/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040219.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, February 19, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 35
Headlines
aaiPHARMA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in E.D. NC
ALABAMA: NAACP Launches Racial Bias Lawsuit Over Permit Issuance
BROWNSTONE CAPITAL: SEC Files Admin Proceedings For Stock Fraud
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Los Angeles Diocese Release Report on Sex Abuse
CONTRACEPTIVE PATCHES: FDA Takes Action V. Counterfeit Sellers
EPG GLOBAL: SEC Commences, Settles Civil Injunctive Complaint
GE SECURITY: Recalls Carbon Monoxide Alarms for Product Defect
MARK LOVE: SEC Sustains NASD Findings Over Securities Violation
MARTHA STEWART: Judge Refuse To Allow Use of Phone Logs in Trial
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Rejects Proposed Antitrust Settlement
NYSE TRADERS: SEC Seeks $240M in Penalties From Specialists
PASTA & CO.: Recalls Tuna Noodle Casserole For Undeclared Eggs
PERFORMANCE FOOD: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Complaint in NJ
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1,700 Accessory Skis For Injury Risk
PRIVATE BROKERS: SEC Refuses to Reconsider Govt Suit Dismissal
T-NETIX INC.: Faces Securities Suit Opposing TZ Holdings Merger
TYSON FOODS: AL Jury Awards Cattlemen $1.28B in Antitrust Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Oregon Court Orders Compensation For Employees
WILLOW BROOK: Recalls 74T lbs Smoked Turkey Bearing Metal Pieces
New Securities Fraud Cases
aaiPHARMA INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NC
aaiPHARMA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in E.D. NC
aaiPHARMA INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NC
COLUMBIA FUNDS: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
DEUTSCHE BANK: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in MA
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
INTERPOOL INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in NJ
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Lasky & Rifkind Files AZ Securities Suit
NETWORK ENGINES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MA
NETWORK ENGINES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
MICROMUSE INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
REDBACK NETWORKS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in CA
ROYAL DUTCH: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court
SONUS NETWORKS: Schoengold & Sporn Files Securities Suit in MA
SONUS NETWORKS: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
SONUS NETWORKS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in MA
SONUS NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
*********
aaiPHARMA INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
aaiPharma Inc. (Nasdaq: AAII) certain of its officers face
several shareholder class actions action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Southern Division, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period between July 23, 2003
and February 4, 2004, inclusive.
The suits allege violations of federal securities law. The
suits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and allege that these
violations took place between July 23, 2003 and February 4,
2004.
The Company believes that these claims are without merit it said
in a press release. For more information, visit the firm's
Website: http://www.aaipharma.com
ALABAMA: NAACP Launches Racial Bias Lawsuit Over Permit Issuance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) charged the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM) of racial discrimination, after it allowed the
Continental Carbon Company to continue releasing more than
13,000 tons of air pollution near predominantly black
neighborhoods in Phenix City, TuscaloosaNews.com reports.
The ADEM issued a renewal permit for the company in December,
which plaintiffs said ignored residents' concerns about property
damage and health problems. The ADEM allegedly issued the
permit without properly gathering public input. The complaint
said the pollution includes black carbon dust that coats homes
and businesses in Phenix City and Columbus, Georgia.
Ron Gore, chief of ADEM's air division, told TuscaloosaNews.com
ADEM officials had visited the communities in Columbus and
Phenix City "hundreds of times," but never found sufficient
evidence of heavy pollution or that Continental Carbon was
responsible for any excess emissions. "This permit we're
talking about here is operational. This doesn't authorize
Continental Carbon to release any more emissions that it did
before," he said.
Ed DuBose, president of the NAACP's Columbus branch, told
TuscaloosaNews.com the demographics of the area proves that ADEM
committed environmental racism. "This is not happening in north
Columbus," he said. "It's not in the affluent areas of Alabama.
We're talking about African-Americans and low-income people. So
what is the message they're trying to send?"
Mr. Gore asserted that ADEM's procedures to notify residents
about the permit were identical to those used in other parts of
the state. The department opts to announce permits proposals on
its Web site and also relies on a newspaper mailing list to get
notices published.
Environmental consultant Rick Abraham, who represents a
Continental Carbon employee union, told TuscaloosaNews.com ADEM
"failed miserably" in its effort to publicize the proposal. "If
the pollution from this facility was going into an upper-class,
predominantly white, Caucasian neighborhood, this permit would
have been noticed," he said.
Continental Carbon spokesman Blake Lewis told TuscaloosaNews.com
company officials would wait for ADEM to review the complaint
before they would consider taking any action.
BROWNSTONE CAPITAL: SEC Files Admin Proceedings For Stock Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions against Brownstone Capital
Corporation (Brownstone Capital), a registered broker-dealer,
and Gregory Cooper, Brownstone's chairman and general securities
principal. The Order revokes Brownstone Capital's registration
and bars Cooper from association with any broker or dealer.
The Order was based upon the entry of civil judgments against
Brownstone Capital and Mr. Cooper in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on November 17,
2003, and Cooper's guilty plea to one count of mail fraud in
violation of Sections 1341 and 1342 of Title 18 of the United
States Code in a parallel criminal case in the same District
entitled "United States v. Gregory Cooper, 99-Crim-298."
In the civil action, SEC v. Brownstone Group, et al. 98-CV-8540,
the District Court permanently enjoined Brownstone Capital and
Mr. Cooper from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 15(c), 17(a) and 17(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules
10b-3, 10b-5, 15c1-2, 15c-1-5, and 17a-4(j). The District Court
ordered the court-appointed receiver for Brownstone Capital to
pay $9,961.48 in disgorgement to the Commission, which was the
balance remaining in the receiver's account from the liquidation
of Brownstone Capital's assets. Mr. Cooper was not ordered to
pay disgorgement or a civil penalty based on his financial
condition and his restitution obligation in the criminal case.
In the civil action, the Commission alleged that from March 1997
to in or about December 1998, Brownstone Capital, Mr. Cooper,
and others, offered and sold unregistered shares of Brownstone
Holdings and Blackstone Entertainment to the investing public
through three purported private offerings. Mr. Cooper
controlled Brownstone Capital and each of the issuers whose
securities were sold in the offerings.
In connection with these offerings, Brownstone Capital, which
was the selling agent for these offerings, distributed private
placement memoranda to investors that contained numerous
material misrepresentations. Additionally, Brownstone Capital
registered representatives made numerous material
misrepresentations to investors to induce them to purchase
securities in these offerings.
For example, in July 1997, Brownstone Capital brokers told
investors in one of the offerings that if they invested they
would double their money within one month. Mr. Cooper directed
brokers at Brownstone Capital to solicit investors to purchase
shares through the offerings. Brownstone Capital also failed to
make required books and records reasonably accessible, and to
furnish copies of some of those records, to the Commission
staff. In the criminal case, Mr. Cooper was sentenced to 24
months in prison and an additional two years of supervised
release and ordered to pay $1,881,242.00 in restitution.
Based on the above, the Order revokes Brownstone Capital's
registration with the Commission as a broker-dealer and bars
Cooper from association with any broker or dealer. Brownstone
Capital's receiver and Cooper consented to the issuance of the
Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the
civil injunctive action.
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Los Angeles Diocese Release Report on Sex Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, United States'
largest diocese released a detailed study on sexual abuse of
minors by its clergy since 1930, which said that the diocese had
received allegations from 656 people who said they were molested
by 244 priests, deacons, religious brothers, seminarians and one
person connected with the diocese, the Associated Press reports.
Cardinal Roger Mahony compiled the report as part of a landmark,
nationwide accounting of abuse cases due to be released February
27, as part of the effort by America's Catholic clergy to ease
two years of the scandal.
While reports from several other dioceses have contained
extensive details about past abuse claims, the Los Angeles study
gave more specifics, AP reports. The archdiocese is among the
few to reveal the names of nearly all of the accused. Its 34-
page report explained the evolution of its abuse policy, and had
case studies of accused priests to illustrate its approach.
Several bishops have already started releasing their local
figures. Reporters from The Associated Press have been tracking
those numbers and have found that, including Los Angeles, 85
dioceses have reported claims so far against 1,657 clergy since
1950. CNN reported Monday that it has seen a draft of the
national survey, and that 4,450 clergy nationwide have been
accused of molesting minors since 1950.
The Los Angeles Archdiocese already faces more than 500 claims
from victims, after state lawmakers temporarily lifted the
statute of limitations on minor sex abuse suits. Cardinal
Mahony repeatedly apologized in the report for the mishandling
of some cases since he became Los Angeles archbishop in 1985.
Cardinal Mahony has been criticized for refusing to release
personnel files to a grand jury after pledging full disclosure
of information about clergy misconduct.
Cardinal Mahony also asked the region's 4.2 million Catholics to
pray that victims heal and reconcile with the church. He argued
that the understanding of how best to address abuse has changed
over time, and that some approaches previously recommended by
psychiatrists and others were only now considered inadequate.
"The archdiocese has committed significant resources to help
those who were harmed to recover from their horrible
experiences," the report said, the Associated Press reports.
"We hope our efforts will help, but we realize that only the
grace of God can provide the complete healing the victims need."
The report singled out the case of former priest Michael Baker,
who remained in church work even though he admitted molesting
two boys, and now faces more than 20 abuse claims. Cardinal
Mahony "was far too lenient in permitting him to continue in
assignments," the report said.
The accusers are disproportionately male, and, although most of
the alleged abuse occurred in the 1960s, `70s and `80s, many of
the claims were not filed until the latest wave of scandal, the
report said.
Cardinal Mahony qualified the report saying that some of the
allegations could be unsubstantiated. Some claims have been
made against clergy who could not have been in the place where
the alleged crime occurred, according to the report.
