaq:OPCXX);
(45) One Group U.S. Government Securities Money Market Fund
(Nasdaq:OMAXX), (Nasdaq:OMIXX); and
(46) One Group U.S. Treasury Securities Money Market Fund
(Nasdaq:HGOXX), (Nasdaq:HTIXX), (Nasdaq:OTBXX),
(Nasdaq:OTCXX).
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against defendants Bank One
Corporation; Banc One Investment Advisers; One Group (R) Mutual
Funds; Canary Capital Partners, LLC; Canary Investment
Management, LLC; Canary Capital Partners, Ltd; each of the
Funds; and John Does 1-100.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.
The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities. Late trades are trades
received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's
net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next
day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations. Late trading allows favored investors to make use
of market-moving information that only becomes available after
4:00 p.m. and has been compared to betting on a horse race that
already has been run.
Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the
funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual
fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other
favored investors, Bank One Corporation and its subsidiaries
allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading
activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar
for dollar, for Canary's improper profits. These practices were
undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely
represented that the Funds actively police against timing and
represented that post-4:00 p.m. EST trades will be priced based
on the next day's net asset value and that premature redemptions
will be assessed a charge.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or by E-mail:
onegroupfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com
CHECK POINT: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd. (NASDAQ:CHKP) between
July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002, inclusive. The lawsuit was
filed against Check Point and certain officers of the Company.
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 false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous statements
concerning Check Point's revenue growth, product and marketing
initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing
to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
materially declining.
When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on
April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point fell more than 24% on
extremely heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Henry Young by Phone: 800-321-0476 or
by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com
CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd.
(Nasdaq:CHKP) between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002,
inclusive, against Check Point and certain officers and
directors of the Company.
During the Class Period, Defendants made public statements
regarding Check Point's increasing profits and revenue growth,
and various product marketing initiatives. The complaint
alleges that these statements were issued despite the fact that
demand for Check Point's products was in sharp decline.
The complaint also alleges that several Individual Defendants
engaged in significant insider selling during the Class Period,
selling approximately 228,000 shares and realizing $8.8 million
in illegal proceeds.
On April 4, 2002, the truth was revealed. Check Point announced
a revenue shortfall of approximately $15 million for the first
quarter 2002, and lowered its revenue and earnings guidance by
approximately 10% for fiscal year 2002. The Company further
disclosed that a number of its customers had delayed purchase
decisions and/or reduced the dollar amount of their purchases.
Market reaction to Check Point's announcement was swift and
severe. Check Point shares dropped over 19% in heavy trading,
closing at $22.07 on April 4, 2002.
For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
888-643-6735 or 610-660-8000, by Fax: 610-660-8080, by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Emerson Radio
Corporation (AMEX:MSN) from January 29, 2003 through August 12,
2003, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's growth and
demand for the Company's products.
As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they misrepresented
and omitted the following adverse facts which then existed and
disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements not
false and misleading, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(1) that Emerson customers were deferring and foregoing
purchases of product and reducing inventory levels as
they shifted to just-in-time stocking;
(2) that since at least March 2003, the outbreak of severe
acute respiratory syndrome in Asia was dramatically
reducing Emerson's product demand and supply;
(3) that Emerson was planning to, and did, discontinue
Mary-Kate and Ashley and NASCAR brands and business;
and
(4) that based on the foregoing, Emerson had no reasonable
basis to project ``significant'' and ``strong'' growth
and revenues for fiscal 2004.
On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others, a 44.3% revenue decline
in its consumer electronics segment. In response to this
announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell more than 49% on
August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
EMERSON RADIO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Emerson Radio Corporation
(Amex:MSN) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 29, 2003 and August 12, 2003, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's growth and
demand for the Company's products.
As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they misrepresented
and omitted the following adverse facts which then existed and
disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements not
false and misleading, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(1) that Emerson customers were deferring and foregoing
purchases of product and reducing inventory levels as
they shifted to just-in-time stocking;
(2) that since at least March 2003, the outbreak of severe
acute respiratory syndrome in Asia was dramatically
reducing Emerson's product demand and supply;
(3) that Emerson was planning to, and did, discontinue
Mary-Kate and Ashley and Nascar brands and business;
and
(4) that based on the foregoing, Emerson had no reasonable
basis to project "significant" and "strong" growth and
revenues for fiscal 2004.
