/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040719.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 19, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 141
Headlines
ARIZONA: LULAC Lodges Civil Rights Complaint V. School District
AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn Lodges Food Poisoning Suit V. Hotel
BOEING CO.: WA Court Grants Approval To Sex Bias Suit Settlement
CITIGROUP INC.: 2Q Earnings Plummet Due To WorldCom Settlement
COCA-COLA CO.: Negotiating Pact For European Antitrust Lawsuit
LIFESCAN INC.: Canadian Court Certifies Suit Over Glucose Meters
MONSANTO CO.: Farmers Lodge Antitrust, Tort Suits in 16 States
MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Appeal Korean WWII Vets Suit Dismissal
MONSANTO CO.: Employees File Age Discrimination, Wage Suit in IL
MONSANTO CO.: Seeks Consolidation of Remaining PCB Injury Suits
MONSANTO CO.: Moves 14 PCB Injury Lawsuits To MS Federal Court
NEWSDAY: Advertisers Lodge Amended Suit V. Undelivered Circulars
NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: Three Hospitals Face Consumer Fraud Suits
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Lodge CA Securities Suits
PHILIP MORRIS: Urges FL High Court To Uphold Engle Suit Ruling
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: SEC Files Amended Complaint V. Ex-Brokers
RWANDA: Former Finance Minister Convicted of Genocide, Murder
SEI INVESTMENTS: Reaches SEC Settlement In Various Fraud Charges
SNOW PEAK: Recalls 1,886 Gas Camping Stoves Due To Fire Hazard
TAIWAN: Consumers Issue Ultimatum V. Effem Foods on Compensation
TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls 25,500 Truck Sets For Choking Hazard
TENNESSEE: Court Dismisses Lawsuits V. Oak Ridge Weapons Complex
TENNESSEE: Hispanics, Immigrants Claim New Laws Unconstitutional
UNITED STATES: Scraps Plans For CAPPS II Over Privacy Concerns
UNITED STATES: 6M To Lose Pay Benefits Under New Overtime Rules
UNITED STATES: CA Court Puts Memory Antitrust Lawsuit on Hold
WEST VILLAGE: Paraplegics Lodge Disabilities Suit V. TX Center
ZONAGEN INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
New Securities Fraud Cases
COMMERCE BANCORP: Scott + Scott Files Amended NJ Securities Suit
RED HAT: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
RED HAT: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in DE
*********
ARIZONA: LULAC Lodges Civil Rights Complaint V. School District
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leaders of Arizona's League of United Latin American Citizens
initiated a civil class-action complaint with the U.S. Office of
Civil Rights in Denver against the Roosevelt School District due
to allegations of maltreatment of Hispanic students and parents,
the Arizona Republic reports.
The state's LULAC filed its complaint with the federal civil
rights office on behalf of 70 Roosevelt School District parents,
alleging the rights of Hispanic parents were violated under
federal law as it relates to early childhood education, school
discipline, special education and a failure to communicate with
parents.
In a media conference held at the Travis L. Williams Family
Services Center, Silverio Garcia, LULAC education chairman,
stated to the media that parents he interviewed wanted to speak
to federal officials regarding the alleged maltreatment.
The class action complaint was triggered as a result of a
disciplinary incident that occurred April 5 when a group of
girls is suspected of jumping a Hispanic student at Roosevelt's
Maxine O. Bush School. The incident caused LULAC to conduct
interviews of Hispanic families' similar experiences.
LULAC officials told the Arizona Republic that they discovered
other failed education programs at Roosevelt and summed up their
findings in the civil complaint.
AUSTRALIA: Maurice Blackburn Lodges Food Poisoning Suit V. Hotel
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Maurice Blackburn Cashman initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of 54 patrons who suffered food
poisoning during the Christmas season against Melbourne-based
Old England Hotel, the Asia Intelligence Wire reports.
An investigation by the Department of Human Services and the
Banyule City Council found the 54 people fell ill after eating
at the Old England Hotel in Heidelberg between December 23, 2003
and January 7, 2004. Old England Hotel managing director John
Payne confirmed health practices at the hotel had been reviewed.
The investigations also revealed that raw eggs purchased from
one of the hotel's registered food suppliers may have been the
cause of the illness.
According to Brooke Dellavedova of the law firm of Maurice
Blackburn Cashman, told the Asia Intelligence Wire that her
clients were seriously ill for several weeks after eating at the
hotel and some of them were even admitted to the Royal
Children's Hospital. According to her several other families
have also contacted Maurice Blackburn Cashman after hearing of
the class action and were now discussing joining up. She also
stated that anyone who ate at the hotel during the Christmas
period and then became ill with food poisoning could be entitled
to compensation and should seek legal advice.
The class action though could be the last of its kind to be
brought in Australia as the federal government has moved to
prevent people suing for pain and suffering unless they are
seriously and permanently injured. The law has already passed
through both houses of parliament but has not yet been signed by
the governor-general.
The hotel has been served with documents and there will now be a
directions hearing before the Federal Court in October.
BOEING CO.: WA Court Grants Approval To Sex Bias Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Seattle, Washington granted
preliminary approval to the gender discrimination suit filed
against Boeing Co. by female workers, the Chicago Tribune
reports.
Mary Beck and about two dozen other Boeing workers filed the
suit in 2000, claiming that the company gave preference to men
in pay raises, promotions and doling out overtime work. The
suit sought $450 million in back pay and more than $1 billion in
punitive damages on behalf of more than 35,000 Boeing workers at
plants in Washington, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri.
In October 2001, the court limited the class to women employed
at Boeing's plants in Washington State after February 25, 1997,
excluding engineers and executives. In 1999, the Company
entered a settlement with the U.S. Labor Department, in which it
agreed to examine compensation policies and to end gender and
racial disparities. Audits by the Labor Department's Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs led Boeing to pay $4.5
million in back pay and raises to resolve government claims the
company underpaid women and minorities.