CONTRACEPTIVE PATCHES: FDA Takes Action V. Counterfeit Sellers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration has taken action
against three foreign internet sites associated with a site
previously found to be selling counterfeit contraceptive patches
that contain no active ingredients. These counterfeit patches
provide no protection against pregnancy. The three newly
discovered internet sites involved are:
(1) www.usarxstore.com,
(2) www.europeanrxpharmacy.com, and
(3) www.generic.com
These sites also sold other drugs that purported to be the same
as FDA-approved drugs, but are in fact from unknown sources and
of unknown safety and efficacy. To protect the public health
FDA has obtained the cooperation of the U.S.-based internet
service provider in shutting down service to these sites. This
action follows similar action FDA took against,
www.rxpharmacy.ws which sold counterfeit contraceptive patches
as well as other products that purport to be versions of FDA-
approved drugs.
In a press release, the FDA urged consumers to treat any drugs
purchased from these websites as suspect, and not to be
considered safe or effective. The FDA also advised consumers
who have products purchased from any of these websites not to
use them, but instead to contact their healthcare providers
immediately.
"We are continuing our efforts to do all we can to protect
Americans from unsafe and counterfeit drugs purchased from
illegal foreign sites," FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan,
M.D., Ph.D. said in a statement. "The scope and severity of
this case illustrates the serious risks people face when they
buy illegal internet drugs."
The counterfeit contraceptive patches were promoted as Ortho
Evra transdermal patches, which are FDA approved, and made by
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. Instead customers receive
packages of patches without the active ingredient necessary to
make the patches effective. Moreover, the counterfeits were
sent in simple plastic zip-lock bags without identifying
materials, lot numbers, expiration dating or any other labeling
information needed to safely and effectively use this
prescription product.
EPG GLOBAL: SEC Commences, Settles Civil Injunctive Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
injunctive action against EPG Global Private Equity Fund, Ltd.
(EPG), a purported "principal guaranteed" hedge fund, and its
founder Anthony F. Giordano. EPG, with its registered office in
Boca Raton, Florida, and Mr. Giordano, who also resides in Boca
Raton, Florida, consented, without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Commission's Complaint, to the entry of a
Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief.
According to the Commission's complaint, Mr. Giordano, a former
registered representative barred by the National Association of
Securities Dealers (NASD), attempted to raise investor funds by
placing a series of national newspaper advertisements regarding
EPG and by mailing EPG offering materials to potential
investors.
The Commission's Complaint also alleges that, in connection with
the offering, EPG and Mr. Giordano made numerous material
misrepresentations and omissions to potential investors about
the guaranteed nature of the investment, the returns that EPG
investments would generate, the value of the assets that Mr.
Giordano had under management, and Mr. Giordano's disciplinary
history with the NASD.
The Final Judgment permanent enjoins EPG from violating Sections
5(c), 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act) and enjoins Mr. Giordano from violating
Sections 5(c), 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. Mr. Giordano will also pay $50,000 in civil penalties.
The suit is styled "SEC v. EPG Global Private Equity Fund, et
al., Civil Action No. 04-60183-CIV-COHN (S.D. Fla.)."
GE SECURITY: Recalls Carbon Monoxide Alarms for Product Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
GE Security, Inc. is cooperating with the Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 74,000 Carbon
Monoxide (CO) Alarms.
The recalled units fail to detect carbon monoxide after 1 year
of operation due to an internal software error. These CO alarms
do not provide an "end of life" signal or other indication of
inoperability, even if the test button is depressed. The
Company has received one report that the CO detector did not
operate properly in the presence of CO. No injuries have been
reported.
These ESL SafeAir 240-COE Carbon Monoxide alarms are hard-wired
and require professional installation. The white, rectangular
units are about 6-inches long and 2.75-inches high. "CARBON
MONOXIDE ALARM" and "DO NOT PAINT" are written on the front of
the units. "240-Coe, "SENTROL," (a former name of the company)
and the date code are written on the back. The date code is a
four-digit number ending with a "T." The four digits denote the
week and year of manufacture. For example, the date code
"4500T" refers to a unit that was manufactured in the 45th week
of 2000. Only units with date codes 4500T (November 2000)
through 3502T (August 2002) are included in the recall.
Distributors, dealers and installers of security systems
nationwide sold theses alarms from November 2000 through October
2003 for about $49.
Consumers should contact their system installer or service
provider to arrange for the free installation of a replacement
CO alarm. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800)
648-7422 between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.ge-interlogix.com.
MARK LOVE: SEC Sustains NASD Findings Over Securities Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission sustained NASD's findings
that Mark H. Love, a former registered representative in the
Tucson, Arizona, office of NASD member firm PaineWebber Inc.,
violated NASD Rule 3040 by participating in private securities
transactions without providing prior written notice to
PaineWebber.
The Commission found that Mr. Love had participated in private
securities transactions by referring three sets of his
PaineWebber clients to an entity called Summit West Partners,
which invested in initial public offerings. The Commission
found that, among other things, Mr. Love's participation in the
transactions was established by the facts that:
(1) he told the customers that a personal friend of Mr.
Love, who was also a PaineWebber representative, knew
the head of Summit West well and was considering
leaving PaineWebber to work for Summit West;
(2) Love told at least one of his clients that he
personally was interested in investing in Summit West;
and
(3) that Love personally interceded with Summit West on
behalf of his clients when they experienced difficulty
withdrawing funds from their Summit West accounts.
The Commission held that the thirty business-day suspension,
$25,000 fine, and costs imposed by NASD were appropriate under
NASD sanctioning guidelines and were neither excessive nor
oppressive.
MARTHA STEWART: Judge Refuse To Allow Use of Phone Logs in Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum refused to
allow prosecutors assertions that phone records showed Martha
Stewart and broker Peter Bacanovic conspired to hide evidence of
a suspicious stock trade, Reuters reports.
Ms. Stewart faces five counts including obstruction of justice
and securities fraud, so far, the most famous celebrity to face
trial since the crackdown on white-collar corruption began two
years ago. She allegedly saved about $51,000 by selling Inclone
stock on December 27, 2001 - just before a negative government
report about a highly touted ImClone cancer drug sent the stock
plummeting, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January
21,2004) states.
Ms. Stewart has asserted that she and her broker, Peter
Bacanovic of Merrill Lynch & Co., had a standing agreement to
sell when the stock fell to $60. Mr. Bacanovic faces five
counts of his own and will stand trial with her. Prosecutors,
however, assert that ImClone founder Sam Waksal, a personal
friend of Ms. Stewart, informed her of the impending
developments.
In the ongoing trial, government lawyers introduced logs of
phone of phone calls between the two defendants while they were
being investigated in early 2002 regarding Mr. Stewart's sale of
ImClone Systems Inc. stock. Prosecutors had hoped to show the
conversations were part of a conspiracy between the two to cover
up the stock sale at the heart of the widely-watched obstruction
of justice case. The prosecutors are winding down their
arguments and are expected to conclude this week.
Judge Cedarbaum instructed jurors that the records could not be
used to suggest Ms. Stewart and Mr. Bacanovic were discussing
the investigation. "I direct you not to speculate as to what
was discussed," she told the panel of eight women and four men.
"The government cannot prove the substance of these
conversations solely through the records."
Prosecutors still intend to call several more witnesses,
including one friend of Douglas Faneuil, Mr. Bacanovic's
assistant at the time of the ImClone trade. Mr. Faneuil earlier
testified that Mr. Bacanovic had ordered him to tip off Stewart
that Mr. Waksal was trying to sell all of his shares. He told
the jury that Ms. Stewart quickly acted on the secret
information.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Rejects Proposed Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union rejected software giant Microsoft
Corporation's latest offer to settle antitrust charges they
filed against it, saying the offer was insufficient, sources
familiar with the discussion told the Associated Press.
The Commission's draft decision declared that Microsoft abused
its Windows monopoly to gain grounds over rivals in the media
player market - RealNetworks and Apple Computer. The complaint
is similar to the landmark US case over Internet browsers, which
found the Company guilty of abusing its Windows monopoly to push
the Internet explorer.
The suit was settled in 2002, without requiring Microsoft to
"untie" its Internet Explorer from Windows. Microsoft argued
that adding new features to Windows - a key to its business
strategy - benefits consumers, while its competitors argue it is
aimed at driving them out of business.
Last year, EU regulators ordered Microsoft to either sell a
stripped-down version of Windows or install rival media players.
A decision is due this spring and the Company is aiming to
prevent a far-reaching order that would force it to change the
way it packages its dominant Windows desktop operating system
and reveal more of its underlying code to rival manufacturers.
Such an order could also complicate its next planned Windows
innovation: incorporating an Internet search engine to compete
with Google's.
Talks are continuing, sources told AP. Spokespeople for the
European Commission and Microsoft declined to comment on a
report in Tuesday's Financial Times that Microsoft had offered
to include rival media player software on a CD-ROM packaged with
personal computers to help resolve the case. Microsoft said
only that it "continues to work actively with the European
Commission toward an amicable settlement in this case."
Sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated
Press Microsoft's offer had been dismissed by the commission as
unsatisfactory but that the search continued for ways to make it
acceptable to regulators. The CD-ROM offer seeks to satisfy the
second option but sources said the commission, which wants all
players competing on the same level, believes requiring
installation from a CD-ROM would deter most users.
One source told AP Microsoft might agree to a folder on the
computer desktop informing users of the options available on CD,
although it was unclear whether Microsoft's media player would
be on the CD or pre-installed. Microsoft's offer to settle the
second half of the case involving the market for low-end
servers, which link desktops together in offices, was also
deemed "not enough" but talks continue, one source said,
declining to elaborate.
NYSE TRADERS: SEC Seeks $240M in Penalties From Specialists
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is
seeking about US$240 million in restituted gains and penalties
from five of the largest mutual fund trading firms in the New
York Stock Exchange, FT.com reports.
Talks between the SEC and five specialist trading firms are
ongoing, seeking a settlement of trading violations allegations,
that would end months of investigations and talks that have
severely dented the already damaged credibility of the New York
Stock Exchange and that of its market model, the last to use
human intervention among the world's main equity markets.
People close to the talks told FT.com that the specialists will
either settle as a group or not at all.
