/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040531.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 31, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 106 Headlines A.O. SMITH: Recalls 25 Coast Mountain Spas Due to Fire Hazard ALPHARMA INC.: Oral Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal Complete AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated ARJO INC.: Recalls Patient Lifts Due To Injury, Accident Hazard BEAR FOODS: Recalls Raw Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Moves For Arbitration in Two FMU Lawsuits CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Former Teachers Launch CA Overtime Wage Suit COSI INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Judge Recommends Approval of Suit Pact D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in E.D. MO DOVER INVESTMENTS: Enters Settlement Discussions in CA Lawsuit DOVER INVESTMENTS: Investors Sue Over Weissberg Trust Proposal FRONT PORCH: Recalls Coffee Table Game For Lead Poisoning Hazard GERMACK BRAND: Recalls Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination GOLDEN STATE: Stockholders File Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE Court HARMONIC, INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal With Prejudice LUCENT INC.: NJ Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Y2K Compliance PHARMERICA INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Suit in HI PIER I: Recalls 48,000 Tea Light Candleholders For Fire Hazard PIZZA INN: Reaches Tentative Settlement For Unsolicited Fax Suit SCHRATTER FOODS: Recalls Goat's Cheese For Undeclared Lysozyme SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suits in W.D. CA SWITCHBOARD INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in DE SWITCHBOARD INC.: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in DE THRIFT PRODUCTS: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Unfair Trade Lawsuit TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Asks For Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit TURBO POWER: Recalls 359T Hair Dryers For Electrocution Hazard New Securities Fraud Cases DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in DE IDACORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in ID LEXAR MEDIA: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files IL Stock Suit SALTON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Securities Fraud Suit SALTON INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL ********* A.O. SMITH: Recalls 25 Coast Mountain Spas Due to Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- A.O. Smith is cooperating with the Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 25 Coast Mountain Spas, manufactured by Coast Mountainr Spas, of Langley, British Columbia, Canada. The motor in the circulating pump can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers. A. O. Smith has received three reports of overheating, resulting in fires. No injuries have been reported. The recalled Coast Mountainr spas have various model names, including Cypress, Seymour, Cowichan, Washington and Robson spas. The model name is located on the top corner of the spa. The recalled units have a capacitor made by Motors Capacitor Inc., which can be identified by a label on the motor that has the words, "Tiny Might." The spas have an acrylic liner with western red cedar siding and seat up to six adults. Coast Mountain dealers sold these spas in Washington, Idaho and Alaska from January 1996 through October 2002 for between $4,000 and $8,000. The motor capacitors were made in Taiwan, the motors and pump assemblies were made in the U.S., and the spas were manufactured in Canada. Consumers should stop using the spas immediately and contact the Spa Fulfillment Center by Phone: (800) 899-6896 between 8:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday to arrange for installation of a free replacement pump capacitor. ALPHARMA INC.: Oral Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal Complete --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities class action filed against Alpharma, Inc. The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's securities between April 28, 1999 and October 30, 2000. The Company is named as a defendant along with two of its board members, one of whom is an officer, and two of its former officers. The class action complaint alleges, among other things, the plaintiffs were damaged when they acquired the Company's securities because, as a result of alleged irregularities in the Company's Animal Health business in Brazil, allegedly improper revenue recognition practices and the October 2000 revision of its financial results for 1999 and 2000, the Company's previously issued financial statements were materially false and misleading, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on legal grounds and the District Court granted its motion with prejudice as to all defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court and the District Court affirmed its earlier dismissal. The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. All permitted briefs have been filed with the Third Circuit and oral argument was completed in 2003. AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division ordered consolidated several securities class actions filed against Americredit Corporation and certain of its officers and directors. In 2003, the company's shareholders filed several complaints, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. These complaints have been consolidated into one action, styled "Pierce v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al." In Pierce, the plaintiff claims, among other allegations, that deferments were improperly granted by the Company to avoid delinquency triggers in securitization transactions and enhance cash flows and to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquency percentages, thereby causing the Company to misrepresent its financial performance throughout the alleged class period. The Company believes that its granting of deferments, which is a common practice within the auto finance industry, complied with the covenants contained in its securitization and warehouse financing documents, and that its deferment activities were properly disclosed to all constituents, including shareholders, asset-backed investors, creditors and credit enhancement providers. Additionally, a class action complaint, styled "Lewis v. AmeriCredit Corp.," was filed in fiscal 2003 against the Company and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's secondary public offering of common stock on October 1, 2002. In Lewis, also pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, the plaintiff alleges that the Company's registration statement and prospectus for the offering contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to make other statements in the registration statement not