The class action accord covers about 29,000 female workers at
plants in three Washington cities. The Company has yet to
disclose the financial terms in the settlement. The settlement
is the eighth-largest of a sex discrimination class action in
U.S. history, according to Bloomberg data. Boeing will change
its pay practices and pay the class members a minimum of $40.6
million and maximum of $72.5 million.
The final amount depends on how many women file claims, Joseph
Sellers of the Washington, D.C.- based law firm of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, an attorney for the women, told The
Tribune. "The changes to pay practices will considerably
increase the accountability that managers will have in making
pay raises. This will increase the fairness," he said.
Chicago-based Boeing said it decided to settle the suit to avoid
the cost of lengthy litigation. Boeing employs about 156,000
workers worldwide. "Boeing has been and will continue to be
firmly committed to an environment in which employees are
treated equitably and have opportunities to build successful
careers," Laurette Koellner, Boeing's executive vice president
of internal services, said in a statement.
The settlement doesn't cover cases outside the Puget Sound area,
where similar suits are pending against Boeing. The company said
it intends to change its pay practice at all plants. "Those
practices will be put in place enterprise-wide," Boeing
spokesman Ken Mercer told the Tribune.
The case is: Beck v. Boeing, 00cv0301, U.S. District Court in
Seattle.
CITIGROUP INC.: 2Q Earnings Plummet Due To WorldCom Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc.'s second quarter profits tumbled 73 percent
after settling a massive class action with investors of
disgraced telecommunications giant WorldCom, Inc., AP Online
reports.
According to Citigroup CEO Charles Prince results were fairly
strong, with the company benefiting from greatly improved credit
quality among businesses and consumers that he described as "the
best we have seen in years."
Citigroup in May agreed to a $2.65 billion settlement with
investors in WorldCom Inc. a company, which was financially
backed by Citigroup and other banks. The agreement is one of the
largest securities fraud settlements ever. WorldCom continues to
do business, but has changed its name to MCI Inc. Despite the
settlement's anticipated effect on its earnings, Citigroup's
performance was somewhat better than analysts had expected.
In a recent conference call with analysts, CEO Charles Prince
was quoted as saying that the charge for the WorldCom settlement
"frankly hurts a little. I wish we didn't have to do that.
That's a lot of money. But one of my jobs is to make sure we're
clearing the decks for future growth"
Citigroup said the cost of the WorldCom settlement was partially
offset by its sale of a 20 percent stake in the Saudi Arabian
bank Samba Financial Group, which generated $756 million.
COCA-COLA CO.: Negotiating Pact For European Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Co. is attempting to settle a long-running
antitrust case in Europe, by offering to make major changes to
its distribution deals, the Associated Press reports.
The softdrink giant has fought antitrust cases across Europe
since the late 1980s. The Company is accused of using discounts
to maintain dominance of its brands and dominate supermarket
shelf space. Coke has a 53 percent market share for carbonated
soft drinks in Europe, compared to 9 percent for Pepsi,
according to beverage industry consultants Canadean. In the
United States, the two cola giants are more evenly matched, AP
reports.
Under the settlement, the Company offered to scrap all rebates
that require retailers to reach specific sales or growth targets
where the company enjoys large market share, and the practice of
requiring retailers to buy quantities of non-cola brands, such
as Fanta and Sprite, in exchange for discounts on must-have
Coca-Cola products. The Company also offered to allow rivals to
occupy 20% of the space inside its coolers and to allow outlets
like fast-food restaurants, to serve a "guest" beverage from
some Coke-branded soda fountains, sources close to the case told
AP.
The EU is aiming to wrap up the 6-year-old case this year. Last
April, officials confirmed that settlement talks had resumed,
but last month refused to rule out the possibility of legal
remedies, including fines. The regulators are reviewing the
proposals to determine whether they satisfy their concerns and
those of rivals like PepsiCo Inc., which filed the original
complaint in the 1990s, the sources said on condition of
anonymity.
Coke's package "is a substantive offer to deal with fundamental
aspects of the (European) commission's inquiry," one person
close to the case told AP. A commission spokesman couldn't
immediately be reached for comment.
Jonathan Chandler, Coke's spokesman for Europe, told AP Coke's
"dialogue" is continuing with the commission, but he declined to
comment further.
LIFESCAN INC.: Canadian Court Certifies Suit Over Glucose Meters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class action filed against LifeScan, INc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, involving allegedly
defective SureStep blood glucose meters manufactured before
August 1, 1997, bearing a serial number the first five digits of
which were in the series L6000 to L7205 or a serial number in
the series L7206-GA-00001 to L7206-GA-01128, and strips
manufactured before March 1, 1998 used in conjunction with the
meters.
Diabetics use these products to monitor their blood glucose
levels. The court certified a class comprised of all
individuals in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, except British
Columbia and Quebec, who used a SureStep Meter on or after
February 1, 1996 and/or who used a SureStep Strip on or after
February 1, 1996, and the personal representatives of any such
individuals who have died. The suit also names as defendant
LifeScan Canada Ltd., which marketed the products in Canada.
The defendants have admitted that the SureStep Meters were
defective in that, in some cases, they showed an error reading
instead of a high blood glucose level. Further, if a SureStep
Strip was inserted incompletely, the Meter could have provided
an erroneously low reading. The plaintiffs allege that the
SureStep Meters and SureStep Strips were dangerously defective
devices that could lead to serious health consequences.
In the United States, following a federal investigation,
LifeScan Inc. pleaded guilty to three strict liability
misdemeanors and paid a fine of $29,000,000 as a result of its
conduct in regard to the SureStep Meter and Strips. A class
action, filed in California, resulted in a settlement of
approximately the same amount.
In the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim, the plaintiffs
ask that the defendants hold all revenue generated from the sale
of the products in a constructive trust for the benefit of the
class members. There is also a claim for an accounting, an
order requiring the disgorgement of such revenues, and punitive
damages.
The certification stage of a class proceeding is a procedural
step and is not an adjudication of the merits of the action.
