/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040623.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, June 23, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 123 Headlines ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders File Suit On Brain Cancer Drug AMERCO: Shareholders Commence Four Securities Fraud Suits in NV APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 25,2004 BIZRI CAPITAL: SEC Institutes, Settles Hedge Fund Fraud Lawsuit BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD: CT Court Grants Certification to Lawsuit CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: Lobbyists Worried About Delays in Bill ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set August 19, 2004 FAST FOOD LITIGATION: Govt Seeks Proof For Vending Machine Ban GLOBAL CROSSING: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 23, 2004 HBOS: UK Bank Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Demutualization HOME PRODUCTS: Stockholder Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE HYUNDAI MOTOR: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement INDONESIA: Komparta Seeks $105,319 in Damages V. Water Firms INSO CORPORATION: MA Court Enters Judgment Against Former Exec INTERCEPT INC.: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 6, 2004 KENNETH WARD: SEC Commences Civil Lawsuit V. Trader in S.D. TX MASTERCARD: Wal-Mart Stores Customers Able To Use Debit Cards NETWORK ASSOCIATES: SEC Sues EX-CFO For Fraud & Insider Trading PILGRIM BAXTER: Reaches $100M Settlement For Mutual Fund Fraud SNAPPLE BEVERAGES: Distributor Lodges Amended NY Antitrust Suit TAUBMAN CENTERS: Appeals Court Remands Investor Suit To E.D. MI TEXAS HEDGE FUNDS: SEC Files Fraud Complaint Against Two Traders UNITED STATES: 770 Gays Discharged Under Military Policy VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Former Head Summoned To French Financial HQ WYETH: Seeks Rehearing of PA Court Ruling in Fen-Phen Drug Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ADOLOR CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Lodges PA Stock Suit ALLIANCE GAMING: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NV ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CO BALLY TOTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL BALLY TOTAL: Marc S. Henxel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL BEA SYSTEMS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA BEA SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY LEHMAN ABS: Sheperd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY LEXAR MEDIA: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA MERIX CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR MERIX CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Suit in N.D. CA OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Girard Gibbs Lodges CA Securities Suit OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Seeger Weiss Lodges CA Securities Suit SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Files Updated FL Securities Suit VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in PA VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges PA Suit ********* ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders File Suit On Brain Cancer Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- Biotechnology company Allos Therapeutics, Inc. faces several class actions filed by its shareholders, alleging the Company artificially inflated its stock price by misrepresentations of its cancer drug known as RSR13, Health & Medicine Week reports. New York law firm Geller Rudman filed the lawsuit, specifically stating that the company did not disclose to shareholders that studies of RSR13 failed to show certain benefits of the drug used alone, and not in combination with other therapeutics. In addition, the suit states that Allos conducted only one efficacy study, and that the results of breast cancer studies were also flawed. As a result of these issues, the lawsuit claims that Allos made false and misleading statements, thus inflated the company's stock price. Allos shares fell 40% after news that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did not recommend approval of RSR13 as an adjunct therapy for brain metastases. RSR13 (efaproxiral) is an investigational brain radiation therapy for the treatment of patients with brain metastases originating from breast cancer. AMERCO: Shareholders Commence Four Securities Fraud Suits in NV --------------------------------------------------------------- AMERCO faces four putative securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The first suit is styled "Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et al., District of Nevada, United States District Court, Case No. CV-N- 03-0050-DWH-VPC." Article Four Trust, a purported AMERCO shareholder, commenced this action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002. The Article Four Trust action alleges one claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The second suit is styled "Mates v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-0 3- 0107." Maxine Mates, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002. The Mates action asserts claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The third suit is styled "Klug v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court of Nevada, Case No. CV-S-03-0380." Edward Klug, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002. The Klug action asserts claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. IG The fourth suit is styled "Holdings v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03- 0199." IG Holdings, an AMERCO bondholder, commenced this putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, acquired, or traded AMERCO bonds between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002, alleging claims under section 11 and section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Each of these four securities class actions allege that AMERCO engaged in transactions with SAC entities that falsely improved AMERCO's financial statements, and that AMERCO failed to disclose the transactions properly. The actions are at a very early stage. The Klug action has not been served. In the other three actions, the Company does not currently have a deadline by which it must respond to the complaints. APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 25,2004 -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement for the class action filed against Apropos Technology, Inc. on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Apropos Technology, Inc. from February 17, 2000 through and including April 10, 2001. The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the proposed settlement, which will be held before the Honorable David H. Coar, United States District Judge, on August 25, 2004, at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1419 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604. For more details, contact the Claims Administrator - Apropos Technology Securities Litigation by Mail: c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC - P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914 by Phone: (800) 766-3330 by Fax: (516) 931-0810 or visit their Web site: www.dberdon.com/claims OR Stull, Stull & Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 or 1-212-687-7230 by Fax: (212) 490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com BIZRI CAPITAL: SEC Institutes, Settles Hedge Fund Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- On June 16, the Commission instituted and settled a public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Samer M. El Bizri (Bizri) and his company, Bizri Capital Partners, Inc. (BCP). The Commission found that Bizri, who lives in Los Angeles, and BCP recklessly participated in a scheme to provide investors in three hedge funds with account statements that materially overstated their interests in the funds and rates of returns. In its administrative order, the Commission found that from June 2000 through September 2001, with the exception of a three-month period, Integral Investment Management, LP, the general partner of three hedge funds, Integral Equity, LP, Integral Hedging, LP and Integral Arbitrage, LP (collectively, the Funds), caused the Funds to overstate to investors the value of their investments by anywhere from 13% to 77% per month. Bizri and BCP were primarily responsible for investing the majority of the Funds' assets through an account at a broker-dealer in the name of the Galileo Fund, LP. By the end of March 2001, Bizri believed that the broker-dealer made significant errors in the Galileo Fund account that prevented him from valuing the account. Despite his inability to value the Galileo Fund account, Bizri continued to accept new investor funds and trade the Funds' assets in the Galileo Fund account. In addition, by the end of March 2001, Bizri knew that the Galileo Fund account statements reported substantial losses. Bizri believed that these perceived errors in the Galileo Fund account went largely unresolved through mid-July 2001, when Bizri and Integral transferred the Funds' assets in the Galileo Fund account to two accounts at another registered broker- dealer. There were no allegations of unresolved trading errors at this broker-dealer. Nevertheless, from mid-July through September 2001, the Funds, through their investment in the two accounts, suffered substantial additional losses. Bizri received monthly account statements purporting to reflect the value of BCP's holdings in the Funds. These statements failed to show the substantial losses that the Funds incurred in the Galileo Fund accounts. Thus, Bizri knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that investors received account statements that materially overstated the value of their interests in the Funds. Bizri and BCP, without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, consented to an order that (1) ordered Bizri and BCP to cease-and-desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act; (2) barred Bizri from association with any investment adviser, with the right to reapply for association after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory organization, or if there is none, to the Commission; (3) prohibited Bizri and BCP from serving or acting as an employee, officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser or depositor of, or principal underwriter for, a registered investment company or affiliated person of such investment adviser, depositor, or principal underwriter, with the right to reapply for service in any such capacity with the Commission after five years; and (4) directed Bizri and BCP to, within sixty days of the order, jointly and severally pay a $50,000 civil penalty. BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD: CT Court Grants Certification to Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court in Waterbury, Connecticut granted class certification to several parts of a 5-year-old case brought by doctors against Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut that alleged the insurer skimped on payments, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News reports. The suit alleged that Anthem paid doctors based on profiling - how they used medical resources. The doctors also alleged that Anthem failed to maintain accurate records, resulting in incorrect payments, and that the company did not provide a doctor on call during weekends to deal with pre-approvals needed for coverage of medical services. In 2001, the doctors obtained class action status on portions of their lawsuit, but Anthem appealed. The physicians lost the status in a Connecticut Supreme Court decision last fall, but that court ordered certain matters back to the trial court, paving the way for this new ruling. The case is expected to go to trial in January, and it could affect 7,000 Connecticut physicians as a class action. CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: Lobbyists Worried About Delays in Bill --------------------------------------------------------------- Industry lobbyists pushing for a bill limiting class action litigation are concerned that another delay in bringing the bill to the floor could mean that the window of political opportunity may soon be shut, TheHill.com reports. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (S. 2062) seeks to move class actions from state courts to federal courts and would cover all types of suits, including securities litigations. In state courts, juries often find for the plaintiffs in large award amounts as compared to federal courts where awards typically are smaller, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 16,2004) story states. Business groups in favor of the bill argue that bill would cut back on frivolous suits and that it would prevent trail lawyers from benefiting more than plaintiffs in many cases. Consumer and civil rights groups opposing the measure say the bill does not do enough to protect consumers. Nearly seven months ago, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R- Tennessee), the bill's sponsor, negotiated a compromise with three Democrats - Mary Landrieu (La.), Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.) - to deliver the 60 votes needed to invoke closure and allow a vote. Since then, the bill has stagnated on the Senate calendar while supporters and opponents on and off the Hill argue the bill's merits. The delay has prompted several senators and lobbyists who support the bill to question Sen. Frist's commitment, but others say the deliberate pace of the Senate is to blame. "Obviously, it's always challenging when things take awhile to percolate up in the Senate," Matthew Webb, vice president for legal reform policy at the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, told TheHill.com. "Any sort of delay is cause for some angst." Earlier this month, Sen. Frist announced he planned to take up the class action bill this week after the Senate completes the Department of Defense authorization bill. However, Mr. Webb and Senate aides told TheHill.com that Frist has hinted he may wait until after the Senate also finishes the Defense appropriations bill to bring up class action. This move would cause the debate on the bill to be pushed back until after the July 4 recess. Only three weeks remain before breaking for the Democratic convention in late July. The move to push back class action until after July 4, a Senate aide who has worked on the bill told TheHill.com, could be a sign of a "real reluctance on the part of Republicans to take up the class action bill." Mr. Webb said he believes Sen. Frist is a strong advocate for the bill, and that the delays are more because of "competing interests" rather than a diminishing of support. He said that if the bill must be delayed to make way for the appropriations legislation, it would be a "short hiccup rather than a long-term delay." If passed, the bill would still have to go to conference with the House, which voted out a more business-friendly version. "The House bill was very extreme," one lobbyist active in the coalition opposing the bill, told TheHill.com. He added the House would be "crazy" to try to change the bill from the Senate version if it passed. A coalition of opponents to the bill, called Preserving Access to Justice, has been trying to craft amendments that would include safeguards for consumers. Joy Howell, who worked with the coalition, said she was not surprised that the Senate has been hesitant to bring the bill to the floor for debate. "The truth is, it's a badly flawed bill," Ms. Howell told TheHill.com. "It will make it very difficult to keep any cases in state court if the defendant is an out-of-state defendant." ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set August 19, 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas will hold a hearing for the proposed settlement for the case: In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation. The Court will hold a hearing in this case at 9 am, Thursday, August 19, 2004 to consider whether to approve the settlement. For more details, call 1-866-560-4043 or visit the following Web sites: http://www.enronerisa.com,http://www.enronfraud.comor http://www.hagens-berman.com FAST FOOD LITIGATION: Govt Seeks Proof For Vending Machine Ban -------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is seeking more scientific evidence that vending machines lead to childhood obesity before the state restricts the machines in schools, the Associated Press reports. Standards that aim to cut children's calorie intake by regulating vending machines out of Arkansas middle schools and high schools are set to go before the state Board of Education in the coming months. Gov. Huckabee said the state needs to continue carefully and consider seriously the financial implications of the standards, which he said are headed in the right direction. He suggests restricting vending machine use in a group of schools and comparing the data with schools where access to the machines is limited. "There are no studies that I know that clearly say if a kid has access to a soda machine that he's going to be fatter than the one who doesn't have access," he said, according to AP. Last month, Gov. Huckabee announced his Healthy Arkansas campaign, which aims to reduce the percentage of obese children 5 percent by January 2007. Present state statistics show that about 22 percent of about 277,000 Arkansas public school students are obese and another 18 percent are overweight, AP reports. Under the proposed standards, middle and high school students would be restricted from accessing vending machine food until 30 minutes after the last lunch period ends. That would take effect in the coming school year. By the 2005-2006 school year, Foods and beverages sold in schools, including those from vending machines, will be required to meet a short list of nutritional guidelines. Officials who fully support the standards, say Gov. Huckabee is being disingenuous for opposing them based on a lack of research. "I think it's really pretty much a basic that candy bars and sugar colas are not conducive to good health," Rep. Jay Bradford, D-White Hall, told AP. "And I don't think it takes a lot of research to realize that adds a great amount of weight to certain individuals." The Arkansas Soft Drink Association's position on the standards is the same as Gov. Huckabee's. "They don't have any evidence to offer," Dennis Farmer, the association's president, told AP. "They can't tell you what difference that's going to make in the obesity rate." GLOBAL CROSSING: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 23, 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement for the class action filed against Global Crossing Ltd. on behalf of all persons who bought Global Crossing Ltd. or Asia Global Crossing Ltd. securities between February 1, 1999 and December 8, 2003, or were a participant or beneficiary of the Global Crossing ERISA or the Frontier Groups Bargaining Unit ERISA between September 28, 1999 and December 8, 2003, or were a participant in the Frontier Corp./Global Crossing Ltd. change of control severance plan. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on July 23,2004 to decide whether to approve the settlement. For more details, contact Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. or Sidney S. Liebesman, Esq. of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA by Mail: 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 by Phone: (302) 622-7149 or by Fax: (302) 622-7100 OR Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. or Gary A. Gotto, Esq. of Keller Rohrback LLP by Mail: 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, Washington 98101-3052 by Phone: (800) 508-4865 or by Fax: (206) 623-3384 OR Thomas J. Hart, Esq. or Marc A. Tenebaum, Esq. of Slevin & Hart, PC by Mail: Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 200036 by Phone: (202) 797-8700 or Fax (202) 234-8231 HBOS: UK Bank Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Demutualization -------------------------------------------------------------- Tens of thousands of overseas-based Halifax account holders filed a class action against Britain's fourth-biggest bank, HBOS, alleging that the bank cheated them out of an offer of free shares when Halifax demutualised and became a bank in June 1997, the Europe Intelligence Wire reports. Halifax which merged with Bank of Scotland in 2001 to form HBOS, were named in the suit in by account holders who claimed to have been cheated shares worth GBP77 million. Halifax offered 200 free shares in the bank to all of its account holders as part of the incentive to vote in favor of demutualisation, but the lawsuit alleges the transfer document and various "fraudulent" mail outs misled non-UK based clients about their rights to receive stock. Those Halifax shares converted into the same number of HBOS shares when the bank merged with BoS, meaning the 55,000 overseas Halifax account holders reckon they are owed a combined GBP77 million based on the current price of HBOS stock. The action is also asking for a jury trial, which if successful, could mean punitive damages against the bank increase the final bill by 10-fold. HBOS has hired Wall Street legal giant Sullivan & Cromwell to fight its corner in the New Jersey Superior Court, claiming the case should be thrown out for coming under the wrong jurisdiction. The lawsuit was filed in June last year on the last day possible under America's six-year cut-off rule for launching claims, shortly after initial plans to start a UK group action coordinated by Stephen Alexander, of Marble Arch firm Class Law, were shelved. Lerach Coughlin Robbins & Stoia represents the plaintiffs in the suit. HOME PRODUCTS: Stockholder Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE ---------------------------------------------------------------- Home Products International, Inc. (Nasdaq: HOMZ) and members of its board of directors faces a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The suit also names as defendants JRT Acquisition, Inc., an