The SEC also wants to press charges against individuals within
the five firms, but the specialists are wary that this might
cause hundreds of class actions to be filed against them. The
California Public Employees Retirement System, the largest
public pension fund in the US, has already filed a lawsuit
against the specialists and the NYSE.
LaBranche & Co and Van der Moolen are the two specialists with
most at stake in the settlement talks, FT.com reports. Unlike
the other three specialists, they are independent and have seen
a sharp erosion of their valuations as a result of this
investigation. The other three firms include the Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg unit of Goldman Sachs; the Fleet Specialist unit of the
eponymous bank which is set to be acquired by Bank of America;
and Bear Wagner Specialists, partly owned by Bear Stearns.
The SEC took over the investigation of trading violations last
autumn, amid frustration over the slow progress made by the NYSE
on the matter. It alleges that specialists on the NYSE floor
deliberately ignored customer orders for their own gains. The
$240 million being sought by the SEC represents an $85 million
penalty on top of $155 million in profits regulators claim were
fraudulently earned by the firms over three years.
PASTA & CO.: Recalls Tuna Noodle Casserole For Undeclared Eggs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pasta & Co. of Seattle, Washington, is recalling its 11 ounce
and 2 lb. packages of "Tuna Noodle" casserole because it
contains undeclared eggs. People who have allergies to eggs run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.
The recalled "Tuna Noodles" were distributed through Pasta &
Co.'s five neighborhood retail stores located in Bellevue,
Issaquah (location closed July 2003) Redmond, Queen Anne and
University Village.
The product comes in an 11 ounce plastic container or a 2 lb.
foil pan with a clear plastic lid. Affected items are marked
with lot #001 - 365 on the bottom of the package. All unsold
packages are being relabeled with the correct ingredient
statement.
No other Pasta & Co. products are affected. No illnesses have
been reported to date in connection with this problem. The
recall was initiated after it was discovered during a labeling
update that the ingredient labels on the affected products did
not include the reference to eggs.
Consumers who have purchased these products and wish to return
them for a full refund may do so by returning them to one of
Pasta & Co.'s four retail stores. Consumers with questions may
contact the company by Phone: 206-322-1644.
PERFORMANCE FOOD: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Complaint in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
United States district court in Newark, New Jersey against Dean
A. Nichols, a certified public accountant and a senior manager
at a subsidiary of Performance Food Group Company (PFG), a large
public company.
The complaint alleges that, during 2000 and 2001, Mr. Nichols
engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct in which he made
numerous improper accounting journal entries on the books of AFI
Foodservice Distributor, Inc. (AFI), a subsidiary of PFG.
Mr. Nichols' conduct caused PFG to overstate its income by a
total of $3.8 million in the company's Forms 10-Q filed with the
Commission for the second and third quarters of 2000, and for
the first and third quarters of 2001. Mr. Nichols, an executive
vice-president and one time controller of AFI, was responsible
for AFI's accounting functions and financial statements.
During 2000 and 2001, he repeatedly failed to reconcile
imbalances in various AFI accounts, and made improper accounting
adjustments in an effort to make the accounts appear to balance.
Because AFI's accounts were consolidated with PFG's, Nichols'
actions caused PFG materially to overstate its reported net
earnings. Mr. Nichols never notified PFG's management or
accounting personnel of the account imbalances or of his
improper accounting adjustments.
On March 11, 2002, PFG announced that it had identified
accounting errors in the financial statements of a subsidiary.
The company later filed a Form 10-K for 2001 in which it
reported its corrected net income for all of 2000 and 2001.
The complaint against Mr. Nichols seeks an injunction,
disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty
based on his violation of, and/or aiding and abetting violations
of, the antifraud, reporting, and books and records provisions
of the federal securities laws (Sections 10(b), 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-13 and 13b2-1, thereunder).
The suit is styled, "SEC v. Dean A. Nichols, D.N.J."
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1,700 Accessory Skis For Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
1,700 Accessory Skis for Polaris snowmobiles. The accessory
skis sold for Polaris snowmobiles could break, resulting in
injury or death.
The recalled skis are the red composite (nonmetallic) skis and
were sold as an accessory item for use on Polaris snowmobiles.
The part number is inscribed on the tail of the snowmobile ski.
The part numbers of the skis are:
Part Number Affected Part Number Stamped on Ski Replacement
Black Ski
(sold individually)
2872291-293 5433175 2872291-070
2872291-243 5433175 2872291-070
2872291-239 5433175 2872291-070
2872291-256 5433175 2872291-070
2872492-293 (RMK LH) 5433260 2872492-070
2872491-293 (RMK-RH) 5433273 2872491-070
1820610-243 5433175 2872291-070
1820610-293 5433175 2872291-070
Polaris dealerships worldwide sold the items from November 2001
through December 15, 2003 for between $78 and $125 per ski.
Consumers should stop using their snowmobiles immediately if
they have installed red accessory skis and bring the skis or
snowmobile to their Polaris dealer for replacement. For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-Polaris
(1-800-765-2747) between 8 a.m. and 12 midnight ET daily or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.polarisindustries.com.
PRIVATE BROKERS: SEC Refuses to Reconsider Govt Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission denied a motion filed by
the Division of Enforcement for reconsideration of its decision
dismissing disciplinary action against Private Brokers
Corporation, a clearing broker-dealer, and its president and
partial owner, Robert A. Roberts, in connection with a
fraudulent scheme involving the changing of ticket prices by Del
Mar Financial Services, Inc., a former registered broker-dealer,
and its owner, Kevin C. Dills.
The Commission found, as relevant here, that the securities law
violations alleged against Private Brokers and Mr. Roberts were
not proven. It found no evidence that Private Brokers or Mr.
Roberts engaged in wrongdoing, or that they contributed to Mr.
Dills' and Del Mar's fraud. The Commission stated that Private
Brokers' and Roberts' conduct reflected nothing more than the
performance of their activities as clearing brokers in
addressing trading problems resulting from an introducing
broker's actions.
In seeking reconsideration, the Division objected to a single
sentence in the Commission's opinion that discussed the lack of
evidence that Private Brokers and Mr. Roberts initiated or
directly participated in the ticket price-changing scheme with
intent to deceive and defraud. The Division contended that the
sentence at issue could be "misinterpreted to authorize brokers
to improperly change the prices of securities transactions
retroactively to an `average price' that differs from the market
prices that the customers actually received."
The Commission rejected this contention, stating that it did not
believe the identified sentence could be read to endorse that
practice. It accordingly denied the motion for reconsideration.
T-NETIX INC.: Faces Securities Suit Opposing TZ Holdings Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
T-NETIX, Inc. (Nasdaq:TNTX) and the members of the Company's
board of directors have been named as defendants in a purported
stockholder class action opposing a tender offer and merger
transaction in which T-NETIX would be acquired by a third party.
On January 22, 2004, the Company announced that it had signed a
definitive merger agreement with TZ Holdings, Inc. and TZ
Acquisition, Inc. under which TZ Acquisition, Inc. has commenced
a cash tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding common
stock of the Company at a price of $4.60 per share. The tender
offer would be followed by a merger of TZ Acquisition, Inc. with
and into the Company. Stockholders of the Company who do not
tender their shares of common stock in the tender offer, other
than those who properly exercise their appraisal rights under
Delaware law, would receive the same $4.60 per share cash price
in the merger.
TZ Acquisition, Inc. and TZ Holdings, Inc. have also been named
as defendants in the lawsuit.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit is alleging that the Company did
not make adequate disclosure in certain of its SEC filings
concerning the tender offer and the merger, as well as breach of
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The Company and
the individual defendants believe the lawsuit is without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against it.
For more details, contact Richard E. Cree by Phone: 972-241-1535
by E-mail: rick.cree@t-netix.com or contact Henry G. Schopfer
III by Phone: 972-241-1535 by E-mail: hank.schopfer@t-netix.com
TYSON FOODS: AL Jury Awards Cattlemen $1.28B in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama jury awarded a group of cattlemen US$1.28 billion
dollars, after finding Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. guilty of
unfairly manipulating cattle prices, The Associated Press
reports. The suit is pending in the United States District
Court in Montgomery, Alabama.
The suit, styled "Pickett v. IBP" charges the Company, which is
now owned by Tyson Foods, Inc., of using "captive supplies" to
unfairly manipulate prices for cattle. The suit makes claims
under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, on behalf of all
producers who sold cattle to IBP or Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. from
February 1994 to October 2002. Trial in the suit began mid-
January, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February
5,2004) reports.
Alabama cattleman Henry Lee "Leroy" Pickett and five others
filed the suit, saying the Company illegally cornered the market
for cattle, by forming contracts with large feeders. The
contracts created a captive supply that let them stay out of the
market during crucial pricing periods.
As a result, transactions take place without the transparency to
the public that exists when sales take place on the futures
market. No one but the packer allegedly knows how many cattle
it controls at any given time. The situation, the cattlemen
say, also reduces the prices IBP pays for cattle it doesn't have
on contract. Smaller cattle producers and feeders are then left
with a choice of selling at low prices or not at all,
Agriculture Online reports.
Attorneys for Tyson Fresh Meats told the Associated Press that
they planned to appeal.
WAL-MART STORES: Oregon Court Orders Compensation For Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Portland, Oregon jury ordered retail giant Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. to compensate 83 of its employees who worked unpaid
overtime, the Associated Press reports. The jury reached the
decision after assessing each plaintiffs' case individually and
rejecting 25 employees claims in the second phase of the trial
against the nation's largest private employer.
The plaintiffs alleged that they were owed overtime, and that
they were sometimes locked inside stores until other workers
completed their jobs, and then told to pitch in off the clock,
or asked to work through meal breaks. The Company denied the
allegations, saying managers were trying to encourage teamwork.
Exact compensation for each worker is still to be determined.