The plaintiffs are represented by the law firms of Sutts,
Strosberg LLP and Koskie Minsky LLP. Both firms are widely
acknowledged as leading Canadian class action law firms.
For more details, contact Harvey T. Strosberg of Sutts,
Strosberg LLP by Phone: (519) 561-6228 or by Email:
hts@strosbergco.com, or contact Kirk M. Baert of Koskie Minsky
LLP, by Phone: (416) 977-8353 or by E-mail:
kbaert@koskieminsky.com.
MONSANTO CO.: Farmers Lodge Antitrust, Tort Suits in 16 States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. faces several class actions filed in 16 different
state courts, similar to the class actions filed against it in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.
The suits were initially filed against the former Monsanto
Company by two groups of farmers: one on December 14, 1999, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; and the
other on February 14, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois. In March 2001, plaintiffs
amended their complaint to add as defendants:
(1) Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.,
(2) Syngenta Seeds,
(3) Syngenta Crop Protection Inc., and
(4) Bayer CropScience
The complaints included both tort and antitrust allegations.
The tort claims included alleged violations of unspecified
international laws through patent license agreements, alleged
breaches of an implied warranty of merchantability, and alleged
violations of unspecified consumer fraud and deceptive business
practices laws, all in connection with the sale of genetically
modified seed. The antitrust claims included allegations of
violations of various antitrust laws, including allegations of a
conspiracy among defendants to fix seed prices in the United
States in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs
sought declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to
antitrust, treble, compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.
On September 22, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment on all tort claims and denied plaintiffs'
motion to allow the tort claims to proceed as a class action.
On September 30, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
allow their antitrust claims to proceed as a class action. On
December 16, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit granted plaintiffs' request for immediate appellate
review of the District Court's decision denying class
certification of their antitrust claims.
MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Appeal Korean WWII Vets Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of three lawsuits filed
against Monsanto Co. and The Dow Chemical Company in Seoul,
South Korea on behalf of Korean veterans of the Vietnam War.
Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to herbicides, and that
they suffered injuries or their children suffered birth defects
as a result. Three separate complaints filed in October 1999
are being handled collectively and currently involve
approximately 16,700 plaintiffs. The complaints do not assert
any specific causes of action but seek damages of 300 million
won (approximately US$260,000) per plaintiff.
On May 23, 2002, the Seoul District Court ruled in favor of the
manufacturers and dismissed all claims of the plaintiffs on the
basis of lack of causation and statutes of limitations.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal de novo with the Seoul High
Court and the parties have engaged in the briefing process
required by that Court. The Seoul High Court has held three
preparatory hearings to address issues on the appeal and has
indicated that it will hold a formal hearing on the appeal on
October 4, 2004. Other ancillary actions are also pending in
Korea, including a request for provisional relief pending
resolution of the main action.
MONSANTO CO.: Employees File Age Discrimination, Wage Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. and the Monsanto Company Pension Plan face a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois by two former employees of
Monsanto and Pharmacia, Inc.
The suit claims that the Plan underpaid certain benefits and
violated federal law against age discrimination from January 1,
1997 (when the Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as
Monsanto Company) and continuing to the present.
On July 13, 2004, Monsanto tendered defense of this suit to
Pharmacia pursuant to the terms of the Separation Agreement and
demanded that Pharmacia defend Monsanto or pay Monsanto's costs
of defense, and indemnify Monsanto for any liabilities arising
from the lawsuit.
MONSANTO CO.: Seeks Consolidation of Remaining PCB Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. moved to consolidate the remaining class actions
filed against it, alleging damages arising from exposure to
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were discharged from an
Anniston, Alabama, plant site that was formerly owned by the
Company's former parent Pharmacia and that was transferred to
Solutia as part of the spinoff of Solutia from Pharmacia.
After the global settlement of the multiplaintiff cases known as
Abernathy and Tolbert, 12 cases remained pending in various
Circuit Courts in the state of Alabama. Three additional cases
brought by three pro se plaintiffs have been filed with various
courts, but have not been served on any defendants.
On March 15, 2004, Monsanto, on behalf of Pharmacia removed all
but one of those to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama. Monsanto has moved to consolidate
all the removed cases before the same court in which the Tolbert
matter remains pending for administrative purposes. Two of the
removed cases have been remanded to state court. Decisions on
the remaining cases that Monsanto removed remain pending.
MONSANTO CO.: Moves 14 PCB Injury Lawsuits To MS Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. removed the 14 polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
injury cases filed in Mississippi state courts to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
The suits were originally filed in state courts in Copiah County
and Hinds County, Mississippi on behalf of a total of 785
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are either present or former
employees of a transformer manufacturing facility owned by
Kuhlman Electric Corporation located in Crystal Springs,
Mississippi or present or former residents of the Crystal
Springs community.
The cases assert various negligence and product liability claims
and seek damages for personal injury and/or property damage
caused by exposure to PCBs. The plaintiffs seek to recover both
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. The
plaintiffs in these cases name as defendants in various
combinations Solutia, Inc., Monsanto Company and/or Pharmacia.
Motions to remand have been filed in 13 of the 14 cases.
NEWSDAY: Advertisers Lodge Amended Suit V. Undelivered Circulars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsday advertisers, who initiated a federal class action suit
against the Long Island, New York-based paper, filed an amended
lawsuit, which questions its door-to-door delivery of circulars,
the Daily News reports.
The amended filing of the suit accuses Newsday subsidiary,
Distribution Systems of America of routinely and fraudulently
dumping tons of undelivered circulars, at a substantial loss to
advertisers. The amended suit also alleges that DSA supervisors
would gave carriers hundreds of circulars, which was more than
what they needed to cover the households on their designated
routes. According to the suit, when the carriers "objected to
the surplus of flyer bundles because they did not know what to
do with the excess," a supervisor told them, "Get rid of them."
The advertisers' suit, which was initiated against DSA, Newsday,
Hoy and circulation executives for the two papers by Queens
lawyer Joseph Giaimo was in response to a recent revelation by
Newsday and Hoy, which stated that they overstated circulation
in 2003 and in March. The suit, which Newsday has moved to
dismiss, seeks class-action status and $600 million in damages
to make up for ad payments based on allegedly inflated
circulation levels.
