/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040512.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 93 Headlines AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial in FL Insurance Suit Expected Late 2004 APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Lodge Suit Over Sales Tax in Rebates APPLE COMPUTER: Suits Over iPod Battery Life Consolidated in CA APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Affirms Suit's Class Claims Dismissal APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Lodge Suits Over iBook Logic Board APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Launch CA Fraud Suit Over Hard Drives APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For Powerbooks Consumer Suit AVERY DENNISON: Plaintiff Withdraws From Antitrust Suit, 10 Left AVERY DENNISON: CA Securities Lawsuit Stayed Pending Govt Probe AVERY DENNISON: Faces Antitrust Suit Over UPM, Bemis Co. Merger BEAZER HOMES: IN Residents Launch Lawsuit Over Defective Homes BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Pursuit of FL, GA Suits BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Lawsuit CORE LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Stock Suit in S.D. NY FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in Ohio GLOBIX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs to Appeal CO Court's Suit Ruling INTERNATIONAL PAPER: To Appeal Certification of Antitrust Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Linerboard Pact Set INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Files Demurrer To Stockholder Suit in CA PACKAGING CORPORATION: PA Court Approves Antitrust Lawsuit Pact PLAINS RESOURCES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in DE PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in TX State Court PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Clinical Workstation Due To Defect SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Allows Securities Fraud Suits To Proceed TRIPOS INC.: Plaintiffs to Amend Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MO WILD OATS: Appeals Canada Court's Ruling on Suit Certification Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases CHINA LIFE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY GENTA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in NJ LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in CA ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX ********* AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial in FL Insurance Suit Expected Late 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------- American Medical Security Group, Inc. anticipates the trial in a class action filed against it in the state of Florida to commence in the fourth quarter of 2004, it stated in a regulatory filing. The suit alleges that the Company failed to follow Florida law when in 1998 it discontinued writing certain health insurance policies and offered new policies to insureds. Plaintiffs claim that the Company wrongfully terminated coverage, improperly notified insureds of conversion rights and charged improper premiums for new coverage. Plaintiffs also allege that the Company's renewal rating methodology violated Florida law. In 2002, a Circuit Court Judge ruled against the Company and ordered the question of damages be tried at a later date. The Company believes its practices were in full compliance with Florida law, it said in a regulatory filing. APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Lodge Suit Over Sales Tax in Rebates -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. faces a class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, in California alleging improper collection of sales tax in transactions involving mail-in rebates. The complaint alleges violations of California Civil Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company was served on January 21, 2004, filed an answer on February 20, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The Company is beginning its investigation of these allegations, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. APPLE COMPUTER: Suits Over iPod Battery Life Consolidated in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- The seven class actions filed against Apple Computer, Inc. relating to the iPod's battery life have been consolidated in the California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The suits are: (1) Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23, 2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court); (2) Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23, 2003 in San Mateo County Superior Court); (3) Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23, 2003 in Santa Clara County Superior Court); (4) Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 26, 2003 in San Francisco County Superior Court); (5) Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 30, 2003 in Alameda County Superior Court); (6) Wagya v Apple Computer Inc. (filed February 19, 2004 in Alameda County Superior Court); and (7) Yamin v Apple Computer, Inc. (filed February 24, 2004 in Los Angeles County Superior Court) The suits uniformly allege misrepresentations by the Company relative to iPod battery life. The complaints include causes of action for violation of California Civil Code Section 17200 (Unfair Competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Action (CLRA) and claims for false advertising, fraudulent concealment and breach of warranty. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief. APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Affirms Suit's Class Claims Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco County Superior Court in California confirmed the dismissal of class action claims in the lawsuit filed against Apple Computer, Inc., alleging that that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the California Business and Professions Code 17200 and 17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation and concealment. Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint and the Company expects that they will make further amendments. On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel in his role as counsel to the purported class and to the general public. The Court granted the motion, but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel. Plaintiff did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the class. The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for equitable relief. The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm that the class action claims are dismissed. The case is stayed pending an appeal. APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Lodge Suits Over iBook Logic Board --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. faces two class actions filed in two California State Courts, alleging problems with the iBook logic board. The suits are: (1) Dunlap v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed January 26, 2004, Santa Clara County Superior Court); and (2) Chiaco v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed February 26, 2004, San Diego County Superior Court) The complaints include causes of action for violation of California Civil Code Section 17200, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and claims for breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company filed answers to the Dunlap and Chiaco complaints on March 16, 2004 and April 16, 2004, respectively. APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Launch CA Fraud Suit Over Hard Drives --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. and other members of the computer industry face a class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of certain computer hard drives. The suit is styled "Goldberg, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al. (f.k.a. "Dan v. Apple Computer, Inc."). The case alleges violations of Civil Code Section 17200 (Unfair Competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false advertising related to the size of the drives. Plaintiffs allege that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company is beginning its investigation of these allegations, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2004. APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the United States District court for the Northern Dsitrict of California's dismissal of three securities class actions filed against Apple Computer, Inc. and Steven P. Jobs, its chief executive officer. The suits are: (1) Hawaii Structural Iron Workers and Pension Trust Fund v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Steven P. Jobs; (2) Young v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al; and (3) Hsu v. Apple Computer Inc. et al. The suits are substantially identical, and purport to bring suit on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000, and September 28, 2000. The complaints allege violations of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company believes these claims are without merit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was heard by the Court on September 13, 2002. On December 11, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, with leave for Plaintiffs to amend their complaint within thirty days. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court heard the Company's motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For Powerbooks Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for the class action filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California against it, on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of certain PowerBooks. The case alleges violations of Civil Code Section 17200 (Unfair Competition) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) arising from an alleged design defect in the PowerBooks which purportedly causes marks and dead pixels in the LCD screens. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege an additional defect in the new 15 PowerBook, introduced in September 2003, which purportedly causes "white spots" on the screen. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. AVERY DENNISON: Plaintiff Withdraws From Antitrust Suit, 10 Left ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff in the class action filed against Avery Dennison Corporation, UPM Kymmene, Bemis Co., Inc. and certain of their subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed its class action, leaving a total of ten named plaintiff. The suit seeks treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices, relating to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene and the MACtac division of Bemis Co., Inc. Ten similar complaints were initially filed in various federal district courts. In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and consolidated for pretrial purposes. On January 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of ten named plaintiffs. AVERY DENNISON: CA Securities Lawsuit Stayed Pending Govt Probe --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action filed against Avery Dennison Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California has been stayed. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Phillip M. Neal, chief executive officer, (2) Daniel R. O'Bryant, chief financial officer and (3) Michael A. Skovran, Controller The suit seeks damages and other relief for alleged disclosure violations pertaining to alleged unlawful competitive practices. The suit is styled "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities Litigation." Pursuant to Court order and the parties' stipulation, plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004. The court approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing date in June 2004. In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the consolidated action pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged anticompetitive conduct by the Company. There has been no discovery or other activity in the case and no trial date has been set. AVERY DENNISON: Faces Antitrust Suit Over UPM, Bemis Co. Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Avery Dennison Corporation faces several class actions seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices relating to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene and the MACtac division of Bemis Co., Inc. On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed a purported class action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California against the Company, UPM and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac, seeking treble damages and other relief. Three similar complaints were filed in various California courts. In November 2003, upon petition from the parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be coordinated for pretrial purposes. The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004. A further similar complaint has been filed in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. BEAZER HOMES: IN Residents Launch Lawsuit Over Defective Homes -------------------------------------------------------------- Beazer Homes Investment Corporation and Trinity Homes LLC face a class action filed in Hamilton County Superior Court in the State of Indiana, styled "Gary Harmon and Sheri Harmon v. Trinity Homes LLC and Beazer Homes Investment Corp." The plaintiffs allege that Trinity and the Company violated applicable building codes. The complaint attempts to define the purported class to include all owners of a residential structure in Indiana constructed and marketed by Trinity and Beazer Homes Investment Corporation in which a one-inch gap with a vapor barrier does not exist between an exterior brick veneer wall and the surface of the underlying exterior wall. Excluded from the class are any residents who suffer personal injuries caused by mold infestation. No monetary amount was stated in the claim. No hearing