/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040519.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 19, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 98 Headlines ACNIELSEN: Hagens Berman is New Lead Counsel in Antitrust Suit ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit in AZ Court ADVANCEPCS: Pharmacies Lodge Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in PA ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuits in AZ AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit BENTLEY MOTORS: Recalls 529 Bentley Arnage Cars For Fire Hazard BIG DOG: Recalls 1,906 Motorcycles Because of Accident Hazard BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in MA BOSTON FINANCIAL: Introduces New Class Administration Services BROADCOM CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Suit CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Lawsuits in DE Court Stayed CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL CAREMARK RX: Seeks Consolidation, Dismissal of ERISA Suits in AL CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss DPPA Violations Suit in FL CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiff Files Amended DPPA Violations Suit COLONIAL COOKIES: Recalls Chocolate Cookies For Undeclared Nuts CORDIS CORPORATION: Recalls Biliary Stents, Not Cleared by FDA CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Jeeps Due To Lock Defect DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls 14,621 Jeeps For Crash Risk DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Recalls 34,561 Sport Vehicles For Crash Hazard DU BRAND: Recalls Nasal Decongestant Spray For Risk of Infection GOLD BANC: Shareholders Launch KS Suit Over Resale of Securities i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in TX KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Suit LORAL SPACE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit v. CEO LORAL SPACE: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit V. Execs LORAL SPACE: NY Court Orders ERISA Violations Suit Consolidated NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Energy Lawsuit in CA Court ONYX SOFTWARE: WA Court Approves Preliminary Lawsuit Settlement ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For Investor Derivative Suit PCS HEALTH: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in ERISA Lawsuit POST APARTMENT: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in GA Court QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Investor Suits REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Suit Over Downloads ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Initiates Tecan Clinical Workstation Recalls SLM CORPORATION: DC Court Hears Consumer Suit Dismissal Appeal SLM CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court STONINGTON SEA: Recalls Smoked Salmon For Listeria Contamination TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Disqualifies Plaintiffs in Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases GENTA INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ GENTA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ LANCER CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in TX LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL NORTEL NETWORKS: OPTrust Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY SPSS INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL VASO ACTIVE: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA VASO ACTIVE: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA ********* ACNIELSEN: Hagens Berman is New Lead Counsel in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Information Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment Rights Trust (OTC Bulletin Board: IRICR) announced today that Information Resources, Inc. has filed a letter with the Court in IRI's antitrust action against ACNielsen (now owned by VNU, N.V.), The Dun & Bradstreet Corp., and IMS International, Inc., seeking leave to allow Steve Berman and other members of the Seattle-based law firm of Hagens Berman LLP to serve as lead trial counsel for IRI in this case. IRI is seeking damages of between $581.6 million and $651.7 million (prior to trebling) in this action. Trial is scheduled to begin on April 18, 2005. Subject to Court approval, Mr. Berman and Hagens Berman will join the law firm of Freeborn & Peters, LLP, which has served as the principle law firm representing IRI in this action since its inception. For more details, contact Monica M. Weed of Information Resources, Inc. Contingent Payment Rights Trust by Phone: (312) 360-6498 or by E-Mail: monica.weed@infores.com ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit in AZ Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit filed against AdvancePCS in the United States District Court in Arizona, alleging that the Company acts as an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary and has breached certain purported fiduciary duties under ERISA. The plaintiff withdrew the class action allegations in April 2002. In March 2003, the court dismissed the plaintiff's apparent effort to reassert possible class action claims. In May 2003, the case was dismissed based on inadequacies in the plaintiff's pleadings and subsequently the plaintiff filed an amended complaint purporting to address these inadequacies. Subsequent to discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice in March 2004. ADVANCEPCS: Pharmacies Lodge Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in PA --------------------------------------------------------------- AdvancePCS faces a class action filed by Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc., d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co., d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and the Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege antitrust violations under Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising from the Company's establishment of network rates for retail pharmacies. The plaintiffs are attempting to certify a class of all pharmacies that, at any time during the period commencing four years before the filing of the litigation through the present, contracted with AdvancePCS to dispense and sell brand name and generic prescription drugs for any prescription drug benefit plan(s). ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuits in AZ --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of two class actions filed against AdvancePCS in the United States District Court of Arizona on behalf of the plaintiff's health plan and several other self-funded health plans. Tommie Glanton filed the first suit. In March 2003, Tara Mackner, a purported participant in a self-funded health plan customer of AdvancePCS, filed a similar suit seeking to bring action on behalf of that plan. Each of the lawsuits sought unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Because the previously filed Glanton case purported to be brought as a class action on behalf of self-funded plans, the court consolidated the Mackner case and the Glanton. In November 2003, the court dismissed and terminated both the Glanton and Mackner cases on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the actions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The plaintiffs have appealed these dismissals to the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington heard arguments on Avista Corporation's motion to dismiss the securities class action filed against it and: (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The suit is styled "In re Avista Corporation Securities Litigation." The court has appointed the lead plaintiff and co- lead counsel. On August 19, 2003, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended class action complaint in the same court against the same parties. In their complaint, the plaintiffs continue to assert violations of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs allege that the Company did not have adequate risk management processes, procedures and controls. The plaintiffs further allege that the Company engaged in unlawful energy trading practices and allegedly manipulated western power markets. The plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions have occurred in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other information made publicly available by the Company, including press releases. The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period between November 23, 1999 and August 13, 2002. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in October 2003 and the plaintiffs filed an answer to this motion in January 2004. Arguments before the Court on the motion were held on March 19, 2004. On April 15, 2004, the Court called for additional briefing on what effect, if any, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Inquiry would have on this case. BENTLEY MOTORS: Recalls 529 Bentley Arnage Cars For Fire Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced the recall instituted by Bentley Motors Ltd. of 529 of its Bentley Arnage cars, models: (1) Bentley Arnage R, year 2002-2004, (2) Bentley Arnage RL, year 2002-2004, (3) Bentley Arnage T, year 2002-2004, (4) Bentley Arnage Limousine, year 2002-2004 These cars were manufactured from September 2001 to February 2004. On certain passenger vehicles, the fuel feed line quick connector may disengage, allowing fuel leakage. Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire. Dealers will remove the quick release collar, ensure that the quick connector is fully engaged, and install a safety clip. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March 22, 2004. Owners may contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-777-6923. BIG DOG: Recalls 1,906 Motorcycles Because of Accident Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Big Dog Motorcycles, LLC is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 1,906 motorcycles, models: (1) Big Dog Boxer 2004, (2) Big Dog Bulldog 2004, (3) Big Dog Chopper 2004, (4) Big Dog Daytec Chopper 2004, (5) Big Dog Mastiff 2004, (6) Big Dog Pitbull 2004, (7) Big Dog Ridgeback 2004 These machines were manufactured from September 2003 to March 2004. On certain motorcycles, the piston in the rear master cylinder may have been improperly sized, which could cause the rear brakes to drag or lock up. This could result in a crash. Dealers will remove the piston from the rear master cylinder and replace it with a new piston. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March 30, 2004. Owners may contact Big Dog at 1-316-267-9121. BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Communications Group, Inc., its chief executive officer and chief financial officer face a securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between June 12, 2003 and July 16, 2003. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly failing to disclose material adverse information about the Company's business, operations and future prospects, specifically with respect to the Company's contract negotiations with Verizon Wireless. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and that the Company and the other named defendants have highly meritorious defenses to the allegations made in this lawsuit, the Company said in a regulatory filing. BOSTON FINANCIAL: Introduces New Class Administration Services -------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Financial Data Services, a leading service provider and record keeper in the mutual fund industry, introduced its Class Action Administration(SM), a new line of business providing complete third-party administration for financial services firms facing legal settlements. Boston Financial has, in fact, been providing settlement administration services on a project basis for nearly 10 years, assisting financial services clients that solicited the firm for its administration expertise. The formal development of the Class Action business line reflects a strategic decision to leverage Boston Financial's success in serving as the court- approved claims administrator for numerous class action settlements since 1995. With Class Action Administration, Boston Financial offers a complete suite of services, including notification of eligibility, claim form review, distribution and reconciliation. Service model components include: print mail services; technology systems; customer care; election and claim form receipt processing; scanning; and check and coupon production, distribution and reconciliation. Over the past decade, Boston Financial has administered settlements with class sizes ranging from 36,000 to 11 million. It has developed a reputation for meeting the unique and complex needs of individual clients and for fostering a neutral environment between plaintiff and defendant. "The management staff at Boston Financial is especially skilled at managing the complex relationships between class counsel, defense and defendant," said David Little, second vice president of Swiss Re Life & Health America Inc., a former client. "Boston Financial's flexibility and attention to detail show clearly throughout all administrative facets of the settlement." "The team at Boston Financial is impartial and professional," said Roger Cowie, partner, Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP, a legal firm that has worked with Boston Financial. "In a highly charged settlement environment, it is important that the administrator be neutral and focus on administering the terms of the settlement. Boston Financial understands its role." "Boston Financial offers a unique combination of administration experience and industry expertise," said Darlene DeRemer, managing director, Putnam Lovell NFB Securities, Inc., an international investment banking analyst firm that specializes in financial services. "The confidence and assurance Boston Financial provides is invaluable in a time of crisis." "This is a challenging time for financial services firms, and for mutual fund companies in particular. Boston Financial is prepared to help navigate the sensitive administrative issues surrounding settlements," said Steve Hooley, president and CEO of Boston Financial. "We know this business. We understand the systems and processes involved, and we know how important the class members are to our clients. Most companies won't have to face this issue very often, but when they do, we think it makes sense for them to work with a trusted service provider who understands their priorities." BROADCOM CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed against Broadcom Corporation and three of its executive officers United States District Court for the Central District of California, styled "In re: Broadcom Corp. Securities Litigation." The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company, or bought or sold options on the Company's stock, between July 31, 2000 and February 26, 2001, with certain exceptions. The court has scheduled a discovery cut-off in July 2004, a pre-trial conference in October 2004 and a trial beginning in November 2004. The Company believes the allegations in the purported consolidated shareholder class action are without merit. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Lawsuits in DE Court Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class actions filed against Cablevision Systems Corporation and each of its directors in Delaware Chancery Court has been stayed. In August 2002, purported class actions were filed, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock, were purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock. The actions sought to: (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock, (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or, in the alternative, award rescissory damages, (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award rescissory damages, (4) award compensatory damages, and (5) award costs and disbursements The actions were consolidated into one action on September17, 2002, and on October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action. The action is currently stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related action brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection of certain books and records of the Company. CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Caremark Rx, Inc. asked the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama to dismiss a class action filed on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of securities class action and derivative lawsuits against the Company and others. In October 2003, John Lauriello filed a class action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on behalf of a purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999 settlement of then pending securities class action and derivative lawsuits against the Company and others. Also named as defendants are several insurance companies that had provided coverage to the Company up to the time of the settlement. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless, and/or negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that were resolved by the 1999 settlement. Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment approving the 1999 settlement. In November 2003, Frank McArthur filed another suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama arising out of the same 1999 settlement of then pending securities class action and derivative lawsuits against the Company and others. This lawsuit also was filed on behalf of a purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999 settlement, and named as defendants the Company, several insurance companies that had provided coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the settlement, and a number of lawyers and law firms involved in negotiating and securing the approval of the 1999 settlement. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that were resolved by the 1999 settlement. On December 18, 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the lawsuit filed on October 31, 2003 discussed in the paragraph above, filed a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss, abate or stay this lawsuit on the grounds that it was a duplicative, later-filed, class action complaint. On January 15, 2004, Caremark Rx and the other defendants filed their own motion to abate, dismiss or stay the lawsuit as a later-filed class action that is substantially similar to the previous class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Lauriello. The defendants' motion was granted by the court, and the lawsuit was transferred to an Administrative Docket where it will be reviewed every ninety (90) days. CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Caremark Rx, Inc., Caremark, Inc. and Caremark PCS (formerly, AdvancePCS) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C& C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., two independent pharmacies, filed the suit, alleging purported violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in three counts. In December 2003, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state any claim upon which relief can be granted. In March 2004, prior to responding to defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiffs amended and restated their class action complaint, removing two counts under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and adding a count under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Count I of the amended complaint claims that defendants committed with third parties, including client payors and other PBM companies, numerous violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act "by price fixing schemes" flowing from "parallel behavior" that have resulted in "low levels" of prescription service reimbursement rates for plaintiffs and the diversion of prescription service business from plaintiffs to mail service. Count II claims that defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the United States market for dispensing and retail sale of prescription drugs that are reimbursed by insurance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Defendants will file shortly their motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. CAREMARK RX: Seeks Consolidation, Dismissal of ERISA Suits in AL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Caremark Rx, Inc. and Caremark, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to either consolidate or dismiss completely several class actions filed against them, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In April 2002, the Company was served with a purported private class action lawsuit that was filed by Roland Bickley, on behalf of the Georgia Pacific Corporation Life, Health and Accident Plan in the United States District Court, Central District of California. The suit alleges that Caremark Rx and Caremark each act as a fiduciary as that term is defined in the ERISA, as amended and that Caremark Rx and Caremark have breached certain purported fiduciary duties under ERISA. On August 29, 2002, this case was ordered transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Caremark Rx was subsequently served on May 29, 2002 with a virtually identical lawsuit, containing the same types of allegations, which was filed by Mary Dolan, on behalf of Wells Fargo Health Plan and also filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California. On December 12, 2002, this case was also ordered transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama. Both of these lawsuits have been amended to name Caremark as a defendant, and Caremark Rx has been dismissed from the second case filed. These lawsuits, which are similar to pending litigation filed against AdvancePCS and other pharmacy benefit manager companies, seek unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss DPPA Violations Suit in FL --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action filed against ChoicePoint, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida voluntarily dismissed the suit, but one more similar suit remains pending. The first suit is styled "Russell V. Rosen and Rabbi Joel Levine et al. v. ChoicePoint Inc." The suit alleges violations of the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Three ChoicePoint entities have been added as defendants in a similar complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (styled Fresco, et al. v. Automotive Directions Inc., et al.). Additionally, Russell V. Rosen and Rabbi Joel Levine have been added as plaintiffs in this case. The complaints allege that the Company has obtained, disclosed and used information obtained from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV) in violation of the DPPA. The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of individuals whose personal information from Florida DHSMV records has been obtained, disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other allegedly impermissible uses by ChoicePoint without the express written consent of the individual. CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiff Files Amended DPPA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff filed an amended consumer class action against ChoicePoint Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The original suit, styled Betty D. Russell v. ChoicePoint Services, Inc., alleges violations of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). This plaintiff seeks to represent a national class of all individuals whose information the Company has obtained from motor vehicle records and a subclass of all individuals domiciled in Louisiana whose information the Company has obtained from motor vehicle records in Louisiana. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court granted such motion in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the Company on February25, 2004, adding a new plaintiff, Yvonne Morse, and converting the claim to one based on violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and a similar state law. Plaintiff's attorney did not object to the Company's Motion to Dismiss against the DPPA claim. Consequently, the entire DPPA claim was dismissed. COLONIAL COOKIES: Recalls Chocolate Cookies For Undeclared Nuts --------------------------------------------------------------- Colonial Cookies is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of 7.2 oz. Essensia Milk Chocolate Chunk Cookies. These cookies contain undeclared macadamia nuts. People who have an allergy to macadamia nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The products in the recall do not declare macadamia nuts in the ingredient statement. Essensia White Chocolate Chunk Macadamia Cookies were packed in Essensia Milk Chocolate Chunk Cookie packaging with package code date of Best If Used By 08 13 04 E . These packages were shipped in Essensia White Chocolate Chunk Macadamia Cookies cases (case code Best If Used By 08 13 04 E). The product is called Essensia Milk Chocolate Chunk Cookies 7.2 oz. (UPC 41163-55285) with Essensia White Chocolate Chunk Macadamia Cookies in the package. The cookies were shipped in Essensia White Chocolate Chunk Macadamia Cookie cases (41163- 55267). The Manufacturing Package and Case Code Date states "Best If Used By 08 13 04 E." No other Essensia products are involved. No allergic reactions have been reported. This product was distributed in Albertsons, Inc. stores throughout the following states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Washington. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the macadamia nut containing product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of macadamia nuts. Subsequent investigation indicates that the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes. The problem has now been corrected, and current production runs are accurately labeled. Consumers who have purchased the above Essensia Cookies should return the product back to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Laura Power at 1-800-265-6508, ext. 227. CORDIS CORPORATION: Recalls Biliary Stents, Not Cleared by FDA -------------------------------------------------------------- Cordis Corporation instituted a class 1 Recall of its PRECISEr RX Nitinol Stent Transhepatic Biliary System. Biliary stents are permanently implanted flexible tubular devices intended for use to treat bile duct obstruction due to malignancies. They function to drain the biliary tract and to keep the bile duct open. Uses outside of the biliary tract, i.e., in the cardiovascular or other systems, have not been cleared by the FDA. Some physicians use this device for vascular use. This use has not been cleared by the FDA. When used this way, air may be introduced into the patient via the stent system causing serious problems including coma, seizure and stroke. There have been nine patient injuries due to air embolism and seven incidents of malfunction in connection with the use of this system outside of its approved indications. Cordis is recalling its revised instructions for use and strongly recommends that physicians limit the use of the PRECISE RX Stent to FDA-approved uses only. Physicians are informed in the current labeling warning statement that the "safety and effectiveness for use in the vascular system have not been established." Class I recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve situations where there is a reasonable probability that use of the product will cause serious injury or death. For more details, contact Hal Delgado, Executive Director, Quality Assurance by Mail: Cordis Corporation, 14201 NW 60th Ave Miami Lakes, FL 33014-2802 CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cornell Companies, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, Steven W. Logan (its former President and Chief Executive Officer), and John L. Hendrix (its Chief Financial Officer). Four federal class actions were initially filed, styled: (1) Graydon Williams, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc, et al., No. H-02-0866, (2) Richard Picard, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al., No. H-02-1075, (3) Louis A. Daly, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al., No. H-02-1522, and (4) Anthony J. Scolaro, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al., No. H-02-1567 The lawsuits were putative class action lawsuits brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between March6, 2001 and March5, 2002 and relate to the Company's restatement in 2002 of certain financial statements. The lawsuits involved disclosures made concerning two prior transactions executed by the Company: the August 2001 sale leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease transaction. These four lawsuits were consolidated into the Graydon Williams action and Flyline Partners, LP was appointed lead plaintiff. As a result, a consolidated complaint was filed by Flyline Partners, LP. Richard Picard and Anthony Scolaro were also named as plaintiffs. Since then, the court has allowed plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or Section 15 of the Securities Act. The amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, restitution damages, compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and expert fees. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corrections Corporation of America reached a settlement for the putative class action filed against it in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, styled "Sanchez v. Corrections Corporation of America. The lawsuit was brought by a former employee on his own behalf and on behalf of other former and currently similarly-situated employees. Plaintiff alleged that the Company did not comply with certain wage and hour laws and regulations primarily concerning meal periods and other specified breaks, which laws and regulations are imposed by the State of California pursuant to the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff was seeking damages on his behalf and the alleged class for such violations as well as certain penalties allegedly due and owing as a consequence of such alleged violations. Following service of the complaint and during the third quarter of 2003, the Company undertook certain investigations in response to the allegations and an answer to the complaint was filed. The Company has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, which is subject to class certification and court approval, that is not expected to have a material impact on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Jeeps Due To Lock Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 2,875 Jeep Liberty sport utility vehicles, year 2004. The SUVs were made in January 2004. On some sport utility vehicles, certain remote keyless entry (RKE) input may cause the body control module (BCM) software to actuate the door lock motors continuously. This can cause the lock motor bearings to overheat and seize. If this occurs, the door lock system will become inoperative. Dealers will inspect and replace, as necessary, the door latch assemblies, and the BCM software will be updated. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification schedule for this campaign. Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls 14,621 Jeeps For Crash Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 14,621 Jeep Grand Cherokees, model 2004. The SUVs were manufactured from December 2003 to February 2004. On some sport utility vehicles equipped with a 4.0-liter engine, the crankshaft position sensor wiring insulation may crack and expose the wire. In the presence of moisture, this could result in sensor malfunction, which could cause the engine to stall, increasing the risk of a crash. Dealers will replace the crankshaft position sensor. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March 29, 2004. Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403. DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Recalls 34,561 Sport Vehicles For Crash Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 34,561 Chrysler Pacifica sport utility vehicles, model 2004. These SUVs were manufactured from January to July 2003. On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with a NGC-1 powertrain control module, the software protocol used to test the vehicle exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system may lead to engine stalling under certain circumstances, increasing the risk of a crash. Dealers will install revised engine controller software, which will eliminate the potential for the stalling condition. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March 15, 2004. Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403. DU BRAND: Recalls Nasal Decongestant Spray For Risk of Infection ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Food and Drug Administration alerted consumers not to purchase or use a recalled lot of DU brand nasal decongestant spray (distributed by Drugs Unlimited, of Puerto Rico) because it may be contaminated with Burkholderia cepacia - a bacterium that could cause serious, potentially life- threatening infections in some patients. Individuals with compromised immune systems, especially those with cystic fibrosis, could be at risk. The recalled product is sold over the counter in 15 milliliter (or "1/2 ounce") and 30 milliliter bottles labeled "DU 12-Hour Nasal Spray" with the lot number J4492 imprinted at the bottom of the carton and the back of the bottle label. The recalled product also bears an expiration date of 9/06. The product appears to have been distributed throughout Puerto Rico and it is likely linked to an earlier recall of other contaminated product lots that were sold to other distributors. Consumers who have used the recalled product may want to consult their physicians. Consumers who may still have the recalled product should not use it, but instead return it immediately to the stores where it was purchased. Wholesalers and retailers who purchased the product should return it to the appropriate distribution center. Anyone needing more information can call Rey Farinas at 305-592- 9216. GOLD BANC: Shareholders Launch KS Suit Over Resale of Securities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gold Banc Corporation and nine of its directors face a class action filed in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, relating to a resale by the Company of 530,000 shares of its common stock to five directors in the second quarter of 2003, which shares were obtained from Michael Gullion in partial satisfaction of his restitution obligations. The complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger with Silver Acquisition Corporation and SAC Acquisition Corporation, to enable those directors to sell those shares sooner than they would have otherwise been legally able to do under the federal securities laws. i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- i2 Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. Beginning in March 2001, a number of purported class action complaints were filed. The cases were consolidated, and in August 2001 plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the characteristics and implementation of certain of the Company's software products. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from May 4, 2000 to February 26, 2001. By stipulation, in December 2002, the court certified the plaintiff class. Beginning in April 2003, additional purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaints brought claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the 2003 restatement of our consolidated financial statements. Specifically, these actions allege that the Company issued a series of false or misleading statements to the market during the class period that failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had materially overstated its revenue by improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer contracts, (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and were therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition, and (3) as a result of the foregoing, its financial statements issued during the class period were materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused our stock price to be artificially inflated. The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from April 18, 2000 to January 24, 2003. In July 2003, all of these class action complaints were consolidated for purposes of pre-trial matters only. KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to dismiss the consolidated securities class actions filed against it. Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class actions were filed by holders of the Company's securities against the Company, its directors, former directors, executive officers, former executive officers, a Company subsidiary, and a former director of the subsidiary. The suits allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These 22 complaints have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. In addition, holders of the Company's securities filed two class actions alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in Tennessee state court. The Company removed these two cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, where these two cases were consolidated with the other class actions. Plaintiffs in these actions unsuccessfully moved to remand these two cases back to Tennessee state court. These two actions therefore remain part of the consolidated action. The district court has appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and those lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 21, 2003 alleging that the Company, through some of its executive officers, former executive officers, directors and former directors, made false or misleading statements concerning its business, financial condition and results of operations during periods beginning February 16, 1999 and continuing until March 10, 2003. Plaintiffs in the consolidated action have also named the underwriters of the Company's November 2001 public offering as defendants. LORAL SPACE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit v. CEO --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the class action filed against Loral Space & Communications Ltd. chief executive officer Bernard Schwartz. The complaint alleges that: (1) Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state material facts about Loral's financial condition relating to the sale of assets to Intelsat and Loral's Chapter 11 filing and (2) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of the Company The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with them. In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was denied by the court. Defendant filed an answer in March 2004, and discovery has commenced. The suit is styled "Beleson and Matcovsky, et al. v. Loral Space & Communications, Ltd., et al., docket number 03-CV-6051," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff firms in this suit are: (i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) - Mail: 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 800-217-1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (ii) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) - Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017; Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 or E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (iii) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA) - Mail: 10940 Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024; Phone: 310-208-2800; Fax: 310-209-2348; E-mail: info@wyca.com (iv) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) - Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126; Phone: 212-682-3025; Fax: 212-682-3010; E-mail: info@wyca.com (v) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP - Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016; Phone: 212-545-4600; Fax: 212-686-0114; E-mail: newyork@whafh.com LORAL SPACE: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit V. Execs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Loral Space & Communications Ltd. intends to ask the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated class action filed against its officers Bernard Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend by plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and Marvin Rich. The complaint alleges that: (1) defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state material facts about the Company's financial condition relating to the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for certain general and administrative expenses and the alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company Ltd. and (2) defendants are secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Loral. The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with them. Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the complaint in May 2004. LORAL SPACE: NY Court Orders ERISA Violations Suit Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class actions filed against Loral Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative Committee, all Loral directors, Richard J. Townsend and certain other Loral officers and employees have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In December 2003, plaintiff Wendy Koch, a former employee, filed the suit, alleging: (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage the assets of the Loral Savings Plan by including Loral common stock as an investment alternative and by providing matching contributions under the Plan in Loral stock, (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor the committee defendants and (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA by failing to provide complete and accurate information to Plan participants and beneficiaries. The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the present and whose accounts included investments in Loral stock. One other similar complaint against the defendants with substantially similar allegations has been filed, and the two cases have been consolidated. Plaintiffs have been granted until the beginning of July 2004 to file an amended complaint. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Novastar Financial and several of its executive officers and/or directors face several substantially similar class actions and a derivative lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas City against the Company and/or several of its executive officers and/or directors. The complaints generally claim that the defendants are liable for making or failing to prevent alleged misstatements or omissions in the Company's public disclosures. The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s, (NYSE: NFI) common stock during the period of October 28, 2003 through April 12, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NovaStar is a specialty finance company that originates, invests in and services nonconforming loans. The Complaint alleges that during the class period the Company's financials and share price were artificially inflated, as defendants misrepresented the number of offices that NovaStar had in operation and failed to disclose problems regarding the operation of unregistered and/or unlicensed mortgage broker and lending operations in various states. As a result of these misrepresentations, the Complaint alleges that NovaStar's stock price traded at inflated levels throughout the Class Period. NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Energy Lawsuit in CA Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against NRG Energy, Inc. and other gas and energy firms in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, styled "Bustamante v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 235598." This putative class action lawsuit was filed on November 20, 2002. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants attempted to manipulate gas indexes by reporting false and fraudulent trades. Named defendants in the suit include numerous industry participants unrelated to the Company, as well as the operating subsidiaries established by West Coast Power for each of its four plants: (1) El Segundo Power, LLC; (2) Long Beach Generation, LLC; (3) Cabrillo Power I LLC; and (4) Cabrillo Power II LLC The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement of "ill-gotten gains," civil fines, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and declaratory and injunctive relief. ONYX SOFTWARE: WA Court Approves Preliminary Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted preliminary approval to the settlement proposed by Onyx Software Corporation for the class action filed against it, several of its officers and directors and Dain Rauscher Wessels. The suit alleges that the Company violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit seeks certification of a class action for purchasers of the Company's common stock in February 12, 2001 public offering and on the open market during the period January 23, 2001 through July 24, 2001. The parties have executed an agreement to settle the matter on terms that will not require a payment by any of the defendants, inasmuch as the settlement consideration will be paid entirely by insurance proceeds. The court has preliminarily approved the settlement and has set a final approval hearing for June 10, 2004. ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For Investor Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Onyx Software Corporation reached a settlement for the shareholder derivative suit filed against its directors and some of its officers in the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty and their duty of care to the Company by allegedly failing to supervise the Company's public statements and public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that, as a result of these breaches, misinformation about the Company's financial condition was disseminated into the marketplace and filed with the SEC. The complaint asserts that these actions have exposed the Company to harmful and costly securities litigation that could potentially result in an award of damages against the Company, and seeks to recover on behalf of the Company any amounts the Company is required to pay in that litigation. The parties have executed an agreement to settle the matter on terms that will not require a payment by any of the defendants, inasmuch as the settlement consideration will be paid entirely by insurance proceeds. The settlement agreement will be presented to the court for approval. PCS HEALTH: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in ERISA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court of the District of New Jersey certified a limited class in the lawsuit filed against PCS Health Systems, Inc. Ed Mulder filed the suit, alleging that the Company acts as a fiduciary, as that term is defined in Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and has breached certain purported fiduciary duties under ERISA. The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that it does not assume any of the plan fiduciary responsibilities that would subject it to regulation under ERISA as alleged in the complaint, has denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The plaintiff purported to represent a nation-wide class