ET Week Publications, one of the new Plaintiffs in the amended
suit claims to have paid $380,000 to DSA since 1991 to deliver
its local guide to Suffolk County homes, Entertainment This
Week, the Daily News reports.
Former Queens and Staten Island carrier Luz Fondeur, told the
Daily News that they were oversupplied with circulars at DSA's
Maspeth warehouse. But according to Ms. Founder, they discarded
the excess supplies in dumpsters and at recycling centers in
Brooklyn and Queens.
Ms. Founder also added that the circulars of Pathmark, J.C.
Penney, Walgreen, Rite Aid and Sears were among those that she
and her co-workers dumped.
NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: Three Hospitals Face Consumer Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York Presbyterian, Cleveland Clinic Health System and New
Orleans' Ochsner Clinic Foundation hospital systems face several
class action lawsuits brought by uninsured patient plaintiffs,
alleging that the defendant nonprofit hospital system and
hospital with victimizing the uninsured plaintiff patients by
failing to fulfill their obligations to provide government
required charity care in return for tax exemptions.
The lawsuits charge the defendants with requiring their
uninsured patients to pay unfair and unreasonable health care
prices that are far in excess of the discounted amounts accepted
by these same defendants from their insured patients. The
lawsuits are:
(1) In Louisiana: Defendant: Ochsner Clinic Foundation:
United States District Court for Eastern District of
Louisiana; litigation filed by The Scruggs Law Firm,
P.A. and Oreck, Bradley, Crighton, Adams & Chase;
(2) In New York: Defendant: New York Presbyterian: United
States District Court for Southern District of New
York; litigation filed by Bernstein Liebhard Lifshitz,
LLP;
(3) In Ohio: Defendant: Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF),
Cleveland Clinic Health System; United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division; litigation filed by Weisman, Kennedy & Berris
Co., L.P.A.
31 uninsured patient class action lawsuits have been brought
against nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals in 17 states
across the country since June 17, 2004. These defendant
nonprofit hospital systems control approximately 300 hospitals
in aggregate.
These three defendant "nonprofit" hospital systems are among the
most "profitable" in the country. All three are leaders in
performing "wallet biopsies" on many of their uninsured patients
- often through their screening process placing a priority on
the patient's wallet rather than the patient's health issue and,
in turn, appropriate treatment.
New York Presbyterian, Cleveland Clinic and Ochsner Clinic are
able to realize and accumulate their profits because, in direct
contradiction of their government obligations, they have for
years spent only a small percentage of their sizeable revenues
on charity care for the uninsured while reaping enormous cash
windfalls from their tax exempt status.
New York Presbyterian is the largest hospital system in the New
York Metropolitan area serving 20% of the area's patients. In
2002, the New York-Presbyterian Health Care System was comprised
of approximately 33 tax-exempt acute-care and community
hospitals as well as its own tax-free collection agency. In
2002, it had net assets totaling approximately $1.358 billion
among its two tax-exempt acute care hospitals, of which $603.3
million, or 44% was unrestricted.
With 13 hospitals and two hotels, Cleveland Clinic runs itself
more like a multinational corporation than a hospital. In 2002,
it had revenue over $3 billion and net operating income of more
than $98 million (before investment gains and losses).
Cleveland Clinic has earned these large sums despite a poor and
questionable track record of investing the nonprofit hospital's
funds in equities. At the end of 2002, Cleveland Clinic had net
assets of more than $1.2 billion, even after a substantial loss
in its "investments" of $583 million over the previous three-
year period.
According to Cleveland Clinic's financial information which is
cited in the litigation, "The major items contributing to this
reduction were a decline in the market value of investments of
$511.6 million (and a cumulative minimum pension liability)
increase of $241 million, offset by gifts, grants and bequests
totaling $161.8 million." The so-called clinic also provides its
staff with inappropriate perks, such as a second mortgage
guarantee program for its professional staff's private homes.
Ochsner Clinic is the second largest healthcare provider in the
New Orleans region. In 2002, Ochsner generated over $1 billion
in patient revenue and had over $300 million in cash and
investments.
Defendants New York Presbyterian, Cleveland Clinic and Ochsner
Clinic, according to the litigations, require their uninsured
patients to pay "sticker" price, while providing significant
discounts for healthcare to patients who either are privately
insured or use third party payors such as Medicare and Medicaid.
As a result, New York Presbyterian, Cleveland Clinic, and
Ochsner Clinic force their uninsured patients to pay out-of-
pocket the full excessive healthcare costs even though these
patients are those who can least afford such costs.
Compounding this breach of their governmental obligations, New
York Presbyterian, Cleveland Clinic, and Ochsner Clinic often
employ predatory and goon-like collection methods to extract
payment from the numerous uninsured patients whom they force to
pay these "sticker" prices.
Moreover, as described in the class action litigation against
New York Presbyterian, that defendant's own web site boldly
states that it "provides charitable and uncompensated care to
patients without means." However, New York Presbyterian
requires patients to sign a form contract promising to pay
for unspecified and undocumented charges for medical care that
are pre-set by New York Presbyterian at its sole discretion.
New York Presbyterian will not admit a patient into its
emergency rooms for emergency medical care unless the patient
agrees to pay in full for unspecified and undiscounted charges.
Moreover, New York Presbyterian has an average charge-to-cost
ratio of 196.83%, well over the state average of 181.33%.
The American Hospital Association ("AHA"), the industry's trade
organization, is alleged to be a non-defendant conspirator with
all three defendant hospitals. As members of the AHA the three
defendants, along with the defendants charged in the previous
class action lawsuits filed since June 17, New York
Presbyterian, Cleveland Clinic, and Ochsner Clinic each have
benefited from the cross pollination of information supplied by
the AHA with respect to operating, accounting and financial
techniques and practices as well as the AHA's ongoing public
relations and lobbying efforts to deflect public focus away from
the wrongdoings being perpetrated by the defendants on uninsured
patients specifically and the public generally.