on class certification has been held at this time and no hearing for such certification is currently scheduled. BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Pursuit of FL, GA Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs voluntarily requested the dismissal of several antitrust class actions filed against BellSouth Corporation in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The Plaintiffs purported to represent putative classes consisting of all BellSouth local telephone service subscribers and/or all subscribers of competitive local exchange carriers in nine southeastern states since 1996. They alleged that BellSouth engaged in unlawful anticompetitive conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws by, among other things: (1) denying competitors access to certain essential facilities necessary for competitors to provide local telephone service; (2) using its monopoly power in the wholesale market for local telephone service as leverage to maintain a monopoly in the retail market; and (3) failing to provide the same quality of service, access and billing to competitors that it provides its own retail customers. The Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of treble damages, injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Pursuant to the plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal, the courts dismissed the cases on March 9, 2004. BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's dismissal of a consumer class action alleging antitrust violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act against BellSouth Corporation and: (1) Verizon, (2) SBC and (3) Qwest Communications The complaint alleged that defendants conspired to restrain competition by "agreeing not to compete with one another and otherwise allocating customers and markets to one another." The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble damages and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses. In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim and the case is now on appeal. CORE LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Stock Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against Core Laboratories, NV and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended consolidated suit alleges among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 21, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which generally alleges that the defendants overstated the company's revenues and net income during 2001 and 2002. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp and certain of its officers face eight putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures made by the Company regarding its integration of Old Kent Financial Corporation and its effect on its infrastructure, including internal controls, and prospects and related matters. The complaints seek unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased the Company's common stock, attorneys' fees and other expenses. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these lawsuits, it stated in a regulatory filing. GLOBIX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Globix Corporation reached a settlement for the securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled "In re Globix Corp Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-00082." The lawsuit names as defendants the Company, its former officers Marc Bell, Peter Herzig (who remains a director of Globix) and Brian Reach, and asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased our securities between November 16, 2000 and December 27, 2001. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in this lawsuit on June 28, 2002. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, but withdrew this motion without prejudice in the course of settlement discussions with the parties. On March 31, 2004, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle all claims against the defendants for $3,500, all of which would be covered by insurance. The proposed settlement is subject to the approval of the court. If the settlement is not approved, the Company intends to re- file its motion to dismiss. GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs to Appeal CO Court's Suit Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs intend to appeal the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado's ruling in favor of Graphic Packaging Corporation, in the class action filed against the Company and certain of its shareholders and directors. The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the issuance on August 15, 2000 of the convertible preferred stock to the Trust. Plaintiff sought damages in the amount of over $43 million or, alternatively, to require transfer to the class of some or all of the Trust's Graphic common stock into which the convertible preferred stock was converted. The court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary duty while allowing the plaintiff to proceed against the named directors and shareholders, including certain other Coors family trusts. The Company provided a defense to this action pursuant to its indemnification obligations. The case was tried in January 2004 and the court ruled in favor of the defendants on all counts. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: To Appeal Certification of Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Co. intends to appeal the United States District Court in Columbia, South Carolina's decision granting class certification to a lawsuit filed by a group of private landowners alleging that the Company and certain of its fiber suppliers, known as "Quality Suppliers," engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to artificially depress the prices at which the Company procures fibers for its mills. The suit seeks injunctive relief as well as treble damages and other costs associated with the litigation. On March 31, 2004, the case was certified as a class action. The Company has filed for permission from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to appeal the Court's order granting class certification. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Linerboard Pact Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Fairness hearing for the settlement of the antitrust lawsuits filed against International Paper Co. is set for November 25, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 14, 1999, and May 18, 1999, two lawsuits were filed in against the Company, the former Union Camp Corporation (acquired by the Company in 1999), and other manufacturers of linerboard. These suits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for corrugated sheets and containers during the period October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995. These lawsuits, which seek injunctive relief as well as treble damages and other costs associated with the litigation, were consolidated and, on September 4, 2001, certified as a class action. On September 22, 2003, the Company, along with Weyerhaeuser Co. and Georgia-Pacific Corporation, agreed with the class plaintiffs to settle the litigation for an aggregate amount of $68 million. The Company's share of the settlement, which is subject to court approval, is $24.4 million. The Company's portion of the settlement also covers the claims brought against Union Camp Corporation. INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Files Demurrer To Stockholder Suit in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- Invision Technologies, Inc. filed a demurrer to the consolidated class action filed by alleged holders of its common stock in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The suit names as defendants each of the Company's directors as well as the Company. The suit alleges that, in pursuing the transaction with General Electric Company (GE) and approving the merger agreement, the directors violated their fiduciary duties to the holders of InVision common stock by, among other things, failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available, tailoring the terms of the transaction to meet GE's needs, engaging in self-dealing and obtaining personal financial benefits not shared equally by the plaintiffs and other stockholders. The complaints also allege that the merger agreement resulted from a flawed process designed to ensure a sale to one buyer. The suit is styled "Waltman, et al. v. InVision Technologies, Inc., et al., Lead Case No. RG04146722." On May 3, 2004, the Company and three directors filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The remaining five directors filed a motion to quash the service of summons because they are not California residents and, therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over them. Plaintiffs have served an initial written discovery request. PACKAGING CORPORATION: PA Court Approves Antitrust Lawsuit Pact --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved the settlement for the two class actions filed against Packaging Corporation of America, alleging a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suits, then captioned Winoff Industries,Inc. v. Stone Container Corporation, MDL No.1261 (E.D. Pa.) and General Refractories Co. v. Gaylord Container Corporation, MDL No.1261 (E.D. Pa.), name the Company as a defendant based solely on the allegation that the Company is successor to the interests of Tenneco Packaging Inc. and Tenneco Inc., both of which were also named as defendants in the suits, along with nine other linerboard and corrugated sheet manufacturers. The complaints allege that the defendants, during the period October 1, 1993 through November 30, 1995, conspired to limit the supply of linerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of corrugated containers and corrugated sheets, respectively. On November 3, 2003, Pactiv (formerly known as Tenneco Packaging), Tenneco and the Company entered into an agreement to settle the class action lawsuits. The settlement agreement provides for a full release of all claims against the Company as a result of the class action lawsuits and was approved by the Court in an opinion issued on April 21, 2004. PLAINS RESOURCES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in DE --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against Plains Resources, Inc. in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, styled "In Re Plains Resources Shareholders Litigation, Case No 071-N." Beginning November 21, 2003, six putative class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, its directors and Mr. John T. Raymond, Chief Executive Officer, seeking to enjoin the sale of Plains Resources to Vulcan Capital Corporation. The lawsuits, and dates of filing, are: (1) Twist Partners LLP v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003); (2) Klein v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003); (3) Levy v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003); (4) Lanza v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003); (5) Burt v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003); (6) South Broadway Capital v. Flores et al., (filed December 30, 2003) Four of the complaints (Twist Partners, Klein, Levy, and South Broadway Capital) also named Vulcan Capital as a defendant. Each complaint alleged that the $14.25 per share Vulcan Capital proposal would be inadequate compensation. The Twist Partners complaint alleged that the Company's stock traded as high as $23.05 per share as recently as December 2002 and as high as $14.75 per share as recently as June 2003. It further alleged that the downward trend of the price of Company stock reflects temporary market conditions in the Company's industry, and that Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond recognized a strong likelihood that the price would soon rebound to the levels at which it traded in 2003 and late 2002. The complaint further alleged that Mr. Flores, Mr. Raymond, and Vulcan Capital determined to "usurp this hidden value for themselves," thereby allegedly denying the Company's minority stockholders the opportunity to obtain fair value for their equity interest. The Twist Partners November 21, 2003 complaint alleged that all individual defendants breached fiduciary duties of due care and loyalty to the Company's stockholders. Vulcan Capital was alleged to have aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the November 20, 2003 announcement of a November 19, 2003 buyout proposal represented "a paltry premium of 7.6 percent to Plains Resources' current trading price and . a very significant discount to what it had traded at earlier in the year." As of the November 21, 2003 filing of the complaint, Twist Partners alleged that the individually named defendants had failed to auction Plains Resources, had failed to conduct an active market check and had not appointed an independent person to negotiate on behalf of the Company's stockholders. The relief sought by Twist Partners includes certification of a class action, an injunction preventing consummation of the buyout proposal (or rescinding it if consummated), compensatory and/or rescissory damages to the class, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs, along with such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. Substantially the same allegations and prayers for relief were made in each of the first five suits which was filed (Twist Partners, Klein, Levy, Lanza, and Burt). (Klein, Lanza, and Levy additionally alleged that Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond dominated and controlled the rest of our Board of Directors.) The Klein complaint was subsequently amended to name and seek relief from Vulcan Energy rather than Vulcan Capital. These five cases were consolidated on December 11, 2003, and defendants are not required to respond to the originally filed complaints. On December 30, 2003, a sixth complaint was filed