Payments are expected to be relatively modest, ranging from a
few hundred dollars to several thousand per worker, based on
roughly 30 to 60 minutes of overtime per week.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs called Tuesday's mixed verdict a
victory. "The jury found that they did work off the clock, and
should be compensated for it," James Piotrowski told AP.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman told AP the company was disappointed the
jury found any employees had worked overtime without pay, a
violation of company policy, but said the final award came to
only a tiny fraction of the initial pool of plaintiffs. "The
jury returned a verdict awarding substantially fewer unpaid,
off-the-clock hours than were originally sought," spokeswoman
Christi Gallagher said.
The decision comes 14 months after a federal jury in Portland,
Oregon, became the first in the nation to rule that Wal-Mart,
the world's largest retailer, made employees at 18 Oregon stores
work unpaid overtime from 1994 to 1999. About three dozen
similar suits against the retailer are pending nationwide.
U.S. District Court Judge Garr King asked the attorneys to
present the court with an approximate dollar value for the
overtime hours, and said the court would later decide how much
Wal-Mart would pay, AP reports. "There won't be a judgment for
some time," Judge King said.
WILLOW BROOK: Recalls 74T lbs Smoked Turkey Bearing Metal Pieces
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willow Brook Foods Inc., a Springfield, Missouri firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 37,000 pounds of smoked
white turkey that may contain small pieces of metal, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced.
The products subject to recall are cases of "WILLOW BROOK FARMS
SMOKED WHITE TURKEY, FULLY COOKED BONELESS." Each case weighs
approximately 17 pounds. The cases bear one of the following
package codes: "Sell or freeze by 04/02/2004; or sell or freeze
by 04/03/2004." In addition, the cases also bear the
establishment number "Est. P-7249A" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.
The turkey was produced on January 8-9 and distributed to retail
establishments nationwide. The recall was initiated after the
company received information that metal was discovered in one of
its products. FSIS has not received reports of injury. Anyone
concerned about an injury from consumption of the products
should contact a physician.
Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall may
contact Tom Collins, company director of marketing, by Phone:
417-862-3612. Consumers with food safety questions can phone
the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline: 1-888-MPHotline.
New Securities Fraud Cases
aaiPHARMA INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of aaiPharma
Inc. (NasdaqNM:AAII) between July 23, 2003 and February 4, 2004,
inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Southern
Division against the Company, Philip S. Tabbiner and William L.
Ginna, Jr.
The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.
For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com
aaiPHARMA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Southern Division, on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of aaiPharma
Inc. (NASDAQ:AAII) between July 23, 2003 and February 4, 2004,
inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against aaiPharma and Philip
S. Tabbiner and William L. Ginna.
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. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and or misrepresented that the
Company's core business was deteriorating, that the company was
unloading inventory onto wholesalers in order to meet sales
projections, and that the aforementioned practice in order to
keep its stock price up in order to fend off a third party
suitor.
On February 5, 2004, aaiPharma announced that the Company
expected net revenues to be between $340 million and $355
million for 2004. Diluted earnings per share for 2004 were
expected to remain, as previously disclosed, between $1.45 and
$1.52. Earnings were expected in the range of $0.27 to $0.30 per
diluted share for the first quarter 2004. Additionally, the
Company announced that it was setting aside money to pay for
refunds on older medicines after an unusually high return rate
in the fourth quarter. In response to this news, shares of
aaiPharma fell 23%, or $6.36 per share to close at $21.24 per
share on very heavy volume.
For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: 800-495-1868
aaiPHARMA INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of aaiPharma Inc. (NasdaqNM:AAII),
between July 23, 2003 and February 4, 2004 inclusive. The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of aaiPharma
securities.
For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.
COLUMBIA FUNDS: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired mutual funds in the Columbia family of
funds operated by FleetBoston Financial Corporation (NYSE:FBF),
and certain of its subsidiaries, between February 13, 1999 and
January 14, 2004, inclusive.
The Complaint charges, among others, FleetBoston, Columbia
Management Group, Inc , Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. and
Columbia Wanger Asset Management, L.P. with violations of
federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that in return
for receiving extra fees from favored investors, defendants not
only allowed ``market timing'' -- short-term, in-and-out trading
of the Funds' securities -- but facilitated ``timing''
activities in the Funds during the Class Period, to the
detriment of Class members, who paid dollar-for-dollar for
improper profits made by privileged investors. The complaint
alleges that these improper practices were undisclosed in the
Funds' prospectuses, which represented that the Funds actively
deter ``timing''.
The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:
(1) Columbia Acorn Fund (Sym: LACAX, LACBX, LIACX, ACRNX)
(2) Columbia Acorn Select (Sym: LTFAX, LTFBX, LTFCX,
ACTWX)
(3) Columbia Acorn USA (Sym: LAUAX, LAUBX, LAUCX, AUSAX)
(4) Columbia Asset Allocation Fund (Sym: LAAAX, LAABX,
LAACX, GBAAX, GAAAX, GAATX)
(5) Columbia Balanced Fund (Sym: CBLAX, CBLBX, CBLCX,
CBLDX, CBALX)
(6) Columbia Common Stock Fund (Sym: CMSAX, CMSBX, CCSCX,
CMSDX, CMSTX)
(7) Columbia Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: LEVAX, LEVBX,
LEVCX, GEVBX, GALEX, GEVTX)
(8) Columbia Dividend Income Fund (Sym: LBSAX, LBSBX,
LBSCX, GEQBX, GEQAX, GSFTX)
(9) Columbia Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CFGAX, CFGBX,
CFGDX, LGISX)
(10) Columbia Growth Fund (Sym: CGWAX, CGWBX, CGWCX, CGWDX,
CGWGX, CLMBX)
(11) Columbia Growth Stock Fund (Sym: CGSAX, CGSBX, CGSCX,
SRFSX)
(12) Columbia Large Cap Core Fund (Sym: LCCAX, LCCBX,
LCCCX, GGRBX, SGIEX, SMGIX)
(13) Columbia Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: LEGAX, LEGBX,
LEGCX, GBEGX, GAEGX, GEGTX)
(14) Columbia Large Company Index Fund (Sym: LLIAX, LLIBX,
LLICX, ILCIX)
(15) Columbia Liberty Fund (Sym: COLFX, CCFBX, CTCCX,
CTCFX)
(16) Columbia Mid Cap Growth Fund (Sym: CBSAX, CBSBX,
CMCCX, CBSDX, CBSGX, CBSTX, CLSPX)
(17) Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym: COLGX, COGBX, CSVCX,
LSVSX)
(18) Columbia Real Estate Equity Fund (Sym: CREAX, CREBX,
CRECX, CREDX, CREEX)
(19) Columbia Small Cap Fund (Sym: LSMAX, LSMBX, LSMCX,
GBSMX, SSCEX, SMCEX)
(20) Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: CMSCX)
(21) Columbia Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: CSMIX, CSSBX,
CSSCX, CSCZX)
(22) Columbia Small Company Equity Fund (Sym: LSEAX, LSEBX,
LSECX, GERBX, GASEX, GSETX)
(23) Columbia Small Company Index Fund (Sym: LBIAX, LBIBX,
LBICX, ISCIX)
(24) Columbia Strategic Investor Fund (Sym: CSVAX, CSVBX,
CSRCX, CSVDX, CSVFX)
(25) Columbia Tax-Managed Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym:
LTMAX, LTAGX, LTACX, LTAZX)
(26) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund (Sym: STMAX, CTMBX,
CTMCX, LMGZX)
(27) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund II (Sym: LTGAX,
LTIIX, LTGCX, LTGZX)
(28) Columbia Tax-Managed Value Fund (Sym: SRVAX, CTMVX,
LTVCX, LTMZX)
(29) Columbia Technology Fund (Sym: CTCAX, CTCBX, CTHCX,
CTCDX, CMTFX)
(30) Columbia Thermostat Fund (Sym: CTFAX, CTFBX, CTFDX,
COTZX)
(31) Columbia Utilities Fund (Sym: CUTLX, CUTBX, CUTFX,
LUFZX)
(32) Columbia Young Investor Fund (Sym: LYIAX, LYIBX,
LYICX, SRYIX)
(33) Columbia Acorn International Fund (Sym: LAIAX, LIABX,
LAICX, ACINX)
(34) Columbia Acorn International Select Fund (Sym: LAFAX,
LFFBX, LFFCX, ACFFX)
(35) Columbia Europe Fund (Sym: NEUAX, LNEBX, LNECX, LNEZX)
(36) Columbia European Thematic Equity Fund (Sym: LSREX)
(37) Columbia Global Equity Fund (Sym: CGUAX, CGUBX, CGUCX)
(38) Columbia Global Thematic Equity Fund LSRGX
(39) Columbia International Equity Fund (Sym: LIEAX, LIEBX,
LIECX, GBIEX, GAIEX, GIETX)
(40) Columbia International Stock Fund (Sym: CISAX, CISBX,
CSKCX, CISDX, CMISX)
(41) Columbia Newport Asia Pacific Fund (Sym: NWAPX, LNABX,
LNACX, LAPSX)
(42) Columbia Newport Japan Opportunities Fund (Sym: NJOAX,
NJOBX, NJOCX, LNJZX)
(43) Columbia Newport Greater China Fund (Sym: NGCAX,
NGCBX, NGCCX, LNGZX)
(44) Columbia Newport Tiger Fund (Sym: CNTAX, CNTBX, CNTDX,
CNTTX, CNTZX)
(45) Columbia Contrarian Income Fund (Sym: CHINX, LCIBX,
LCICX, LCIZX)
(46) Columbia Corporate Bond Fund (Sym: LBCAX, LBCBX,
LBCCX, GCBTX)
(47) Columbia Daily Income Company Fund CDIXX