More class action lawsuits by uninsured plaintiffs are expected
to be filed against nonprofit hospitals systems and nonprofit
hospitals which have failed to meet their obligations to provide
charitable healthcare to their uninsured patients.
For more details, contact Richard Scruggs of The Scruggs Law
Firm, P.A. by Phone: 662-281-1212 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nfplitigation.com.
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Lodge CA Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. and certain of its present and
former directors and officers face several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
The suits were filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock at various times from February 2003
through June 9, 2004. The complaints generally claim that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper
accounting practices that purportedly led to our financial
restatement. The complaints seek unspecified damages.
PHILIP MORRIS: Urges FL High Court To Uphold Engle Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA urged the Florida Supreme Court to affirm an
earlier appellate court decision overturning the $145 billion
judgment in the Engle class action and decertifying the class.
The Engle case was filed in 1994 as a nationwide class action
consisting of addicted smokers who had contracted diseases
associated with smoking. In 1996, Florida's 3rd District Court
of Appeal allowed the case to proceed as a statewide class
action. Last year, the same court reversed the verdicts that
had resulted from a multi-phased trial spanning nearly two years
in Dade County Circuit Court.
The Engle case was conducted in two phases, with a third phase
envisioned by Miami Circuit Court Judge Robert P. Kaye if there
were plaintiffs' verdicts in the earlier phases.
Phase One began on October 19, 1998, and ended on July 7, 1999,
when a six-person jury found that smoking could cause more than
20 diseases or medical conditions; that cigarettes are addictive
or dependence producing; and that tobacco companies could be
assessed punitive damages. Phase Two began on November 1, 1999,
and focused on whether the tobacco companies were liable to
three individual smokers who had cancer.
On April 7, 2000, the six-person jury found in favor of
plaintiffs Mary Farnan, Frank Amodeo and the estate of Angie
Della Vecchia and awarded a total of $12.7 million in
compensatory damages, setting the stage for the punitive damages
phase. Plaintiff Frank Amodeo was also found by the jury to have
sued too late. The same six-person jury on July 14, 2000,
returned a plaintiffs' verdict assessing punitive damages of
nearly $145 billion against the cigarette makers.
Judge Kaye subsequently entered an order of final judgment
against the companies despite his own ruling that each of the
estimated 700,000 class members would require individual trials,
setting the stage for the decision by Florida's 3rd District
Court of Appeal and the subsequent appeal by plaintiffs to the
Florida Supreme Court.
"The company's brief makes clear why the Engle case should never
have been tried as a class action, and provides compelling
reasons why Florida's Third District Court of Appeal was correct
in ruling that the judgment should be overturned and the class
decertified.
"The company believes the Florida Supreme Court should reach the
same conclusion after oral argument on Nov. 3," said William S.
Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate
general counsel.
Last year the Third District Court of Appeal, in a 68-page
opinion, reversed a $145 billion Dade County jury award for
class-wide punitive damages and compensatory damage verdicts to
three class representative finding.
"As discussed throughout this opinion, there are multiple sound
legal bases why the result of this class action trial, including
the punitive damages award, cannot be sustained," Philip Morris
USA and other tobacco company defendants said in the brief.
Engle plaintiffs' attorneys Stanley and Susan Rosenblatt
appealed the appellate court's decision to the Florida Supreme
Court, which earlier this year agreed to hear the case.
In their brief to the Supreme Court, the companies said "the
Third District's ruling vindicates bedrock principles of
substantive law and due process that were systematically
violated in the trial court" and that "the trial confirmed that
plaintiffs' claims were inherently individualized and had been
improperly forced into the class-action mold.
"In addition, the trial was irreparably tainted by plaintiffs'
counsel, who deliberately incited jury nullification of the law
through incendiary racial appeals and other unprofessional
conduct. The result was an astronomical punitive award that
lacked any discernible relationship to anyone's actual damages
and was bankrupting on its face.
"Now, joined by their amici (friends of the court briefs),
plaintiffs continue their campaign of legal nullification. They
ask this Court to ignore the law and a myriad of trial errors
because tobacco companies sell a dangerous product and therefore
deserve to be punished by any means, regardless of the law."
In their appeal, "plaintiffs seek to override legal and
constitutional rules that are fundamental to all 50 states" and
the companies ask Florida Supreme Court to "reaffirm the
principle that in Florida all litigants - including tobacco
companies - are entitled to due process and a fair trial."
Engle plaintiffs now will have an opportunity to file another
brief responding to the points raised by the tobacco companies.
The Court has scheduled oral argument on the appeal for November
3 in Tallahassee.
For more details, contact Lisa Gonzalez of Altria Corporate
Services, Inc. by Phone: 917-663-2144
PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES: SEC Files Amended Complaint V. Ex-Brokers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended
complaint on July 14 against five brokers and one branch manager
formerly employed by Prudential Securities, Inc.'s Boston branch
office in connection with their market timing trades in dozens
of mutual funds. The complaint against these defendants was
originally filed on Nov. 4, 2003.
The Commission alleges in its amended complaint that, from at
least January 2001 through September 2003, former brokers Martin
J. Druffner, Justin F. Ficken, Skifter Ajro, John S. Peffer, and
Marc J. Bilotti defrauded more than fifty mutual fund companies
and the funds' shareholders by placing thousands of market
timing trades worth more than one billion dollars. According to
the amended complaint, the defendant brokers knew that the
mutual fund companies monitored and attempted to restrict
excessive trading in their mutual funds. To evade those
restrictions when placing market timing trades with the mutual
funds, the brokers disguised their own identities by
establishing numerous broker identification numbers and
disguised their customers' identities by opening nearly two
hundred customer accounts under various names for seven of their
market timing customers.