by South Broadway Capital alleging substantially the same allegations and prayer for relief as the complaints consolidated under No. 071- N, In re Plains Resources Inc. Shareholders Litigation. The defendants expect that the South Broadway Capital action will be consolidated with the other five stockholder suits. On February 24, 2004, the first amended consolidated complaint was filed. That complaint makes additional factual allegations. It alleges that the $14.25 per share Vulcan Capital proposal failed to adequately reflect the value of certain assets and results of the transaction, including: (i) the resulting controlling interest in PAA (for which plaintiffs allege the fair market value of the premium for such control is between $360 and $540 million); (ii) incentive distribution rights in Plains AAP (for which plaintiffs allege an estimated present value of $54.4 million); (iii) limited partner interest in PAA; (iv) the Company's proved oil reserves (of which plaintiffs allege the market value is 15% higher than its standardized measure); (v) certain unspecified tax credits not reflected on our balance sheet; and (vi) other unspecified assets, net of liabilities The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that Mr. O'Malley has "significant business and/or personal relationships" with Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond and is not capable of being a truly independent member of the special Committee and that the Leucadia proposal was rejected without adequate consideration by the special committee. The suit further alleges that the special committee's January 22, 2004 statement that it was "prepared to enter into discussions or negotiations with . other parties relating to a transaction" was materially false and misleading, and that the special committee "never intended to entertain proposals from anyone other than Vulcan and/or the Company's directors." Additionally, the suit asserts that the Vulcan Capital proposal is not the result of a full and fair auction process or active market check, that the $16.75 per share price was reached without a full and thorough investigation, that the price and process are intrinsically unfair and inadequate; and that Company directors failed to make an informed decision with respect to the Vulcan Capital proposal. PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in TX State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plains Resources, Inc., its directors, John T. Raymond and Vulcan Capital Corporation faces a putative class action filed by Don Gilbert in the 157th District Court for Harris County, Texas, Case No. 2004-10509, styled "Gilbert v. Plains Resources Inc. et al." Its factual allegations repeat some but not all of those made in the consolidated amended complaint filed in "In re Plains Resources Inc. Shareholders Litigation" in Delaware. The Texas suit particularly alleges that "members of the Class will be irreparably harmed in that they will not receive fair value for Plains Resources' assets and business and will be prevented from obtaining the real value of their equity ownership in the Company," and that unless an injunction is entered, Vulcan Capital, Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond "will continue to aid and abet a process that inhibits the maximization of shareholder value." For purported causes of action, the Texas lawsuit alleges that the Company's directors breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care by allegedly failing to: (1) inform themselves of the Company's market value before taking action, (2) act in the best interest of Company stockholders, (3) maximize stockholder value, (4) obtain the best financial and unspecified other terms when the Company's independent existence will be materially altered by a transaction, and (5) act in accordance with their fundamental duties of due care and loyalty It further alleges that Vulcan Capital, Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond aided and abetted the Company's directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes declaration of a class action, declaration that the proposed merger agreement "was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of" the Company's directors, an injunction prohibiting the Company from proceeding with and consummating the proposed merger, an injunction requiring the implementation of procedures to obtain the highest price, an injunction requiring the Company's directors "to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of stockholders until the process for the sale or auction of the Company is completed and the highest possible price is obtained," unspecified "appropriate damages," "costs and disbursements," including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and other and further relief which the Court may deem just and proper. The defendants have moved to stay the Texas suit pending resolution of the first-filed Delaware consolidation action. PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Plains Resources, Inc. faces a class action filed by Alfons Sperber in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA), (2) Plains AAP, L.P. (Plains AAP), (3) PAA GP LLC, and (4) several individual defendants The suit, styled "No. 123-N, Sperber v. Plains Resources, Inc. et al.," was putatively brought on behalf of all limited partners and unit holders in PAA and alleges: (i) breach of the fiduciary duties owed to PAA and its unit holders and limited partners by PAA; Plains AAP, L.P.; PAA GP, L.L.C.; and the individually named directors of PAA GP, L.L.C.; and (ii) breach of the fiduciary duties owed to PAA and its unit holders and limited partners by Plains Resources Inc. and its individually named directors as controlling stockholder of PAA GP, L.L.C. The suit's factual allegations concerning the buyout proposal are substantially the same as those alleged in the consolidated Plains Resources stockholders litigation. In addition, Mr. Sperber alleged that as a result of the buyout proposal, Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond will effectively control PAA. Mr. Sperber alleged that PAA had made no disclosure concerning the buyout proposal, and that no actions had been taken to protect the interests of PAA, its limited partners, or its unitholders with respect to the Plains Resources buyout proposal. Mr. Sperber specifically alleged that defendants have breached their contractual and/or fiduciary duties by: (a) failing to seek, pursuant to their respective governing documents, to acquire Plains Resources or the PAA units and general partnership interests held by Plains Resources; (b) failing to amend the PAA GP Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement and/or PAA's Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement to limit the power of Mr. Flores, Mr. Raymond and Vulcan Capital over selection of five of the seven members of the PAA GP board and the chief executive officer of PAA