misleading. In April 2004, two rulings were issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, affecting the Pierce and Lewis lawsuits. On April 1, 2004, the Court, in response to motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the other defendants, ruled that the plaintiff's complaint in the Pierce lawsuit was deficient and ordered the plaintiff to cure such deficiencies or the case would be dismissed. On April 27, 2004, the Court issued an order consolidating the Lewis case into the Pierce case. In connection with the order consolidating the Lewis and Pierce cases, the Court granted the plaintiffs until June 1, 2004 to file an amended, consolidated complaint. ARJO INC.: Recalls Patient Lifts Due To Injury, Accident Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Arjo, Inc. is voluntarily conducting, a Class I recall for two models, HMB001-US (with out scale) and HMB002-US (with scale) of its MINSTREL Patient Lifts because of mechanical problems that could result in serious patient injury. The FDA defines a Class I recall as a situation in which there is reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. Arjo is aware of reports of the hanger bar falling off the lift, causing the patient to fall and be injured. One of these incidents resulted in death. This recall involves 116 MINSTREL Patient Lifts that could possibly result in hanger bar detachment due to pin migration or pin breakage in the hanger bar assembly. No other Arjo, Inc. devices are involved in this action. All affected customers were formally notified via certified mail of the MINSTREL Field Correction/Recall on April 30, 2004 . Affected customers have already been advised to exercise the option of inspecting their MINSTREL Patient Lift and completing an Inspection Form or removing their MINSTREL Patient Lift from use pending repair from an authorized Arjo Service Technician. Affected customers have also been advised to complete a Customer Response Form and return it to Arjo, Inc. Quality Assurance Department. Appropriate corrective action was taken to eliminate the MINSTREL problem and 100 units have already been repaired. The remaining 16 MINSTREL Lifts will be repaired by May 28, 2004. Arjo, Inc. is voluntarily cooperating with the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that all affected customers are notified of this issue. Arjo, Inc. formally notified the Food and Drug Administration on April 28, 2004. Arjo, as a global leader in patient lifts, is committed to ongoing product surveillance to assure product safety and reliability. Any inquiries regarding this action should be directed to the Quality Assurance Department. BEAR FOODS: Recalls Raw Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- Bear Foods Market, Chelan, WA, is conducting a voluntary recall on its distribution of raw whole (or diced) almonds packaged as Raw - Supreme Almonds, Bear's Delight Trail Mix, Diabetic Snack Mix, and Stehekin Trail Blazer due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis. The recalled almonds are packed in clear plastic packages under the Bear Foods label and range in weight from 8 oz. to 6 lbs. with code dates of "Packed on May 22, 04" or before. This recall does not affect our products labeled "organic". Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons inflected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Bear Foods Market distributes these products through their retail store located in Chelan, Washington. This recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced in mid-May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced raw almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses associated with the almonds. The cases were reported in California, Arizona , Oregon , Washington , Utah , New Mexico , Arkansas , Tennessee , Massachusetts and Michigan . We are working with FDA to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are removed from the marketplace and that consumers are notified of the recall. The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to the store of purchase for a full refund. Fur further information, call Bear Foods Market, (509) 687-5535, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, or between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Sunday. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Moves For Arbitration in Two FMU Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc. has filed a motion for arbitration in two class actions filed in Florida court on behalf of current and former students of its Florida Metropolitan University (FMU) campus. On March 8, 2004, two virtually identical putative class actions were filed, entitled "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University," and "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University." On May 7, 2004, the Company was served with another putative class action complaint entitled "Jennifer Baker etal. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Florida Metropolitan University, Inc." The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and that FMU credits are not transferable to other institutions. Plaintiffs seek certification of the lawsuits as a class action and recovery of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all similarly situated people. The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration in the Travis and Satz cases, and currently anticipates doing the same in the Baker case. Additionally, due to improper activities by Plaintiff Satz and by his attorney, Peter Price, the Company has filed a complaint in arbitration against Satz before the American Arbitration Association alleging defamation and breach of contract and has filed a lawsuit against Price captioned Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Rhodes Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University, Inc., v. Peter N. Price, Orange County California Superior Court, Case Number 04CC04336, alleging defamation, tortuous interference with contractual and economic relationships, and tortious interference with prospective contractual and economic relationships. CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Former Teachers Launch CA Overtime Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Schools, Inc. faces a class action filed in California State Court, styled "Montoya v. Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al." The Plaintiff, a former instructor with the Company's Bryman College campus in El Monte, California, alleges that she and other instructors employed by the Company's Corinthian Schools, Inc. subsidiary in the State of California for the previous four years were improperly classified as exempt from California's overtime compensation laws. Plaintiff states causes of action under California wage orders, California's Labor Code, and California's Business and Professions Code. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class, monetary damages in unspecified amounts, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, exemplary damages, and injunctive relief. COSI INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cosi, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the securities class action filed against it, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriter of its initial public offering (IPO). The defendants allegedly violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by misstating, and by failing to disclose, certain financial and other business information. The consolidated suit is styled "In re Cosi, Inc. Securities Litigation." On July 7, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's stock allegedly traceable to the Company's November 22, 2002 IPO, that at the time of the IPO, the Company's offering materials failed to disclose that: (1) the funds raised through the IPO would be insufficient to implement Cosi's expansion plan; (2) it was improbable that the Company would be able to open 53 to 59 new restaurants in 2003; (3) at the time of the IPO, Cosi had negative working capital and therefore did not have available working capital to repay certain debts; and (4) the principal purpose for going forward with the IPO was to repay certain existing shareholders and members of the Board of Directors for certain debts and to operate the Company's existing restaurants. The plaintiffs in the Securities Act Litigation generally seek to recover recessionary damages, expert fees, attorneys' fees, costs of Court and pre and post judgment interest. The underwriter is seeking indemnification from the Company for any damages assessed against it in the Securities Act Litigation. On August 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which was substantially similar to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Securities Act Litigation is at a preliminary stage, and the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims. On September 22, 2003, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Securities Act Litigation. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss on October 23, 2003. Defendants filed reply briefs on November 12, 2003. CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Judge Recommends Approval of Suit Pact -------------------------------------------------------------- A magistrate judge recommended the approval of the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Cyberguard Corporation and certain of its former officers and directors, styled "Stephen Cheney, et al. v. CyberGuard Corporation, et al., Case No. 98-6879-CIV-Gold," in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. This action seeks damages purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during various periods from November 7, 1996 through August 24, 1998. The complaint alleges, among other things, that as a result of accounting irregularities relating to the Company's revenue recognition policies, the Company's previously issued financial statements were materially false and misleading and that the defendants knowingly or recklessly published these financial statements which caused the Company's common stock prices to rise artificially. The action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Subsequently, the defendants, including the Company, filed their respective motions to dismiss the Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint. On July 31, 2000, the Court issued a ruling denying the Company's and Robert L. Carberry's (the Company's CEO from June 1996 through August 1998) motions to dismiss. The court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice for defendants William D. Murray (the Company's CFO from November 1997 through August 1998), Patrick O. Wheeler (the Company's CFO from April 1996 through October 1997), C. Shelton James (the Company's former Audit Committee Chairman), and KPMG Peat Marwick LLP (KPMG). On August 14, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. The Company filed an answer to the plaintiffs' Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint on August 24, 2000. On March 20, 2001, the Court ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration that the previously dismissed defendants William D. Murray, Patrick O. Wheeler and C. Shelton James should not have been dismissed from the action and shall be defendants in this action under the control person liability claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that the plaintiffs may amend the Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint to bring claims against C. Shelton James under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On April 5, 2001, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint to include amended claims against C. Shelton James. On May 10, 2001, the Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' Second Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint. On August 14, 2002, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certified the class to include all investors who acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 1996 and August 24, 1998 and were damaged by the purchase of such stock. In July 2003, the Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle this lawsuit. The settlement amount of $10 million required the Company to incur a one-time charge of $3.9 million in the fourth quarter of its fiscal year ending June 30, 2003 for the amount in excess of the insurance coverage and related costs. The Company paid its portion of the settlement amount in cash. On October 9, 2003, the Company and all other parties signed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement of the lawsuit. On November 6, 2003, a hearing was held on the joint motion. The court entered a preliminary order approving the settlement and scheduled a final fairness hearing for April 16, 2004. On April 16, 2004, a fairness hearing was held before the magistrate judge. There were no objections raised to the proposed settlement. On April 19, 2004, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation to the district judge recommending that the settlement be approved. The terms of the proposed settlement are subject to final approval by the district court and there can be no assurance that the court will issue its approval. Certain shareholders owning approximately 40,000 shares have elected to be excluded from the proposed settlement. These shareholders may assert claims against the Company. The Company cannot, at this time, estimate the amount of damages these shareholders might seek nor can it provide assurances that it will be successful in defending against such claims. If such claims are asserted, the Company would have no insurance coverage available to defray the cost of defending or paying the claims. D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in E.D. MO ---------------------------------------------------------------- D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc. and certain of its officers face a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri asserting a class action for alleged breach of fiduciary duties and 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 the Company's press releases and reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission between April 23, 2001 and September 16, 2002 were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose that the Company's results were based, in material part, on arrangements with a single supplier which the Company allegedly knew could not be sustained. The complaint also claims that as a result of the alleged omissions, the market prices of the Company's common shares during the period were artificially inflated. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages. DOVER INVESTMENTS: Enters Settlement Discussions in CA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Dover Investments Corporation has entered settlement discussions for the lawsuits filed against it in the Superior Court of California in the County of Alameda, relating to its Marina Vista project in San Leandro. Owners of homes sold by the Company through its venture with Westco Community Builders, Inc. (WCB) at its Marina Vista project in San Leandro, California, which was completed in February 2000, filed the first suit. The Marina Vista of San Leandro Owners' Association, the homeowners' association for the owners of the homes at the Marina Vista project, filed a complaint against the Company in the same court. The suits also name as defendants: (1) WCB, (2) H. F. Properties Ltd., a former subsidiary of the Company, (3) Westco Marina, Inc., a former subsidiary of WCB, and (4) subcontractors at the Marina Vista project The complaints allege, among other things, breach of contract, violation of the governing documents of the Marina Vista homeowners' association, negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and nuisance based on alleged construction defects at the Marina Vista project. The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount for property damage and personal injury, attorneys' fees and expert fees and investigative costs. Settlement discussions among the plaintiffs and insurance carriers for the Marina Vista project are ongoing. The Company believes that a tentative settlement has been reached with respect to all claims against the Company, WCB, H. F. Properties Ltd. and Westco Marina, Inc. DOVER INVESTMENTS: Investors Sue Over Weissberg Trust Proposal -------------------------------------------------------------- Dover Investment Corporation faces a class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, over a proposal it received from The Lawrence Weissberg Revocable Living Trust, the Company's majority stockholder, to take the Company private in a transaction in which all stockholders of the Company (other than the Trust and others who join the Trust in taking the Company private) would receive $24.50 in cash for each share of the Company that they own. A stockholder of the Company filed the suit against the Company, the members of the Board of Directors and the Trust. The complaint in this action, which purported to be brought on behalf of all of the stockholders of the Company excluding the defendants and their affiliates, generally alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the defendants, and that the defendants, in connection with the Trust's proposal, are pursuing a course of conduct designed to eliminate the public stockholders of the Company in violation of the laws of the State of Delaware. The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposal or, in the alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in the event that the proposal is consummated. FRONT PORCH: Recalls Coffee Table Game For Lead Poisoning Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Front Porch Classics is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 2,000 Dread Pirate coffee table games. The surface coating and the metal in the ships contain lead and pose a risk of lead poisoning to young children. A child could ingest lead by swallowing a broken part of the ship or by repeatedly mouthing the ships. The "Old Century Dread PirateT" coffee table game has many playing pieces illustrating pirates, ships, coins, and treasure. This recall covers all games with lot numbers 75, 79, and 81. The lot numbers are on the bottom of the "treasure chest." Approximately 170 toy and game stores, on-line and catalog vendors, and gift stores sold the "Dread Pirate" games from October 2003 through March 2004 for about $100. Take the recalled "Dread Pirate" ships away from children immediately and call Front Porch for free replacement toy ships that do not contain lead and will not break. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 526-0314 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (PT) Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.frontporchclassics.com. GERMACK BRAND: Recalls Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Food and Drug Administration is alerting consumers that Germack Almond brand raw whole almonds are being voluntarily recalled by the Germack Pistachio Co. of Detroit, Michigan due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis. The product is packaged in one pound packages that bear the Germack Pistachio Co. label, with code dates of 040806, 040807, 040819, 040824, 050105, 050421 and 050422. The company has fully cooperated with FDA. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e, infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Germack Pistachio Co. distributes this product in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Connecticut, and Florida. This recall is in response to a voluntary recall by Paramount Farms of California on Whole Brown Natural Raw Almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illness in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah, as well as one case in Michigan. While no Salmonella has been found in any Germack products or in any Paramount products, the company is working with FDA to assure quality and safety of its products. The product should not be consumed but rather returned to the store of purchase for a full refund. For further information, call Germack Pistachio Co. at 800-872-4006, between the hours of 8:30 AM and 4:30. GOLDEN STATE: Stockholders File Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Chancery Court ordered consolidated two class actions filed against Golden State Vintners, Inc. and its current directors. On March 10, 2004, Milton Pfeiffer filed a purported class action alleging, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a plan of merger with the O'Neill Group and challenges the fairness of both the process and the merger price. The Pfeiffer Action seeks certification of a class action of Company