According to the Commission's amended complaint, former branch
manager Robert Shannon aided and abetted the brokers' fraudulent
scheme by, among other things, approving new broker
identification numbers and new customer accounts for the other
defendants, whom he supervised. The Commission amended its prior
complaint in this action in response to a court order dismissing
the complaint for insufficient specificity about the fraudulent
acts committed by the defendants.
The Commission's amended complaint alleges that Druffner,
Ficken, Ajro, Peffer, and Bilotti violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and violated or aided and abetted their
clients' violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The
complaint alleges that Shannon aided and abetted his co-
defendants' violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The amended complaint seeks injunctive
relief, disgorgement, penalties, and such equitable relief as
the court deems appropriate.
The Commission's investigation is continuing. For further
information, please see Litigation Release Number 18444 (Nov. 4,
2003). The action is styled SEC v. Martin J. Druffner, et al.,
Civil Action No. 03-12154-NMG (D.Mass.) (LR-18784)
RWANDA: Former Finance Minister Convicted of Genocide, Murder
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former Rwandan finance minister Emmanuel Ndindabahizi was
convicted and meted a life sentence this week for his role in
the country's 1994 genocide, which resulted to the deaths of an
estimated 800,000 Tutsis and Hutus in just 100 days, Reuters
reports.
Mr. Ndindabahizi traveled around Gitesi, Gishyita and Mabanza
communes in April, May and June 1994, distributing weapons and
instructing administrative officials, civilian militia and local
residents to kill people identified as Tutsis, prosecutors said.
Mr. Ndindabahizi, 54, allegedly led a campaign of extermination
against civilian Tutsis in Kibuye in western Rwanda during the
slaughter, and incited the mass rapes of Hutu girls and women.
"He was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, murder
and extermination. He got life imprisonment," Bokar Sy, an
associate spokesman at the Tanzanian-based International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) said.
The ICTR was established in 1995 to bring to justice the
military and political masterminds behind the genocide. The
tribunal, based in Tanzania's northern town of Arusha, has
indicted 81 people for genocide-related crimes. Including
Ndindabahizi, it has so far convicted 20 and acquitted three,
Reuters reports. Under tribunal rules, those convicted can
appeal.
SEI INVESTMENTS: Reaches SEC Settlement In Various Fraud Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 14, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued an
Order Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist
Proceedings, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions
and a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 21C
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) against
SEI Investments Distribution Company (SIDCO) and its parent
company, SEI Investments Company (SEI). Without admitting or
denying the findings in the Commission's Order, SIDCO consents
to: a censure; an order to cease and desist from committing or
causing any violations and any future violations of the customer
protection, net capital, books and records, and reporting
provisions of the Exchange Act; a civil penalty in the amount of
$375,000, and certain undertakings. Also without admitting or
denying the findings in the Commission's Order, SEI consents to
an order to cease and desist from causing any violations and any
future violations of the above provisions of the Exchange Act.
The Commission's Order finds that SIDCO, a registered broker-
dealer, failed to make and keep current accurate books and
records reflecting all assets and liabilities from at least
September 2002 through February 2003. Specifically, SIDCO failed
to include several accounts in its books and records and,
conversely, erroneously included accounts in its books and
records that did not belong to SIDCO but, rather, to SEI's
transfer agent. One of the accounts not included in SIDCO's
books and records was an account for the exclusive benefit of
customers under Rule 15c3-3(k)(2)(i) of the Exchange Act, used
for SIDCO's repurchase agreement program. This account was also
used by SEI's transfer agent, resulting in the improper
commingling of SIDCO's customers' funds with non-customer funds.
By omitting the account for the exclusive benefit of customers
from its financial records, SIDCO materially misstated its
audited financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2002,
and failed to report a net capital deficiency. In addition,
SIDCO materially misstated its net capital in certain monthly
financial and operational (FOCUS) reports filed with the
Commission from at least September 2002 through February 2003.
The Order finds that SIDCO violated Sections 15(c)(3) and 17(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rules 15c3-1, 15c3-3, 17a-3, 17a-5 and
17a-11 thereunder.
The Order also finds that SEI effectively controlled SIDCO's
functions and activities, sharing SEI's clients and facilities,
and even some of SEI's officers and directors. SEI, however,
devoted inadequate time and attention to SIDCO's operations,
resulting in SIDCO's violations.
SNOW PEAK: Recalls 1,886 Gas Camping Stoves Due To Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Snow Peak USA Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 1,886 Snow Peak Giga
Power White Gas Camping Stoves, GS-010.
Plastic parts in the pump connected to the camping stove can
crack or become dislodged. When exposed to extreme temperature
change, the blue plastic shrinks around the aluminum parts and
has been observed to crack the outer plastic housing. The air
tube on some of the pumps can become unglued and dislodged.
Both of these failures can permit gas to leak. Snow Peak has
received 17 reports of cracked or dislodged pumps. No fires,
property damage or injuries have been reported.
This recall involves the Snow Peak Giga Power White Gas Stove
GS-010. The stove is a white gas camping stove with an output
of 10,000 BTU. The stove's main feature is that it will ignite
without priming. Model numbers are located on the instruction
manual. The brand name "Snow Peak" is on the front base of the
stove, two of the four support legs, and the fuel bottle.
Camping and outdoor recreation stores sold these items
nationwide from August 2001 through June 2004 for about $150.
The pump was sold separately for about $40.
Consumers should return the pump to the store where purchased or
to the firm for a free replacement pump. To return the pump to
Snow Peak USA, please call customer service for Snow Peak's UPS
account number and a Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA)
number to add to the outside of the box for quicker turn-around
time, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snowpeak.com. For
more details, contact Miyoko by Phone: 503-697-3330.
TAIWAN: Consumers Issue Ultimatum V. Effem Foods on Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Taiwanese Consumers' Foundation warned Effem Foods Taiwan
that it will file a class action against the pet food company,
if it fails to clarify within one week how it will act to
compensate dog owners, whose pets may have developed kidney
failure with Pedigree dog food, the Taipei Times reports.
