/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040602.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 2, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 108 Headlines ACRES GAMING: NV Court Refuses To Dismiss Stockholder Fraud Suit AIG SUNAMERICA: Faces Securities Suit Over Market Timing in IL AMERICAN SEAFOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of WA Wages Suit AMERICAN SKANDIA: Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal Held APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: IL Court Grants Approval to Stock Suit Pact ARIBA INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Suit AXEDA SYSTEMS: Settlement To Be Submitted For Approval June 2004 BEBE STORES: CA Court Dismisses Suit Over Employment Application BEBE STORES: CA Managers, Co-Managers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit BEBE STORES: Employee Lodges Suit Over Unfair Business Practices BIG DOG: Recalls Motorcycles Due To Brake Defect, Crash Hazard CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Refuses To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit CARDINAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Syncor ERISA Violations Suit DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Dodge Vans For Fire Hazard DUANE READE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in DE E-BIZ VENTURES: OK Jury Indicts Defendants for Mail, Wire Fraud EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in CA EQUITABLE LIFE: Faces Nationwide Suit Over Stale Pricing in IL FORD MOTOR: Recalls 321,903 Sport Utility Vehicles For Fire Risk FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Securities Lawsuits Over Market Timing GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 389,905 Passenger Vehicles For Fire Risk GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Minivans For Restraint Systems Defect INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court To Rule on Certification Denial Appeal INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal L90 INC.: CA Court Enters Final Judgement V. Ex-CFO in CA Suit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement for Consumer Fraud Suit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Suit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Suit in MA Court MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Shareholders Lodge MA Securities Fraud Suit MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in AL Court NETWORK ENGINES: Court Orders Suits Over EMC Pact Consolidated NETWORK ENGINES: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement NORMANDY AMERICA: SEC Settles Fraud Case V. Investment Manager OCUMED GROUP: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings Over Stock OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings V. Owner PEMCO AVIATION: Court Hears Appeal of Summary Judgment in Suit PIPER JAFFRAY: Jury Verdict Favors Trader in MN Stock Fraud Suit RAYMOND SOBIERALSKI: SEC Files Admin. Proceedings Against Trader SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To File Second Amended Lawsuit TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Formal NY Settlement Documents Drafted TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Suit Status Conference Held TORCH OFFSHORE: Oral Arguments Finished on Suit Dismissal Appeal TYCO INTERNATIONAL: AMP Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suit in NY TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Moves IL Securities Lawsuit To Federal Court TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To Add Defendants to ERISA Suit UNI-MARTS INC.: Investors File Suit V. Green Valley Merger in DE Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ASCONI CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges FL Securities Suit BALLY TOTAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL BALLY TOTAL: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL BALLY TOTAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL BISYS GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY CAREER EDUCATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Amended Lawsuit in IL EL PASO: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX IDACORP INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID IDACORP INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID IDACORP INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID KRISPY KREME: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Stock Suit in FL MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY MORGAN STANLEY: Falls & Veach Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN SALTON INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit N.D. IL UICI: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX UICI: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX UICI: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX ********* ACRES GAMING: NV Court Refuses To Dismiss Stockholder Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clark County, Nevada District Court denied Acres Gaming, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended class action filed against it and its directors, styled "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Incorporated, et al., (Case No. 470016)." The complaint alleged that the Company directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger transaction between it and International Game Technology (IGT) and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among other forms of relief. On September 19, 2003, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger. On September 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on September 25, 2003. The plaintiff's action also seeks damages. On December 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On April 29, 2004, the Court issued a ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. AIG SUNAMERICA: Faces Securities Suit Over Market Timing in IL -------------------------------------------------------------- AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial District in St. Clair County, Illinois, styled "NIKITA Mehta, as Trustee of the N.D. Mehta Living Trust vs. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company, Case 04L0199." The lawsuit alleges certain improprieties in conjunction with alleged market timing activities. The probability of any particular outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. AMERICAN SEAFOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of WA Wages Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the class action filed against American Seafoods Group LLC in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The amended complaint was filed against the Company by a former vessel crewmember on behalf of himself and a class of over 500 seamen, although the court has not certified this action as a class action. The complaint filed alleges that the Company breached its contract with the plaintiff by underestimating the value of the catch in computing the plaintiff's wages. The plaintiff demanded an accounting of his crew shares pursuant to federal statutory law. In addition, the plaintiff requested relief under a Washington statute that would render the Company liable for twice the amount of wages withheld, as well as judgment against the Company for compensatory and exemplary damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs, among other things. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company fraudulently concealed the underestimation of product values, thereby preventing the discovery of the plaintiff's cause of action. The conduct allegedly took place prior to January 28, 2000, the date the Company was acquired by Centre Partners and others through American Seafoods, L.P. (ASLP). On September 25, 2003, the court entered an order granting the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the entirety of plaintiff's claims with prejudice and with costs. The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of this order which motion was denied by the court. The plaintiff then appealed the District Court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal is currently pending. AMERICAN SKANDIA: Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal Held ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments on the appeal of a lower court ruling dismissing the nationwide class action filed against American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation, styled "Donovan v. American Skandia Life Ass. Corp. et al." The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company and certain of its affiliates violated federal securities laws in marketing variable annuities and seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages in unspecified amounts. In July 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On August 29, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that decision. APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: IL Court Grants Approval to Stock Suit Pact --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois granted preliminary approval to the form of the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Apropos Technology, Inc., certain of its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock, and asserts that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in its Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the Company's initial public offering in February 2000. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. On February 25, 2004, the Company along with all other defendants signed an agreement in principle to settle this litigation in consideration of a payment of $4.5 million, to be paid by the Company's insurer. No settlement monies will be due from the Company itself. The settlement documents have been filed with the Court. Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the Court final settlement documents, and final Court approval. ARIBA INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ariba, 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 current and former officers and directors. Beginning January 21, 2003, a number of purported securities class actions were filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the period from January 11, 2000 to January 15, 2003. The complaints brought claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, relating to the Company's announcement that the Company would restate certain of its consolidated financial statements, and, in the case of two complaints, relating to the Company's acquisition activity and related accounting. Specifically, these actions allege that certain of the Company's prior consolidated financial statements contained false and misleading statements or omissions relating to its failure to properly recognize expenses and other financial items, as reflected in the then proposed restatement. Plaintiffs contend that such statements or omissions caused the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as other relief. In a series of orders issued by the Court in February and March 2003, these cases were deemed related to each other and assigned to a single judge sitting in San Jose. On July 11, 2003, ollowing briefing and a hearing on related motions, the Court entered two orders that together consolidated the related cases for all purposes into a single action captioned "In re Ariba, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-00277 JF," appointed a lead plaintiff, and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. On September 15, 2003, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which restates the allegations and claims described above and adds a claim pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, based on the allegation that the Company failed to disclose certain payments and executive compensation items in its January 24, 2002 Proxy Statement. On November 17, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, which is currently scheduled before the Court on March 29, 2004. This case is still in its early stages. As of December 31, 2003, no amount is accrued as a loss is not probable and estimable. AXEDA SYSTEMS: Settlement To Be Submitted For Approval June 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs intend to submit the settlement of the securities class action filed against Axeda Systems, Inc. to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval on June 3,2004. On November 27, 2001, a putative shareholder class action was filed against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and several investment banks that were underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and the individual defendants. The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's July 15, 1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New York. Certain of the Company's employees were members of the putative classes alleged in these actions. On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and the Individual Defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice. A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the proposed settling parties and the court. The Company believes the terms of the settlement will not have a material impact on its results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition. If the settlement does not occur, and litigation against the Company continues, it believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the case vigorously. However, failure to successfully defend this action could substantially harm its results of operations, liquidity and financial condition. BEBE STORES: CA Court Dismisses Suit Over Employment Application ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court in California dismissed a class action filed against bebe stores, inc. and one hundred and seven other parties, concerning the substance of one of the questions on its employment application. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief. The case was dismissed on January 28, 2004, based on a misjoinder of Defendants. A similar complaint has been filed on January 30, 2004, against the Company as an individual Defendant, but the Company has not yet been served. BEBE STORES: CA Managers, Co-Managers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- bebe stores, inc. faces a class action filed by a former employee in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo (case No. CIV435794) alleging that they were misclassified as exempt employees under California law. The plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of former and present California bebe store managers and co- managers. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief. BEBE STORES: Employee Lodges Suit Over Unfair Business Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- bebe stores, inc. faces a class action filed by a former employee in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (case No. GIC824505), alleging unpaid wages and unfair business practices. The plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of California employees who hold or have held the position of Co-Manager or others similarly designated. The lawsuit seeks compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief. BIG DOG: Recalls Motorcycles Due To Brake Defect, Crash Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- In April 2004, Big Dog Motorcycles, LLC recalled 2,098 motorcycles, namely models: (1) Big Dog Boxer, model 2004 (2) Big Dog Bulldog, model 2004 (3) Big Dog Chopper, model 2004 (4) Big Dog Mastiff, model 2004 (5) Big Dog Pitbull, model 2004 (6) Big Dog Ridgeback, model 2004 These motorcycles were manufactured from August 2003 to March 2004. On certain motorcycles, a screw may become loose in the handlebar control due to the lack of a lock washer and loctite. This could cause the throttle or front brake control to bind, which could result in a crash. Dealers will install a lock washer and loctite. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on April 12, 2004. Owners may contact Big Dog at 1-316-267-9121. CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Refuses To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Ohio refused Cardinal Health, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second amended shareholder derivative action filed against it and its directors. The amended complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and corporate waste in connection with the alleged failure by the Board of Directors of the Company to renegotiate or terminate the Company's proposed acquisition of Syncor International Corporation and determine the propriety of indemnifying Monty Fu, the former Chairman of Syncor. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint and the plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint that added three new individual defendants and included new allegations that the Company improperly recognized revenue in December 2000 and September 2001 related to settlements with certain vitamins manufacturers. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the second amended complaint and, on November 20, 2003, the Court denied the motion. CARDINAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Syncor ERISA Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. asked for the dismissal of the consolidated class action filed against it, Syncor International Corporation and certain officers and employees of the Company by a purported participant in the Syncor Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor ESSOP"). The suit alleges that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). On April 26, 2004, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the consolidated complaint. In addition, the United States Department of Labor is conducting an investigation of the Syncor ESSOP with respect to its compliance with ERISA requirements. The Company has responded to a subpoena received from the Department of Labor and continues to cooperate in the investigation. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Dodge Vans For Fire Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- In April 2004, DaimlerChrysler Corporation recalled 44,588 Dodge Ram Vans, model 1998 to 2003, manufactured from July 1997 to June 2003. On some van and wagon model vehicles equipped with 4-wheel antilock brake systems (ABS), aftermarket batteries may leak electrolyte onto the ABS control module connector, which can compromise the sealing integrity of the connector. This may allow development of a short circuit in the connector, which could eventually lead to a fire. Dealers will inspect the ABS control module connector for electrolyte damage and replace the connector as necessary. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification for this campaign. Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403. DUANE READE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in DE --------------------------------------------------------------- Duane Reade International, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, challenging the merger transaction between it and Duane Reade Acquisition. Six purported class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, referred to as the "Delaware Complaints," and three purported class action complaints that have been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Two of the New York complaints have been dismissed without prejudice. The other New York complaint is pending but has not been served on Duane Reade. The Delaware Complaints name Mr. Anthony Cuti, the Company's chairman president and chief executive officer and certain other members of the Company's board of directors and executive officers, as well as the Company, as defendants. Four of the Delaware Complaints name Oak Hill as a defendant. The New York Complaint names Mr. Cuti and certain other members of the Company's board of directors and executive officers as well as the Company as defendants. One of the dismissed New York complaints named Oak Hill as a defendant. The Delaware Complaints were consolidated on January 28, 2004, and on April 8, 2004 the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions filed a consolidated class action complaint. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material information in the preliminary proxy statement, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2004. Specifically, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose: (1) the precise nature of the "Current Employment Agreement Estimated Payments," as that term is used in the preliminary proxy, and the reasons for these payments; (2) the materials and data purportedly used by Bear Stearns in calculating the "Current Employment Agreement Estimated Payments," instead of the disclosure in the preliminary proxy statement that these calculations were "approximations based on various assumptions since the precise amounts payable would require actuarial or other expert valuation," even though Bear Stearns allegedly relied on these calculations; (3) the methodology, projections and other information used by Bear Stearns to calculate the estimated present value of the Company; (4) that the merger consideration represented an approximately 11.7% premium based upon the trading price of Duane Reade shares on December 22, 2003, instead of the disclosure in the preliminary proxy that stockholders would be receiving a much higher premium of 22.0%. The Consolidated Complaint and the New York Complaint allege, among other things, that the defendants purportedly breached duties owed to Duane Reade's stockholders in connection with the transaction by failing to: (i) appropriately value Duane Reade as a merger candidate; (ii) expose Duane Reade to the marketplace in an effort to obtain the best transaction reasonably available, including to market Duane Reade to industry participants; and (iii) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist between defendants' own interests and their fiduciary obligation to maximize stockholder value. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order that the complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and other duties; injunctive relief; an unspecified amount of monetary damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. E-BIZ VENTURES: OK Jury Indicts Defendants for Mail, Wire Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal grand jury in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, returned a sealed eleven-count indictment against Donald A. English, George M. Anderton, Ronald L. Warner, Aaron A. Carr, Joan M. Eveleno and Sylvia Regina Smith charging the defendants with wire fraud and mail fraud. Specifically, the indictment charges each defendant with five counts of wire fraud and six counts of mail fraud in connection with the operation of an Internet based investment offering called E-Biz Ventures. As of May 18, 2004, all defendants were arrested and arraigned and the seal lifted on the indictment. The defendants are as follows: (1) Donald A. English, defendant, age 56 and arrested in Missouri, was a co- founder of E-Biz Ventures and the registered operator of the two E-Biz websites, which solicited funds from investors. At the time investor funds were being raised, English operated E-Biz Ventures out of his home in Midwest City, Okla. (2) George M. Anderton, age 46 and arrested in Oregon, was a co-founder of E-Biz Ventures with English. (3) Ronald L. Warner, age 71 and arrested in Utah, was a co-founder of E-Biz Ventures with English. (4) Aaron A. Carr, age 30 and arrested in Michigan, was a co-founder of E-Biz Ventures with English. (5) Joan M. Eveleno, age 47 and arrested in Washington state was a co-founder of E-Biz Ventures. (6) Sylvia Regina Smith, age unknown and arrested in Missouri, was the treasurer of E-Biz Ventures. Previously, on Jan. 31, 