stockholders, an injunction to prevent a merger with the O'Neill Group, monetary damages if such a merger is allowed to proceed, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys fees and expenses. On March 17, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed by Jonathan Kathrein in Napa County Superior Court of California for the County of Napa against the Company and its current directors. The Kathrein Action alleges similar claims as the Pfeiffer Action in addition to preferential treatment of management insiders. The Kathrein Action seeks a declaration that the merger agreement with the O'Neill Group is unlawful as well as relief similar to that sought in the Pfeiffer Action. On March 19, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed by Richard Gundersen in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and its current directors. The Gundersen Action alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a termination fee payable to the O'Neill Group if the plan of merger with the O'Neill Group were terminated. The Gundersen Action seeks: (1) certification of a class action; (2) an order voiding the termination fee provisions; (3) an order requiring the Company's directors to cooperate with any party having bona fide interest in acquiring the Company at a competitive price, undertake a valuation of the Company and take steps to create an active auction for the Company; and (4) monetary damages, attorneys fees and expenses On May 6, 2004, the Delaware Chancery Court ordered that the Pfeiffer Action and the Gundersen Action be consolidated for all purposes. The Company believes that each of the foregoing lawsuits lack merit. HARMONIC, INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal With Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harmonic, Inc. and the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action filed against it exchanged briefs over the plaintiffs' appeal of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California's ruling blocking the plaintiffs from filing an amended suit. Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no longer with the Company) were filed in or removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The actions subsequently were consolidated. A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Harmonic's publicly traded securities between January 19 and June 26, 2000. The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities between January 19 and May 3, 2000. In addition to Harmonic and certain of its officers and directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and several of its officers and directors as defendants. The complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements regarding Harmonic's prospects and customers and its acquisition of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also alleged that certain defendants violated section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading registration statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the C- Cube acquisition. On July 3, 2001, the Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. An amended complaint alleging the same claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13, 2001. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 24, 2001. On November13, 2002, the Court issued an opinion granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. Judgment for defendants was entered on December 2, 2002. On December 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 6, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on December 3, 2003. Defendants filed their answering briefs on March 2, 2004. Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on April 16, 2004. No hearing has been scheduled yet. LUCENT INC.: NJ Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for New Jersey approved the settlement of the consolidated class action filed against Lucent, Inc., alleging violations of the federal securities laws as a result of the facts disclosed in its announcement on November 21, 2000 that it had identified a revenue recognition issue affecting its financial results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000. The consolidated cases were initially filed on behalf of stockholders of Lucent who bought Lucent common stock between October 26, 1999 and January 6, 2000, but the consolidated complaint was amended to include purported class members who purchased Lucent common stock up to December 20, 2000. A class has not yet been certified in the consolidated actions. The plaintiffs in all of these stockholder class actions seek compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. In March 2003, Lucent announced that it had entered into a $420 million settlement of all pending shareholder and related litigation. The terms of the settlement were approved by the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey in December 2003. The administration of claims is currently in process. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Y2K Compliance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lucent Technologies, Inc. faces three separate purported class actions filed, one in state court in West Virginia, one in federal court in the Southern District of New York and another in federal court in the Southern District of California. The case in New York was filed in January 1999 and, after being dismissed, was refiled in September 2000. The case in West Virginia was filed in April 1999 and the case in California was filed in June 1999, and amended in 2000 to include the Company as a defendant. All three actions are based upon claims that Lucent sold products that were not Year 2000 compliant, meaning that the products were designed and developed without considering the possible impact of the change in the calendar from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000. The complaints allege that the sale of these products violated statutory consumer protection laws and constituted breaches of implied warranties. A class has been certified in the West Virginia state court matter. The certified class in the West Virginia matter includes those persons or entities that purchased, leased or financed the products in question. In addition, the court also certified as a subclass all class members who had service protection plans or other service or extended warranty contracts with Lucent in effect as of April 1, 1998, as to which Lucent failed to offer a free Year 2000-compliant solution. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied the defendant's attempt to have the Federal District Court in West Virginia retain jurisdiction in this matter. The federal court in the New York action has issued a decision and order denying class certification, dismissing all but certain fraud claims by one representative plaintiff. No class claims remain in this case at this time. The federal court in the California action has issued an opinion and order granting class certification. The class includes any entities that purchased or leased certain products on or after January 1, 1990, excluding those entities who did not have a New Jersey choice of law provision in their contracts and those who did not purchase equipment directly from defendants. The federal court in the California action has issued an order staying the action pending the outcome of the West Virginia matter. The complaints seek, among other remedies, compensatory damages, punitive damages and counsel fees in amounts that have not yet been specified. PHARMERICA INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Suit in HI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action filed against PharMerica, Inc. in Hawaii state court on behalf of consumers who allegedly received "recycled" medications from a PharMerica institutional pharmacy in Honolulu, Hawaii. The plaintiffs allege that it was a deceptive trade practice under Hawaii law to sell "recycled" medications (i.e., medications that had previously been dispensed and then returned to the pharmacy) without disclosing that the medications were "recycled." In September 2003, the Hawaii Circuit Court heard and granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The class consists of consumers who purchased drugs in product lines in which recycling occurred, but those product lines have not yet been identified. Efforts to identify the members of the class are also ongoing. PIER I: Recalls 48,000 Tea Light Candleholders For Fire Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Pier 1 Imports is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 48,000 Beaded Fish Tea Light Candleholders. The beads on these tea light candleholders can catch fire during use. Pier 1 has received 10 reports of these candleholders either melting or catching fire, causing some minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. These Beaded Fish tea light candleholders are red, pink or blue, and about 4-inches high and 8-inches long. The price sticker reads "Pier 1," "China," and "SKU 1997504," SKU 1998132" or "SKU 1998145." Pier 1 Import stores nationwide and the firm's Web site sold these items from February 2004 through May 14, 2004 for about $10. Stop using these tea light candleholders and return them to Pier 1 for a refund or store credit. Consumers also can remove and discard the tea light hanger inside the item, and use the beaded fish as a decorative light catcher only. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 245-4595 between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, and between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pier1.com. PIZZA INN: Reaches Tentative Settlement For Unsolicited Fax Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pizza Inn, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for the class action filed against it by Blakely-Witt & Associates, Inc. alleging the Company sent, or caused to be sent, unsolicited facsimile advertisements. All of the parties to this matter have entered into a settlement agreement under which the Company would pay an amount that would not materially affect the Company's financial performance. Final approval of this settlement agreement is subject to court approval and no assurances can be given that such approval will be obtained. The settlement terms currently agreed to and pending court approval, have been provided for in the Company's financial statements. SCHRATTER FOODS: Recalls Goat's Cheese For Undeclared Lysozyme -------------------------------------------------------------- Schratter Foods Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey , is recalling all packages of "Frico" brand Chevrette Goat's Milk Cheese, imported from Holland , because it may contain undeclared lysozyme made from egg whites. People who have an allergy to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The recalled "Frico" brand Chevrette Goat's Milk Cheese was distributed nationwide in retail stores and through distributors. The "Frico" brand Chevrette Goat's Milk Cheese comes in bulk 9 lb. wheels, and was also sold at retail in cryo-vac cut & wrapped portions of approximately 8 oz. labeled as "Frico" brand Mild & Tangy Flavor CHEVRETTE Goat's Milk CHEESE . All lots and all code dates are being recalled. The Company received one reported illness to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the lysozyme-containing product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of lysozyme, which was omitted by the manufacturer. All importation and distribution of this product has been suspended until the FDA and the company are certain that the problem has been corrected. Consumers who have purchased this cheese are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (201) 641-6851. SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suits in W.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------- Superconductor Technologies, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of California. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege securities law violations by the Company and certain of its officers and directors under SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaints were each filed on behalf of purported classes of people who purchased the Company's stock during the period between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004. The plaintiffs base their allegations primarily on the fact that the Company did not achieve the Company's forecasted revenue guidance of $10 to $13 million for the first quarter of 2004. The complaints seek unspecified damages. SWITCHBOARD INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in DE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Switchboard, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. The suit also names as defendants: (1) its former CEO and director Douglas J. Greenlaw, (2) Dean Polnerow, (3) William P. Ferry, (4) Robert M. Wadsworth, (5) Richard Spaulding and (6) David Strohm Plaintiff David Osher filed the suit, alleging, among other things, that the $7.75 per share consideration contemplated by the merger agreement with InfoSpace Inc. is unfair and grossly inadequate, that the director defendants failed to inform themselves of Switchboard's market value and failed to act in the best interest of all of Switchboard's stockholders, as opposed to the interests of ePresence in liquidating its holdings in Switchboard, and that the director defendants therefore breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of Switchboard by approving the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages. SWITCHBOARD INC.: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in DE -------------------------------------------------------------- Switchboard, Inc. and its directors Dean Polnerow, William P. Ferry, Robert M. Wadsworth, Richard Spaulding, David Strohm, Stephen Killeen and Michael Ruffolo have been named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Clifford Peters in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County on May 12, 2004. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the proxy statement disseminated to Switchboard's stockholders in connection with the merger agreement with InfoSpace Inc. contains material omissions and is materially misleading in a number of respects, constituting a breach of the defendants' fiduciary duty of disclosure. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages. THRIFT PRODUCTS: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thrift Products Co., 41-44 th St., SE, Grand Rapids, Mi 49548 is conducting a voluntary recall on its distribution of raw whole and diced almonds packaged as Thrifty Nuts due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteriditis. The recall covers the following products: RAW WHOLE ALMONDS in a 3oz bag, UPC code 79348-11960 and ALMOND BITS in a 3oz bag, UPC code 79348-11955. Both of these items have a "best if used by date" of 03/05. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e, infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Thrift Products Co. distributes these products in Michigan and Northern Indiana. Paramount Farms of California has announced a voluntary recall of Whole Brown Natural Raw Almonds. The firm initiated the recall after learning from the Food and Drug Administration of numerous cases of Salmonella Enteriditis that might be related to the consumption of the almonds in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah, as well as one case in Michigan. Customers should not consume raw almonds/mixes labeled with Thrifty Nuts. Customers should return any unused product to the retailer where purchased. For further information, call Thrift Products Co. at 1-800-538-6887(nuts) between 9:00am-4:00pm. TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Unfair Trade Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Triple-S, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division to dismiss the class action filed by Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D. and Michael Kutell, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated and the Connecticut State Medical Society. The suit also names as defendants the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and other insurance companies. The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which are alleged to have resulted in a loss of plaintiff's property and a detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive relief to end those practices and prevent further losses. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely manner for the covered, medically necessary services they render. The class action complaint alleges that TSI's health care plans are the agents of Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensed entities, and as such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within the scope of their agency, with the consent, permission, authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of both their interest and the interests of other defendants. Management believes that the Company was made a party to this litigation for the sole reason that the Company is associated with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and that none of the allegations made by the plaintiffs are applicable to the Company. TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Asks For Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Triple-S Management Corporation asked the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to dismiss the class action filed by Jose Sanchez and others against it, some of its present and former directors, some of Triple-S, Inc.'s (TSI) present and former directors and others. The suit alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as the RICO Act. The suit, among other allegations, alleges a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control of TSI through illegally capitalizing TSI and later converting it to a for-profit corporation and depriving the stockholders of their rights. The plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed decisions of TSI's board of directors and stockholders, allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation, basically forever. While this case is still in its preliminary stages and has not been certified as a class action, a Motion to Dismiss has been filed by the defendants. On March 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a response to this motion. On April 30, 2004, defendants filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. TURBO POWER: Recalls 359T Hair Dryers For Electrocution Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Turbo Power, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 359,000 Turbo Power electric hand-held hair dryers. These electric hair dryers are not equipped with an immersion protection device to prevent electrocution if the hair dryer falls into water. Such electric shock protection devices are required by industry standards for all electric hand-held hair dryers. The following hair dryers are recalled: Turbo 1500, Twin Turbo 2600, Turbo 2800 Silverado, Twin Turbo 2800, Mega Turbo 2500, Twin Turbo Ionic 3000, Parlux 3000, Mega Turbo 3000, Coldmatic 1500, Turbo Millennium 2000, Turbo 2200, and Super Turbo 1900. These hair dryers have pistol grips and have black, black and red, black and grey, or red and ivory plastic casing. They have two-prong power cords. The hair dryers are labeled in part: "Turbo Power" or "PIBBS" followed by the model number and this voltage marking: "110V/60HZ." The boxes in which the hair dryers were sold said "Made in Italy." Retail and beauty supply stores nationwide sold these items from January 2002 through April 2004 for about $50 to $169. Return the hair dryer to either the retail store where purchased or to Turbo Power for a free replacement. For more details, contact the Company by Mail: Turbo Power Inc., 31-40 Downing Street, Flushing, NY 11354, by Phone: (888) 715-6100 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (ET) Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.turbopowerinc.com. New Securities Fraud Cases DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in DE ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of foreign investors (non-US investors/residents) who purchased the common stock and other securities of DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE:DCX) between November 17, 1998 and November 17, 2000 inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 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 Lexar securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq. by Mail: Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E-Mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com IDACORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in ID --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Idacorp, Inc. (NYSE: IDA) from February 1, 2002 through June 4, 2002 inclusive. The complaint charges Idacorp, Jon H. Miller, Jan B. Packwood, J. Lamont Keen, and Darrel T. Anderson 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 February 1, 2002 and June 4, 2002, about the Company's financial outlook, thereby artificially inflating the price of Idacorp stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company failed to appreciate what the negative impact of lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads in the Western wholesale energy market would have on its marketing subsidiary, Idacorp Energy; (2) that the Company was forced to limit its origination activities to shorter-term transactions due to increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued deterioration of credit-worthy counter parties; (3) that the Company failed to discount for the fact that Idaho Power may not recover from the lingering effects from last year's regional drought; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and their earnings projections. On June 4, 2002, Idacorp, citing stagnant wholesale energy markets and the continued pressure of drought, lowered its 2002 earnings guidance to a range between $1.35 and $1.70 per share. News of this shocked the market, shares of Idacorp plunged down $5.80 per share or 17.26% to close at $27.80 per share on June 4, 2002. For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com LEXAR MEDIA: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Lexar Media, Inc. (Nasdaq:LEXR), between July 17, 2003 through April 16, 2004, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 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 Lexar securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq. by Mail: Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E-Mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files IL Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) between December 14, 2001 and January 22, 2003, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Defendants McDonald's, Jack M. Greenberg, Matthew H. Paull and Michael J. Roberts. The Complaint charges that McDonald's and certain officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of McDonald's securities. Specifically, the Company misrepresented its business and future prospects by failing to disclose that hundreds of its restaurants were underperforming and that the Company had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in unrecorded asset impairment and other charges. Defendants' scheme began to unravel in September 2002, when the Company reported that "comparable sales" (i.e., year-over-year sales comparisons for restaurants that had been open for more than thirteen months) had continued to decline, especially in U.S. and European markets, making it impossible for the Company to meet its 2002 earnings guidance. Then on January 23, 2003, defendants announced that the Company had incurred losses of more than $810 million related, primarily, to the closure of over 700 underperforming restaurants and the write-off of hundreds of millions of dollars of previously capitalized technology costs. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above, the Company completed fixed-rate debt offerings of at least $900 million at highly favorable interest rates. In addition, McDonald's insiders, sold over 939,000 shares of McDonald's common shares, at or near market highs, generating proceeds of more than $26 million. For more details, contact Shareholder Relations Department at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-Mail: MCD@bernlieb.com SALTON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) from November 11, 2002 through May 11, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges that Salton, Leonhard Dreimann and David M. Mulder 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 November 11, 2002 and May 11, 2004, about the Company's financial outlook, thereby artificially inflating the price of Salton 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) the Company's core competency, the marketing and distribution of grills under the Foreman brand name, was severely undermined by the antitrust lawsuits that precluded the Company from continuing with its profitable, but illegal, pricing scheme; (2) as a result of the foregoing the Company's historically profitable domestic business continued to erode, forcing Salton to incur an additional $8 million in retailer advertising and promotional expenses, which were required to secure and regain shelf space; and (3) due to the deterioration of its business model Salton violated the Company's debt agreements. On May 10, 2004, Salton, after the close of trading, announced its results for the third fiscal quarter ended March 27, 2004. Salton reported a loss of $58.0 million or ($5.14 per share), versus a loss of $12.1 million or ($1.08 per share) for the third quarter of fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Salton fell $3.34 per share or 49.93 percent on May 10, 2004 to close at $3.35 per share. For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com SALTON INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) publicly traded securities during the period between November 11, 2002 and May 11, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges that Salton, Leonhard Dreimann and David M. Mulder 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 November 11, 2002 and May 11, 2004, about the Company's financial outlook, thereby artificially inflating the price of Salton stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) the Company's core competency, the marketing and distribution of grills under the Foreman brand name, was severely undermined by the antitrust lawsuits that precluded the Company from continuing with its profitable, but illegal, pricing scheme; (2) as a result of the foregoing the Company's historically profitable domestic business continued to erode, forcing Salton to incur an additional $8 million in retailer advertising and promotional expenses, which were required to secure and regain shelf space; and (3) due to the deterioration of its business model Salton violated the Company's debt agreements. On May 10, 2004, Salton, after the close of trading, announced its results for the third fiscal quarter ended March 27, 2004. Salton reported a loss of $58.0 million or ($5.14 per share), versus a loss of $12.1 million or ($1.08 per share) for the third quarter of fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Salton fell $3.34 per share or 49.93 percent on May 10, 2004 to close at $3.35 per share. For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) 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 or by E-Mail: info@geller-rudman.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 * * *