/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040526.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 26, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 103 Headlines AGCO CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suits in IL, GA BLUE BIRD: Recalls Motor Homes, Transit Buses For Crash Hazard CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA ERISA Suit CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Energy Suit Dismissal CALPINE CORPORATION: Hawaii Pension Fund Suit Moved To CA Court CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit COACHMEN RV: Recalls 122 Mini-Motor Homes Because of Fire Hazard CONSECO INC.: Individual Defendants Seek IN Stock Suit Dismissal CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of CO Suit Certification CONSECO INC.: Subsidiaries Face Several Breach of Contract Suits CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Fraud Suit in TX CV THERAPEUTICS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Okays Interlocutory Appeal DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Reversal of CA Suit Certification EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Medium-Duty Trucks Due To Accident Risk HERTZ CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in TX Court INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2,021 Trucks Due To Accident Hazard MAIN STREET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Courts PHILADELPHIA LIFE: FL Court Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment PNC FINANCIAL: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit PUBLIC STORAGE: Appeals Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit REHABCARE GROUP: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Statewide Certification ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Appeals Certification of OH Consumer Lawsuit SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Appeals Court Refuses Motion To Intervene SEITEL INC.: Bankruptcy Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement STILLWATER MINING: Asks MT Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Files Sawtek Suit Interlocutory Appeal VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 172,866 Audi Cars For Fire Risk Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ASCONI CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. FL BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY KRISPY KREME: Zimmerman Levi Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC LANCER CORPORATION: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX MASTEC INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL SPSS INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Geller Rudman Files CA Stock Suit ********* AGCO CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suits in IL, GA ---------------------------------------------------------------- AGCO Corporation faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, relating to the Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry into its accounting practices. The suits were filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between February 6, 2003 and February 4, 2004, inclusive. The suits are: (1) Sekuk Global Enterprises v. Agco Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 04-CV-961; (2) City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System (Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0535), (3) Ann Vogel (Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0617), and (4) Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund (Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0666) Two additional similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by George Villanueva (Civil Action No. 04-C-2196) and Freedman (Civil Action No. 04-C-2479). Two of the complaints "Vogel and City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System" have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. In general, the complaints allege that the Company, and its chief executive officer and chief financial officer violated securities laws and regulations by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial results during the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of its securities and request monetary damages and attorneys' fees. A seventh complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Sachin Joshi (Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0669). This complaint is a derivative action and names our directors as defendants as well. In general, this complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by permitting or participating in the activities alleged in the other complaints. BLUE BIRD: Recalls Motor Homes, Transit Buses For Crash Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Bird Body Company is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 98 motor home and transit bus models: (1) Blue Bird Wanderlodge, model 2003-2004 (2) Blue Bird Express 3500, model 2003-2004 (3) Blue Bird Express 4000, model 2003-2004 On certain motor homes and transit buses, the clamp bolts and drag link were incorrectly tightened. The clamps could loosen, causing misalignment of the steering axles, which could result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of an accident. Dealers will replace the clamp bolts and tighten to the required torque. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on April 7, 2004. Owners may contact Blue Bird at 1-478-822-2242. CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action against Calpine Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, styled "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et al." On April 17, 2003, a participant in the Calpine Corporation Retirement Savings Plan filed a class action on behalf of a purported class of participants in the 401(k) Plan. The Phelps action alleges that various filings and statements made by Calpine during the class period were materially false and misleading, and that defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations as fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan by allowing the 401(k) Plan to invest in Calpine common stock. The Phelps action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief. In May 2003 Lennette Poor-Herena, another participant in the 401(k) Plan, filed a substantially similar class action as the Phelps action also in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs' counsel is the same in both of these actions, and they have agreed to consolidate these two cases and to coordinate them with the consolidated federal securities class actions in the same court. Plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) complaint naming the Company and numerous individual current and former Calpine Board members and employees as defendants. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement with plaintiff, Calpine's response to the amended complaint is due June 18, 2004. CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Energy Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed California State Court's dismissal of the class action filed against Calpine Energy Services, L.P. and other energy traders and energy companies. The litigation is styled "California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 Cases," of which the lead case is "T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., et al." This purported class action alleges that defendants exercised market power and manipulated prices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees. The Company also have been named in seven other similar complaints for violations of Section 17200. All seven cases were removed from the various state courts in which they were originally filed to federal court for pretrial proceedings with other cases in which the Company is not named as a defendant. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2003. The court granted the motion, and plaintiffs have appealed. CALPINE CORPORATION: Hawaii Pension Fund Suit Moved To CA Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities class action filed against Calpine Corporation, its directors and certain investment banks, styled "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine, et al.," has been moved to the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County. The suit was initially filed in the state superior court of San Diego County, California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Calpine's equity securities sold to public investors in its April 2002 equity offering. The Hawaii action alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by the Company which became effective on April 24, 2002, contained false and misleading statements regarding Calpine's financial condition in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action relies in part on Calpine's restatement of certain past financial results, announced on March 3, 2003, to support its allegations. The Hawaii action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief. The Company removed the Hawaii action to federal court in April 2003 and filed a motion to transfer the case for consolidation with the other securities class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2003. Plaintiff sought to have the action remanded to state court, and on August 27, 2003, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court. In early October 2003 plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims it has against three of the outside directors. On November 5, 2003, Calpine, the individual defendants and the underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss this complaint on numerous grounds. On February 6, 2004, the court issued a tentative ruling sustaining the Company's motion to dismiss on the issue of plaintiff's standing. The court found that plaintiff had not shown that it had purchased Calpine stock "traceable" to the April 2002 equity offering. The court overruled the Company's motion to dismiss on all other grounds. On March 12, 2004, after oral argument on the issues, the court confirmed its February 2, 2004, ruling. On February 20, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and in late March 2004, the Company and the individual defendants filed answers to this complaint. On April 9, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants filed motions to transfer the lawsuit to Santa Clara County Superior Court, which motions were granted on May 7, 2004. CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Calpine Corporation and certain of its officers. Since March 11, 2002, fourteen shareholder lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its officers. "Weisz v. Calpine Corp., et al.," filed March 11, 2002, and "Labyrinth Technologies, Inc. v. Calpine Corp., et al.," filed March 28, 2002, are purported class actions on behalf of purchasers of Calpine stock between March 15, 2001 and December 13, 2001. "Gustaferro v. Calpine Corp.," filed April 18, 2002, is a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of Calpine stock between February 6, 2001 and December 13, 2001. The eleven other actions were filed between March 18, 2002 and April 23, 2002. The complaints in these eleven actions are virtually identical - they are filed by three law firms, in conjunction with other law firms as co-counsel. All eleven lawsuits are purported class actions on behalf of purchasers of Calpine's securities between January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001. The suits are captioned: (1) Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Calpine Corp., (2) Lukowski v. Calpine Corp., (3) Hart v. Calpine Corp., (4) Atchison v. Calpine Corp., (5) Laborers Local 1298 v. Calpine Corp., (6) Bell v. Calpine Corp., (7) Nowicki v. Calpine Corp., (8) Pallotta v. Calpine Corp., (9) Knepell v. Calpine Corp., (10) Staub v. Calpine Corp., and (11) Rose v. Calpine Corp. The complaints in these fourteen actions allege that, during the purported class periods, certain Calpine executives issued false and misleading statements about Calpine's financial condition in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5. These actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief. In addition, a fifteenth securities class action, Ser v. Calpine, et al., was filed on May 13, 2002. The underlying allegations in the Ser action are substantially the same as those in the above-referenced actions. However, the Ser action is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Calpine's 8.5% Senior Notes Due February 15, 2011 and the alleged class period is October 15, 2001 through December 13, 2001. The Ser complaint alleges that, in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, the Supplemental Prospectus for the 2011 Notes contained false and misleading statements regarding Calpine's financial condition. This action names Calpine, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the 2011 Notes offering as defendants, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief. All fifteen of these securities class action lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in October 2002. The amended complaint did not include the 1933 Act complaints raised in the bondholders' complaint, and the number of defendants named was reduced. On January 16, 2003, before the Company's response was due to this amended complaint, plaintiffs filed a further second complaint. This second amended complaint added three additional Calpine executives and Arthur Andersen LLP as defendants. The second amended complaint set forth additional alleged violations of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to allegedly false and misleading statements made regarding Calpine's role in the California energy crisis, the long term power contracts with the California Department of Water Resources, and Calpine's dealings with Enron, and additional claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to statements regarding the causes of the California energy crisis. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this consolidated action in early April 2003. On August 29, 2003, the judge issued an order dismissing, with leave to amend, all of the allegations set forth in the second amended complaint except for a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act relating to statements relating to the causes of the California energy crisis and the related increase in wholesale prices contained in the Supplemental Prospectuses for the 2011 Notes. The judge instructed plaintiff, Julies Ser, to file a third amended complaint, which he did on October 17, 2003. The third amended complaint names Calpine and three executives as defendants and alleges the Section 11 claim that survived the judge's August 29, 2003 order. On November 21, 2003, Calpine and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiff's Section 11 claim was barred by the applicable one- year statute of limitations. On February 4, 2004, the judge denied the Company's motion to dismiss but has asked the parties to be prepared to file summary judgment motions to address the statute of limitations issue. The Company filed its answer to the third amended complaint on February 28, 2004. In a separate order dated February 4, 2004, the court denied without prejudice Julies Ser's motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. Mr. Ser subsequently stated he no longer desired to serve as lead plaintiff. On April 4, 2004, the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit (P&F) moved to be appointed lead plaintiff. The Company filed a response in opposition to this motion. The court has scheduled a hearing on this matter for May 11, 2004. COACHMEN RV: Recalls 122 Mini-Motor Homes Because of Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coachmen RV Company, LLC is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 122 Coachmen Freelander mini-motor homes, model 2004 to 2005, manufactured from October 2003 to February 2004. On certain Class C mini-motor homes, the wiring harness routed between the back of the refrigerator and the refrigerator cabinet could come in direct contact with the refrigerator burner tube and cooling unit. If contact occurs, the wire insulation material may melt, which could lead to a fire. Dealers will relocate the wiring harness. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification was expected to begin during April 2004. Owners may contact Coachmen at 1-800-453-6064. CONSECO INC.: Individual Defendants Seek IN Stock Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Individual defendants in the consolidated class action filed against Conseco, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to dismiss the suit. Since the Company announced its intention to restructure its capital on August 9, 2002, a total of eight purported securities fraud class actions have been filed on behalf of persons or entities who purchased the Company's Predecessor's common stock on various dates between October 24, 2001 and August 9, 2002. In each case the plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and allege material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of Conseco and alleged problems in CFC's manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial inflation of the Company's Predecessor's stock price. On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned "Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB." The lawsuits were stayed as to all defendants by order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The stay was lifted on October 15, 2003. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action with respect to the individual defendants. The company's liability with respect to these lawsuits was discharged in the Plan and its obligation to indemnify individual defendants who were not serving as one of its officers or directors on the Effective Date of the Plan is limited to $3 million in the aggregate under the Plan. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants Shea, Wendt and Chokel on March 30, 2004. CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of CO Suit Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the District Court of Adams County, Colorado's denial of class certification for a nationwide lawsuit filed against four of Conseco, Inc.'s subsidiaries seeking unspecified damages. The suit is styled "Jose Medina and others similarly situated v. Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Conseco Life Insurance Company, Bankers National Life Insurance Company and Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Cause No. 01-CV-2465." The suit alleges among other things breach of contract regarding alleged non-disclosure of additional charges for those policy holders paying via premium modes other than annual. On July 14 and 15, 2003 the plaintiff's motion for class certification was heard and the court took the matter under advisement. On November 10, 2003, the court denied the motion for class certification. On January 26, 2004, the plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling denying class certification. All further proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. CONSECO INC.: Subsidiaries Face Several Breach of Contract Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Conseco Life Insurance Company and Bankers Life and Casualty Company, have been named in multiple purported class actions and individual lawsuits alleging, among other things, breach of contract with regard to a change made in the way monthly deductions are calculated for insurance coverage. This change was the adjustment of a non-guaranteed element, which was not in the applicable policy form. The specific lawsuits include: (1) David Barton v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 04-20048-CIV-MORENO (Southern District, Florida); (2) Stephen Hook, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company and Bankers Life and Casualty Company and Does 1 through 10, Case No. CGC-04-428872 (Superior Court, San Francisco County, California); (3) Donald King, as Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust of Arnold L. King v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1: 04CV0163 (Northern District, Ohio); (4) Michael S. Kuhn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 03-416786 (Superior Court, San Francisco County, California); (5) Sidney H. Levine and Judith A. Levine v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Mark F. Peters Insurance Services, Inc. Hon. John Garamendi (in his capacity as Insurance Commissioner for the State of California) and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 04 CV 125 LAB (BLM) (Southern District, California); (6) Edwin Jacob "Jake" Garn et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 29D02-0312-PL-1034 (Superior Court, Hamilton County, Indiana); (4) Edward M. Medvene, an Individual, and Sherwin Samuels and Miles Rubin, as Trustees of the Edward Medvene 2984 Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV04-846-AHM (MCX) (Central District, California); (5) Edwin Jacob "Jake" Garn, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:04-CV-0514SEB-VSS (Southern District, Indiana); (6) Steven Rose, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, and on Behalf of the General Public for the State of California vs. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. GIC 827178 (Superior Court, San Diego County, California); (7) Murray Gomer, Murray Gomer Irrevocable Trust, individually, and on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV04-1409-SJO (RNDX) (Central District, California); (8) James S. Farley and Judy B. Farley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public vs. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. C-041563 ED (Northern District, California); (9) H. Lee Druckman, Druckman, Trust, individually and on behalf of class of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of general public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV04-3031-DT-VBKX (Central District of California); and (10) Myron L. Glucksman and Dr. Ronald Einhorn as trustee of the Jonathan Alexander Irrevocable Trust, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 04C-3039 (Northern District of Illinois) In those cases pending in Federal court, motions to stay and to consolidate have been or will be filed pursuant to Federal multidistrict litigation rules. CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Fraud Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended statewide class action against Conseco Life Insurance Company, in the County Court of Cameron County, Texas, styled "Lawrence Onderdonk and Yolanda Carrizales v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, and Pete Ramirez, III Cause No. 2003-CCL-102-C. The suit also names Conseco Services, LLC as additional defendant. The purported class consists of all former Massachusetts General Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy policyholders who were converted to Conseco Life Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policies and whose accumulated values in the Massachusetts General policies were applied to first year premiums on the Conseco Life policies. The complaint alleges, among other things, civil conspiracy to convert the accumulated cash values of the plaintiffs and the class, and the violation of insurance laws nationwide. CV THERAPEUTICS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- CV Therapeutics, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its officers and directors. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities, and seeks unspecified damages. In November 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities class actions filed to date into a single action captioned "In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation." In January 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004. The Company expects a hearing on these motions to occur in June or July 2004. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Okays Interlocutory Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals allowed plaintiffs in the antitrust class action against Dentsply International, Inc. to file an interlocutory appeal of a lower court ruling granting the Company's motion on plaintiffs' lack of standing to pursue damage claims. In June 1995, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice initiated an antitrust investigation regarding the policies and conduct undertaken by the Company's Trubyte Division with respect to the distribution of artificial teeth and related products. On January 5, 1999 the Department filed a Complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware alleging that the Company's tooth distribution practices violate the antitrust laws and seeking an order for the Company to discontinue its practices. Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Court has granted the Company's Motion on the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage claims. The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed a petition with the Third Circuit to hear an interlocutory appeal of this decision, which petition was granted on March 26, 2004. Also, private party class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers were filed in California and Florida state courts. The California and Florida cases have been dismissed by the Plaintiffs following the decision by the Federal District Court Judge issued in August 2003. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Reversal of CA Suit Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply International, Inc. filed a writ of mandate seeking the reversal of the California State Court for Los Angeles County's ruling granting class certification to the lawsuit filed against it, relating to its manufacture and sale of Advancer cement. Bruce Glover, D.D.S. filed the suit alleging, inter alia, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentation in the Company's manufacture and sale of Advance(R) cement. The Complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for costs incurred in repairing dental work in which the Advance(R) product allegedly failed. In September 2003, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for class certification, which the Company opposed. Oral arguments were held in December 2003, and in January 2004, the Judge entered an Order granting class certification only on the claims of breach of warranty and fraud. In general, the Class is defined as California dentists who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and were required, because of failures of the cement, to repair or reperform dental procedures. The Company has filed a Writ of Mandate in the appellate court seeking reversal of the class certification and briefing is underway. The Advance(R) cement product was sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in the United States during that period were approximately $5.2 million. EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Einstein And Noah Corporation reached a settlement for the class action filed against it in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco. The court has yet to approve the settlement On July 31, 2002, Tristan Goldstein, a former store manager, and Valerie Bankhordar, a current store manager, filed the suit, alleging that the Company failed to pay overtime wages to managers and assistant managers of its California stores who were improperly designated as exempt employees in violation of California wage and hour laws and Business Profession Code Section 17200. GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Medium-Duty Trucks Due To Accident Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 2,037 medium- duty trucks, model: (1) Chevrolet Kodiak, model 2004 (2) GMC Topkick, model 2004 These trucks were manufactured from January to February 2004. On certain medium-duty trucks, the switch retainer holding the brake booster push rod and the brake pedal together could be missing. This could cause the push rod and pedal to separate, resulting in a loss of brakes and increasing the risk of a crash. Dealers will inspect and install a new retainer if missing. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March 5, 2004. Owners may contact GMICT (General Motors Isuzu Commercial Truck LLC) at 1-800-862-4389. HERTZ CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in TX Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz Corporation faces a class action filed in the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, styled "Jose M. Gomez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation." The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who were charged a Fuel and Service Charge (FSC) by the Company or all Texas residents who were charged a FSC by the Company. The complaint alleges that the FSC is an unlawful penalty and, therefore, void and unenforceable. INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Insight Enterprises, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The plaintiffs in this action allege the Company and certain of its officers made false and misleading statements pertaining to the Company's business, operations and management in an effort to inflate the price of the Company's common stock. The lawsuit also names as co- defendants: (1) Eric J. Crown, the Chairman of Board of Directors; (2) Timothy A. Crown, Chief Executive Officer and President and a director; and (3) Stanley Laybourne, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and a director. The plaintiffs seek class action status to represent all buyers of the Company's common stock from September 3, 2001 through July 17, 2002. On September 27, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, but allowed plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, which they did on October 31, 2003. On January 9, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on May 3, 2004. INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2,021 Trucks Due To Accident Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- International Truck & Engine Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 2,021 trucks, namely: (1) International 7300 truck, model 2001-2004, (2) International 7400 truck, model 2001-2004, (4) International 7500 truck, model 2001-2004 These trucks were manufactured from September 2001 to March 2004. On certain trucks equipped with DT466 or DT530 1308 style engines and either 4x4 or 6x6 capability, the universal joint between the front drive shaft and drive axle could come in contact with the engine oil filter. This could cause complete engine oil loss that could result in the engine shutting down, increasing the risk of a crash. Dealers will install a shorter oil filter and adapter. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification was expected to begin on April 29, 2004. Owners may contact International at 1-800-448-7825. MAIN STREET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Courts -------------------------------------------------------------- Main Street & Main, Inc. faces two lawsuits filed on behalf of current employees, seeking damages, under California law, for both missed breaks and missed meal breaks the employees allege they did not receive. These lawsuits seek to establish a class action relating to the Company's California operations. The Company denies these lawsuits' allegations on the merits of the employees' case and the issues relating to class action status, it stated in a regulatory filing. The Company added that it cannot predict the outcome of these matters and, therefore, its financial statements do not reflect any adjustments for the impact of an unfavorable outcome. PHILADELPHIA LIFE: FL Court Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Philadelphia Life Insurance Company's (now known as Conseco Life Insurance Company) motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claims in the consolidated nationwide class action filed against it, styled "In Re PLI Sales Litigation, Cause No. 01-MDL-1404." The suit alleges, among other things, fraudulent sales and a "vanishing premium" scheme. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment against both named plaintiffs, which motion was granted in June 2002. Plaintiffs appealed to the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit, in July 2003, affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing two fraud counts with respect to one plaintiff to survive. The plaintiffs' request for a rehearing with respect to this decision has been denied. In March 2004, the remaining plaintiff filed a motion to substitute plaintiff, to which the Company has objected. The Company expects the court to set a trial date during the June 2005 trial term. PNC FINANCIAL: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, its chairman and chief executive officer, the former chief financial officer, the controller, and its independent auditors for 2001. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 19, 2001 and July 18, 2002. The suit seeks unquantified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other expenses and alleges violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures regarding the PAGIC transactions and related matters. PUBLIC STORAGE: Appeals Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the lawsuit filed against Public Storage, Inc., styled "Salaam et al v. Public Storage, Inc." The suit was filed in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. The plaintiffs in this case are suing the Company on behalf of a putative class of California resident property managers who claim that they were not compensated for all the hours they worked. The named plaintiffs have indicated that their claims total less than $20,000 in aggregate. On December 1, 2003, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the Supreme Court's 2002 denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification. The maximum potential liability cannot be estimated, but can only be increased if claims are permitted on behalf of others under the California Unfair Business Practices Act. The affirmation of denial of class certification does not address the claim under the California Unfair Business Practices Act. PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court for Orange County limited the class in a lawsuit filed against Public Storage, Inc., styled Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc., to California residents only. The plaintiff in this case filed a suit against the Company on behalf of a putative class of renters who rented self-storage units from the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the Company misrepresented the size of its storage units, has brought claims under California statutory and common law relating to consumer protection, fraud, unfair competition, and negligent misrepresentation, and is seeking monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory and injunctive relief. On November 3, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit any putative class to California residents only. REHABCARE GROUP: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- RehabCare Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss the securities class action filed against it and certain of its former and current directors and officers. The plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of persons that purchased shares of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2000 and January 21, 2002. The case alleges weaknesses in the software systems selected by the Company's recently sold StarMed Staffing Group, and the purported negative effects of such systems on the Company's business operations. The Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November 2003, pursuant to the District Court Judge's ruling that the Plaintiff must present its claims with more focus and "sufficient particularity" before he could entertain a motion to dismiss. ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Statewide Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois has yet to rule on class certification for the remaining 31 states in the lawsuit filed against Roto-Rooter, Inc., alleging certain Roto-Rooter plumbing was performed by unlicensed employees. Plaintiff moved for a certification of a class of customers in 32 states who allegedly paid for plumbing work performed by unlicensed employees. Plaintiff also moved for a partial summary judgment on grounds the licensed apprentice plumber who installed his faucet did not work under the direct personal supervision of a licensed plumber. On June 19, 2002, the trial judge certified an Illinois-only plaintiffs class and granted summary judgment for the named party Plaintiff on the issue of liability, finding violation of the Illinois Plumbing License Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, through Roto-Rooter's representation of the licensed apprentice as a plumber. ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Appeals Certification of OH Consumer Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Roto-Rooter, Inc. is appealing the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio's ruling granting class certification to a lawsuit filed against it by Michael Linn, an attorney. The suit alleges that Roto-Rooter Services Company's miscellaneous parts charge, ranging from $4.95 to $12.95 per job, violates the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The Company contends that this charge, which is included within the estimate approved by its customers, is a fully disclosed component of its pricing. On February 25, 2003, the trial court certified a class of customers who paid the charge from October 1999 to July 2002. SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Appeals Court Refuses Motion To Intervene ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' counsel's motion to intervene in the consolidated securities class action filed against Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. and Warren V. Musser, the Company's former chairman. On June 26, 2001, the Company and Mr. Musser were named as defendants in a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that they failed to disclose that Mr. Musser had pledged some or all of his Safeguard stock as collateral to secure margin trading in his personal brokerage accounts. Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to disclose the pledge, along with their failure to disclose several margin calls, a loan to Mr. Musser, the guarantee of certain margin debt and the consequences thereof on Safeguard's stock price, violated the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 17, 2001, a second putative class action was filed against the Company and Mr. Musser asserting claims similar to those brought in the first proceeding. In addition, plaintiffs in the second case allege that the defendants failed to disclose possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the securities of Safeguard's companies, the impact of competition on prospects for one or more of Safeguard's companies and the Company's lack of a superior business plan. These two cases were consolidated for further proceedings under the name "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation" and the Court approved the designation of a lead plaintiff and the retention of lead plaintiffs' counsel. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated and amended complaint. On May 23, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint for failure to state claim upon which relief may be granted. On October 24, 2002, the Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss -- holding that, based on the allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and amended Complaint--dismissal would be inappropriate at that juncture. On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion for a class certification. On August 27, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On September 12, 2003, plaintiffs filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the order denying class certification. The Company filed its opposition to that petition on September 23, 2003. On November 5, 2003, the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition and declined to hear the appeal. On November 18, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel moved to intervene in the consolidated action new plaintiffs and proposed class representative, which motion was denied by the Court on February 18, 2004. SEITEL INC.: Bankruptcy Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement of the class action filed against Seitel, Inc. and certain of its former and current officers and directors alleging violations of the federal securities laws, under Cause No. 02-1566, styled "In re Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation," in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for plaintiffs, who subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint, which added the Company's auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that during a proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April 1, 2002, the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' and experts' fees. During the Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors and the representatives of the class negotiated and participated in discovery with respect to the class claim filed with the Bankruptcy Court and in connection with the class' objection to confirmation of the initial plan. In the course thereof, the class representatives and the Debtors reached certain agreements. These agreements included the allowance of a "class claim" to assert the rights of the class in the Chapter 11 cases and, as well, an ultimate settlement for cash to be funded out of the Debtors' cash and directors' and officers' insurance policies. The settlement was approved upon notice and a hearing by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 10, 2003. Thus, the claims of the plaintiffs in the class action against the Debtors as well as their officers and directors, and the class claim, have been settled. The treatment of the class claim pursuant to the Plan is consistent with the settlement approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Certain monetary obligations remain, including continuing disclosures and additional documentation. STILLWATER MINING: Asks MT Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Stillwater Mining Co. asked the United States District Court for the District of Montana to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its senior officers. The suit was filed on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the company from April 20, 2001 through and including April 1, 2002. They assert claims against the company and certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures made by the company regarding its financial performance and, in particular, its accounting for probable ore reserves. On January 30, 2004, the court