2001, the Commission sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order and the appointment or a receiver in a civil suit charging English with creating and organizing an Internet ponzi scheme through which at least 22,000 investor accounts lost at least $8.8 million. The Commission further alleged that English used investor funds to repay earlier investors and to purchase thousands of dollars of personal items, including electronic equipment, vehicles, appliances and furniture. The Commission also filed suit against Anderton, Warner, Carr, Eveleno and Steven Wayne McAllister naming these individuals as relief defendants to recover investor funds transferred to them as a part of the E-Biz operation. On July 9, 2001, the Court entered a final judgment by default against English enjoining him from further violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Court further ordered English to disgorge $284,546 and imposed a $110,000 civil monetary penalty against him for his violations of the securities laws. The suit is styled "SEC v. E-Biz Ventures, et al., USDC WD/OK, CIV-01-223-W." EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against EAcceleration Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin - Stockton Branch, styled "Consumer Advocates Rights Enforcement Society (CARES), for itself and others similarly situated, and Patricia Cole, for herself and all others similarly situated v. eAcceleration Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Veloz.com, also d/b/a Stop-Sign.com; Acceleration Software International Corporation, a Washington corporation, Clint Ballard and Diana Ballard, Doubleclick, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1-50 inclusive." The suit specifically naming the Company and its subsidiary, as well as its principal stockholders. The Company is in the process of responding to plaintiffs' first requests for discovery, and intends to defend this case vigorously. EQUITABLE LIFE: Faces Nationwide Suit Over Stale Pricing in IL -------------------------------------------------------------- Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States faces a nationwide class action filed in the Circuit Court for Madison County, Illinois entitled "MATTHEW WIGGENHORN V. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES. The lawsuit alleges that the Company uses stale prices of the foreign securities within the investment divisions of its variable insurance products. The complaint further alleges that the Company's use of stale pricing diluted the returns of the purported class. The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its fiduciary duty to the class by allowing market timing in general within the Company's variable insurance products, thereby diluting the returns of the class. The lawsuit asserts causes of action for: (1) negligence, (2) gross negligence, (3) breach of contract, and (4) breach of fiduciary duty The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. FORD MOTOR: Recalls 321,903 Sport Utility Vehicles For Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- In April 2004, Ford Motor Company recalled 321,903 Ford Escape sport utility vehicles, model 2001 to 2003, manufactured from January 2000 to September 2002. On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with 3.0L V6 engines, during decelerations at vehicle speeds below 40 mph, the engine could stall due to excessively rich fuel-air mixtures being sent to the engine. This could result in a crash. Dealers will reprogram the Powertrain Control Module (PCM). The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on April 21, 2004. Owners may contact Ford at 1-800-392-3673. FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Securities Lawsuits Over Market Timing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Franklin Resources, Inc., certain of its subsidiaries and current and former officers, employees, and directors have been named in multiple lawsuits in different federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Florida, alleging violations of various federal securities laws and seeking, among other things, monetary damages and costs. Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the portfolio securities of certain Templeton funds managed by Company subsidiaries, resulting in alleged market timing activity. The lawsuits are styled as class actions or derivative actions on behalf of either the named Funds or the Company. To date, more than 240 similar lawsuits against 18 different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal court districts throughout the country. Because these cases involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered the creation of a multidistrict litigation, entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation," and transferred similar cases from different districts to a single district (the United States District Court for the District of Maryland) for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. As of May 12, 2004, these lawsuits are pending against the Company and have been transferred or conditionally transferred to the JPMDL: (1) Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-770 GPM, filed on November 19, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois; (2) Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-859 MJR, filed on December 16, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois and transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29, 2004; (3) Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0639 SC, filed on February 17, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (4) Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ, filed on February 6, 2004 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; (5) Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0583 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (6) Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0584 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (7) Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; (8) Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ, filed on February 12, 2004 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; (9) Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0598 MJJ, filed on February 12, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (10) McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0628 PJH, filed on February 13, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (11) Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 1330, filed on February 18, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; (12) Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489, filed on March 30, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York The Company is awaiting the Judicial Panel's decision whether to transfer to the MDL the following additional federal lawsuits involving similar or identical allegations: (i) D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC, filed on March 3, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (ii) Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0901 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (iii) Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0902 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; (iv) Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04 0984 EMC, filed on March 10, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Plaintiffs in the JPMDL proceeding have until May 28, 2004 to file their consolidated complaint(s). As previously reported, various subsidiaries of the Company have also been named in multiple lawsuits filed in state courts in Illinois alleging breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the portfolio securities of certain Templeton funds managed by such subsidiaries and are as follows: (a) Bradfisch v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003 L 001361, filed on October 3, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois; (b) Woodbury v. Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003 L 001362, filed on October 3, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois; (c) Kwiatkowski v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No. 03 L 785, filed on December 17, 2003 in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (d) Parise v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003 L 002049, filed on December 22, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois These lawsuits are not subject to the JPMDL because they are state court actions. GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 389,905 Passenger Vehicles For Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- In April 2004, General Motors Corporation recalled 389,905 passenger vehicles, namely: (1) Cadillac Eldorado, model 1995-1997 (2) Cadillac Seville, model 1995-1997 (3) Cadillac Deville, 1995-1997 These cars were manufactured from September 1993 to June 1997. Certain passenger vehicles equipped with V8 LD8 and L37 engines have a condition in which the nylon tubing used in the fuel rail construction may degrade and crack. Cracking of the fuel rail or return line tubing can result in a fuel leak into the engine compartment. Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire. Dealers will install a new fuel rail assembly made of stainless steel. Dealers will also install a revised chassis fuel return line. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to begin during May 2004. Owners may contact Cadillac at 1-866-982-2339. GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Minivans For Restraint Systems Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- In April 2004, General Motors Corporation recalled 31,301 minivans, namely: (1) Chevrolet Venture, model 2004 (2) Pontiac Montana, model 2004 These vehicles were manufactured from October 2003 to March 2004. Certain minivans do not conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." These vehicles do not have text and formatting on the warning label attached to the available second-row integral child restraint as specified by amendments to the standard. Owners will be provided with replacement labels and installation instructions. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification schedule for this campaign. Owners may contact Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438, or Pontiac at 1-800-620-7668. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court To Rule on Certification Denial Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court of Nevada has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of its denial of class certification to the lawsuit filed against International Game Technology and a number of other public gaming corporations. Three class actions were initially filed, one filed in the US District Court of Nevada, entitled "Larry Schreier v. Caesars World, Inc., et al," and two filed in the US District Court of Florida, entitled "Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., et al." and "Ahern v. Caesars World, Inc., et al." These suits were consolidated into a single action. The Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue of the consolidated action to Las Vegas. The actions allege that the defendants have engaged in fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing people to play video poker machines and electronic slot machines, based on false beliefs concerning how the machines operate and the extent to which there is an opportunity to win on a given play. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constitute violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment. The suit seeks compensatory, special, incidental and punitive damages of several billion dollars. In December 1997, the Court denied the motions that would have dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action. The defendants filed their consolidated answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint in February 1998. In March 2002, the Court directed that certain merits discovery could proceed. In June 2002, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. An appeal of that denial was filed timely with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On April 30, 2003, the appellants (class plaintiffs) timely filed their opening brief. The respondent's opposition brief was filed timely on July 31, 2003. All briefings have been completed, oral arguments were heard in January 2004. INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against InterVoice-Brite, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, styled "David Barrie, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al.; No.3-01CV1071-D." Several related class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company during the period from October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000. Plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of the Company on behalf of the alleged class members. In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the Company and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the financial condition of the Company, the results of the Company's merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of the Company. Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The Company believes that it and its officers complied with their obligations under the securities laws and has vigorously defended the lawsuit. The Company responded to this complaint by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated proceeding. The Company asserted that the complaint lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. On this basis, the Company requested that the court dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs responded to the Company's request for dismissal. On August 8, 2002, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the class action. In the order dismissing the lawsuit, the Court granted plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2002. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss. On September 15, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. Unlike the Court's prior order dismissing the original class action complaint, the order dismissing the amended complaint did not grant plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing a new amended complaint. On October 9, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from the trial court's order of dismissal entered on September 15, 2003. The plaintiffs filed their appellant brief on February 20, 2004, and the Company filed its brief in opposition to the plaintiff's appeal on May 10, 2004. L90 INC.: CA Court Enters Final Judgement V. Ex-CFO in CA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California entered a Final Judgment against Thomas A. Sebastian, former chief financial officer of L90, Inc., a former Internet advertising firm now known as MaxWorldwide, Inc., pursuant to Sebastian's consent. The Judgment resolves the Commission's claims against Sebastian in a civil action filed on Sept. 25, 2003. As part of the settlement, Sebastian is ordered to pay approximately $415,000. In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Sebastian participated in a scheme to generate fraudulent revenues through advertising barter transactions with other Internet companies, including Homestore.com Inc., in order to meet securities analysts' revenue estimates. Through the fraudulent barter transactions, L90 overstated its revenues in the third quarter of 2000 through the third quarter of 2001 by at least $4.3 million, or 7.9 percent overall, and by as much as 29 percent in one quarter. As a result, L90 was able to meet analysts' revenue estimates in all but one of these quarters. Sebastian consented, without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint, to the entry of the judgment, which permanently enjoins him from violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; the reporting provisions of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder; the record-keeping provisions of Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1; the internal control provisions of Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act; and the lying to the auditors provisions of Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2. The Judgment also imposes an officer and director bar against Sebastian and requires him to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $265,972.65 and a civil penalty of $150,000. On March 8, 2004, in a related criminal matter, Sebastian pled guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He is scheduled for sentencing in June before U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson. The suit is styled "SEC v. Thomas A. Sebastian, LACV 03-6909 R (FMOx) CD CA." LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leasecomm Corporation asked the Superior Court in Massachusetts to dismiss the class action filed against it and one of its dealers. The purported class is a nationwide class (excluding certain residents of the State of Texas) who signed identical or substantially similar lease agreements with the Company covering the same product. After the Company had filed a motion to dismiss, but before the motion to dismiss was heard by the Court, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the Company for declaratory relief, absence of consideration, unconscionability, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11. The Court allowed the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in March 2004. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement for Consumer Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leasecomm Corporation reached a settlement for the class action filed against it, Cardservice International, Linkpoint International and Clear Commerce Corporation. The plaintiff alleged he lease-financed through the Company the right to use certain computer software manufactured, distributed and sold by the other defendants. The plaintiff does not allege that the Company failed to provide the lease financing contemplated by the Company lease. Instead, the Plaintiff alleges that the software failed to operate as he believed it would, and he has sued for a declaration that would allow him to rescind his contract, to recover money paid in the course of the transaction and to recover damages allegedly caused by unspecified deceptive trade practices. The plaintiff asserts his claims "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated." The Company denies all of the Plaintiff's allegations. The parties have reached an agreement on settlement terms and are currently drafting the settlement documents. The settlement, if finalized and signed by the parties, will require court approval to become effective. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Leasecomm Corporation reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit filed in the Orange County Superior Court for the State of California. In that Complaint, Maria J. Smith purports to bring a claim against the Company and two other defendants (Galaxy Mall, Inc. and Electronic Commerce International, Inc.) for unfair business practices and competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The essence of the claim is that Mr. Smith and others who are similarly situated were defrauded in connection with their acquisition of certain licenses that were financed by Leasecomm. In May 2003, Leasecomm filed a motion to stay the action in favor of a Massachusetts forum based on a forum selection clause contained in plaintiff's lease agreement with Leasecomm. After filing the motion, Leasecomm entered into settlement negotiations with plaintiff's counsel to explore the possibility of resolving the matter on a class wide basis without the need for further litigation (meaning the settlement would, if accepted, apply not only to the named plaintiff but to others similarly situated). The parties have reached agreement on settlement terms and are currently drafting the settlement documents. The settlement, if finalized and signed by the parties, will require Court approval to become effective. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Suit in MA Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leasecomm Corporation, a dealer and a party related to the delar face a purported class action filed in Superior Court in Massachusetts. The purported class is a nationwide class who signed lease agreements identical to, or substantially similar to, the plaintiff's lease agreement with Leasecomm, and covering the same product. The Complaint asserts claims for declaratory judgment, absence of consideration, unconscionability, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11. The claims concern the validity, enforceability, and alleged unconscionability of the lease of a product which enabled a merchant to process credit card payments. The Complaint seeks rescission of lease agreements with Leasecomm, restitution, multiple damages and attorneys fees under Chapter 93A, and injunctive relief. MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Shareholders Lodge MA Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microfinancial, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of federal securities law. The purported class would consist of all persons who purchased Company securities between February 5, 1999 and October 30, 2002. The Complaint asserts that during this period the Company made a series of materially false or misleading statements about the Company's business, prospects and operations, including with respect to certain lease provisions, the Company's course of dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the Company's reserves for credit losses. No motion or answer has been filed in response to the Complaint. MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in AL Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against Microfinancial, Inc., Leasecomm Corporation and Galaxy Mall, Inc. in Alabama State Court in Bullock County. The suit alleges: (1) breach of contract; (2) Fraud, Suppression and Deceit; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4) Conspiracy; (5) Conversion; (6) Theft by Deception; and (7) violation of Alabama Usury Laws The Complaint was filed on behalf of Aaron Cobb individually, and on behalf of a class of persons and entities similarly situated in the State of Alabama. More specifically, the Plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons and small business in the State of Alabama who allegedly were induced to purchase services and/or goods from any of the Defendants named in the Complaint. On March 31, 2003 the trial court entered an Order denying the Company's Motion to Dismiss. An appeal of the Order was filed with the Alabama Supreme Court on May 12, 2003. On February 20, 2004, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled the Company's application for rehearing. On February 24, 2004, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in which Plaintiff added Electronic Commerce International (ECI) as an additional party defendant. No new allegations were asserted against the Company in the Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2004 the Company filed an answer to the Amended Complaint denying the Plaintiff's allegations. NETWORK ENGINES: Court Orders Suits Over EMC Pact Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered consolidated several class actions filed against Network Engines, Inc. and certain individual Company defendants, concerning the timing of the announcement of an amendment to the Company's agreement with EMC Corporation regarding the resale of EMC-approved Fibre Channel HBAs. In its March 17, 2004 order, the Court selected Wing Kam Yu, Blake Kunkel, and Thomas Cunningham as Lead Plaintiffs and appointed Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel. The Lead Plaintiffs have sixty days from the entry of the Court's March 17, 2004 order in which to serve the Defendants with an amended consolidated complaint. Following service of the amended consolidated complaint, the Defendants will have sixty days in which to respond. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and it intends to pursue a vigorous defense. NETWORK ENGINES: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware granted final approval to the settlement of the purported class action and derivative lawsuit filed against Network Engines, Inc. and: (1) Robert M. Wadsworth, (2) Frank M. Polestra, (3) John H. Curtis, (4) Lawrence A. Genovesi, (5) John A. Blaeser and (6) Fontaine K. Richardson The suit relates to the acquisition of TidalWire Inc. The plaintiffs in the complaint alleged that the Company and the named directors of its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, paying an excessive amount in the acquisition of TidalWire and purportedly failing to disclose material facts in the Company's Joint Proxy Statement/Information Statement distributed to stockholders for approval of the issuance of shares of the Company's Common Stock in the merger. The plaintiffs sought damages, rescission of the merger and other relief. On October 30, 2003, the court approved a settlement of the action negotiated by the parties, and that settlement became final on December 1, 2003. Under the settlement, all claims against the Company and its individual board members were dismissed with prejudice, and: (i) the defendants in the lawsuit paid $600,000 to the Company, (ii) plaintiff's attorney fees of $185,000 were paid out of that $600,000 amount and (iii) in the disclosure for the Company's next annual meeting, the Company was required to detail certain information concerning relationships among its board members, which the Company has complied with. Payments to the Company under this settlement, net of payments of plaintiff's attorney fees, were recorded as an increase of $415,000 to additional paid-in capital in the three months ended December 31, 2003. NORMANDY AMERICA: SEC Settles Fraud Case V. Investment Manager -------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled administrative action against Christopher Kent Bagdasarian, the former principal of Normandy America Inc. (Normandy). The order barred Bagdasarian from association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser. The Commission instituted the administrative action following resolution of its civil enforcement against Bagdasarian. The civil complaint in that action alleged that Bagdasarian engaged in material misrepresentations in connection with Normandy's initial public offering (IPO). The Commission obtained a Final Judgment against Bagdasarian in that action, enjoining him from further violations of the federal securities laws. The Commission's order found that the civil complaint alleged that Bagdasarian filed a registration statement for Normandy for a $200 million IPO. According to the registration statement, Bagdasarian planned to operate Normandy as a reinsurance company and invest its premium income in equity securities. Normandy's registration statement became effective on Aug. 11, 1995, and its stock commenced trading on the NADSAQ National Market System on Aug. 15, 1995. On Aug. 16, 1995, Normandy withdrew its offering from the market and rescinded all trades. The Commission's order further found that the civil complaint alleged that in furtherance of the IPO, Bagdasarian engaged in a fraudulent scheme to fabricate an investment track record that was included in the registration statement for Normandy's initial public offering; Bagdasarian perpetrated the fraudulent scheme by repeatedly providing false and misleading information to the underwriters and underwriters' counsel; Bagdasarian falsely represented that he achieved a ten-year average annual return of 29.1% managing assets ranging from $250.6 million in 1990 to $731.3 million during 1994, when in fact Bagdasarian managed no such assets; Bagdasarian falsely represented that the $731.3 million in managed assets were located in approximately thirty offshore structures, when in fact there were no such offshore structures; Bagdasarian falsely represented that all of the assets he managed had been disclosed in Normandy's registration statement, and that he had sole authority to make investment decisions for those assets that were not disclosed; and Bagdasarian directed one of his employees to impersonate an investor and provide false information to the underwriters concerning Bagdasarian's investment performance and assets under management. The Commission's order further found that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Final Judgment against Bagdasarian in the civil enforcement action filed by the Commission. The Final Judgment permanently restrained and enjoined Bagdasarian from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933. Without admitting or denying the findings of the Commission's order, Bagdasarian agreed to be barred from association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act. OCUMED GROUP: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings Over Stock ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative proceedings against Ocumed Group, Inc. to determine whether the registration of Ocumed's securities should be suspended or revoked. Ocumed, a Delaware corporation with its principal office in Roseland, N.J., sells a broad range of ophthalmic products for both the prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical markets. The Commission's Order alleges that Ocumed failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder when it failed to file with the Commission its required Form 10-KSB annual report for its fiscal year ended April 30, 2003, and its Form 10-QSB quarterly reports for its fiscal quarters ended July 31, 2003, Oct. 31, 2003, and Jan. 31, 2004. A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are true, to provide Ocumed an opportunity to establish any defenses, and to determine whether the registration of Ocumed's common stock should be suspended or revoked. Pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice, an initial decision shall be issued by the administrative law judge within 120 days from service upon Ocumed of the Order Instituting Proceedings. In a related civil action, the Commission filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Ocumed and two of the company's officers and directors - Alfred Caggia and Louise Cummings - for violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by including a forged auditor's report in Ocumed's 2002 10-KSB filing with the Commission. The Commission also charges that Caggia violated the recordkeeping, ownership and disclosure, and certification requirements of the federal securities laws. According to the Commission's complaint, in August 2002, Ocumed filed a Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2002, that contained what purported to be an auditor report issued by an independent auditor. The complaint alleges that the auditor report was a forgery fabricated to make it appear as if Ocumed's 2002 financial statements were audited when, in fact, no audit ever occurred. The complaint alleges Caggia and Ocumed's now deceased CFO created the forged auditor report and, with Caggia's knowledge, included the forged report in Ocumed's 10-KSB. Caggia and Cummings signed the 10-KSB. The complaint further alleges that Cummings failed to read or take any steps to ascertain whether the filing was true and accurate. The complaint further alleges that Caggia failed to file with the Commission required ownership and disclosure statements identifying his control of a substantial percentage of the outstanding Ocumed shares and his transfer of several shares to other individuals or entities. According to the complaint, Caggia also failed to file certifications of accuracy and completeness required by Sarbanes-Oxley Rule 13a-14 with Ocumed's 10-QSBs for the quarters ended July 31, 2002, Oct. 31, 2002, and Jan. 31, 2003. The complaint seeks an injunction against Ocumed based on its violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, and 13a-1. It seeks an injunction, officer and director bar, civil monetary penalty, and order of disgorgement against Caggia based on his violations of Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), 13(d), and 16(a) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13d-1, 13d-2, and 16a-3, and his aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Lastly, the complaint seeks an injunction, officer and director bar, and civil penalty against Cummings based on her violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and her aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. (In the Matter of Occumed Group, Inc., Rel. 34-49761; File No. 3-11501) [SEC v. Ocumed Group, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 1:04CV00829, D.D.C.] (LR-18723) OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings V. Owner --------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted a public administrative proceeding against Daniel D. Dyer (Dyer) pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Mr. Dyer, 49, is a resident of University Place, Washington and the sole owner of Oxbow Capital Partners, LLC. Simultaneous with the institution of the proceeding, Dyer submitted an Offer of Settlement in which, while neither admitting nor denying the Commission's findings, Dyer consented to the entry of an Order barring him from association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser. The Order was based on the entry of a permanent injunction in a civil action filed against Dyer in Portland, Oregon. The Commission's complaint alleged that Dyer and Oxbow Capital Partners violated the registration and antifraud provisions by, among other things, aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Capital Consultants, LLC, formerly an investment adviser in Portland, Oregon, from November 1998 to August 2000 and conducting two offering frauds between April 1999 and October 2000: Oxbow Capital 1999 Fund I, LLC and Washington Motorcycle Partners, LLC. PEMCO AVIATION: Court Hears Appeal of Summary Judgment in Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama heard arguments on the appeal of a lower court's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of PEMCO Aviation Group in the class action filed against it and its Pemco Aeroplex subsidiary by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The suit seeks declaratory, injunctive relief and other compensatory and punitive damages based upon alleged unlawful employment practices of race discrimination and racial harassment by the company's managers, supervisors, and other employees. The complaint sought damages in the amount of $75 million. A prior class action was withdrawn after the Court refused to grant class certification, and the plaintiffs withdrew their request. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subsequently entered the above case. The Court denied consolidation of the cases for trial purposes. On June 28, 2002 a jury determined that there was no hostile work environment with regard to any of the 22 plaintiffs in the original case and granted verdicts for the company. Nine plaintiffs elected to settle with the company prior to the trial. On December 13, 2002 the Court granted the company Summary Judgment in the EEOC case. That judgment has now been appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and all briefs filed. Arguments were heard on March 18, 2004 and the company awaits the Court's decision. The company has taken effective remedial and corrective action, acted promptly in respect to any specific complaint by an employee, and will vigorously defend this case. PIPER JAFFRAY: Jury Verdict Favors Trader in MN Stock Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- After a three day trial, a Minnesota jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant Michael Rivers finding that he did not violate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On Oct. 31, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Michael Rivers and his former broker at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray (Piper Jaffray), Thomas E. Hall (Hall), alleging that they artificially increased the closing price of First Federal Capital Corporation (First Federal) common stock through "marking the close" transactions and thereby violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. However, the jury found for defendant Rivers and against the Commission on those charges. Previously, Hall consented, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, to the entry of an order of permanent injunction enjoining him from violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and imposing a civil penalty of $50,000. Hall was also subsequently barred from association with any broker or dealer. Separately, in a related proceeding, on Nov. 5, 2002, the Commission entered an Order Instituting Proceedings Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. (Piper Jaffray). The Commission's Order found that Piper Jaffray failed to supervise Hall and failed to have adequate systems in place to detect or prevent certain conduct. Piper Jaffray, while neither admitting nor denying the Order's findings, consented to the entry of the Order and the imposition of sanctions against it, which included a $100,000 penalty and certain remedial undertakings. The suit is styled "SEC v. Michael J. Rivers and Thomas E. Hall, 02-4213 JRT/FLN, USDC, Minn." RAYMOND SOBIERALSKI: SEC Files Admin. Proceedings Against Trader ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Raymond P. Sobieralski (Sobieralski). The Order finds that, on December 14, 2001, an order was entered by default against Sobieralski, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. National Institute Companies of America, et al., Civil Action Number 00-CV-1216, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Commission's complaint in that matter alleged that, in connection with the sale of unregistered securities of Mortgage Bankers Holding Corp. and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Capital Investment Corp., Sobieralski made material misrepresentations and omissions to investors concerning, among other things, the risk of the investment, the financial condition of the issuers, and the use of proceeds. The complaint also alleged that Sobieralski acted as an unregistered broker or dealer in connection with the sale of those securities. Based on the above, the Order bars Sobieralski from association with any broker or dealer and from participating in any offering of a penny stock. Sobieralski consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the civil injunctive action. (Rel. 34-49762; File No. 3-11502) SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Syncor International Corporation (now known as Cardinal Health 414, Inc.) asked the United States District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss the second amended consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its officers and directors. The suit asserts claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of Syncor shares. The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of press releases and public filings disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's international business, but omitting mention of certain allegedly improper payments to Syncor's foreign customers, thereby artificially inflating the price of Syncor shares. A lead plaintiff has been appointed by the court in the federal securities actions and a consolidated amended complaint was filed May 19, 2003, naming the Company and 12 individuals, all former officers, directors and/or employees of the Company, as defendants. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 1, 2003 and, on December 12, 2003, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. A second amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on January 28, 2004, naming the Company and 14 individuals, all former officers, directors and/or employees of the Company, as defendants. SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To File Second Amended Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs moved to file a second amended consolidated complaint against seven of Syncor International Corporation's nine directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On November 14, 2002, two actions were filed by individual stockholders of Syncor, alleging that the director defendants breached certain fiduciary duties to Syncor by failing to maintain adequate controls, practices and procedures to ensure that Syncor's employees and representatives did not engage in improper and unlawful conduct. Both complaints asserted a single derivative claim, for and on behalf of Syncor, seeking to recover all of the costs and expenses that Syncor incurred as a result of the allegedly improper payments (including the costs of the federal securities actions described above), and a single purported class action claim seeking to recover damages on behalf of all holders of Syncor shares in the amount of any losses sustained if consideration received in the merger by Syncor stockholders was reduced. On November 22, 2002, the plaintiff in one of the two Delaware actions filed an amended complaint adding as defendants the Company, its subsidiary Mudhen Merger Corporation and the remaining two Syncor directors, who are hereafter included in the term "director defendants." These cases have been consolidated under the caption "In re: Syncor International Corp. Shareholders Litigation." On August 14, 2003, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated Delaware action. At the end of September 2003, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action moved the court to file a second amended complaint. Monty Fu is the only named defendant in the proposed second amended complaint. TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Formal NY Settlement Documents Drafted -------------------------------------------------------------- Formal documents for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Telaxis Communications, Inc. are being prepared and will be presented to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. During the period from June 12 to September 13, 2001, four purported securities class actions were filed against Telaxis in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, namely: (1) Katz v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al., (2) Kucera v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al., (3) Paquette v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al., and (4) Inglis v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al The lawsuits also named one or more of the underwriters in the Telaxis initial public offering and certain of its officers and directors. On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint, superseding the individual complaints originally filed. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws due to alleged statements in and omissions from the Telaxis initial public offering registration statement concerning the underwriters' alleged activities in connection with the underwriting of Telaxis' shares to the public. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages and costs associated with the litigation. These lawsuits have been assigned along with, the Company understands, approximately 1,000 other lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded companies and their public offering underwriters to a single federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes. On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated, amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation dismissing without prejudice all claims against the Company directors and officers who had been defendants in the litigation. On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the separate motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and the underwriter defendants. The court granted in part and denied in part the issuer defendants' motions. The court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims brought against the Company under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws. The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws (which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded) as to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants. The court denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects. In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. This decision was made by a special independent committee of the Company's board of directors. The Company understands that a large majority of the other issuer defendants have also elected to participate in this settlement. If ultimately approved by the court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants. The proposed settlement provides that the insurers of the participating issuer defendants will guarantee that the plaintiffs in the cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will recover at least $1 billion. This means there will be no monetary obligation to the plaintiffs if they recover $1 billion or more from the underwriter defendants. In addition, the Company and the other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that the participating issuer defendants may have against the underwriters of their IPOs. The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the guarantee contained in the settlement or settlement- related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs. Therefore, the potential exposure of each participating issuer defendant should decrease as the number of participating issuer defendants increases. The Company currently expects that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed settlement. Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the court final settlement documents and final approval by the court. If the proposed settlement described above is not consummated, the Company intends to continue to defend the litigation vigorously. Moreover, if the proposed settlement is not consummated, the Company believes that the underwriters may have an obligation to indemnify the Company for the legal fees and other costs of defending these suits. TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Suit Status Conference Held --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Puerto Rico held a status conference for the class action filed against Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc. on April 30,2004. On November 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight business service subscribers filed a class action under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971. The plaintiffs claim that the Company's charges for touchtone service are not based on cost, and are therefore in violation of the Act. They have requested that the Court: (1) issue an Order certifying the case as a class action, (2) designate the plaintiffs as representative of the class, (3) find that the charges are illegal, and (4) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for excess payments made since September 1996 On December 30, 2003, the Company filed its corresponding answer to the complaint and requested dismissal on the grounds that the claim is not a legitimate class action. On February 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their first set of interrogatories and request for admissions to initiate a discovery proceeding. The Company will ask the court to first decide the threshold issue of class certification. On February 23, 2004, the court issued an Order scheduling