consisting of all members of all ERISA plans for which PCS Health Systems, Inc. provided PBM services during the class period. The Company opposed certification of this class and in July 2003, the court entered an order certifying a more limited class comprised only of members of those ERISA plans for which PCS Health Systems, Inc. provided services under its contract with a single HMO for a limited time period. POST APARTMENT: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in GA Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Post Apartment Homes LP faces several shareholder derivative and class actions filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia. On May 5, 2003, the Company received notice that a shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed against members of the board of directors of the Company and the Company as a nominal defendant. The suit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the Company and seeks, among other relief, the disclosure of certain information by the defendants. This complaint also seeks to compel the defendants to undertake various actions to facilitate a sale of the Company. On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary expedited discovery. On May 13, 2003, the Company received notice that a shareholder derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed against certain members of the board of directors of the Company and against the Company as a nominal defendant. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate waste by the defendants. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and, as appropriate, injunctive relief. These lawsuits are expected to be settled in 2004. The estimated legal and settlement costs, not covered by insurance, associated with the expected resolution of the lawsuits were recorded in the second quarter of 2003 as a component of a proxy and related costs charge, the Company said in a regulatory filing. QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Investor Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- QuadraMed Corporation reached a settlement for the securities class actions and the shareholder derivative suit filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in California courts. In October 2002, a series of securities law class action complaints was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by certain of the Company's shareholders. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to issuing a series of allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition between May 11, 2000 and August 11, 2002. Also in October 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed on the Company's behalf in Marin County Superior Court of California against QuadraMed as a nominal defendant and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The derivative action plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to QuadraMed based on assertions similar to those in the federal securities class action litigation. Both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On May 3, 2004, the final settlement agreement related to the securities class action litigation was filed with the court. The agreement is subject to a statutory notice and opt-out period, a final hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2004. As of April 21, 2004, the final settlement agreement relating to the shareholders derivative litigation was approved by the court. REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Suit Over Downloads -------------------------------------------------------------- Washington State Court granted RealNetworks, Inc. motion to stay the consumer class action filed against it, pending arbitration. In March 2003, William Cirignani filed the suit, alleging causes of action based on the Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff alleges that consumers who attempted to download or purchase certain of the Company's products and services were fraudulently and deceptively enrolled in, and prevented from canceling, the Company's subscription services. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief in the form of an order prohibiting the alleged false and deceptive practices, treble damages and other relief. The trial court has granted the Company's motion to stay the action pending arbitration on an individual, non-class basis and the issue is on appeal. The Company disputes plaintiff's allegations in this action. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Initiates Tecan Clinical Workstation Recalls --------------------------------------------------------------- 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. SLM CORPORATION: DC Court Hears Consumer Suit Dismissal Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed against SLM Corporation was held in April 2004 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. Three Wisconsin residents filed the nationwide suit on behalf of all borrowers who allegedly paid "undisclosed improper and excessive" late fees over the past three years. The plaintiffs sought damages of one thousand five hundred dollars per violation plus punitive damages and claimed that the class consisted of 2 million borrowers. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the Company charged excessive interest by capitalizing interest quarterly in violation of the promissory note. On February 28, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs appealed the trial court decision. All appellate briefing has been completed. No decision has been issued on the appeal as of this date. SLM CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corporation and certain of its affiliates face a class action filed by a borrower in California Superior Court, San Francisco County, in connection with a monthly payment amortization error discovered by the Company in the fourth quarter of 2002. The complaint asserts claims under the California Business and Professions Code and other California statutory provisions. The complaint further seeks certain injunctive relief and restitution. STONINGTON SEA: Recalls Smoked Salmon For Listeria Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stonington Sea Products of Stonington, ME is recalling a small, seventy pound batch of Cold Smoked Salmon, packaged in retail packages of 4 oz., 8 oz., 12 oz., and bulk in Sliced and Unsliced Sides with sell by dates of 5/8/2004, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Cold Smoked Salmon was distributed to three retail stores, one each in Maine, Massachusetts and New York. It was also distributed to three restaurants and via mail order to four customers. All customers have been notified and no illnesses have been reported to date. The product is in plastic cryovac bags with the Stonington Sea Products label. This recall was a result of a sampling program carried out by the FDA on a recent inspection. Two batches of cold smoked salmon were tested. A sample from one batch tested positive for listeria and no listeria was found in a sample taken from the second batch. Stonington Sea Products performs regular testing for listeria and it has never been detected prior to this batch. The company has reviewed its plant procedures and increased its testing schedules to eliminate the reoccurrence of this problem. Consumers who have purchased Cold Smoked Salmon with sell by date of 5/8/2004 are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-402-2729. TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Disqualifies Plaintiffs in Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California disqualified two lead plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed against Terayon Communications Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding the Company's technology. On February 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000. On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants' motion to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the definition of the plaintiff class. On September 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties' summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003, the Court issued another order staying all discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date, which had been November 4, 2003. On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying two of the lead plaintiffs. The order also states that plaintiffs' counsel must provide certain information to the Court about counsel's relationship with the disqualified lead plaintiffs, and it provides that defendants may serve certain additional discovery. On March 24, 2004, plaintiffs submitted certain documents to the Court in response to its order, and, on April 16, 2004, the Company responded to this submission. The Company also has initiated discovery pursuant to the Court's February 23, 2004 order. 