held a status conference at which the plaintiffs were given until March 30, 2004 to file an amended complaint, which was subsequently filed by plaintiff's counsel. The court also set the following briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss: (1) defendants' motion to dismiss must be filed on or before May 14, 2004, (2) plaintiffs' opposition must be filed on or before June 14, 2004 and (3) defendants' reply must be filed on or before June 28, 2004 The Court set a hearing date on the motion to dismiss for July 22, 2004. TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and Richard Selden, the Company's former chief executive officer. In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class actions, generally alleging securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that the Company and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States marketing approval of the Company's Replagal product to treat Fabry disease during that period. In March 2003, various plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, to appoint lead plaintiff, and to approve plaintiff's selections of lead plaintiffs' counsel. In April 2003, various plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order of Lead Plaintiff Applicants to Consolidate Actions, To Appoint Lead Plaintiffs and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs' Selection of Lead Counsel, Executive Committee and Liaison Counsel. In April 2003, the Court endorsed the Proposed Order, thereby consolidating the various matters under one matter: In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No.03-10165-RWZ. In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint, which the Company refers to as the Amended Complaint, against the Company, Dr.Selden and: (1) Daniel Geffken, former Chief Financial Officer; (2) Walter Gilbert, (3) Jonathan S. Leff, (4) Rodman W. Moorhead, III, (5) Wayne P. Yetter, (6) William R. Miller, (7) James E. Thomas, (8) SG Cowen Securities Corporation, (9) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., (10) Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and (11) Leerink Swann & Company The Amended Complaint alleges securities fraud during the period from January 4, 2001 through January 10, 2003. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States marketing approval of Replagal during that period. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against each of the defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and against Dr. Selden under Section 15 of the Securities Act; against SG Cowen Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank Securities, Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann Company under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act; against Dr. Selden and the Company under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and against Dr. Selden under Section20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with interest, and attorney's fees and costs. TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Files Sawtek Suit Interlocutory Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Triquint Semiconductor filed an interlocutory appeal to the United States Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court relating to the consolidated class action filed against it, its wholly owned subsidiary Sawtek, Inc. and certain of Sawtek's current and former officers. In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The cases were consolidated into one action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on July 21, 2003. The amended class action complaint is purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Sawtek's stock between January 2000 and May 24, 2001. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or omissions to inflate Sawtek's stock price and conceal the downward trend in revenues disclosed in Sawtek's May 23, 2001 press release. The complaint does not specify the amount of monetary damages sought. Sawtek and the individual defendants filed their motion to dismiss on September 3, 2003, and briefing on the motion was completed on November 19, 2003. The court heard oral argument on November 21, 2003, and issued an order partially denying the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2003. Specifically, the court found that the complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations, but reserved ruling on the other aspects of the motion to dismiss. Because the statute of limitations issue is a novel question of law, the court stayed the proceedings in this case to allow the defendants to file an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The defendants duly filed for interlocutory appeal on January 22, 2004. Because the Court of Appeals is considering the identical issue in another matter, the appeal process has been stayed, pending the Court of Appeals' decision in the other matter. VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 172,866 Audi Cars For Fire Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Volkswagen of America, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 172,866 Audi cars, namely: (1) Audi A6 cars, model 1998-2004, (2) Audi S6 cars, model 1998-2004, (3) Audi Allroad Quattro cars, model 1998-2004 These cars were manufactured from August 1997 to February 2004. On certain passenger vehicles, if a driver's knees push against the knee bolster located under the dashboard, it can contact the headlight switch wiring harness and an electrical short could occur. This could result in a fire originating in the left dashboard area. Dealers will install a protective covering on the knee bolster (crash element). In addition, the wiring harness as well as the felt protector on the left side of the dashboard carrier will be checked, and replaced if necessary. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to begin during July 2004. Owners may contact Audi at 1-800-822-2834. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 ASCONI CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of Asconi Corp. (AMEX:ACD), between May 15, 2003 and March 23, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Asconi securities. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire or Evan J. Smith, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E- Mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of BISYS Group, Inc. (NYSE:BSG), between October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004 inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of BISYS securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire or Evan J. Smith, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E- Mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com KRISPY KREME: Zimmerman Levi Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC ------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP commenced a securities class acitn on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc., (NYSE:KKD) from August 21, 2003 through May 7, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint charges that Krispy Kreme, Randy S. Casstevens, Scott Livengood, Michael Phalen, and John Tate, 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 August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, about the Company's financial condition thereby artificially inflating the price of Krispy Kreme's stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (1) as a result of the trend toward low-fat, low carbohydrate diets, such as the South Beach and Atkins diets, Krispy Kreme had been suffering from increasingly poor sales performance; (2) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the trend toward low-fat, low-carbohydrate diets was not the sole reason for the Company's worsening financial condition; (3) while the opening of each new Krispy Kreme stores created an initial surge in sales, sales at those newly-opened stores quickly dropped off and rather than improving the weakening sales at existing stores, the Company instead attempted to increase sales by continually adding new stores and hyping the Company's entry into new markets; (4) during the Class Period, the Company repurchased several franchises which may have otherwise been an indication of trouble but for the Company's materially false and misleading statements that the repurchases were all part of its "acquisition strategy"; and (5) the Company's strategy of offsetting slowing retail sales with wholesale shipments to supermarkets was failing because the Company's wholesale business was more expensive to operate and the Company's wholesale business was saturating the market with Krispy Kreme products thereby eating into the company's retail operations and decreasing the Company's overall profit margin. On May 7, 2004, Krispy Kreme announced that it expects fiscal 2005 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations, excluding certain charges, to be 10% lower than previously announced guidance. News of this caused shares of Krispy Kreme to drop $9.29 per share or 29.21 percent on May 7, 2004 closing at $22.51 per share. For more details, contact Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. of Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP by Mail: 39 Broadway, Suite 1440, New York, N.Y. 10006 by Phone: (212) 363-7500 or (800) 835-4950 by E-Mail: ek@zlklaw.com LANCER CORPORATION: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Lancer Corporation (AMEX:LAN) between October 26, 2000 and February 4, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Anatoly Weiser by Phone: (877) 736-5411 by Fax: (858) 225-0838 or by E-Mail: info@classlawsuit.com MASTEC INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of MasTec, Inc. (NYSE:MTZ) publicly traded securities during the period between May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges MasTec, Austin Shanfelter, and Donald Weinstein with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that defendants made material misstatements with respect to the Company's financial results. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and indicate the following: (1) that the Company was materially inflating its financial results; (2) that the Company was prematurely recognizing revenue on various contracts; (3) that the Company's practice of improperly recognizing revenue was in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (1) that the Company overstated its inventory; (5) that the Company failed to have adequate reserves for bad debts, inventory, cost overruns, and projected losses on certain projects; and (6) as a result, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times. The truth about the Company's inflated financial results began to emerge on March 10, 2004, when MasTec announced that the filing of its 10-K would be delayed past the March 15th deadline. On news of this shares of MasTec fell $2.00 per share or 16.75 percent on March 10, 2004 to close at $9.94 per share. On March 18, 2004, MasTec further declined $2.31 per share, or 23 percent, to close at $7.75 per share when Standard & Poor's Rating Services put the Company's BB credit rating on watch for a downgrade. Then on April 13, 2004, MasTec announced its 2003 operating results and disclosed material problems that may result in a restatement of its previously announced financial results. More specifically, the Company announced a net loss of $39.7 million ($0.83 per share) on revenue of $873.9 million for the year. Additionally, the Company disclosed that during its review and analysis of the Company's annual results, MasTec's management identified a number of matters that impacted current and prior- period operating results. These included additional reserves for bad debts and inventory, cost overruns and projected losses on certain projects, valuation reserves for state deferred tax assets, revenues recognized on various contracts, work in progress and inventory overstatements at a Canadian subsidiary, the closing of Brazilian operations, the accrual for certain insurance reserves which was complicated by the receivership of a prior insurance carrier, and other items. Defendants concluded that these matters required a detailed analysis and evaluation to determine the appropriate accounting treatment. Some of these issues may require restatements of amounts previously reported. News of this shocked the market. Shares of MasTec's stock price dropped $1.50 per share, or 15.5 percent, on April 13, 2004 on unusually large trading volumes. For more details contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations Department, 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=273 SPSS INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL --------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of SPSS Inc. (Nasdaq:SPSSE), between May 2, 2001 and March 30, 2004 inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of SPSS securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire or Evan J. Smith, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E- Mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Geller Rudman Files CA Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Superconductor Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:SCON) common stock during the period between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges that Superconductor, M. Peter Thomas and Martin S. McDermut, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004, thereby artificially inflating the price of Superconductor's common stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company could not meet its projected first quarter revenues of $10 million and $13 million due to changes in demand made by two of the Company's customers; (2) that the defendants knew of the decreased demand for its product well in advance; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and their earnings projections. On March 1, 2004, Superconductor announced that it expected first quarter 2004 total net revenues to be $4 million to $5 million. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Superconductor fell $1.86 per share, or 45.4 percent to close at $2.23 per share. For more details contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations Department, 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=283 ********* 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 * * *