entity formed by James R. Tennant, the Company's chairman and chief executive officer, The suit was filed for purposes of acquiring all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock for $1.50 per share as set forth in the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 2, 2004. The complaint, which purports to be filed by a stockholder of the Company, includes a request for a declaration that the action be maintained as a class action and seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the Company from consummating the transactions set forth in the Merger Agreement and rescinding the transactions already entered into pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the consideration to be paid under the Merger Agreement is inadequate and that the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care and good faith by entering into the Merger Agreement. For more details, contact Shareholder Relations by Mail: 4501 West 47th Street, Chicago, IL 60632 by Phone: (773) 890-1010) or visit the SEC's Web site: http://www.sec.gov HYUNDAI MOTOR: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court in Orange County, California granted final approval to the settlement proposed by Hyundai Motor America to settle the class action filed against it, styled "Irwin v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 02CC00287," Bloomberg.com reports. The lawsuit charged the Company with overstating the horsepower of 1.3 million vehicles and inflating the value of Hyundai models. In September 2002, the Company admitted that it overstated the horsepower on the Santa Fe, Sonata, Tiburon and other models sold in the U.S. After the announcement, car owners in several states sued the Company, alleging fraud and deceptive trade practices. The Company allegedly deliberately overstated horsepower to gain a competitive advantage. The Company denied the charges, saying the overstatement wasn't intentional and that it had miscalculated the engine levels by about 4.6 horsepower per vehicle when it failed to retest cars and trucks after their exhaust systems were modified for the U.S. market. In January 2003, the Company reached a settlement where it agreed to provide $135 million in coupons on future purchases. Attorneys for other customers objected, contending that the coupon settlement was unfair and benefited only Hyundai and the lawyers who negotiated the settlement. Last August, a Texas state judge rejected the settlement, leading to additional negotiations. Under the settlement, the Company will pay owners of each vehicle up to $225 in cash, or up to $325 in credit with Hyundai dealers. The settlement replaces a previous agreement under which Hyundai offered coupons on future purchases. Customers will recover more from the new agreement, plaintiffs' lawyer Mitchell Toups told Bloomberg.com. "There's an option to take cash and the value is in multiples of the original deal," Mr. Toups said. "The original deal was evaluated at $8 million to $9 million, including $2 million in attorneys' fees." "We believe this concludes the issue," said Mike Anson, a spokesman for Hyundai Motor America, in Fountain Valley, California, Bloomberg.com reports. The actual cost to the company will likely be less, since "we don't expect every potential owner to seek compensation," Anson said. "A number of customers have told us they're happy with their vehicles and they aren't seeking anything." The court certified the car owners as a class for settlement purposes. Judge Stephen J. Sundvold approved the new settlement at a hearing on June 16. The class includes owners of Hyundai vehicles for which horsepower ratings were overstated by at least 2.5 percent. Owners of vehicles that were overstated by 2.5 percent will receive $50 in cash or a $100 dealer shopping card. The higher payments will go to vehicle owners, including those who bought the 2001 or 2002 Santa Fe, where horsepower was overstated by 7 to 10 percent, according to court papers, Bloomberg.com reports. INDONESIA: Komparta Seeks $105,319 in Damages V. Water Firms ------------------------------------------------------------ Indonesian consumer group Jakarta Water Consumers Community (Komparta) is waging a legal battle against two Indonesian water giants over poor service, the Asia Intelligence Wire reports. Komparta's suit names as defendants water firms PT Thames PAM Jaya (TPJ) and PT PAM Lyonnaise Jaya (Palyja). Komparta reiterated its demand that the Central Jakarta District Court find TPJ and Palyja guilty of violating Law No. 8/1999 on consumer protection, through their neglect of complaints from the public and losses caused by their incompetence in providing a reasonable service to customers. Komparta is demanding compensation of Rp 990 million (US$105,319) for material losses and Rp 1 billion in nonmaterial damages. Komparta filed its suit last June, following the firms' decision to increase water rates despite numerous complaints that they had done nothing to improve their services. In their own summation, TPJ and Palyja requested the court reject Komparta's arguments. Attorney Yoseph B. Badeoda, TPG legal representative, said that the evidence provided by Komparta was irrelevant to the case. He also added "Komparta has also failed to provide any convincing argument and evidence to prove that the firms have indeed broken the law." The firms also questioned Komparta's survey on their performance as it had not been carried out by an independent agency, as well as testimonies from expert witnesses, as they were not consumers who had experienced poor service themselves. The trial was adjourned to July 7 to hear the verdict. INSO CORPORATION: MA Court Enters Judgment Against Former Exec -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts entered judgment by default against Graham J. Marshall, a former manager of Inso Corporation. The Court held Marshall liable for securities fraud, providing false information to accountants, circumventing internal accounting controls, and aiding and abetting Inso's filing of false financial information with the Commission. Mr. Marshall, age 56 and formerly of Lexington, Massachusetts, was a senior manager at Inso, a now defunct software company that was headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The Court ordered Marshall to pay $345,685.98 in disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, plus as a $25,000 civil penalty. The Court also permanently enjoined Marshall from committing future violations, and barred Marshall from serving as an officer or director of a public company. On November 12, 2003, Marshall was indicted on criminal charges brought by the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts based on the same conduct at issue in the Securities and Exchange Commission's action. The Commission filed its complaint in June 2002 against Marshall and others. The Commission's complaint alleged that Marshall arranged for a Malaysian distributor to place a $3 million purchase order on the evening of Sept. 30, 1998, the end of Inso's third quarter, when an anticipated sale to a major customer fell through. The distributor transaction was a sham and should not have been included in Inso's reported financial results because Marshall promised the distributor he would not have to pay Inso for the purchase, and that Inso would resell the software. Marshall concealed the terms of the purported sale from Inso's finance department. Consequently, Inso improperly included $3 million in revenue from the sham purchase in its third quarter 1998 financial statements. Marshall took steps later in 1998 to cover up the fraudulent nature of the transaction. The Court held that Marshall violated 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, Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1, Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2, and aided and abetted Inso's uncharged violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder. The suit is styled "SEC v. Bruce Hill, et al., USDC, District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 02-CV-11244, EFH." INTERCEPT INC.: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 6, 2004 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Atlanta Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement for the class action filed against Intercept, Inc. on behalf of all persons who bought Company securities during the period from September 16, 2002 through and including January 9, 2003. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on August 6, 2004 to decide whether to approve the settlement. For more details, contact RG2 Claims Administrator LLC, by Mail: P.O. Box 78185, Atlanta, GA 33309-9998 by Phone: 1-866-742-4955 or 1-404-253-6904 or visit their Web site: http://www.RG2claims.com KENNETH WARD: SEC Commences Civil Lawsuit V. Trader in S.D. TX -------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an Application for an Order Directing Compliance With an Order of the Securities and Exchange Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking to enforce a Commission Order finding that defendant Kenneth R. Ward violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and requiring Ward to pay disgorgement and a civil penalty. In an Opinion issued on March 19, 2004, the Commission found that Ward, while associated with Government Securities Corporation of Texas, a now-defunct broker-dealer, defrauded certain Texas municipalities through the offer, sale and purchase of unsuitable high-risk mortgage derivative securities and wrongfully profited from his fraudulent conduct. The Commission's Application alleges that Ward failed to comply with the terms of the Commission's March 19, 2003, Opinion and Order, which, among other things, required that Ward pay disgorgement in the $249,711, plus prejudgment interest; and Ward pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000. In this action, the Commission seeks a federal district court order requiring Ward to comply with the Commission's Order. The suit is styled "SEC v. Kenneth R. Ward, Civil Action No. 04- 2272, USDC, SDTX." MASTERCARD: Wal-Mart Stores Customers Able To Use Debit Cards ------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart customers will now be able to use their Mastercard signature debit cards again since February, when the retail giant suspended their usage in a dispute over fees charged to merchants, the Associated Press reports. Wal-Mart was a lead plaintiff in an antitrust lawsuit filed against Mastercard and Visa, alleging that the debit card fees were too high. Wal-Mart was the first retailer to take such action since a lawsuit settlement freed merchants to pick which credit and debit card services to use. Under the settlement, merchants don't have to accept debit cards if they accept Visa or MasterCard charge cards. The antitrust settlement would pay more than $3 billion to thousands of U.S. retailers over the coming 10 years. Wal-Mart made the renewal announcement Monday, saying it would resume their use immediately, AP reports. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa Berryhill wouldn't confirm Monday if Mastercard had lowered its rates to win back Wal-Mart's business. "I can't disclose the terms of the agreement," Ms. Berryhill said. "We worked with Mastercard to reach an agreement that enabled us to offer an additional customer payment." Mastercard International spokeswoman Barbara Coleman also said Monday that the company would not discuss any specifics of the agreement, AP reports. Wal-Mart will continue to accept all other forms of Mastercard payment, including credit, personal identification number debit and corporate cards, the Company said. Both Wal-Mart and Mastercard officials said the renewed agreement gives their customers more choices when shopping. NETWORK ASSOCIATES: SEC Sues EX-CFO For Fraud & Insider Trading --------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Prabhat K. Goyal. Goyal was Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at Santa Clara, California-based software manufacturer Network Associates, Inc. until his departure in 2000. The Commission's complaint alleges that from the second quarter of fiscal 1998 through the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000, Goyal engaged in a fraudulent scheme to, among other things, overstate Network Associates' revenue and earnings in violation of the federal securities laws. The Commission's complaint also alleges that Goyal sold stock while in possession of material non-public information regarding the financial fraud at Network Associates. According to the complaint, Network Associates oversold products to its distributors and Goyal oversaw the improper recognition of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. In particular, the complaint alleges that Goyal and others at his direction: (1) used a wholly-owned Network Associates subsidiary to repurchase products previously sold to distributors in order to reduce distributor inventory levels and limit product returns, (2) made secret payments to distributors to induce them to hold excess inventory and buy more products, (3) offered distributors deep discounts and rebates on amounts that distributors already owed to Network Associates for prior product purchases and from which Network Associates already had recorded revenues, and (4) sold products to distributors on consignment in violation of Network Associates' written sales contracts and stated revenue recognition practices. The complaint further alleges that Goyal took action to conceal the fraud, directing that payments and discounts to distributors be misrecorded in Network Associates' books, and directing the release of unrelated tax reserves to cover payments to distributors and to increase inadequate sales reserves. The complaint alleges that Goyal knowingly or recklessly defrauded investors through the reporting of false and materially misleading financial information in periodic reports, financial statements, and securities registration statements that Network Associates filed with the Commission, in press releases, and in other public statements. The Commission's complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Goyal from violating, or aiding and abetting future violations of, the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5; from violating the provisions of the federal securities laws that prohibit falsifying corporate records and lying to accountants, Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Exchange Act Rules 13b2-1 and 13b2-2; and from aiding and abetting future violations of certain reporting and recordkeeping provisions of the federal securities laws, Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a- 1, and 13a-13. The complaint also seeks an accounting, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains both in the form of salary and bonuses and from sales of stock, prejudgment interest, civil money penalties, and an order prohibiting Goyal from acting as an officer or a director of any reporting company. The suit is styled "SEC v. Prabhat K. Goyal, Civil Action No. C 04 2372 (MMC) NDCA." PILGRIM BAXTER: Reaches $100M Settlement For Mutual Fund Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim Baxter & Associates reached a $100 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of improper trading, and agreed to cooperate with authorities' investigations into its co-founders, New York attorney general Eliot Spitzer's office said, the Associated Press reports. The Company allegedly allowed certain clients to "market time" their mutual funds. Market timing is a type of quick, in-and- out-trading, which is not illegal but prohibited by many funds because it tends to skim profits from long-term shareholders. Regulators say funds that allowed selective market-timing committed fraud. Under the settlement involving the Securities and Exchange Commission, the mutual fund firm will compensate affected investors for $40 million and pay $50 million in civil penalties. In an agreement only involving the state of New York, the Company agreed to reduce management fees by 3.16 percent over a five-year-period, a $10 million reduction. Not included in the settlement are the company's co-founders, Gary L. Pilgrim and Harold J. Baxter, who are still under investigation for charges of improper trading of their funds to benefit themselves and friends at the expense of longer-term shareholders. "PBA has agreed to a fair settlement and promised continuing cooperation in the investigation of misconduct by its founders," New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said, according to the Associated Press. "This agreement helps investors who were harmed by improper conduct, and allows the company to begin the process of restoring its integrity." SNAPPLE BEVERAGES: Distributor Lodges Amended NY Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended antitrust lawsuit against the Snapple Beverages Group, Inc. in the United States District Court in New York, The Journal News reports. Lead plaintiff Mitchell Camarda amended the lawsuit, which seeks $225 million, plus other unspecified damages. The suit alleges that Mr. Camarda and other distributors had contracts granting them exclusive rights to sell juice to stores, restaurants, delis and other merchants in certain areas. However, the Company, after signing the agreements, began signing up the transhippers to sell its juices anywhere they wanted, including areas where Mr. Camarda and others thought that they had exclusive rights. "The initial focus in this case will be whether the case will proceed as a class action," William Nussbaum, an attorney for the Snapple defendants in the case, told the Journal News. "Our position will be that this case is not appropriate as a class action." The transhippers included in the suit were companies like USA Distributors, T&R Tobacco Sales, and Klein Candy Co. Thirteen are from New York, while the rest are from Connecticut, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. TAUBMAN CENTERS: Appeals Court Remands Investor Suit To E.D. MI --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan the lawsuit filed against members of the Taubman Centers, Inc. board of directors by the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP. The appeal arose from the dismissal of a federal district court action challenging the defensive measures of the TCO Board, which includes members of the Taubman family, in seeking to fend off a premium-priced hostile acquisition offer made last year by Simon Property Group, Inc. (SPG). At the heart of the case is plaintiff's claims that members of the Taubman family and their allies were using shares issued to them in a 1998 restructuring of TCO to effectively block the SPG offer. The district court judge dismissed the case on technical jurisdictional grounds, ruling that the shareholder plaintiff's claims could not be brought in a federal court because the plaintiff and a Taubman-controlled partnership not named as a defendant were citizens of the same state. In reversing the district court's decision, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that the federal district court could consider the dispute if A. Alfred Taubman, TCO's founder who was not a named as a defendant in the original lawsuit, could be found to adequately represent the interests of the absent partnership, rendering it unnecessary to name that entity as a defendant. The Sixth Circuit remanded the lawsuit to the Eastern District of Michigan for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Steven G. Schulman, the Milberg Weiss partner who argued the appeal, said in a statement that he "was extremely pleased with the outcome." Mr. Schulman also said that he, in conjunction with the other counsel in the case, "were confident that any procedural obstacles to maintenance of the suit in the court below could be overcome" and that they were "enthusiastic about litigating the merits of plaintiff's claims to vindicate public shareholders' rights to decide for themselves, free of coercion, whether or not to accept a premium offer for their shares." TEXAS HEDGE FUNDS: SEC Files Fraud Complaint Against Two Traders ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint alleging hedge fund fraud perpetrated by Conrad Seghers, age 36, a resident of Garland, Texas, and James Dickey, age 37, a resident of Flower Mound, Texas. The Commission's complaint, filed in federal court in Dallas, alleges that from June 2000 through September 2001, Seghers and Dickey fraudulently offered and sold securities in three Texas-based hedge funds, Integral Equity, LP, Integral Hedging, LP, and Integral Arbitrage, LP (collectively, the Funds). During this period, the Funds raised over $71.6 million from approximately 30 investors. The Commission alleges that Seghers controlled and made investment decisions for the Funds through Integral Investment Management, LP, and that Dickey marketed the Funds to investors. As alleged in the complaint, Seghers and Dickey fraudulently offered the Funds' securities by failing to disclose to investors the substantial losses the Funds incurred and that Seghers was overstating the Funds' assets. Seghers caused the Funds' assets to be overstated by amounts ranging from 13% to 77% per month. The Commission further alleges that Seghers misrepresented to a potential investor, The Art Institute of Chicago, that certain brokerage firm errors did not affect one of the hedge funds, Integral Arbitrage, LP, when, in fact, they did. Based on this statement, The Art Institute invested $22.5 million in Integral Arbitrage, LP. The Commission also alleges that Seghers and Dickey misrepresented to investors that the Funds had prominent brokerage firms at various times as their "prime broker," when the Funds never had a prime broker. In a prime brokerage relationship, the prime broker is a broker-dealer that, among other things, clears and finances customer trades made at other brokerage firms at the customer's request. The Commission charged Seghers and Dickey with violating the securities registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, 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, and