GP; (c) failing to ensure that the transaction does not adversely affect PAA's interests under the Crude Oil Marketing Agreement, dated as of November 23, 1998, by and among Plains Resources, Plains Illinois Inc., Stocker Resources, LP, Calumet Florida, Inc., and Plains Marketing, LP and the Omnibus Agreement among Plains Resources, PAA, Plains Marketing, LP, All American Pipeline, LP and Plains All American Inc., dated as of November 23, 1998, or to obtain fair value for any waiver of those interests; (d) failing to convene the conflicts committee to determine whether the proposed transaction is fair and reasonable to PAA; and (e) failing to appoint a special committee of independent directors to consider the effects of the transaction. The suit alleged that all defendants to that action owe fiduciary duties to PAA, its limited partners, and its unitholders which allegedly have been breached by the failure to take actions to protect the interests of PAA, its limited partners, and its unitholders. The complaint requests certification of a class action, an injunction preventing consummation of the buyout proposal (or rescinding it if consummated), an injunction requiring PAA and Plains AAP to act to protect the interest of PAA, its limited partners, and its unitholders, a declaration that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the putative class, an accounting of all assets, money, and other value improperly received from Plains Resources, disgorgement and imposition of a constructive trust on all property and profits defendants received as a result of wrongful conduct, damages to the class, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs, along with such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. Pursuant to an agreement among counsel, no response to the Sperber complaint is required until after an amended complaint is filed. PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class action filed against PRG Schultz International, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, styled "In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. Sec. Litig., Civil Action File No.1:00-CV-1416-CC." The plaintiffs allege that the Company, John M. Cook, Scott L. Colabuono, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and Michael A. Lustig, the Company's former Chief Operating Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly disseminating false and misleading information about a change in the Company's method of recognizing revenue and in connection with revenue reported for a division. Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19, 1999 and July 26, 2000. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and expenses, and equitable and/or injunctive relief. On January 24, 2001, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15U.S.C. 78u-4 et seq. The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2001. Defendants served their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June 19, 2001. The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on December 3, 2002. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its s officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of investors in the Company's publicly traded securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, alleges that the defendants misstated or omitted material information concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Damages are sought in an unspecified amount. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Clinical Workstation Due To Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- Roche Diagnostics announced two voluntarily initiated recalls to make field corrective actions for the Tecan Clinical Workstation (TCW) that is used with Roche Diagnostics Amplicorr CT/NG test for the detection of Chlamydia and gonorrhea. The first field corrective action references that Roche Diagnostics received reports from two laboratories in the U.S. regarding a malfunction discovered in the course of routine testing using the TCW. An investigation by Roche Diagnostics and Tecan, the manufacturer of the TCW and its software, determined that a software error could cause a mismatch among patient samples and test results. To Roche Diagnostics' knowledge, all reported cases the error was noticed before results were reported out and no patient results were adversely affected. Roche Diagnostics initiated a field corrective action that included notifying customers and asking them to perform a manual workaround until the software can be corrected. Roche Diagnostics is working directly with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ensure that all appropriate parties are notified. On a separate matter, Roche Diagnostics also issued a field corrective action of the Tecan Clinical Workstation that is used with the Amplicor CT/NG test for the detection of Chlamydia and gonorrhea due to a purging issue with the Tecan software. The manufacturer of the TCW, Tecan, notified Roche Diagnostics that if an operator of the TCW fails to purge the TCW's data management system on a regular basis, in accordance with the TCW's operating instructions, the TCW's software may mismatch sample results and sample identification. Again, to Roche Diagnostics' knowledge, in all reported cases the error was noticed before results were reported out and no patient results were adversely affected. Roche Diagnostics initiated a field corrective action that included notifying customers and asking them to perform a purge of their data on a monthly basis. All Tecan Clinical Workstations with Robonet software and that are used with the Roche Diagnostics Amplicor CT/NG assay are affected. Laboratories with questions can contact Roche Diagnostics at 1-800-526-1247. Patients who are concerned about the results of a Chlamydia and gonorrhea test should consult their physician. Laboratory customers who need to review the field correction action can do so by logging into their customer website at www.mylabonline.com . SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Allows Securities Fraud Suits To Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court in Massachusetts granted in part Sepracor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class actions filed against it, several of its current and former officers and a current director on behalf of certain persons who purchased our common stock and/or debt securities. The suits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Primarily the suits allege that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements relating to the testing, safety and likelihood of approval of SOLTARA by the United States Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. On April 11, 2003, two consolidated amended complaints were filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common stock and the other on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's debt securities. These consolidated amended complaints reiterate the