(48) Columbia Federal Securities Fund (Sym: CFSAX, CFSOX,
CFSCX, LFSZX)
(49) Columbia Fixed Income Securities Fund (Sym: CFIAX,
CFIBX, CISCX, CFIDX, CFISX)
(50) Columbia Floating Rate Advantage Fund (Sym: XSFRX,
XSFBX, XLACX, XLAZX)
(51) Columbia Floating Rate Fund (Sym: XLFAX, XLSBX, XLFCX,
XLFZX)
(52) Columbia High Yield Fund (Sym: CHGAX, CHGBX, CHDCX,
CHGDX, CMHYX)
(53) Columbia High Yield Opportunity Fund (Sym: COLHX,
COHBX, CHYCX, LHYZX)
(54) Columbia Income Fund (Sym: LIIAX, CIOBX, CIOCX, SRINX)
(55) Columbia Intermediate Bond Fund (Sym: LIBAX, LIBBX,
LIBCX, SRBFX)
(56) Columbia Intermediate Government Income Fund (Sym:
LIGAX, LIGBX, LIGCX, GGIBX, GALBX, GIBTX)
(57) Columbia Money Market Fund (Sym: CMMXX, CMBXX, CMCXX,
LMZXX)
(58) Columbia Quality Plus Bond Fund (Sym: LQPAX, LQPBX,
LQPCX, GBHQX, GAHQX, GHQTX)
(59) Columbia Short Term Bond Fund (Sym: CTBAX, CTBBX,
CSHCX, CTBDX, CTBGX, CTBTX, CUGGX)
(60) Columbia Strategic Income Fund (Sym: COSIX, CLSBX,
CLSCX, LSIZX)
(61) Columbia US Treasury Index Fund (Sym: LUTAX, LUTBX,
LUTCX, IUTIX)
(62) Columbia California Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: CLMPX,
CCABX, CCAOX)
(63) Columbia Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond (Sym:
LCTAX, LCTBX, LCTCX, GCBBX, GCBAX, SCTEX )
(64) Columbia Connecticut Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COCTX,
CCTBX, CCTCX)
(65) Columbia Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LFIAX, LFIBX, LFICX, SFTEX )
(66) Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund (Sym: LHIAX, CHMBX,
CHMCX, SRHMX )
(67) Columbia Intermediate Tax-Exempt Bond Fund (Sym:
LITAX, LITBX, LITCX, GIMBX, GIMAX, SETMX)
(68) Columbia Managed Municipals Fund (Sym: LMMAX, LMMBX,
LMMCX, SRMMX)
(69) Columbia Massachusetts Intermediate Municipal Bond
Fund
(Sym: LMIAX, LMIBX, LMICX, GMBBX, GMBAX, SEMAX )
(70) Columbia Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COMAX,
CMABX, COMCX )
(71) Columbia Municipal Money Market Fund (Sym: CXMXX,
CMNXX, CMXXX, CMZXX)
(72) Columbia National Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: CNLAX,
CNLBX, CNBCX, CNLDX, CLNMX)
(73) Columbia New Jersey Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LNIAX, LNIBX, LNICX, GNJBX, GNJAX, GNJTX )
(74) Columbia New York Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LNYAX, LNYBX, LNYCX, GBNYX, GANYX, GNYTX )
(75) Columbia New York Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COLNX, CNYBX,
CNYCX)
(76) Columbia Oregon Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: COEAX,
COEBX, CORCX, COEDX, CMBFX)
(77) Columbia Pennsylvania Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LPIAX, LPIBX, LPICX, GTPAX)
(78) Columbia Rhode Island Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LRIAX, LRIBX, LRICX, GRBBX, GRBAX, GRITX )
(79) Columbia Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COLTX, CTEBX, COLCX )
(80) Columbia Tax-Exempt Insured Fund (Sym: CEXIX, CEIBX,
CEINX)7
For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue
of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, Calif. 90067, by Phone:
(310) 201-9161 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of the Scudder family of funds operated by Deutsche
Bank AG, Scudder Investments, Deutsche Investment Management
Americas, Inc. and Deutsche Asset Management, Inc. between
January 22, 1999 and January 12, 2004, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds subject to
the lawsuit are as follows:
(1) Scudder 21st Century Growth Fund (Sym: SCNAX, SCNBX,
SCNCX)
(2) Scudder Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym: KGGAX, KGGBX,
KGGCX)
(3) Scudder Blue Chip Fund (Sym: KBCAX, KBCBX, KBCCX)
(4) Scudder Capital Growth Fund (Sym: SDGAX, SDGBX, SDGCX,
SDGRX, SDGTX)
(5) Scudder Dynamic Growth Fund (Sym: KSCAX, KSCBX,
KSCCX)
(6) Scudder Flag Investors Communications Fund (Sym:
TISHX, FTEBX, FTICX, FLICX)
(7) Scudder Global Biotechnology Fund (Sym: DBBTX, DBBBX,
DBBCX)
(8) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals Fund (Sym: SGDAX,
SGDBX, SGDCX)
(9) Scudder Growth Fund (Sym: KGRAX, KGRBX, KGRCX)
(10) Scudder Health Care Fund Sym: SUHAX, SUHBX, SUHCX)
(11) Scudder Large Company Growth Fund (Sym: SGGAX, SGGBX,
SGGCX, SCQRX)
(12) Scudder Micro Cap Fund (Sym: SMFAX, SMFBX, SMFCX,
MGMCX, MMFSX)
(13) Scudder Mid Cap Fund (Sym: SMCAX, SMCBX, SMCCX,
SMCRX, BTEAX, BTCAX)
(14) Scudder Small Cap Fund (Sym: SSDAX, SSDBX, SSDCX,
SSDRX, BTSCX)
(15) Scudder Strategic Growth Fund (Sym: SCDAX, SCDBX,
SCDCX, SCDIX)
(16) Scudder Technology Fund (Sym: KTCAX, KTCBX, KTCCX,
KTCIX)
(17) Scudder Technology Innovation Fund (Sym: SRIAX,
SRIBX, SRICX)
(18) Scudder Top 50 US Fund (Sym: FAUSX, FBUSX, FCUSX)
(19) Scudder Contrarian Fund (Sym: KDCAX, KDCBX, KDCCX,
KDCRX)
(20) Scudder-Dreman Financial Services Fund (Sym: KDFAX,
KDFBX, KDFCX)
(21) Scudder-Dreman High Return Equity Fund (Sym: KDHAX,
KDHBX, KDHCX, KDHRX, KDHIX)
(22) Scudder-Dreman Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: KDSAX, KDSBX,
KDSCX, KDSRX, KDSIX)
(23) Scudder Flag Investors Equity Partners Fund (Sym:
FLEPX, FEPBX, FEPCX, FLIPX)
(24) Scudder Growth & Income Fund (Sym: SUWAX, SUWBX,
SUWCX, SUWRX, SUWIX)
(25) Scudder Large Company Value Fund (Sym: SDVAX, SDVBX,
SDVCX)
(26) Scudder-RREEF Real Estate Securities Fund (Sym: RRRAX,
RRRBX, RRRCX, RRRSX, RRRRX)
(27) Scudder Small Company Stock Fund (Sym: SZCAX, SZCBX,
SZCCX)
(28) Scudder Small Company Value Fund (Sym: SAAUX, SABUX,
SACUX)
(29) Scudder Tax Advantaged Dividend Fund (Sym: SDDAX,
SDDBX, SDDCX, SDDGX)
(30) Scudder Flag Investors Value Builder Fund (Sym:
FLVBX, FVBBX, FVBCX, FLIVX)
(31) Scudder Focus Value+Growth Fund (Sym: KVGAX, KVGBX,
KVGCX)
(32) Scudder Lifecycle Mid Range Fund (Sym: BTLRX)
(33) Scudder Lifecycle Long Range Fund (Sym: BTILX, BTAMX)
(34) Scudder Lifecycle Short Range Fund (Sym: BTSRX)
(35) Scudder Pathway Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SUCAX,
SUCBX, SUCCX)
(36) Scudder Pathway Growth Portfolio (Sym: SUPAX, SUPBX,
SUPCX)
(37) Scudder Pathway Moderate Portfolio (Sym: SPDAX,
SPDBX, SPDCX)
(38) Scudder Retirement Fund Series V (Sym: KRFEX)
(39) Scudder Retirement Fund Series VI (Sym: KRFGX)
(40) Scudder Retirement Fund Series VII (Sym: KRFGX)
(41) Scudder Target 2010 Fund (Sym: KRFBX)
(42) Scudder Target 2012 Fund (Sym: KRFCX)
(43) Scudder Target 2013 Fund (Sym: KRFDX)
(44) Scudder Total Return Fund (Sym: KTRAX, KTRBX, KTRCX,
KTRGX)
(45) Scudder Emerging Markets Growth Fund (Sym: SEKAX,
SEKBX, SEKCX)
(46) Scudder Emerging Markets Income Fund (Sym: SZEAX,
SZEBX, SZECX)
(47) Scudder European Equity Fund (Sym: DBEAX, DBEBX, DBECX,
MEUEX, MEUVX)
(48) Scudder Global Fund (Sym: SGQAX, SGQBX, SGQCX, SGQRX)
(49) Scudder Global Bond Fund (Sym: SZGAX, SZGBX, SZGCX)
(50) Scudder Global Discovery Fund (Sym: KGDAX, KGDBX,
KGDCX)
(51) Scudder Greater Europe Growth Fund (Sym: SERAX,
SERBX, SERCX)
(52) Scudder International Fund (Sym: SUIAX, SUIBX,
SUICX)
(53) Scudder International Equity Fund (Sym: DBAIX, DBBIX,
DBCIX, BEIIX, BEITX, BTEQX)
(54) Scudder International Select Equity Fund (Sym: DBISX,
DBIBX, DBICX, DBITX, MGINX, MGIVX, MGIPX)
(55) Scudder Japanese Equity Fund (Sym: FJEAX, FJEBX,
FJECX)
(56) Scudder Latin America Fund (Sym: SLANX, SLAOX, SLAPX)
(57) Scudder New Europe Fund (Sym: KNEAX, KNEBX, KNECX,
KNEIX)
(58) Scudder Pacific Opportunities Fund (Sym: SPAOX,
SBPOX, SPCCX)
(59) Scudder Worldwide 2004 Fund (Sym: KWIVX)
(60) Scudder Fixed Income Fund (Sym: SFXAX, SFXBX, SFXCX,
SFXRF, MFINX, MFISX)
(61) Scudder High Income Plus Fund (Sym: MGHYX, MGHVX,
MGHPX)
(62) Scudder High Income Fund (Sym: KHYAX, KHYBX, KHYCX,
KHYIX)
(63) Scudder High Income Opportunity Fund (Sym: SYOAX,
SYOBX, SYOCX)
(64) Scudder Income Fund (Sym: SZIAX, SZIBX, SZICX)
(65) Scudder PreservationPlus Fund (Sym: BTPIX, BTPSX)
(66) Scudder PreservationPlus Income Fund (Sym: PPIAX,
PPLCX, DBPIX)
(67) Scudder Short Term Bond Fund (Sym: SZBAX, SZBBX,
SZBCX
(68) Scudder Short Duration Fund (Sym: SDUAX, SDUBX,
SDUCX, MGSFX)
(69) Scudder Strategic Income Fund (Sym: KSTAX, KSTBX,
KSTCX)
(70) Scudder US Government Securities Fund (Sym: KUSAX,
KUSBX, KUSCX)
(71) Scudder California Tax-Free Income Fund (Sym: KCTAX,
KCTBX, KCTCX)
(72) Scudder Florida Tax-Free Income Fund (Sym: KFLAX,
KFLBX, KFLCX)
(73) Scudder High Yield Tax-Free Fund (Sym: NOTAX,
NOTBX, NOTCX, NOTIX)
(74) Scudder Intermediate Tax/AMT Free Fund (Sym: SZMAX,
SZMBX, SZMCX)
(75) Scudder Managed Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: SMLAX,
SMLBX, SMLCX, SMLIX)
(76) Scudder Massachusetts Tax-Free Fund (Sym: SQMAX,
SQMBX, SQMCX)
(77) Scudder Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MGMBX, MMBSX)
(78) Scudder New York Tax-Free Income Fund (Sym: KNTAX,
KNTBX, KNTCX)
(79) Scudder Short Term Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: SRMAX,
SRMBX, SRMCX, MGSMX, MSMSX)
(80) Scudder EAFE r Equity Index Fund (Sym: BTAEX, BTIEX)
(81) Scudder Equity 500 Index Fund (Sym: BTIIX)
(82) Scudder S&P 500 Stock Fund (Sym: KSAAX, KSABX, KSACX)
(83) Scudder Select 500 Fund (Sym: OUTDX, OUTBX, OUTBX,
OUTRX
(84) Scudder US Bond Index Fund (Sym: BTUSX )
(85) Scudder Cash Reserves Fund
The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of the
lawsuit relates to "timing." As used, "timing" is an investment
technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual
fund shares to turn a quick profit. The lawsuit alleges that
timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors who are not
allowed to engage in such practices and benefits the mutual fund
companies.