On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others, a 44.3% revenue decline
in its consumer electronics segment. In response to this
announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell more than 49% on
August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
JANUS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of
the Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX), Janus High-Yield Fund
(Nasdaq:JAHYX), and other funds managed by wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Janus Capital Group Inc. between April 1, 2002
and July 3, 2003.
The following funds may be subject to the above lawsuit:
(1) Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX)
(2) Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq:JAENX)
(3) Janus Olympus Fund (Nasdaq:JAOLX)
(4) Janus Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq:JAGTX)
(5) Janus Orion Fund (Nasdaq:JORNX)
(6) Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq:JAVLX)
(7) Janus Venture Fund (Nasdaq:JAVTX)
(8) Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (Nasdaq:JAGLX)
(9) Janus Global Value Fund (Nasdaq:JGVAX)
(10) Janus Overseas Fund (Nasdaq:JAOSX)
(11) Janus Worldwide Fund (Nasdaq:JAWWX)
(12) Janus Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:JABAX)
(13) Janus Core Equity Fund (Nasdaq:JAEIX)
(14) Janus Growth and Income Fund (JAGIX)
(15) Janus Special Equity Fund (Nasdaq:JSVAX)
(16) Janus Risk-Managed Stock Fund (Nasdaq:JRMSX)
(17) Janus Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: JMCVX, JMIVX)
(18) Janus Small CapValue Fund (NASDAQ: JSCVX, JSIVX)
(19) Janus Federal Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:JATEX)
(20) Janus Flexible Income Fund (Nasdaq:JAFIX)
(21) Janus Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:JASBX)
(22) Janus Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:JAMXX)
(23) Janus Government Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:JAGXX)
(24) Janus Tax-Exempt Money Market Fund (JATXX)
The complaint charges the Janus Funds, Janus Capital Group Inc.,
and certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries with violations of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Janus
Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the Janus Funds.
According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, ``Canary'') to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4 p.m. This allowed Canary and
other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information,
while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could
not.
The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary
and other favored investors to engage in ``timing'' of the Janus
Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct
short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual fund shares,
despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the Janus
Funds' prospectuses.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
STRONG FINANCIAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case number 03-CV-7438, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Strong Funds family
of funds owned and operated by Strong Financial Corporation, and
its subsidiaries and affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and
July 3, 2003, inclusive.
The complaint names as defendants Strong Financial Corporation,
Strong Capital Management, Inc., and each of the Funds'
registrants and issuers, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital
Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital
Partners, Ltd, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.
The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:
(1) Strong Advisor Bond Fund (SVBDX, SADBX, SABCX, SIBNX,
F008W1, SBDIX)
(2) Strong Advisor Municipal Bond Fund (SAMAX, SMBBX,
F00BH8)
(3) Strong Advisor Municipal Select Fund (SMUIX, STAEX,
F005LZ, F005M9)
(4) Strong Advisor Short Duration Bond A Fund (STSDX,
SSDKX, SSHCX, STGBX)
(5) Strong Advisor Common Stock Fund (SCSAX, SCSKX, STSAX,
STCSX)
(6) Strong Advisor Endeavor Large Cap Fund (STALX, F008GO)
(7) Strong Advisor Focus Fund (F005MO, F005M7, F005LT)
(8) Strong Advisor International Core Fund (F008GQ, F008GR,
F008GS)
(9) Strong Advisor Large Company Core Fund (SLGAX, F00AO2,
F00AO3, SLCKX)
(10) Strong Advisor Mid-Cap Growth Fund (F005LQ, F005M1,
F005LO, SMDCX)
(11) Strong Advisor Small Cap Value Fund (SMVAX, SMVBX,
SMVCX, SSMVX)
(12) Strong Advisor Strategic Income Fund (SASAX, F005L7,
SASCX)
(13) Strong Advisor Technology Fund (SASCX, F005LM, F005LM)
(14) Strong Advisor U.S. Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (F009D0,
F009D1)
(15) Strong Advisor U.S. Value (F005M2, F005M5, F005MA,
SEQKX, SEQIX)
(16) Strong Advisor Utilities and Energy Fund (SUEAX,
F00AED, F00AEE, F009D5)
(17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)
(18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)
(19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)
(20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)
(21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)
(22) Strong Dividend Income Fund (SDVIX, F008VY)
(23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)