The foundation accused the company of never making public its
criteria for compensation. In response to the ultimatum, Effem
told the Taipei Times that the company has so far compensated
more than 80 percent of affected dog owners, adding that its
compensation efforts were earlier approved by both the Consumer
Protection Commission and the Taiwan Veterinarian Medical
Association.
TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls 25,500 Truck Sets For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 25,500
Summerville(tm) Toy Trucks Sets. Components on the trucks could
detach, posing a choking and sharp point hazard to young
children. No injuries have been reported.
The recall includes Summerville(tm) four-piece truck sets. The
multicolored trucks are about 4.5-inches long. Various types of
trucks sold in the sets include dump trucks, cement trucks,
utility trucks, garbage trucks, box trucks, fuel trucks, and tow
trucks. Writing on the trucks includes "EMERGENCY," "HEAVY
DUTY," or "CITY SERVICE." "Summerville(tm)" and the item number
"204 02 0458" are written on the packaging.
Target stores sold these items nationwide from February 2004
through May 2004 for about $6.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 440-0680
between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
Target's Web site: http://www.target.com.
TENNESSEE: Court Dismisses Lawsuits V. Oak Ridge Weapons Complex
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio
dismissed two lawsuits seeking compensation on behalf of people
who might have been exposed to toxins from the Oak Ridge nuclear
weapons complex during the last half century, the Associated
Press reports.
The appeals court decision effectively affirmed a 2002 ruling by
U.S. District Judge James Jarvis that the lawsuits came too late
to meet Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations and failed
to show enough common interest between the plaintiffs to support
a class action. The thus favored the Energy Department and 13
firms or institutions that ran the weapons complex since it
opened in 1942 as part of the bomb-building Manhattan Project of
World War II.
Defendants who were named in the suit included the University of
Chicago, Monsanto Co., Union Carbide Corp., Eastman Chemical
Co., Martin-Martin Energy Systems Inc., Bechtel Jacobs Co. and
the University of Tennessee-Battelle.
The lawsuits stemmed from a government-sponsored report that was
released in January 2000, which documented a history of toxic
releases from the nuclear weapons complex it also stated that
some people were likely hurt by the releases.
The plaintiffs filed suit a year after the report was released.
But the court said that it was too late, noting that the
"possible connection between emissions and health risks near Oak
Ridge" was widely publicized before and during the preparation
of the report.
The judges said the plaintiffs failed to show they made any
effort to support their claims that the government and
contractors withheld information.
TENNESSEE: Hispanics, Immigrants Claim New Laws Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a federal lawsuit seeking class action status and filed
before the U.S. District Court of Tennessee, Plaintiffs accuse
the state's new driver's license law discriminates against both
immigrants and Hispanic residents, and it clearly violates the
U.S. Constitution, The Tennessean reports.
In the complaint, Ms. Geraldine Gurdian's Nicaraguan passport,
Florida driver's license and permanent residency card were
confiscated by a clerk who said "you don't even know English"
when she tried to get a driver's license at the Hart Lane
station in Nashville.
Ms. Gurdian was among plaintiffs in the lawsuit that claims the
state's unique new law "exhibits a deliberate indifference" to
the constitutional rights of immigrants and Hispanics and a
"pervasive pattern" of discriminatory actions in day-to-day
operations at driver's license offices.
The suit challenges two other state policies as well: one is a
year-old law banning Mexican consulate identity cards but not
those from any other country as valid identification in applying
for driver's licenses and state IDs. The other state policy
challenged was one that leaves it up to individual law
enforcement officers to decide what they'll accept as proper ID;
such laws are so "vague" they're unconstitutional.
The suit also calls Department of Safety staff poorly trained,
inadequately supervised and says that incidents such as the one
with Ms. Gurdian were not adequately investigated. It also
accuses the Department of Safety of violating federal law and
risking federal dollars by not providing interpreters at testing
stations.
The driver's license law has been the subject of national
attention since the governor signed it into law in May. The
policy creates two types of driving documents: driver's licenses
for those who can prove they're either citizens or legal
permanent residents, and driving certificates for those who
can't. Stamped "not valid for identification," certificates are
intended to be used only for driving and not to board a plane,
buy a gun or rent a car, according to policy-makers.
According to Governor Phil Bredesen who stated that the law
addresses national security concerns by barring all but citizens
and legal, permanent residents from getting a valid state
license, and it ensures that everyone on Tennessee roads
including illegal immigrants is qualified to drive.
But Jose Gonzalez, the attorney filing the suit and head of the
local chapter of the League of United Latin American Citizens,
disputes that and told The Tennessean that, "Despite their
assertion that homeland security is a compelling interest, I
think their real reason for this law is that they don't like
illegal aliens getting driver's licenses."
Mr. Gonzalez even cited another plaintiff who sought a state ID
for her 8-year-old Mexican-born son as an example. Minors are
eligible for state IDs, Gonzalez said. When Yolanda Lewis' son
was turned down, she was told he would only be eligible for a
driving certificate and then when she pointed out his age was
refused any document at all.
UNITED STATES: Scraps Plans For CAPPS II Over Privacy Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States government dropped plans for the controversial
Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS II), a
program to collect personal data on airline passengers to assess
security risks, USA Today reported.
The program was launched after the September 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks to refine electronic techniques for using personal
information to identify and rate potential threats. The program
was widely criticized by privacy advocates and some members of
Congress. Several airlines have been slapped with lawsuits
after providing passenger information to test the program.
United States Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge told
reporters that the government has all but scrapped the plans for
CAPPS II because of privacy concerns. Mr. Ridge cited privacy
concerns, particularly those arising from proposed legislation
that would have required airlines to hand over information about
passengers as part of a test of the program, USA Today said.
He added a new program with a different name might be developed
to replace CAPPS II. It could be replaced by a new "registered
traveler" program if enough people volunteer to provide personal
information, he told USA Today.
David Stone, the acting administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration, on Tuesday said at his Senate
confirmation hearing that the TSA might alter or eliminate
aspects of the CAPPS II program that have generated lawsuits and
other complaints from privacy and consumer groups.