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 GENTA INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Geller Rudman PLLC initiated a securities class action in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Genta Inc common stock during the period between 26 Mar 2001 and 3 May 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges Genta and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Genta is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the identification, development and commercialization of novel drugs for cancer and related diseases. More specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Genta stock by concealing critical material information regarding the details of both the safety and efficacy of their lead product, Genasense, an antisense oligonucleotide molecule designed to block the production of a protein known as "Bcl-2." The company claimed that increased expression of Bcl-2 appears to function as an important cause of the inherent resistance of cancer cells to chemotherapy. The concealment by defendants, including the failings of the study as documented in the company's new drug application and in related communications with the US Food and Drug Administration, adversely impacted the prospects of approval for the drug. The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period are included in the report. For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by E-Mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web Site: http://www.geller-rudman.com/view_case.asp?cID=284 GENTA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Genta Inc between 10 Sep 2003 and 3 May 2004, inclusive, (the Class Period) against defendants Genta and certain officers of the company. The case name is Yarbro v Genta Inc et al. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's securities. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants falsely represented to the investing public that Genasense did not appear to be associated with serious adverse reactions in the Phase III clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the use of Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and discontinuations due to adverse events. Furthermore, the defendants knew that US Food and Drug Administration approval of the Genasense New Drug Application was unlikely because the increased toxicity and adverse events associated with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits. For more details, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters, or Derek Behnke) by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735, by E-Mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their Web Site: www.whafh.com/cases/genta.htm LANCER CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on May 14, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Lancer Corporation ("Lancer" or the "Company") (AMEX:LAN) between October 26, 2000 and February 4, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Lancer and George F. Schroeder, David F. Green and the Coca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO)("Defendants"). 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 during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a pattern of fraudulent conduct involving the issuance of a series of false and misleading statements. The complaint additionally alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they materially described inaccurately the nature of Lancer's revenue by saying it was derived from legitimate business transactions, when in reality, substantial revenues were derived as a result of a scheme to artificially set the sales prices of Lancer's products to its customers. The goal of the scheme, the complaint further asserts, was to manipulate the sales of fountain products. In addition, the complaint alleges that Lancer's public statements failed to fully reveal that it had major manufacturing problems, which resulted in a high defect rate in its products. Lastly, the complaint alleges that Lancer engaged in a fraudulent scheme with its largest customer, Coca-Cola Co. to artificially create demand for a new line of soda machine dispensers that Lancer was manufacturing for Coca-Cola to sell to its commercial customers. On January 14, 2004, Lancer announced that the Securities & Exchange Commission had launched a formal investigation into Lancer's reporting of its financial statements, revenue and cost recognition, and internal financial and accounting controls. On February 2, 2004, Lancer announced that the Company's longstanding auditor KPMG LLP ("KPMG"), had resigned. Lancer also disclosed that KPMG indicated that the reason for its resignation was that Lancer had not taken timely and appropriate remedial actions with respect to "likely illegal acts." KPMG's comments were in stark contrast to Lancer's statements on January 30, 2004, that its audit committee did not find sufficient evidence of "intentional misconduct" or "accounting irregularities." Trading of Lancer shares has been halted since February 2, 2004. When and if trading resumes, it is virtually certain that Lancer common stock will trade far below the $7.50 trading price at which it was halted. For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone: 800-321-0476 by E-Mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com or visit their Web Site: http://www.glrs.com/get/?case=Lancer LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Liquidmetal Technologies Inc from 22 May 2002 through 30 Mar 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges that Liquidmetal Technologies, 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 22 May 2002 through 30 Mar 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: that Liquidmetal Technologies failed to make its product commercially feasible due to its high manufacturing cost; that the company, 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; that Liquidmetal Technologies' improving financial results were only made possible though improper revenue recognition practices in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). On 20 Feb 2004, the company disclosed that it would have to restate revenues for 3Q and 4Q 2002 and the 1Q 2003 due to improper revenue recognition. On 30 Mar 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 29 Apr 2004, Liquidmetal Technologies 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 Dec 2003, Liquidmetal Technologies faces delisting from NASDAQ. In response to the news, the price of Liquidmetal Technologies stock declined during the class period to close at slightly over $3/share on 30 Mar 2004, a drop of over 80% from the stock's Class Period high. For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. & Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-Mail at info@sbclasslaw.com NORTEL NETWORKS: OPTrust Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- The OPSEU Pension Trust (OPTrust) filed a securities class action against Nortel Networks Corporation, Frank A. Dunn, Douglas C. Beatty and Michael J. Gollogly in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint claims damages during a class period from April 24, 2003 to April 27, 2004 (inclusive) due to the defendants' alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of U.S. securities laws and because of Nortel's announcement that it would restate previously reported financial results. OPTrust has also prepared an application to be named lead plaintiff in this lawsuit. The class action complaint alleges that, during this period, Nortel and individual defendants acted knowingly or recklessly in issuing false and misleading statements to the investing public concerning Nortel's financial position and performance and that Nortel's stock price was artificially inflated due to that conduct. OPTrust alleges that members of the class, including OPTrust, have sustained damages. In particular, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants: (1) issued false and misleading statements during the class period (2) caused artificially inflated or distorted market prices of Nortel stock (3) were incented by Nortel's bonus compensation program to report favourable results and that management reaped over $30 million in bonuses. The complaint seeks to recover damages suffered by investors who purchased Nortel shares during the class period. OPTrust is also concerned about the governance procedures at Nortel. Because the members of the class are so numerous, OPTrust takes the position that a class action lawsuit is an appropriate way to proceed. OPTrust is currently the lead plaintiff in an earlier class action lawsuit brought against Nortel. This suit alleges that serious disclosure and accounting irregularities occurred at Nortel between October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001. This earlier class action has been certified by the courts in New York following Nortel's unsuccessful attempts to have it dismissed. In early April 2004, notice was given to potential class members in Canadian and U.S. newspapers, and through a mailing to known holders of stock. OPTrust is pursuing its claims as part of its fiduciary responsibility to the members and pensioners of the OPSEU Pension Plan and to recover for losses in its investments. While actively pursuing its recovery of damages, the losses do not affect OPTrust's capacity to meet its pension obligations and pay pensions. OPTrust's legal action is consistent with its role as a major institutional investor with a long-standing interest in the proper functioning of capital markets. OPTrust supports efforts to ensure full, timely and accurate financial disclosure and a high standard of corporate conduct, in the interests of all investors. For more details, contact Myles Magner or Sonia Baistrocchi of OPTrust Communications, Toronto by Phone: (416) 681-6161 or 1-800-906-7738 or visit their Web Site: www.optrust.com NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott + Scott, LLC filed a securities class action against Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE: NT; TSX: NT). The case has been brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Nortel had shocked the market by announcing that it had fired its CEO and two other top executives and stated that it would restate 2003 earnings- cutting the year's profit in half and it would delay reporting its first quarter results. CEO Frank Dunn, CFO Douglas Beatty and controller Michael Gollogly were all fired. On March 29, 2004, the Company announced that due to the delay in the filing of its 2003 financial statements, it would postpone its Annual Shareholder' Meeting, scheduled for April 29, 2004, until after the filing of financial statements. On April 5, 2004, Nortel announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had issued a formal order of investigation into the company's previous restatement of financial results for certain periods. Further, with more restatements likely to arise at Nortel per their announcement in March 2004, Scott + Scott welcomes any securities holder in Nortel to contact the firm for additional information. It is alleged in complaints during the period from April 24, 2003 and April 27, 2004 (the Scott + Scott complaint states a class period from December 23, 2003 to April 27, 2004), Nortel and certain of its officers and directors violated the securities laws of the United States (the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Nortel supplies products and services that support the Internet and other public and private data, voice and multimedia communications networks using wire line and wireless technologies. The complaint alleges that defendants caused Nortel's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. Defendants had formulated a plan to have the Company's credit rating on its $4.1 billion debt raised from "B3" to "investment grade". Defendants were advised by Moody's that if the Company could improve its financial position, the Company's rating would be raised. Not only would this rating change have a positive impact on the Company's stock price but would further inflate the Company's net income beyond the already inflated price due to falsified accounting. By raising the Company rating, the Company could refinance its debt at a preferable rate, and increase the Company's margins. Defendants had hoped that the Company's positive fourth quarter 2003 report would put pressure on Moody's to raise its rating. It is further alleged that by posting the false, positive fourth quarter results, defendants and the Company's top executives were rewarded with $30 million in bonuses. Then, as defendants' scheme began to unfold, Nortel put its chief financial officer and controller on leave of absence pending completion of an investigation into the circumstances leading to the restatement. On March 15, 2004, Nortel delayed filing its annual report and admitted it may have to restate results for a second time in six months while the timing of certain accruals and provisions in 2003 and earlier periods are re-examined. In response to this delay in filing, the price of the Company's shares fell. Defendants knew that as a result of their actions, Nortel's lenders could demand early repayment of $3.6 billion of notes and convertible bonds. The Company's shares reached over $8 per share during this period and have declined to $5.19 previously. Then on April 28, 2004, the Company fired its CEO, CFO and Controller and disclosed that its previously announced restatement would be worse than earlier planned. In addition, the Company disclosed that its financial results for Q1 2004 would be indefinitely delayed. On this news, Nortel shares plunged to below $4.00 per share. The amended complaint also demands the executives return their ill-gotten bonuses for 2003. For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EST) or 800/332-2259 or 619/233-4565 (PST) or by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com SPSS INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. has announced the commencement of a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who acquired SPSS, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPSS) securities between May 2, 2001 and March 30, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period). Though still pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the suit has not yet certified a class. The class action alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of Company securities. The statements, the action claims was a blatant violation of federal securities laws. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com VASO ACTIVE: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class action against Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (" (Pink Sheets:VAPH), claiming the company and two of its top officers misled the investing public about one of its products in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Vaso Active common stock from December 11, 2003, through and including March 31, 2004. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5. The complaint names as defendants: Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; John J. Masiz, who was at all relevant times the Company's chairman, president and chief executive officer; and Joseph Frattaroli, who was at all relevant times the Company's chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that Vaso Active issued materially false and misleading information to the investing public during the Class Period that artificially inflated the Company's stock price. Specifically, the lawsuit says that Vaso Active misrepresented that clinical trials conducted by "independent physicians" and reviewed by the New England Medical Center confirmed that its foot cream product, Termin8, which was formerly known as deFEET, acted as a "remarkably effective cure" for athlete's foot. According to the complaint, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) The New England Medical Center analyzed the study associated with the clinical trial of Termin8 but did not conduct a trial, and therefore was unable to draw conclusions about the product's effectiveness; (2) The clinical trial lacked adequate control mechanisms, failing to comply with standards established to perform scientific research, and thus could not be used to conclude Termin8's effectiveness or approvability; (3) The clinical trial was not independent but was conducted by a podiatrist hand-picked by BioChemics, Inc., Vaso Active's parent company; and that (4) An endorsement of deFEET by the American Association of Medical Foot Specialists was of little, if any, value. (The association is not widely recognized and, in exchange for the endorsement, Vaso Active was asked to donate towards the association's scholarship program.) On March 31, 2004, the SEC halted trading in the Company's stock. In its announcement, the SEC questioned the accuracy of Vaso Active's assertions to the investing public about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of certain key products. At the time the trading was halted, Vaso Active common shares were priced at $7.59. When the SEC permitted the stock to resume trading on April 16, 2004, the price dropped to $1.99 on the over-the-counter bulletin board exchange. For more details, contact Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (N. Nancy Ghabai, Esq. or Michael T. Matraia, Esq.) by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-Mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit their Web Site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/VasoActive-Cplt.pdf VASO ACTIVE: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Other OTC: VAPH.PK) between December 11, 2003 and March 31, 2004, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the investing community during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Vaso Active common stock. As alleged in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the market concerning the Company's Termin8 foot cream product, which failed to disclosed and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others that: (1) the New England Medical Center only analyzed the Termin8 study, did not conduct a trial, and was unable to draw any conclusions as to Termin8's effectiveness; (2) the "clinical trial" lacked adequate control mechanisms, failing to comply with standards established to perform scientific research and could not be used to conclude Termin8's effectiveness or approvability; (3) the "clinical trial" was not independent but conducted by a podiatrist, hand-picked by Vaso Active's parent company; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants statements concerning the efficacy of the Company's products, as well as the Company's current and future financial prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis during the Class Period. On April 1, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") suspended trading of Vaso Active stock due to questions concerning the accuracy of assertions made in Vaso Active press releases, its annual report, its registration statement and in public statements to investors. On April 16, 2004, the SEC allowed Vaso Active to resume trading. The stock resumed trading on the OTC Bulletin Board exchange at $1.99. For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. and Jayne Nykolyn by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 by E-Mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.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. ********* 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 * * *