(24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)
(25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)
(26) Strong Enterprise Fund (SENAX, F04ANX, SENTX, SEPKX)
(27) Strong Growth & Income Fund (SGNAX, SGNIX, SGRIX,
SGIKX)
(28) Strong Growth 20 Fund (SGTWX, SGRTX, SGRAX, F00B67,
SGRNX)
(29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)
(30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)
(31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)
(32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)
(33) Strong Large Company Growth Fund (SLGIX, F04ANY)
(34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)
(35) Strong Multi-Cap Value Fund (SMTVX)
(36) Strong Opportunity Fund (SOPVX, SOPFX, F00AH2)
(37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)
(38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)
(39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)
(40) Strong U.S. Emerging Growth Fund (SEMRX)
(41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)
(42) Strong Life Stages - Aggressive Portfolio Fund (SAGGX)
(43) Strong Life Stages - Conservative Portfolio Fund
(SCONX)
(44) Strong Life Stages - Moderate Portfolio Fund (SMDPX)
(45) Strong Corporate Bond Fund (SCBDX, SCBNX, STCBX)
(46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)
(47) Strong High-Yield Bond Fund (SHBAX, SHYYX, STHYX)
(48) Strong Government Securities Fund (SGVDX, F00B66,
SGVIX, STVSX)
(49) Strong High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (SHYLX)
(50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)
(51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)
(52) Strong Minnesota Tax-Free Fund (F00B64, F00B65, F00B63)
(53) Strong Wisconsin Tax-Free Fund (F0068K)
(54) Strong Short-Term High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund
(SSHMX, SSTHX, STHBX)
(55) Strong Short-Term Municipal Bond Fund (F00B62, STSMX)
(56) Strong Short-Term Income Fund (F00B1K)
(57) Strong Short-Term Bond Fund (SSTVX, SSHIX, SSTBX)
(58) Strong Ultra Short-Term Income Fund (SADAX, SADIX,
STADX)
(59) Strong Ultra Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (SMAVX,
SMAIX, SMUAX)
(60) Strong Florida Municipal Money Market Fund (SLFXX)
(61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)
(62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)
(63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)
(64) Strong Tax-Free Money Fund (STMXX)
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.
The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in the ``timing''
of their transactions in the Funds' securities. Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit.
Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not
allowed to engage in such practices -- and is acknowledged as an
improper practice by the Funds.
In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Strong Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries
allowed and facilitated Canary's timing activities, to the
detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
Canary's improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in
the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh by
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892
or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com
TYCOM LTD.: Lasky & Rifkind Launches Securities Suit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for District of New Jersey, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of TyCom Ltd. between July 26, 2000 and
December 18, 2001, inclusive. TyCom is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Tyco Intl. (NYSE:TYC). The lawsuit was filed
against the Company and:
(1) Tyco International,
(2) L. Dennis Kozlowski,
(3) Mark H. Swartz, and
(4) Neil Garvey
TyCom became a public company on July 26, 2000 by the issuance
of approximately 60 million shares of its common stock in an
initial public offering pursuant to a Registration Statement.
Each of the defendants were signatories to that Registration
Statement.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the class
period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about the underlying purpose for TyCom's July 26,
2000 initial public offering and failed to disclose the true
purpose of the offering was to generate "bonuses" that would be
used by Kozlowski and Swartz and approximately 40 other Tyco
officers to repay approximately $100 million in undisclosed and
unauthorized loans from Tyco.
The complaint further alleges that the Registration failed to
disclose in its summary compensation table, millions of dollars
of other unauthorized loans and payments from Tyco to the
individual defendants.
On December 18, 2001, having realized their goals of generating
bonuses to repay the outstanding loans, defendants caused Tyco
to acquire the minority interest of TyCom at a price
approximately 50% below the offering price of those shares in
July 2000. Members of the class suffered a decline in value of
those shares of roughly $1 billion.
For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: 800-321-0476
*********
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, Roberto
Amor, 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 * * *