also charged Seghers with violating the antifraud provisions of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act and Dickey with violating the broker-dealer registration provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against Seghers and Dickey. In addition, the Commission instituted and settled public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Samer M. El Bizri and his company, Bizri Capital Partners, Inc. (BCP). [In the Matter of Samer M. El Bizri and Bizri Capital Partners, Inc., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-11521] The Commission found that Bizri, a resident of Los Angeles, California, and BCP were primarily responsible for investing the majority of the Funds' assets through an account at a broker-dealer. By the end of March 2001, Bizri believed that the broker-dealer had made significant errors in the account that prevented him from valuing the account. Despite this, Bizri continued to accept new investor funds and traded the Funds' assets in the account. In addition, by the end of March 2001, Bizri knew that the account statements reported substantial losses. Bizri received monthly account statements purporting to reflect the value of BCP's holdings in the Funds. These statements failed to show the substantial losses that the Funds incurred in the account. Thus, Bizri knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that investors received account statements that materially overstated the value of their interests in the Funds. Bizri and BCP, without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, consented to an order that (1) ordered Bizri and BCP to cease-and-desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act; (2) barred Bizri from association with any investment adviser, with the right to reapply for association after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory organization, or if there is none, to the Commission; (3) prohibited Bizri and BCP from serving or acting as an employee, officer, director, member of an advisory board, investment adviser or depositor of, or principal underwriter for, a registered investment company or affiliated person of such investment adviser, depositor, or principal underwriter, with the right to reapply for service in any such capacity with the Commission after five years; and (4) directed Bizri and BCP to, within sixty days of the order, jointly and severally pay a $50,000 civil penalty. The suit is styled "SEC v. Conrad P. Seghers and James R. Dickey, Civil Action No. 3:04 CV 1320-K, ND TX." UNITED STATES: 770 Gays Discharged Under Military Policy -------------------------------------------------------- About 770 people were discharged from the United States military for homosexuality under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, according to statistics obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara, the Associated Press reports. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy allows gays to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts. The study analyzed discharges between 1998 and 2003 under the policy and found that the majority of those relieved from service were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers. The study further showed that the Army, the largest of the services, was responsible for about 41% of all discharges. 27% of the discharges came from the Navy, 22% from the Air Force and 9% from the Marines. Of the nearly 6,300 people discharged during that six-year period, only 75 were officers. Seventy-one percent of those discharged were men. Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists. Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists, the Associated Press reports. This year's figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 - just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay. "I didn't do it to get out of a war - I already served in a war," Mr. Muller, 25, said in an interview, according to the Associated Press. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable." "The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released early next week, told AP. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument." Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, told AP the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place. "We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Ms. Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual." VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Former Head Summoned To French Financial HQ -------------------------------------------------------------- Investigators summoned former Vivendi Universal head Jean-Marie Messier to the headquarters of the French financial police on Monday, relating to an investigation of possible financial fraud at the media giant during his tenure, Business Day reports. Mr. Messier was forced to step down as Vivendi chairman in July 2002, after Company share prices plunged and the firm came close to collapse. Under Mr. Messier, the former French water utility became an international media giant. However, as the high-tech bubble burst, it became clear that the group was nothing more than a huge conglomerate saddled with unsustainable debt. Mr. Messier, who stayed in a 17.5-million-dollar Park Avenue apartment, was sacked and the group has spent the last 18 months restructuring and selling assets to reduce debt. Three former Vivendi officials, including former financial director Guillaume Hannezo, have been placed under judicial investigation, prompting Mr. Messier to insist that he too be included in the probe. Mr. Hannezo faces charges of insider trading, involvement in stock market manipulation and disseminating false information in connection with the sale of Vivendi shares in December 2001 just before a fall in their prices. The chairman of Deutsche Bank stock broking operations in France, Philippe Guez, is under investigation as well. For the past several weeks, judges Henri Pons and Rene Cros have been checking the activities of Vivendi's financial management team in 2001-2002. Mr. Messier is now expected to appear before the two judges and could face detention of up to 48 hours. His lawyer Olivier Metzner said in a statement, according to Business Day, "Mr. Messier went to this hearing with a certain number of documents he believes may help provide detailed and precise responses to investigators' questions . This hearing, a normal step in the ongoing process, comes within the framework of the demand made by Mr. Messier himself . to be placed under investigation in order to explain his position and better defend his former colleagues." In December, Vivendi and Messier reached a separate agreement with the SEC under which Vivendi agreed to pay a 50-million- dollar (41.6-million-euro) civil penalty to settle charges of defrauding shareholders. A class action against the Company is still pending in the United States, while the French Financial Markets Authority has levied sanctions against the Company. WYETH: Seeks Rehearing of PA Court Ruling in Fen-Phen Drug Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wyeth (WYE) is seeking a rehearing of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversing rulings by U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle III of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which excluded certain evidence in state court diet drug trials, the Pharma Business Week reports. The Appeals Court's decision would limit the District Court's ability to exclude certain categories of evidence from diet drug cases brought in state courts. The Court of Appeals stressed, however, the obligation of state trial judges to "ensure that the parties do not evade" the prohibition on seeking punitive damages contained in the diet drug settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals also noted its expectation that trial judges will "exclude evidence when its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value." In addition, the Court of Appeals: (1) upheld the exclusion of evidence relevant exclusively to punitive damages; (2) stated that the District Court is free to consider other measures to uphold the limitations of the settlement agreement, such as prescribing jury instructions that would make it clear to the jury that punitive damages may not be awarded; and (3) stated that after a state court trial is concluded, "the District Court is not without recourse in the event that a verdict is rendered that appears to grant punitive damages under the guise of some other damage category." Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 4-5, 2004 CK039 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY ISSUES ALI-ABA Washington, D.C. Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 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 2-3, 2004 TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ALI-ABA New York 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 January 19-21, 2005 CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ALI-ABA San Juan, Puerto Rico Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 3-5, 2005 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 9-11, 2005 CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ALI-ABA Maui, Hawaii Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 12-13, 2005 OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ALI-ABA Boston Tuition Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 19-20, 2005 DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ALI-ABA Chicago Tuition $ Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 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 ADOLOR CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Lodges PA Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Adolor Corporation ("Adolor" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ADLR) between September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Adolor and certain officers of the Company. The case name is Chen v. Adolor Corporation, et al. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com/cases/adolor.htm. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The Complaint alleges that statements made by the defendants during the class period were materially false and misleading because the defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented that: (1) Adolor's lead product candidate, Entereg, missed the primary end point of time to recovery of gastrointestinal function; (2) Entereg did not reduce the time to a hospital discharge order being written; (3) Entereg failed to meet its primary goal of helping patients tolerate food more quickly after surgery; (4) given these mixed results, the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the third Phase III trial, Study 308, which would include those sub- classes from Study 302 who did not show statistically significant benefits of Entereg, would also have disappointing results, consequently making it difficult for the FDA to approve an Entereg NDA. Therefore, Adolor was required to conduct another set of trials that focused on bowel resection patients, the group that appears likeliest to benefit from Entereg treatment, in order to even market the drug to a more limited market. For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters, or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com ALLIANCE GAMING: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NV -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Alliance Gaming Corp. (NYSE: AGI) ("Alliance Gaming" or the "Company") publicly traded securities during the period between January 15, 2004 and June 7, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Alliance Gaming and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alliance Gaming is a diversified, worldwide gaming company that designs, manufactures and distributes gaming machines and computerized monitoring systems for gaming machines. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Alliance Gaming's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects, which allowed the Company to consummate stock-for-stock acquisitions with inflated stock valued at $16 million; allowed certain defendants to sell $3.6 million worth of their own shares at artificially inflated prices; and permitted Alliance Gaming to grow and benefit economically from the wrongful course of conduct. As a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices, topping $34 during the Class Period. On June 8, 2004, the Company issued a press release updating the Company's guidance for fiscal year 2004 to "the range of $0.96 to $1.00 per share, compared to the prior guidance of $1.04," and for fiscal year 2005 to "a range of $1.20 to $1.30" compared to prior guidance of $1.40. On this news, the Company's shares plunged $5.24 to close at $16.15 per share. According to the complaint, the defendants actively concealed from the public that: (1) the Company was experiencing massive problems/delays associated with the Company's Wide Area Progressive games in Nevada due to regulatory hold-ups; (2) the Company was experiencing massive delays in its approval and deployment of New York VLT game revisions; (3) the Company's margins were being slashed by increased costs associated with the Company's central and traditional determination products; (4) the Company's acquisition of Sierra Design Group was suffering from massive integrative problems; (5) the Company was losing its competitive position and experiencing problems in its game unit (video product); and (6) as a result of the above, defendants' forecasts for fiscal year 2004 of $1.04 and fiscal year 2005 of $1.40 per share, were grossly inflated. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web site: http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cID=307 ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CO --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Allos Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ALTH) between May 29, 2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Allos and Michael Hart ("Defendants"). The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that Allos misled the investing public by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements highlighting the purported efficacy of the Company's radiation sensitizer RSR13 ("Efaproxiral") for the treatment of brain metastases in patients with breast cancer, as well as the likelihood that this drug would receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). On April 30, 2004 and May 3, 2004, it was announced by the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") of the FDA, that it concluded by a 16-1 vote, to recommend that the FDA not approve Efaproxiral. In recommending rejection of Efaproxiral, the ODAC found that "the evidence of drug efficacy needs to be much stronger to be convincing." As a result of this announcement, the price of Allos shares fell $2.09, or 45% to close at $2.55 on extraordinary volume. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or ( 610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 BALLY TOTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Bally Total Fitness Corporation ("Bally" or the "Company") (NYSE: BFT) between August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Bally and certain officers of the Company. The case name is Ladenheim v. Bally Total Fitness Corporation, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The Complaint alleges that statements made by defendants during the class period were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose the following facts, among others: (1) contrary to the Company's express representations, Bally's reported financial results were not prepared nor presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, because they included revenues from prepaid membership dues in violation of accounting pronouncements, including SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101, Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements (December 1999), requiring that , "[r]evenue should not be recognized until the seller has substantially accomplished what it must do pursuant to the terms of the arrangement, which usually occurs upon delivery or performance of the services." Significantly, Bally's had not delivered or performed the services at the time it recognized revenues for prepaid membership dues; (2) as a result of its improper revenue recognition, the Company's reported revenues and net income were materially overstated during the Class Period; (3) because of the foregoing, the Company's reported financial statements did not accurately reflect the Company's financial results or condition and deceived investors. For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters, or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E- mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whafh.com/cases/bally.htm BALLY TOTAL: Marc S. Henxel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT) securities during the period between August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Bally and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bally is a commercial operator of fitness centers, with approximately four million members and 420 facilities located in 29 states, Canada, Asia, the Caribbean and Mexico. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing financial performance. These statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that 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) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (3) that, 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 Division of Enforcement of the SEC 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, which it believes is now effective. In response to these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock fell approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 BEA SYSTEMS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of BEA Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: BEAS) publicly traded securities during the period between November 13, 2003 and May 13, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges BEA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. BEA is a provider of application infrastructure software and related services that help companies build distributed systems that extend investments in existing computer systems and provide the foundation for running an integrated business. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to the investing public regarding BEA's business and prospects. As a result of these false statements, BEA's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $14 in early 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $13 million worth of their own shares. Then on May 13, 2004, BEA reported disappointing first quarter results, citing the difficult selling environment and sales execution issues as the primary reasons. On this news, the Company's shares fell 30% to $8 per share. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known to the defendants but actively concealed from the public, were as follows: (1) that the Company was experiencing material sales execution problems in its licensing division, resulting in license reserve being down in the comparable quarter and in the sequential quarter; (2) that during the preceding quarter, the Company's sales staff and management were attempting to reorganize; however, in doing so, the Company's sales were actually disrupted; (3) that the Company's WebLogic 8.1 Platform was far from "revolutionary" and was not selling as defendants claimed; (4) that the coverage of small and medium-sized businesses was transferred to the General Accounts Team, which disrupted the Company's North American reserves; and (5) that the Company was experiencing weakness in its telecom vertical business, not strength. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 BEA SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit on June 17, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities for BEA Systems, Inc. ("BEA" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BEAS) between November 13, 2003 and May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") against BEA and certain of its 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, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations regarding BEA's business and prospects to the market between November 13, 2003 and May 13, 2004. As a result of these false statements, BEA's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $14 in early 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $13 million worth of their own shares. Then on May 13, 2004, BEA reported disappointing first quarter results, citing the difficult selling environment and sales execution issues as the primary reasons. On this news, the Company's shares fell 30% to $8 per share. BEA is a provider of application infrastructure software and related services that help companies build distributed systems that extend investments in existing computer systems and provide the foundation for running an integrated business. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known to the defendants but actively concealed from the public, were as follows: (1) that the Company was experiencing material sales execution problems in its licensing division, resulting in license reserve being down in the comparable quarter and in the sequential quarter; (2) that during the preceding quarter, the Company's sales staff and management were attempting to reorganize; however, in doing so, the Company's sales were actually disrupted; (3) that the Company's WebLogic 8.1 Platform was far from "revolutionary" and was not selling as defendants claimed; (4) that the coverage of small and medium-sized businesses was transferred to the General Accounts Team, which disrupted the Company's North American reserves; and (5) that the Company was experiencing weakness in its telecom vertical business, not strength. For more details, contact Aaron Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Descartes Systems Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: DSGX) between June 4, 2003 and May 6, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Descartes and certain officers of the Company. The Complaint alleges that statements made by the defendants during the class period were each materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts: (1) that Descartes' financial statements were materially false and misleading; (2) that the Company was recording revenue on contingent contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled and in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and SAB 101; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to ensure the accuracy of its financial statements; (4) and that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and their earnings projections. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 LEHMAN ABS: Sheperd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of on behalf of all purchasers of Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1 ("Certificates") between January 5, 2004 and May 11, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The suit is brought against Lehman ABS Corp. (NYSE: CCG), U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Corporate Backed Trust Certificates Verizon New York Debenture Backed Series 2004-1 Trust (NYSE: JZG), Lehman Brothers, Inc. (LEH), RBC Dain Rauscher and Banc of America Securities LLC, a subsidiary of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC). The class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 04-04571). The Complaint alleges that certain of the Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and that other Defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that in January 2004, pursuant to a trust agreement between Lehman ABS Corp and U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., Lehman ABS Corp. transferred over $150 million in the aggregate principal amount of 7 3/8% Debentures, Series B, which were due in 2032 (the "Debentures") and which Debentures were issued by Verizon New York, Inc., a subsidiary of Verizon Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VZ) to the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1 Trust (the "Trust"), which issued the Certificates at issue. Over $50 million of additional Debentures were issued later in January, 2004. Pursuant to Prospectus Supplements dated in January 2004, over 8 million Certificates were offered to the investing public at a price of $25 per Certificate. On May 7, 2004, Lehman ABS Corp. announced that, on May 4, 2004, Verizon had filed a Form 15 with the SEC pursuant to which it had elected to suspend its duty to file periodic reports under certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that, pursuant to the terms of the Trust, it would be terminated. This announcement triggered an "event of default" which automatically triggered the sale of the Debentures. On May 11, 2004, the Trustee announced that the sole assets of the Trust, over $200 million in the principal amount of the Debentures would be liquidated. On May 11, 2004, the last day of trading, the Certificates closed at $22.00. Notice was sent to holders of the Certificates informing them that they could receive liquidation proceeds under the Trust Agreement or their pro rata portion of the underlying securities of the Trust. Investors were informed that this election must be made by May 24, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. if they wanted to receive the securities. Otherwise, the Debentures would be sold at the market price beginning on May 25, 2004 and the sales would be completed by May 27, 2004. The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially misleading because it omitted to state material information that defendants had an obligation to disclose. Specifically, Verizon New York was 1 of 16 domestic operating company owned by Verizon Communications that filed reports with the SEC. While the Prospectus generally described Verizon New York's failure to continue as an SEC filer as one of the potential events of default, it failed to disclose that, as of February 2003, Verizon Communications had already deregistered the public indebtedness of six of its domestic operating telephone companies (GTE Southwest Inc., Verizon Delaware Inc., Verizon Hawaii Inc., Verizon Northwest Inc., Verizon Washington DC Inc. and Verizon West Virginia Inc.), and that those deregistrations were made pursuant to a program established in early 2003 to change funding procedures and reduce costs, which plan included possible deregistration of domestic operating telephone companies with public indebtedness, including Verizon New York. The Complaint asserts that this information was exceptionally material to an investor's decision as to whether to purchase the Certificates. The Complaint also alleges that Defendants failed to conduct a reasonable investigation with respect to the events of default detailed in the Prospectus. The potential for triggering events of a default are key to the valuation of any debentures. Had defendants conducted a reasonable investigation, they would have discovered Verizon Communication's plan to reduce its indebtedness, which included the deregistration of some or all of its domestic operating companies. For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C. Shah, Esq. of Shepherd by Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877/891-9880 by E- Mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com or visit their Web site: http://www.classactioncounsel.com LEXAR MEDIA: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Lexar Media, Inc. (NASDAQ: LEXR) publicly traded securities during the period between July 17, 2003 and April 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges that Lexar, Eric Stang, and Brian McGee 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 July 17, 2003 and April 16, 2004. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company underestimated the impact and the timing of competitive pricing moves in the flash memory market; (2) that the Company's preferential supply relationship with Samsung failed to insulate Lexar from fluctuations in pricing and availability of flash memory, which negatively affected the Company's product margins; and (3) the Company lacked sufficient royalty income to offset product gross margins pressure. On April 15, 2004, Lexar reported financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2004. After several quarters of relatively stable average selling prices, second quarter price declines were sizeable. These declines were occurring sooner than Lexar had previously anticipated. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Lexar fell $5.03 per share or 32.56 percent on April 16, 2004, to close at $10.42 per share. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 MERIX CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers of Merix Corporation (Nasdaq: MERX) ("Merix" or the "Company") common stock during the period between July 1, 2003 and May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Merix, Mark Hollinger and Jamie S. Brown with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company over relied, in their financial projections, on the customers' future demand for premium-priced and reduced-lead-time products, which had previously accounted for 50% of the Company sales; (2) that the Company failed to adequately insulate itself from the softening demand, specifically with regard to supply needs of a major networking customer; (3) that the Company failed to appreciate the market conditions, which did not support the Company's aggressive growth; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and their earnings projections. On May 13, 2004, after the close of the market, Merix revised guidance for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, ending May 29, 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Merix fell $4.64 per share or 30.29 percent on May 14, 2004, to close at $10.68 per share. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web site: http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cID=306 MERIX CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Merix Corporation (Nasdaq:MERX) between July 1, 2003 and May 13, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against defendant Merix, Mark Hollinger and Jamie S. Brown. 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. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Foe 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 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Suit in N.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:OVTI) The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought OmniVision common stock from June 11, 2003, through and including June 8, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5. The complaint names as defendants: OmniVision Technologies, Inc.; Shaw Hong, who was at all relevant times OmniVision's president and chief executive officer; Raymond Wu, who was at all relevant times the Company's executive vice president; H. Gene McCown, who was OmniVision's chief financial officer until his retirement in September 2003; and John T. Rossi, who was the company's chief financial officer from September 17, 2003 through the end of the Class Period. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading statements about the Company's financial performance, causing OmniVision's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Before the markets opened on June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced that the Company would postpone the release of its fiscal year 2004 financial results and revealed for the first time the existence of an internal inquiry and an independent investigation into matters including "cut-off issues." The Company further disclosed that it may have to restate its financial results for certain quarters of fiscal years 2003 and 2004. In response to these revelations, the price of OmniVision's common stock plummeted. The stock fell more than 30% on June 9, 2004 alone, closing at $17.63, down $7.84. The stock continued to fall, losing more than 37% of its value over the three trading days following the announcement. For more details, contact Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo attorneys: Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq. or Michael W. Stocker, Esq. by Mail: 425 California Street, 21st Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com OR Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. or Joseph C. Merschman, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com OR C. Oliver Burt III, Esq. or Marc J. Greenspon, Esq. by Mail: 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 by Phone: (800) 349-4612 or by E-mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com or visit their Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Omnivision-Cplt.pdf OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Girard Gibbs Lodges CA Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:OVTI, "OmniVision" or the "Company") during the period between June 11, 2003 and June 9, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The class action asserts claims against OmniVision under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges that OmniVision Technologies, Inc., Shaw Hong (Chief Executive Officer and a Director of the Company), John Rossi (Chief Financial Officer) and H. Gene McCown (former Chief Financial Officer) violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publishing a series of false and materially misleading statements to the investing public during the Class Period. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendents' manipulated and misrepresented the Company's revenue and earnings reporting and also concealed adverse information regarding the business, operations and future prospects of OmniVision during the Class Period. These material misrepresentations and omissions had the cause and effect of creating an unrealistically positive assessment of OmniVision in the market, thus causing the Company's securities to be overvalued and artificially inflated at all relevant times. On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced that "following an internal review by the Company and an independent investigation, the Company is considering the restatement of financial results for certain quarters of fiscal 2004 and, possibly, fiscal 2003." Shortly after this publication, OmniVision shares plummeted, falling over 30% in the single trading day -- or over $7.84 per share -- on a split adjusted basis -- to close at $17.63 per share. For more details, contact Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP by Mail: 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108 by Phone: 415-981-4800 by Fax: 415-981-4846 by E-mail: girardgibbs@girardgibbs.com or visit their Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/omnivision.html OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Seeger Weiss Lodges CA Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. ("OmniVision" or the "Company") from June 11, 2003 through June 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges OmniVision, Shaw Hong, H., John T. Rossi and Gene McCowan with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants, during the Class Period, issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's financial condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of OmniVision's common stock. On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced that it had rescheduled the release of its fiscal 2004 fourth-quarter and year-end results to June 23, 2004, from the previously announced date of June 9, 2004. Additionally, OmniVision announced that it was considering the restatement of financial results for certain quarters of fiscal 2004 and, possibly, fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the market. Shares of OmniVision fell $7.84 per share or 30.78 percent on June 9, 2004, to close at $17.63 per share, on unusually high volume. The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, OmniVision sold more than 3.22 million shares of common stock in a secondary with gross proceeds of $124.7 million, and insiders sold shares of their personally held OmniVision stock for proceeds in excess of $9.3 million. For more details, contact Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William Street, New York, New York 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700 or (877) 541-3273 by E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com or echaffin@seegerweiss.com or visit their Web site: http://www.seegerweiss.com SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Files Updated FL Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, filed an updated class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 16, 2004 behalf of purchasers or acquirers of securities of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SJCK.OB - News) during the period between May 28, 2003 and April 15, 2004 (the "Class Period"). This complaint also pleads claims against the Spear & Jackson auditor, Sherb & Co. LLP and others. The complaint charges Spear & Jackson, certain of its officers and directors, PNC Tools Holdings LLC and auditors Sherb & Company LLP with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Spear & Jackson manufactures and distributes tools, garden tools, metrology equipment, woodworking tools and magnetic equipment. For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800/404-7770 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 (PDT) or 619/251-0887 by E-mail: SpearJacksonSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com or visit their Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Vicuron") (NASDAQ:MICU) common stock during the period between January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Vicuron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Vicuron claims to focus upon anti-infective products that have competitive advantages over existing products, such as greater potency, improved effectiveness against resistant strains and reduced toxicity. The Company's lead product candidate, anidulafungin, is intended for the intravenous treatment of fungal infections. Anidulafungin is the subject of late-stage clinical trials for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis, as well as for the treatment of invasive aspergillosis and invasive candidiasis/candidemia. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Vicuron stock by concealing critical material information regarding the details of both the safety and efficacy of anidulafungin. Defendants concealed key adverse information regarding the development and commercialization of anidulafungin, raising serious concerns for the very approval of the drug for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis and other selected indications. According to the complaint, each of the defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public, that: (1) the failure of anidulafungin to achieve superiority in all clinical measures over fluconazole in the Phase III trial for esophageal candidiasis stood in stark contrast to the fact that the in vitro antifungal activity of anidulafungin was nearly twenty-fold higher than fluconazole; (2) the failure of anidulafungin to achieve superiority in all clinical measures over fluconazole in the Phase III trial for esophageal candidiasis stood in stark contrast with claims made in early-stage clinical trials that better clinical outcomes could be achieved with anidulafungin, versus fluconazole, in treating candidiasis; (3) it was relevant to compare anidulafungin to caspofungin acetate, an approved drug similar in structure and mechanism of action, in that caspofungin acetate did not demonstrate a statistically significant higher relapse rate relative to fluconazole in similar studies for the same indication; (4) the fact that anidulafungin demonstrated a statistically significant higher relapse rate relative to fluconazole raised concerns that anidulafungin was an inferior therapy to fluconazole and caspofungin acetate for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis in immunosuppressed patients; (5) the observation of higher statistically significant clinical relapse rates for anidulafungin relative to fluconazole or caspofungin acetate would adversely impact marketing claims for anidulafungin; (6) the clinical relevance of the statistically significant differences in relapse rates was summarily dismissed to facilitate a business decision to file a New Drug Application, despite the fact that the adverse clinical relapse data clearly undermined the label claim sought for use of anidulafungin in the treatment of esophageal candidiasis; (7) the nature and outcome of any additional studies was uncertain, resulting at best in a greatly delayed approval of anidulafungin for esophageal candidiasis or at worst insurmountable obstacles that would prevent the drug from ever being approved; (8) although the Phase III study for anidulafungin for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis was completed during the fourth quarter of 2002, the announcement of the results of the study were delayed until after the Company had completed its merger with Biosearch Italia S.p.A. late in the first quarter of 2003; and (9) the failure to disclose the defective nature of the anidulafungin Phase III study for esophageal candidiasis would prevent investors and Biosearch shareholders from learning the extent of the misrepresentations made to them during the Class Period. The partial disclosure of the contents of an FDA letter on Monday, May 24, 2004, detailing the failure of Vicuron to supply data necessary to support its very claim for the use of anidulafungin for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis caused Vicuron shares to plummet $8.86, to $13.04, for a loss of over 40% from the previous trading day and over 45% from its Class Period high of $23.90. For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web site: http://www.lcsr.com/cases/vicuron/ VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges PA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: MICU)("Vicuron" or the "Company") from January 6, 2003 through May 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Vicuron, George F. Horner III, Dov Goldstein, and Timothy Henkel violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004, about its drug anidulafungin, thereby artificially inflating the price of Vicuron's common stock. More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that anidulafungin was unsafe and ineffective and that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not approve the drug as-is to treat candidiasis; (2) that anidulafungin failed to achieve superiority in all clinical measures over fluconazole in the Phase III trial for esophageal candidiasis; (3) that anidulafungin differed comparatively with the Company's claims that better clinical outcomes could be achieved with anidulafungin in treating candidiasis; (4) that anidulafungin's statistically significant higher relapse rate as compared with those fluconazole raised concerns that anidulafungin was an inferior therapy to fluconazole and caspofungin acetate for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis in immunosuppressed patients; (5) that the nature and outcome of any additional studies was uncertain; and (6) that as a result of the above, defendants prevented investors and Biosearch shareholders from learning the extent of the misrepresentations made to them during the Class Period. On May 24, 2004, Vicuron announced that it received an approvable letter from the FDA. However, the letter indicated that the Company's "New Drug Application" ("NDA") submission for anidulafungin does not currently support a labeling claim for the initial treatment of esophageal candidiasis. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Vicuron fell $8.86, or 40.46 percent, to close at $13.06, on May 24, 2004. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.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 * * *