allegations contained in the previously filed complaints and define the alleged class periods as May 17, 1999 through March 6, 2002. The Company filed a motion to dismiss both consolidated amended complaints on May 27, 2003. On March 11, 2004, the court, while granting in part the motion to dismiss, did allow much of the case to proceed. The discovery process will begin shortly. TRIPOS INC.: Plaintiffs to Amend Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MO --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs intend to amend the securities class action filed against Tripos, Inc. and two of its executive officers, Dr. John P. McAlister and Mr. B. James Rubin, in the United States District Court in St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the first half of 2002. The suit alleges that statements made by the Company in press releases and other public disclosures contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws. WILD OATS: Appeals Canada Court's Ruling on Suit Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Wild Oats Markets Canada, Inc. appealed the Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada's ruling granting class certification to a lawsuit filed against it, as successor to Alfalfa's Canada, Inc., its Canadian subsidiary. The suit, styled "Helen Fakhri and Ady Aylon, as Representative Plaintiffs v. Alfalfa's Canada, Inc.," was filed by representative plaintiffs alleging to represent two classes of plaintiffs "those who contracted Hepatitis A allegedly through the consumption of food purchased at a Capers Community Market in the spring of 2002, and those who were inoculated against Hepatitis A as a result of news alerts by Capers and the Vancouver Health Authority." Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- May 20-21, 2004 ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY ALI-ABA Chicago Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 24-25, 2004 ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 25, 2004 D&O INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 7-8, 2004 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Hotel, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 10-11, 2004 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com June 10-11, 2004 LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS American Conferences Boston Contact: http://www.americanconference.com June 16, 2004 BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 17, 2004 E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 17-18, 2004 LITIGATING BRAIN AND SPINAL CORD INSURANCE CLAIMS American Conferences Chicago Contact: http://www.americanconference.com June 21-22, 2004 REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTION American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.com June 22, 2004 E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 22-23, 2004 NATIONAL MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Grande Lakes Resort, Orlando, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 22-23, 2004 ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 16, 2004 PRODUCTS LIABILITY ALI-ABA Chicago Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 September 20-21, 2004 REINSURANCE SUMMIT Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 20-21, 2004 NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21, 2004 E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21, 2004 PARALEGALS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin City Center, Dallas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 27-28, 2004 BAD FAITH CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 4-5, 2004 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 7-8, 2004 WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, West Palm Beach Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 21, 2004 PARALEGALS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 25-26, 2004 SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26, 2004 PVC LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 8, 2004 HRT LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 8-9, 2004 CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2004 ZYPREXA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2004 ARTHRITIS DRUG LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2004 ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 11-12, 2004 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 December 9-10, 2004 ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 9-10, 2004 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ May 05-30, 2004 DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION: EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com May 05-30, 2004 NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com May 05-30, 2004 NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases CHINA LIFE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of China Life Insurance Company Limited (NYSE: LFC) between December 17, 2003 and February 3, 2004, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action, case no. 04-CV-3550 is pending before the Honorable Colleen McMahon, in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York against defendants China Life, President and Chairman of China Life, Wang Xianzhang, and Directors of China Life, Long Yongtu, Chau Tak Hay, Miao Fuchun and Wu Yan. According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, China Life reported positive results in publicly disseminated press releases and in the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the SEC for the Company's initial public offering on December 15, 2003. Founded in June 2003 through the restructuring of its state-owned parent/predecessor, China Life Insurance (Group) Co. ("CLIC"), China Life stated throughout the Class Period that it was ranked number one in life insurance in China, with a market share of 45%, and attributed the alleged success to, among other things, strategic investments, overall industry growth, and expanding its global presence through the listing of its securities on the NYSE and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Unbeknownst to the public, however, defendants knowingly engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct to conceal material adverse facts about China Life, including CLIC's improper use of reinsurance funds to make illegal investments, CLIC's failure to timely pay its taxes, and its employment of unqualified agents, all of which could have caused potential loss to China Life through steps CLIC, as China Life's controlling shareholder, could take to exploit China Life's financial strength to shore up its own finances. On February 3, 2004, the National Audit Office of China ("NAO") reported the results of its audit of CLIC and that it had found the equivalent of about $652 million worth of irregularities involving CLIC. The NAO explained that it found 2.4 billion yuan involving illegal agent services and premium payments