For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of
Columbia Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:CBLBX), (Nasdaq:CBLCX),
(Nasdaq:CBLDX), (Nasdaq:CBALX); Columbia Dividend Income Fund
(Nasdaq:LBSBX), (Nasdaq:LBSCX), (Nasdaq:GEQBX), (Nasdaq:GEQAX),
(Nasdaq:GSFTX); Columbia Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq:CFGBX),
(Nasdaq:CFGDX), (Nasdaq:LGISX); Columbia Growth Fund
(Nasdaq:CGWBX), (Nasdaq:CGWCX), (Nasdaq:CGWDX), (Nasdaq:CGWGX),
(Nasdaq:CLMBX) operated by FleetBoston Financial Corporation
(NYSE:FBF), Columbia Management Group, Inc (``Columbia Group''),
Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. (``Columbia Advisors''), and
Columbia Wanger Asset Management, L.P. (``Columbia Wanger''),
between February 13, 1999 and January 14, 2004, inclusive (the
``Class Period'').
Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP is pursuing remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The action, numbered 04-
10315-PBS, is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts before the Honorable Patti B.
Saris, against defendants FleetBoston, Columbia Group, Columbia
Management, Columbia Wanger, Columbia Funds Distributors, Inc.
(``Columbia Distributor''), each of the Columbia mutual funds
and their registrants, and John Does 1-100.
The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:
(1) Columbia Acorn Fund (Sym: LACAX, LACBX, LIACX, ACRNX)
(2) Columbia Acorn Select (Sym: LTFAX, LTFBX, LTFCX,
ACTWX)
(3) Columbia Acorn USA (Sym: LAUAX, LAUBX, LAUCX, AUSAX)
(4) Columbia Asset Allocation Fund (Sym: LAAAX, LAABX,
LAACX, GBAAX, GAAAX, GAATX)
(5) Columbia Balanced Fund (Sym: CBLAX, CBLBX, CBLCX,
CBLDX, CBALX)
(6) Columbia Common Stock Fund (Sym: CMSAX, CMSBX, CCSCX,
CMSDX, CMSTX)
(7) Columbia Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: LEVAX, LEVBX,
LEVCX, GEVBX, GALEX, GEVTX)
(8) Columbia Dividend Income Fund (Sym: LBSAX, LBSBX,
LBSCX, GEQBX, GEQAX, GSFTX)
(9) Columbia Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CFGAX, CFGBX,
CFGDX, LGISX)
(10) Columbia Growth Fund (Sym: CGWAX, CGWBX, CGWCX, CGWDX,
CGWGX, CLMBX)
(11) Columbia Growth Stock Fund (Sym: CGSAX, CGSBX, CGSCX,
SRFSX)
(12) Columbia Large Cap Core Fund (Sym: LCCAX, LCCBX,
LCCCX, GGRBX, SGIEX, SMGIX)
(13) Columbia Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: LEGAX, LEGBX,
LEGCX, GBEGX, GAEGX, GEGTX)
(14) Columbia Large Company Index Fund (Sym: LLIAX, LLIBX,
LLICX, ILCIX)
(15) Columbia Liberty Fund (Sym: COLFX, CCFBX, CTCCX,
CTCFX)
(16) Columbia Mid Cap Growth Fund (Sym: CBSAX, CBSBX,
CMCCX, CBSDX, CBSGX, CBSTX, CLSPX)
(17) Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym: COLGX, COGBX, CSVCX,
LSVSX)
(18) Columbia Real Estate Equity Fund (Sym: CREAX, CREBX,
CRECX, CREDX, CREEX)
(19) Columbia Small Cap Fund (Sym: LSMAX, LSMBX, LSMCX,
GBSMX, SSCEX, SMCEX)
(20) Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: CMSCX)
(21) Columbia Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: CSMIX, CSSBX,
CSSCX, CSCZX)
(22) Columbia Small Company Equity Fund (Sym: LSEAX, LSEBX,
LSECX, GERBX, GASEX, GSETX)
(23) Columbia Small Company Index Fund (Sym: LBIAX, LBIBX,
LBICX, ISCIX)
(24) Columbia Strategic Investor Fund (Sym: CSVAX, CSVBX,
CSRCX, CSVDX, CSVFX)
(25) Columbia Tax-Managed Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym:
LTMAX, LTAGX, LTACX, LTAZX)
(26) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund (Sym: STMAX, CTMBX,
CTMCX, LMGZX)
(27) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund II (Sym: LTGAX,
LTIIX, LTGCX, LTGZX)
(28) Columbia Tax-Managed Value Fund (Sym: SRVAX, CTMVX,
LTVCX, LTMZX)
(29) Columbia Technology Fund (Sym: CTCAX, CTCBX, CTHCX,
CTCDX, CMTFX)
(30) Columbia Thermostat Fund (Sym: CTFAX, CTFBX, CTFDX,
COTZX)
(31) Columbia Utilities Fund (Sym: CUTLX, CUTBX, CUTFX,
LUFZX)
(32) Columbia Young Investor Fund (Sym: LYIAX, LYIBX,
LYICX, SRYIX)
(33) Columbia Acorn International Fund (Sym: LAIAX, LIABX,
LAICX, ACINX)
(34) Columbia Acorn International Select Fund (Sym: LAFAX,
LFFBX, LFFCX, ACFFX)
(35) Columbia Europe Fund (Sym: NEUAX, LNEBX, LNECX, LNEZX)
(36) Columbia European Thematic Equity Fund (Sym: LSREX)
(37) Columbia Global Equity Fund (Sym: CGUAX, CGUBX, CGUCX)
(38) Columbia Global Thematic Equity Fund LSRGX
(39) Columbia International Equity Fund (Sym: LIEAX, LIEBX,
LIECX, GBIEX, GAIEX, GIETX)
(40) Columbia International Stock Fund (Sym: CISAX, CISBX,
CSKCX, CISDX, CMISX)
(41) Columbia Newport Asia Pacific Fund (Sym: NWAPX, LNABX,
LNACX, LAPSX)
(42) Columbia Newport Japan Opportunities Fund (Sym: NJOAX,
NJOBX, NJOCX, LNJZX)
(43) Columbia Newport Greater China Fund (Sym: NGCAX,
NGCBX, NGCCX, LNGZX)
(44) Columbia Newport Tiger Fund (Sym: CNTAX, CNTBX, CNTDX,
CNTTX, CNTZX)
(45) Columbia Contrarian Income Fund (Sym: CHINX, LCIBX,
LCICX, LCIZX)
(46) Columbia Corporate Bond Fund (Sym: LBCAX, LBCBX,
LBCCX, GCBTX)
(47) Columbia Daily Income Company Fund CDIXX
(48) Columbia Federal Securities Fund (Sym: CFSAX, CFSOX,
CFSCX, LFSZX)
(49) Columbia Fixed Income Securities Fund (Sym: CFIAX,
CFIBX, CISCX, CFIDX, CFISX)
(50) Columbia Floating Rate Advantage Fund (Sym: XSFRX,
XSFBX, XLACX, XLAZX)
(51) Columbia Floating Rate Fund (Sym: XLFAX, XLSBX, XLFCX,
XLFZX)
(52) Columbia High Yield Fund (Sym: CHGAX, CHGBX, CHDCX,
CHGDX, CMHYX)
(53) Columbia High Yield Opportunity Fund (Sym: COLHX,
COHBX, CHYCX, LHYZX)
(54) Columbia Income Fund (Sym: LIIAX, CIOBX, CIOCX, SRINX)
(55) Columbia Intermediate Bond Fund (Sym: LIBAX, LIBBX,
LIBCX, SRBFX)
(56) Columbia Intermediate Government Income Fund (Sym:
LIGAX, LIGBX, LIGCX, GGIBX, GALBX, GIBTX)
(57) Columbia Money Market Fund (Sym: CMMXX, CMBXX, CMCXX,
LMZXX)
(58) Columbia Quality Plus Bond Fund (Sym: LQPAX, LQPBX,
LQPCX, GBHQX, GAHQX, GHQTX)
(59) Columbia Short Term Bond Fund (Sym: CTBAX, CTBBX,
CSHCX, CTBDX, CTBGX, CTBTX, CUGGX)
(60) Columbia Strategic Income Fund (Sym: COSIX, CLSBX,
CLSCX, LSIZX)
(61) Columbia US Treasury Index Fund (Sym: LUTAX, LUTBX,
LUTCX, IUTIX)
(62) Columbia California Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: CLMPX,
CCABX, CCAOX)
(63) Columbia Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond (Sym:
LCTAX, LCTBX, LCTCX, GCBBX, GCBAX, SCTEX )
(64) Columbia Connecticut Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COCTX,
CCTBX, CCTCX)
(65) Columbia Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LFIAX, LFIBX, LFICX, SFTEX )
(66) Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund (Sym: LHIAX, CHMBX,
CHMCX, SRHMX )
(67) Columbia Intermediate Tax-Exempt Bond Fund (Sym:
LITAX, LITBX, LITCX, GIMBX, GIMAX, SETMX)
(68) Columbia Managed Municipals Fund (Sym: LMMAX, LMMBX,
LMMCX, SRMMX)
(69) Columbia Massachusetts Intermediate Municipal Bond
Fund
(Sym: LMIAX, LMIBX, LMICX, GMBBX, GMBAX, SEMAX )
(70) Columbia Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COMAX,
CMABX, COMCX )
(71) Columbia Municipal Money Market Fund (Sym: CXMXX,
CMNXX, CMXXX, CMZXX)
(72) Columbia National Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: CNLAX,
CNLBX, CNBCX, CNLDX, CLNMX)
(73) Columbia New Jersey Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LNIAX, LNIBX, LNICX, GNJBX, GNJAX, GNJTX )
(74) Columbia New York Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LNYAX, LNYBX, LNYCX, GBNYX, GANYX, GNYTX )
(75) Columbia New York Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COLNX, CNYBX,
CNYCX)
(76) Columbia Oregon Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: COEAX,
COEBX, CORCX, COEDX, CMBFX)
(77) Columbia Pennsylvania Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LPIAX, LPIBX, LPICX, GTPAX)
(78) Columbia Rhode Island Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: LRIAX, LRIBX, LRICX, GRBBX, GRBAX, GRITX )
(79) Columbia Tax-Exempt Fund (Sym: COLTX, CTEBX, COLCX )
(80) Columbia Tax-Exempt Insured Fund (Sym: CEXIX, CEIBX,
CEINX)
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,
certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain favored investors ``timing'' of the
Funds' securities.
Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the
funds police. 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 themselves.
In return for receiving extra fees from favored investors,
FleetBoston, Columbia Group, Columbia Management, Columbia
Wanger, and Columbia Distributor not only allowed timing but
facilitated timing activities in the Funds, to the detriment of
class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for improper profits
made by privileged investors. These practices were undisclosed
in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing and that premature
redemptions will be assessed a charge.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton by
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892