a status conference for April 30, 2004. At that hearing, the Court ruled that at this stage of the proceedings the discovery process will be directed toward the issue of the certification of the proposed class. TORCH OFFSHORE: Oral Arguments Finished on Suit Dismissal Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed against Torch Offshore, Inc. have been completed in the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit was filed regarding the Company's Public Offering of its common stock, and is styled "Karl L. Kapps, et. al. v. Torch Offshore, Inc. et al., No. 02-00582." The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The lawsuit was dismissed on December 19, 2002 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The plaintiffs appealed the decision. The Company is awaiting the decision of the Court. TYCO INTERNATIONAL: AMP Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International, Ltd. faces a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Ballard v. Tyco International Ltd., et al." Plaintiffs are former AMP shareholders who received Tyco stock in connection with Tyco's merger with AMP. Plaintiffs also name as defendants PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and former officers and/or directors: (1) L. Dennis Kozlowski, (2) Mark Swartz, (3) Mark Belnick (4) Frank Walsh and (5) Michael Ashcroft The complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 11 and 12 (a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint seeks an award of compensatory and exemplary damages. The Company has requested the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Moves IL Securities Lawsuit To Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco International, Ltd. moved the securities class action filed against it in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit, styled "Davis v. Kozlowski, et al.," purports to represent a class of persons who held Tyco securities prior to December 13, 1999 through June 3, 2003. Plaintiff names as defendants: (1) L. Dennis Kozlowski, (2) Mark Swartz, (3) Mark Belnick, (4) Frank Walsh, (5) Michael Ashcroft, (6) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, (7) Phua Young and (8) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated. The complaint asserts claims of common law fraud against all defendants, breach of fiduciary duties against individual defendants, negligent misrepresentation against PricewaterhouseCoopers and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith. The Company has removed the complaint to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and has requested the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To Add Defendants to ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add new defendants to the consolidated class action filed against Tyco International, Ktd. and certain of its current and former employees, officers and directors, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The complaint purported to bring claims on behalf of the Tyco International (US) Inc. Retirement Savings and Investment Plans and the participants therein. The company and several other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Shortly thereafter the other defendants also moved to dismiss. The Company's motion to dismiss remains pending before the court. On November 6, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add eleven current and former employees as defendants. The motion remains pending before the court. UNI-MARTS INC.: Investors File Suit V. Green Valley Merger in DE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Uni-Marts, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed on behalf of its stockholders in Delaware Chancery Court. The suit also names as defendants the members of the Board of Directors and Green Valley, in connection with the proposed merger between Uni-Marts and Green Valley. The relevant complaint alleges that, among other things, Mr. Henry and Daniel Sahakian have a conflict of interest with respect to the merger, all the Company's Directors have breached their fiduciary duties in approving and structuring the merger, and the price to be paid to the stockholders is grossly unfair and inadequate. The plaintiffs seek class action certification, an injunction prohibiting the Company from completing the merger, rescission of the merger if it is consummated or the award of recessionary damages, compensatory damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of the lawsuit. 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 24-25, 2004 FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia 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 July 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 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 September 27-28, 2004 REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.com September 29-30, 2004 CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.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 ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston 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 ------------------------ June 05-30, 2004 DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION: EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com June 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 June 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: Goodkind Labaton Lodges FL Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Asconi Corporation (AMEX:ACD) between May 15, 2003 and March 23, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against Asconi, Constantin Jitaru, and Anatolie Sirbu. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the Company's business performance during the Class Period. The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, Asconi misrepresented its financial condition and failed to disclose certain related party transactions. On March 23, 2004, Asconi announced that it was the subject of an SEC investigation and would be restating its previously reported financial results for 2003. Upon disclosure of this information, the price of Asconi common stock dropped from $6.64 per share on March 22, 2004 to $4.93 per share on March 23, 2004. On April 14, 2004, Asconi indicated that it would not be able to file its 2003 financial statements within the fifteen day extension it secured from the SEC. For more details, contact Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 206 Hollywood, FL 33021 by Phone: 212-907-0700 or 954-630-1000 by Fax: 212-818-0477 or 954-565-1312 or by E-Mail: info@glrslaw.com BALLY TOTAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL -------------------------------------------------------------- The 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 Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE:BFT), between August 3, 1999 and April 28, 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 Bally securities. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq. 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 BALLY TOTAL: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL --------------------------------------------------------------- Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated a securities class action, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE:BFT) between August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the public which described the Company's improving financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) the Company had violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own internal policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain non- obligatory prepaid membership dues; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and, (3) as a result, the value of the Company's reported revenues during the Class Period was materially overstated. On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer, had resigned and that the Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation in connection with the Company's announced restatement regarding the timing of recognition of certain prepaid dues. The Company also stated that it had modified its existing internal controls structure, and believes it is now effective. In response to these disclosures, shares of Bally's common stock fell approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden or Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone: 1-800-470-6824 or by E-Mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com BALLY TOTAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT) securities between August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com BISYS GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of The BISYS Group Inc. (NYSE:BSG) between October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against BISYS and certain officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants caused BISYS shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. On May 17, 2004, The Company issued a press release which stated in pertinent part that, based upon additional review and analysis of commissions receivable in its Life Insurance division, that it would have to increase the previously reported pre-tax adjustment of $24.7 million to an adjustment of $70 to $80 million. The Company also determined that the adjustment required a restatement of past financial results for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003, 2002 and 2001, as well as interim results for fiscal 2004. In reaction to this news, shares of BISYS fell $1.13, or approximately 8%. For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone: (800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm CAREER EDUCATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Amended Lawsuit in IL --------------------------------------------------------------- Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP updated the class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Career Education Corporation (NASDAQ:CECO) between April 22, 2003 and December 2, 2003, inclusive. By order dated April 6, 2004, (the "order") Goodkind Labaton was appointed by the Court to serve as Lead Counsel for the Class in the now consolidated action Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-8884 (N.D. Ill.). Goodkind Labaton continues to conduct an extensive investigation that to date has revealed significant findings and expects to file its amended complaint containing these newly developed facts by June 17, 2004. The initial actions filed against the Company allege that Defendants violated the federal securities laws by falsifying student records to show a higher rate of enrollment, retention and graduation. As reflected in the article on November 11, 2003, Record, a Bergen County New Jersey newspaper, reported that a former director of Gibbs College, a school owned by the Defendants, had filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging that it falsified student records to show higher enrollment. On this news shares of Career Ed fell more than 13%, or $7.10 to $45.18. Then on December 3, 2003, the Santa Barbara News-Press reported that another former employee at a school owned by the Defendants had filed a lawsuit alleging that Defendants falsified student records. In reaction to this news, Career Ed shares fell an additional 28% or $15.28 per share, to close at $39.48 per share. For more details, contact Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or 3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 206 Hollywood, FL 33021 by Phone: 212- 907-0700 or 954-630-1000 by Fax: 212-818-0477 or 954-565-1312 or by E-Mail: info@glrslaw.com EL PASO: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX -------------------------------------------------------------- Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action against El Paso Corporation (NYSE: EP) in this United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of