by CLIC, 2.5 billion yuan in embezzled funds and 31.79 million yuan deposited in illegal bank accounts (the equivalent of $652 million in U.S. dollars). On February 4, 2004, the price of China Life's American Depository Shares declined in reaction to this news, falling $2.13 or 7.39% per share from its previous day's closing price, to close at $26.67. On April 7, 2004, China Life announced that the NAO found that CLIC breached insurance laws and failed to pay certain taxes, and that certain CLIC branches had misstated expenses and income, resulting in the underpayment of income taxes. As a result of the defendants' false statements, the price of China Life's securities were artificially inflated during the Class Period, causing plaintiff and other members of the class to suffer injuries. For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman & Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th floor, New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or by E-Mail: ChinaLife@milbergweiss.com GENTA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Genta, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNTA) between March 26, 2001 and May 3, 2004, inclusive. Also included are all those who acquired Genta through its acquisition of Salus Theraputics, Inc. The Complaint alleges that Genta and certain of its officers issued materially false statements concerning the Company's business condition. Specifically, defendants misrepresented the safety of Genta's drug, Genasense, for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Additionally, defendants falsely represented that Genasense did not appear to be associated with serious adverse reactions in Phase III clinical trials. In fact, the defendants knew Genasense was associated with increased toxicity, and that FDA approval was unlikely because the adverse events associated with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits. On April 30, 2004, the Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA stated that the Phase III trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival benefit, the primary endpoint of the trial. For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, P.C., by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net/ LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Liquidmetal Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: LQMTE) from May 22, 2002 through March 30, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges that LQMT, John Kang, and Brian McDougal 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 May 22, 2002 through March 30, 2004, about its financial results. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by them; (1) that LQMT failed to make its product commercially feasible due to its high manufacturing cost; (2) that LQMT, struggling with the lack of market acceptance for the product, attempted to boost revenues through fraudulent means via a deal with a South Korean metals processing company; (3) that LQMT's improving financial results were only made possible though improper revenue recognition practices in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On February 20, 2004, the Company disclosed that it would have to restate revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 due to improper revenue recognition. On March 30, 2004, defendants revealed that the Company's 10-K has been indefinitely delayed due to its inability to complete the audit of prior years' financial results. On April 29, 2004, LQMT announced that it received a Nasdaq Staff Determination indicating that because the company has not timely filed a Form 10-K with the SEC for the period ended December 31, 2003, LQMT faces delisting from NASDAQ. In response to the news, the price of LQMT stock declined during the class period to close at slightly over $3 per share on March 30, 2004, a drop of over 80% from the stock's Class Period high. For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:LQMTE) common stock during the period between May 21, 2002 and March 30, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including those who acquired shares pursuant to the Company's May 21, 2002 initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint charges Liquidmetal and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Liquidmetal is in the business of developing, manufacturing and marketing products made from amorphous alloys. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Liquidmetal stock to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. The true facts which were known to each of the defendants, but actively concealed from plaintiff, included the following: (1) that the Company was recording revenue on "contingent" contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled; (2) that the Company lacked the proper internal controls and oversight to ensure the Company's subsidiary operations complied with applicable regulations; (3) that even prior to the IPO the Company was experiencing adverse trends in the Company's electronic casings business; and (4) that the Company was actually manufacturing its own revenue by infusing capital in customers in return for the customers' orders. On February 20, 2004, the Company announced that it will be required to restate its financial statements for 3Q 2002 to 1Q 2003 and reverse reported income attributable to one of its former suppliers of alloy ingots, Growell Metal. Then on March 30, 2004, Liquidmetal announced it would delay the filing of its 2003 Form 10-K due to the additional time required to complete the previously announced review and analysis relating to the Company's restatement of results for prior periods. For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E- Mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web Site: http://www.lcsr.com/cases/liquidmetal/ ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: ODSY) between May 5, 2003 and February 23, 2004, inclusive. Also included are all those who acquired Odyssey through its acquisitions of Hospice Home Care, Heritage Hospice, Mahogany Hospice Care, Home Care Hospice and Crown of Texas Hospice. The Complaint alleges that Odyssey and certain of its officers issued materially false statements concerning the Company's financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Odyssey's financial results were materially inflated because a significant number of its hospice programs exceeded the amounts they were entitled to receive under Medicare reimbursement programs; (2) Odyssey admitted patients to its programs who were ineligible; and (3) the Company's levels of care were below prescribed standards. For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, P.C., by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net/ ********* 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. ********* 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. Glenn Ruel Se�orin, 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 * * *