or by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of those who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired securities, including the common
stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange, of Hollinger
International, Inc. (NYSE:HLR) between August 13, 1999 and March
31, 2003, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
defendant Hollinger International, various other entities and
individuals and certain of Hollinger International's current and
former officers and directors.
The action charges that the defendants violated federal
securities by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and/or misleading statements to the public
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Hollinger
International's securities. The complaint further alleges
claims for violations of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953,
breaches of fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting the
breaches of fiduciary duties.
For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-332-0030 or by E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com.
INTERPOOL INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Trenton Division, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Interpool Inc.
between March 27, 2001 and December 29, 2003, inclusive, against
Interpool, and:
(1) Martin Tuchman,
(2) Raoul J. Witteveen, and
(3) Mitchel I. Gordon
The complaint alleges that Defendants issued material
misrepresentations concerning Interpool's reported financial
results during the class period. Specifically the complaint
alleges that Interpool has deficient internal controls related
to its accounting for direct finance leases, poor communication
policies with respect to its related party transactions, and
poor record keeping by internal departments. As a result of
Interpool's numerous accounting improprieties, the Company had
overstated its net income and shareholders equity during the
Class Period. As such its reported financial results did not
fairly present the results of its operations and were not
prepared in accordance with GAAP.
On December 29, 2003, Interpool announced an additional delay in
the completion of its restated 2000, 2001 and first three
quarters of 2002 financial statements. The delay was necessary
to complete further analysis of the accounting for a pending
claim by Interpool under its insurance policy covering leaded
faults. Due to this delay, the company indicated that it did not
know if it would meet certain covenants and waivers as well as
the potential to have a greater reduction on Interpool's
restated stockholder equity. On the same day, the New York Stock
Exchange announced that it would suspend trading in Interpool's
common stock and began delisting proceedings. As a result of
these announcements, Interpool common stock dropped from $19.26
on December 26, 2003 to close at $12.00 on December 29, 2003, a
37% drop.
For more information, contact (800) 495-1868 to speak with an
advisor.
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Lasky & Rifkind Files AZ Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Mobility Electronics Inc. (NASDAQ:MOBE)
between September 2, 2003 and January 5, 2004, inclusive. The
lawsuit was filed against Mobility and Charles R. Mollo and Joan
W. Brubacher.
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. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period Defendants repeatedly
represented that it expected Mobility to earn $15 million in
revenues in the fourth quarter of 2003, which was attributable
to Fellowes, Inc. whereby Fellowes would globally market and
distribute a line of Fellowes branded products from Mobility,
through its wide distribution network, encompassing more than
30,000 retail stores.
In truth however, unknown to investors, Fellowes was not meeting
its sales forecasts and accordingly Mobility was not generating
the revenues and earnings it had anticipated form the Fellowes
Agreement. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts to the
investing public, Mobility completed a $15 million private
placement, and purchased assets from InVision using its
artificially inflated stock, and insiders sold more than $6
million of their personally owned shares.
On January 5, 2004, Mobility announced that it expected revenue
for the fourth quarter of 2003 to be approximately $1.0 million
to $1.3 million, less than the Company's previous guidance of
approximately $5 million.
For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: 800-495-1868
NETWORK ENGINES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of
Network Engines, Inc. (NasdaqNM:NENG) between November 6, 2003
and December 10, 2003, inclusive. The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
against Defendants Network Engines, John Curtis, Douglas G.
Bryant, and Lawrence A. Genovesi.
The Complaint charges that Network Engines and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Network Engines' securities.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that by November 6, 2003,
Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Network Engines
was in the process of renegotiating its distribution contract
with EMC Corp. ("EMC"), and that EMC was demanding price
reductions, which, if agreed to, would negatively impact the
Company's future financial results.
Nevertheless, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued
statements highlighting the Company's strong financial
performance, continued growth and the success of its
relationship with EMC, its largest customer. Defendants failed
to disclose, however, that:
(1) the Company was in the process of renegotiating its
distribution contract with EMC;
(2) EMC was demanding price concessions to bring its
agreement with Network Engines in line with the pricing
that Network Engines was providing to other customers;
(3) the new distribution contract with EMC would negatively
impact the Company's future financial performance; and
(4) the Company would not be able to sustain the growth in
its gross margins as a result of the amended contract.
The truth was revealed, on December 10, 2003, when the Company
announced, among other things, that it had renegotiated its
distribution contract with EMC and the amended contract would
negatively impact the Company's gross profit. Following this
announcement, shares of Network Engines common stock fell $3.92
per share, or 39%, to close at $6.10 per share, on
extraordinarily high trading volume.
For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: NENG@bernlieb.com
NETWORK ENGINES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Network Engines, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NENG) publicly traded securities during the period
between November 6, 2003 and December 10, 2003, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that by the start of the Class Period,
defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Network Engines
was in the process of renegotiating its distribution contract
with EMC, and that EMC was demanding price reductions, which, if
agreed to, would negatively impact the Company's future
financial results.
Nevertheless, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
positive statements highlighting the Company's strong financial
performance, continued growth and the success of its
relationship with EMC, its largest customer. Defendants failed
to disclose, however:
(1) that the Company was in the process of renegotiating
its distribution contract with EMC;
(2) that EMC was demanding price concessions to bring its
agreement with Network Engines in line with the pricing
that Network Engines was providing to other customers;
(3) that the new distribution contract with EMC would
negatively impact the Company's future financial
performance;
(4) that the Company would not be able to sustain the
growth in its gross margins as a result of the amended
contract; and
(5) as a result, the Company's positive statements issued
during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made.
Finally, on December 10, 2003, the Company announced, among
other things, that it had renegotiated its distribution contract
with EMC and the amended contract would negatively impact the
Company's gross profit related to the sale of EMC-approved Host
Bus Adapters and the Company's distribution operations gross
profit.
Following this announcement, shares of Network Engines common
stock fell $3.92 per share, or 39%, to close at $6.10 per share,
on extraordinarily high trading volume, and have continued to
decline since that time.
For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com
MICROMUSE INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of Micromuse, Inc.