purchasers of stock options of El Paso Corporation who purchased or otherwise acquired such options between March 31, 2003 and February 17, 2004, inclusive. Those who purchased stock options between December 9, 2003 and April 30, 2004 are also included in the proposed class. The Complaint alleges that El Paso and certain of its officers and directors committed violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants disseminated materially false and misleading information to the investigating public that artificially inflated El Paso's share price. Specifically, El Paso reported proved petroleum reserves that were false -- thus misleading those purchasing such options. The Complaint was fled on behalf of all persons who purchased and or sold options of El Paso during the period of March 31, 2003 through February 17, 2004 and who sustained damages. Further, those who purchased such options from December 9, 2003 and April 30, 2004 are welcome to contact the firm. On February 17, 2004, after the market closed, El Paso announced that an independent review of the Company's proved oil and gas reserves revealed that as of January 1, 2003 El Paso overstated reserves by a staggering 41%. The Company also revealed that it expects to take a pre-tax charge of approximately 1 billion dollars for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 ending December 31, 2003. On the heels of these revelations, El Paso's purchase options fell nearly 18% from a closing price of $8.81 on February 17, 2004 to close at $7.26 on February 18, 2004 on trading volume of over 57 million shares, more than six times the average daily volume. For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein by Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 or 619/233-4565 (PDT) or by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or ELPasoOptions_Litigation@scott-scott.com IDACORP INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Idacorp, Inc. (NYSE: IDA) securities between February 1, 2002 and June 4, 2002, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com IDACORP INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Idacorp, Inc. (NYSE:IDA), between February 1, 2002 through June 4, 2002, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. 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 Idacorp securities. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq. 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 IDACORP INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of IDACORP, Inc. (NYSE:IDA) between February 1, 2002 and June 4, 2002, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against defendant IDACORP, Jon H. Miller, Jan B. Packwood, J. Lamont Keen and Darrel T. Anderson. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com KRISPY KREME: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC --------------------------------------------------------------- Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE:KKD) publicly traded securities during the period between February 14, 2003 and May 6, 2004. The complaint charges Krispy Kreme and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Krispy Kreme owns, operates, and franchises retail stores that sell doughnuts. The Company operates its stores under the Krispy Kreme name and specializes in making doughnuts, including their Hot Original Glazed. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Krispy Kreme's store results, same store sales, and growth rates. Its earnings were also misleading in part due to transactions, which had purportedly permitted the Company to not consolidate money-losing joint ventures but to consolidate money-making joint ventures into its financial statements. The Company also misled investors by concealing the impact of low- carbohydrate diets. As a result of these statements, investors were misled about the Company's success of existing stores and the Company's growth. As a result of these false statements, the Company's stock, which began the Class Period trading at less than $30 per share, climbed as high as $49.74 per share. Krispy Kreme took advantage of this artificial inflation, exchanging 1.2 million shares of Krispy Kreme stock in acquisitions, and the individual defendants were able to sell more than 420,000 shares of their Company stock for proceeds of more than $17.4 million. Krispy Kreme's business was not performing nearly as well as represented during the Class Period. Ultimately, on May 7, 2004, Krispy Kreme stunned the market when it issued a press release entitled "In Response to Recent Industry Dynamics, Krispy Kreme Updates Business Outlook." The press release stated that "recent market data suggests consumer interest in reduced carbohydrate consumption has heightened significantly following the beginning of the year and has accelerated in the last two to three months. This phenomenon has affected us most heavily in our off-premises sales channels, in particular sales of packaged doughnuts to grocery store customers." Upon these disclosures, Krispy Kreme's stock dropped to as low as $22.48 per share before closing at $22.51 per share on May 7, 2004, some 54% below the Class Period high of $49.74 per share and a one-day drop of 29%, on volume of 20.5 million shares. The stock later dropped to as low as $20.08 per share. For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E- Mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web site: http://www.lcsr.com/cases/krispykreme/ LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Stock Suit in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Liquidmetal Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:LQMTE) between May 22, 2002 and March 30, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against Liquidmetal, John Kang and Brian McDougall. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically the Complaint alleges that Liquidmetal and individual defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's improving financial results as well as publicized deals to place its metal alloy products with significant customers such as Sony and Motorola. These deals failed to come to fruition due to Liquidmetal's inability to produce a commercially viable and cost effective product. As a result, Defendants allegedly resorted to fraudulent means to cover up this deficiency, by entering into a deal with Growell Metal. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that Liquidmetal's improving results were solely the result of improper revenue recognition practices in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On February 20, 2004, Liquidmetal announced that it would have to restate revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 due to improper revenue recognition practices. On March 30, 2004, the Company revealed that the filing of its 10-K had been indefinitely delayed due to its inability to complete the audit of its financial results. Post the announcement of these news items, shares of Liquidmetal have fallen approximately 25.5%. For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone: (800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the mutual funds carrying the "Merrill Lynch" brand name ("MLIM Funds") from May 20, 1999 to the present, inclusive. The complaint charges that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch & Co.") (NYSE:MER), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"), and Merrill Lynch Investment Managers L.P., ("MLIM" or "Asset Managers") violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between May 20, 1999 and the present. Defendants viewed Merrill Lynch's clients primarily as a vehicle for generating investment management fees so that Asset Managers could achieve its own financial goals and increase the profitability of the ultimate corporate parent. The defendant's primary duty of loyalty was not to its clients and achievement of the clients' financial goals. More specifically, nowhere do defendants state that their recommendations are not based on their understanding of their clients' financial personal needs, but rather, solely or primarily on their incentives to increase assets under MLIM's management. Moreover, Merrill Lynch's undisclosed incentive to promote MLIM Funds clearly presented a conflict of interest, pitting the financial interest of Merrill Lynch's registered representatives against that of its clients. Rather than disclose these conflicts, defendants sought to conceal the truth in order to promote their fraudulent scheme of generating substantial assets for Asset Managers. For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com MORGAN STANLEY: Falls & Veach Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Falls & Veach initiated a class action against Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (MSDW) on May 21, 2004 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (case number 04-cv-2384). The plaintiffs are investors who invested, as a result of the recommendation of a MSDW broker, in Class B shares in Morgan Stanley mutual funds from February 24, 1998 forward. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices in connection with the sale of Class B shares, resulting in class members paying excessive fees and/or loads with respect to such shares. The suit alleges that MSDW's conduct violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class consisting of non- retirement account investors who purchased in a single or combined transaction $50,000 or more of Class B shares in one or more Morgan Stanley mutual funds during the period February 25, 1998 and thereafter, a class consisting of all retirement account investors who purchased in a single or combined transaction $50,000 or more of Class B shares in one or more Morgan Stanley mutual funds during the period February 25, 1998 and thereafter, and were less than 54 years of age at the time the purchase(s) giving rise to class status were made; and c a class consisting of all retirement account investors who purchased in a single or combined transaction $100,000 or more of Class B shares in one or more Morgan Stanley mutual funds during the period February 25, 1998 and thereafter, and made no withdrawals in the twelve months following the purchase(s) giving rise to class status. Class members must have invested as a result of the recommendation of a MSDW broker. The suit alleges that for investors in these subclasses, Class A mutual fund shares would have been clearly superior to Class B and that it was therefore unsuitable for MSDW brokers to have recommended Class B shares. For more details, contact Falls & Veach by Mail: 1143 Sewanee Road, Nashville, TN 37220 by Phone: 800-789-9270 or 615-242-1800 by Fax: 615-242-1823 or by E-Mail: naill@fallsveach.com SALTON INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit N.D. IL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) securities between November 11, 2002 and May 11, 2004, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com UICI: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired UICI (NYSE: UCI) securities between January 17, 2000 and July 21, 2003, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com UICI: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX -------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of UICI (NYSE:UCI) between January 17, 2000 and July 21, 2003, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against defendant UICI and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com UICI: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of UICI (NYSE:UICI), between January 17, 2000 through July 21, 2003, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. 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 UICI securities. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq. 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 ********* 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 * * *