(NASDAQ:MUSEE) between January 20, 2000 and December 29, 2003,
inclusive against the Company and:
(1) Stephen A. Allott,
(2) Gregory Q. Brown,
(3) Michael Luetkemeyer,
(4) James Degolia,
(5) Michael Donahue,
(6) Michael Jackson,
(7) David Schwab,
(8) Peter Shearan and
(9) Michael Foster
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 20, 2000 and
December 29, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Micromuse common stock.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on December 30, 2003,
the Company announced that it would delay the filing of its
fiscal year 2003 Form 10-K pending an internal inquiry regarding
the accounting of accrued expenses and expense recognition. The
Company announced that as a result, it would likely restate
historical financial statements, including adjustments to
previously published financial results for the fiscal years
ending September 30, 2001, 2002 and 2003. As a result of
defendants' conduct, plaintiff and Class members purchased
Micromuse shares at artificially inflated prices and were
damaged thereby.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45
Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax:
212/490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
REDBACK NETWORKS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, case number C-04-00607-SC, on behalf of purchasers
of Redback Networks, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RBAK) (NasdaqNM:RBAKQ),
common stock between April 12, 2000 to October 10, 2003,
inclusive.
The complaint alleges that certain Redback senior officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the Class
Period, Defendants issued a series of allegedly false and
misleading statements resulting in Redback's stock price trading
at artificially inflated levels. The Company's stock traded as
high as $179.02 during the Class Period before announcing
bankruptcy.
During the Class Period, Defendants issued, or caused to be
issued, a series of allegedly materially false and misleading
statements to the marketplace concerning the Company's
relationship with Qwest Communications International, Inc.
Defendants allegedly knew, but failed to disclose, that the only
reason Redback was able to report increasing revenues and
earnings was through a scheme in which Defendants gave shares of
Redback stock to Qwest insiders in exchange for Qwest purchasing
large quantities of Redback products.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton by
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892
or by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com
ROYAL DUTCH: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities, including the common stock
traded in overseas markets and the American Depository Receipts
(ADRs) trading on the NYSE, of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company
(NYSE:RD) and/or The Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC
(NYSE:SC) between December 3, 1999 and January 9, 2004,
inclusive.
The action, entitled Engel v. N.V. Koninklijke Nederlandsche
Petroleum Maatschappij, et al., is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against defendants
Royal Dutch, Shell Transport, Shell Petroleum N.V., the Shell
Petroleum Limited, Maarten van der Bergh, Judy Boynton, Malcolm
Brinded, S.L. Miller, Harry J.M. Roels, Paul D. Skinner, M.
Moody-Stuart, Jeroen van der Veer, and Philip R. Watts.
The allegations are that defendants violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and all amendments thereto, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.
In particular, defendants deliberately violated accounting rules
and guidelines relating to oil and gas reserves which resulted
in a shocking and unprecedented overstatement of oil and gas
reserves, the eventual disclosure of which damaged purchasers of
Royal Dutch and Shell Transport securities and rocked the
investment community.
Royal Dutch and Shell Transport had classified and reported, in
SEC filings and other public documents, certain reserves as
"proved reserves" from a project off the western coast of
Australia called the Gorgon Joint Venture, and various projects
in Nigeria. In fact, unbeknownst to investors, the reserves did
not meet SEC and industry requirements necessary to be
classified as "proved," and were improperly reported as proved
reserves in Royal Dutch's and Shell Transport's financial
reports, thereby materially artificially inflating a key measure
of the companies' financial position and competitive standing.
As a result of these material misrepresentations, Royal Dutch
and Shell Transport's true value in the marketplace was severely
overstated and misunderstood.
On January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch announced that it was going to
write-down its proved oil and gas reserves by 20%, or 3.9
billion barrels, from 19.5 billion barrels to 15.6 billion
barrels. The write-down: (a) cut Shell's reserve life from 13.4
years to 10.6 years; (b) increased its worldwide 5-year average
reserve replacement cost per barrel from $5.49 to $12.57 --
$7.06, or 128% greater than the industry average of $5.51; (c)
increased Shell's finding and development costs to $7.90 per
barrel -- well above the costs of its competitors; and (d)
reduced Shell's Appraised Net Worth downward by up to 7.1%, or
$9.6 billion.
Following the announcement, Royal Dutch ADRs fell 7.87% from
$52.76 to $48.61 on the NYSE and Royal Dutch ordinary shares
fell by 7.10% from the U.S. equivalent of $52.91 to $49.15 on
the Amsterdam exchange. Shell Transport ADRs were down 6.96%
from $44.81 to $41.69 on the NYSE and Shell Transport ordinary
shares were down 6.84% on the London exchange from the U.S.
equivalent of $7.36 to $6.86.
In addition, Moody's placed the Aaa rating of Royal Dutch and
Shell Transport under review for possible downgrade because the
write-down materially and adversely affected the companies'
reserves-to-debt ratio. Following the belated disclosure, most
analysts and commentators concluded that, because of the
magnitude of the write-down and the clear SEC and industry
guidelines relating to reserve classification, the reserve
overstatements could not have been a result of error or
accident, but rather, that the reserves were knowingly
overstated to preserve the companies' credit rating and to shore
up their competitive position.
For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/332-0030 or by E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com
SONUS NETWORKS: Schoengold & Sporn Files Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, P.C. filed a class action against Sonus
Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SONS) and certain key officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of Sonus securities
during the period between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004.
The Complaint alleges that Sonus Networks, Inc., Hassan M. Ahmed
and Stephen J. Hill violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
about the Company's business, operating performance and
financial results, which failed to disclose and /or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:
(1) that the defendants had improperly and untimely
recognized revenue on certain of the Company's customer
transactions;
(2) that the defendants violated Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and the Company's own internal
policies regarding the timing of revenue recognition;
and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues,
net income and earnings per share published during the
Class Period were materially false and misleading.
On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus
shocked the market when it announced that the Company had
identified certain issues, practices and actions of certain
employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from
certain customer transactions and to certain other financial
statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003
financial statements and possibly financial statements for prior
periods. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus
completed a $126.14 million public offering, and Sonus insiders
sold approximately $2 million of their personally-held shares to
the unsuspecting public.
The next morning, when the market opened for trading shares of
the Company's stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of
$1.67 per share or 24.9%, on extremely high trading volume.
For more details, contact Frank R. Schirripa by Mail: Schoengold
& Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York
10038 by Phone: (212) 964-0046 by Fax: (212) 267-8137 or
(866) 348-7700 by E-Mail: shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.spornlaw.com
SONUS NETWORKS: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against
Sonus Networks, Inc. (NasdaqNM:SONS) and certain of its officers
and directors, on behalf of all persons who purchased Sonus
securities on the open market from June 5, 2003 through February
11, 2004. The action was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
materially misrepresented Sonus' financial results and
performance in press releases, SEC filings and public statements
by improperly recognizing revenue in contravention of generally
accepted accounting principles and the Company's revenue
recognition policy.
On January 20, 2004, Sonus announced that it would postpone the
release of its fiscal fourth quarter and year-end 2003 financial
results pending the completion of its 2003 audit, but assured
investors that there were no issues with its year-end audit.
On February 11, 2004, just after the financial markets closed,
Sonus announced that it had discovered ``certain issues,
practices and actions of certain employees relating to both the
timing of revenue recognized from certain customer transactions
and to certain other financial statement accounts, which may
affect the Company's 2003 financial statements and possibly
financial statements for prior periods.'' The Company was unable
to provide an anticipated date for the completion of its review,
year-end audit, or the rescheduling of the release of its fourth
quarter and fiscal year results for the year ended December 31,
2003.
In reaction to the foregoing disclosure, on February 12, 2004,
Sonus' shares fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of 24.9%
or $1.67 per share from their February 11, 2004 closing price.
For more details, contact Renee L. Karalian by Mail: 845 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-451-9642 or
877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com
SONUS NETWORKS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP intends to initiate a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Sonus Networks Inc. (NASDAQ:SONS) between April 9, 2003 and
February 12, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against
Sonus and certain officers and directors.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and or misrepresented that
Defendants had improperly and untimely recognized revenue on
certain of the Company's customer transactions and that
Defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and
the Company's own internal policies regarding the timing of
revenue recognition.
On February 11, 2004, after the markets closed, Sonus stunned
the investing public when it announced that the Company had
identified issues, practices and actions, of certain employees
relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from customer
transactions and to other financial statement accounts, which
may affect the Company's 2003 financial statements and possibly
financial statements from prior periods. As a result of the
Defendants' false statements, Sonus shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
In addition, prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus
completed two public offerings of stock, yielding proceeds to
the Company of approximately $190 million, and insiders sold
approximately $2 million worth of their personally-held shares
to the unsuspecting public.
For more details, contact Christopher Keller by Phone:
800-321-0476 or by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com
SONUS NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Sonus
Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SONS) between April 9, 2003 and February
11, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action, numbered 0410314,
is pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, against the Company, Hassan M. Ahmed (CEO and
President) and Stephen J. Nill (CFO).
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The complaint alleges that defendants had been improperly
recognizing revenue, in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and its own revenue recognition policies
as set forth in its Forms 10-Q filed during the Class Period;
that, contrary to the Company's express representations, Sonus'
reported financial results did not fairly present the Company's
results, rather, such results reflected improper accounting; and
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's reported
financial results were materially false and misleading and
deceived the class as to Sonus' historical performance and
worth.
On February 11, 2004, the Company announced that "Sonus Networks
and its independent auditors have identified certain issues,
practices and actions of certain employees relating to both the
timing of revenue recognized from certain customer transactions
and to certain other financial statement accounts, which may
affect the Company's 2003 financial statements and possibly
financial statements for prior periods." According to the
Company, the revenue recognition issues "may have compromised
the integrity of (Sonus') financial reporting."
In reaction to this announcement, the price of Sonus common
stock plummeted, falling 19.4% in one day, from $6.69 per share
on February 11, 2004 to $5.39 per share on February 12, 2004, on
trading volume of over 96 million shares, which is many times
the Company's average daily trading volume.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman,
Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl.
New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or by E-mail:
sonus@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities. The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Roberto Amor, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick,
Editors.
Copyright 2004. 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 * * *