UNITED STATES: 6M To Lose Pay Benefits Under New Overtime Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, individuals
who work in retail, financial services, a restaurant or a
nonunion factory could become ineligible for overtime pay once
rule changes by the Labor Department go into effect in August
23, the Omaha World-Herald reports.
In their study the pro-labor think tank stated that about 6
million workers could lose their eligibility for overtime pay
after the changes go into effect.
According to Terry Moore, president of the Omaha Federation of
Labor who told the Omaha World-Herald that, "It's just another
irresponsible act from this administration, which has absolutely
no regard for the working people of this country, overtime is in
place for a reason. What else do workers have to sell but their
sweat and labor?"
However, officials at the Labor Department, which created the
new rules, countered that the changes will decrease frivolous
class-action lawsuits against companies concerning overtime pay
and employee classification. The changes are a much-needed
update to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, government
officials further added.
Labor Department spokesman Ed Frank also told the Omaha World-
Herald that the Economic Policy Institute study is "a rehash of
misinformation that the AFL-CIO put out . . . assertions that
were completely discredited in congressional hearings."
UNITED STATES: CA Court Puts Memory Antitrust Lawsuit on Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court in San
Francisco temporarily suspended litigation for a private
antitrust lawsuit seeking class action status that was filed
against computer memory makers as the U.S. government proceeds
with its own criminal investigation of the memory industry, the
Houston Chronicle reports.
This limited stay on the disclosure of relevant documents in the
case, a process known as discovery was the second extension of
the original stay order issued last April, which had come at the
request of the Justice Department.
Representing numerous purchasers of computer memory and seeking
class-action status, the lawsuit accuses memory makers of
conspiring to keep prices artificially high between November
2001 and June 2002. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages in a case that closely mirrors a federal grand jury
investigation into the memory industry that was launched in June
2002.
The computer memory industry, which has been dominated by a such
firms as Samsung, Micron, Germany's Infineon Technologies AG,
and Korea's Hynix Semiconductor Inc. has become a favorite
target for litigation, as it is the focus of several long-
running private lawsuits. Many of those suits involve a Los
Altos, California-based chip designer Rambus Inc. who has
demanded royalty payments from memory makers.
WEST VILLAGE: Paraplegics Lodge Disabilities Suit V. TX Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paraplegic attorney Ken Carden initiated a class action lawsuit
on behalf of Ms. Monique Jannette and two other disabled
plaintiffs against shopping center West Village and its creators
for failing to provide adequate facilities for the disabled, the
Dallas Morning News reports.
The suit also named as Defendants PPC/IMA Intown Village Limited
Partnerships as well as the architecture and construction firms
that created the shopping complex.
Basing their suit from the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, Plaintiffs found a lot of facilities, which were
completely inadequate for use by the disabled. This included the
unavailability of disabled parking spaces on the street,
sidewalk curbs without entry grades, steep ramps without
handrails and a few handicapped parking spots in the garage,
which were very far from elevators.
But according to developers Henry S. Miller III and Robert
Bagwell the lack of accessibility was an unintentional
oversight. And he told the Dallas Morning News that he is
committed to making appropriate repairs as soon as possible.
Ed Cloutman, lawyer for the West Village defendants, told the
Dallas Morning News that though his clients recognize the
accessibility problems, they don't believe they're the only ones
to blame. The owners have brought cross-claims against KSNG
Architects and DalMac Construction, he said, and third-party
claims against landscaping and engineering teams.
ZONAGEN INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the June 13, 2003 judgment of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissing the
one claim remaining from the consolidated securities class
action filed against Zonagen, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors in 1998.
The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The plaintiffs purported to bring the suit on
behalf of all purchasers of Company common stock between
February 7, 1996 and January 9, 1998.
The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about the patents and patent applications of the Company
relating to VASOMAX(R) and Chito-ZN (formerly named ImmuMax(TM))
and about the Company's clinical trials of VASOMAX(R). The
plaintiffs sought to have the action declared to be a class
action, and to have recessionary or compensatory damages in an
unstated amount, along with interest and attorney's fees, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 3,2003) reports.
The Court of Appeals also denied the plaintiff's request for a
rehearing. The case was originally consolidated on May 29, 1998
in District Court, and on March 30, 1999, such court dismissed
the case with prejudice. On September 25, 2001, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the 1999 dismissal with respect to all but one
claim which was sent back to the District Court. The June 13,
2003 judgment of the District Court dismissed the remaining
claim with prejudice. The time for the plaintiff to file a writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court has not yet
expired.
New Securities Fraud Cases
COMMERCE BANCORP: Scott + Scott Files Amended NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of the
purchasers of Commerce Bancorp (NYSE: CBH; "Commerce")
securities between the period of June 1, 2002 and June 28, 2004,
inclusive.
Plaintiffs allege that during this period, Commerce and certain
of its officers and directors were in violation of the United
States Federal securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of
1934). To its present knowledge, Scott + Scott, LLC filed the
first shareholder class action complaint against Commerce and to
its knowledge it is the only such case on file at this time. It
issued this release as required by law at the commencement of
the action, the firm said in a statement.
On July 13, 2004, the Company announced it will no longer
underwrite government bonds. Even though the underwriting
employees at Commerce were not implicated in the Philadelphia
case, Chairman Vernon W. Hill II said, the bank will exit this
business. Then, on July 14, Sovereign Bancorp Inc. stated that
it would get into the municipal bond business. William Bass,
president of Sovereign Securities, told Reuters that Sovereign
"is always glad when more market share becomes available..." On
July 14,2004, Commerce dropped another $1.65.
The complaint alleges the Individual Defendants, who include
officers and directors of Commerce, had intimate knowledge of
FBI investigations and grand jury proceedings delving into the
actions of defendants Commerce, Ronald White ("White"), Glenn
Holck ("Holck"), and Stephen Umbrell ("Umbrell").
The FBI raided White, Director of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania's
offices, on October 16, 2003. Thereafter, the attorneys
representing Holck, president of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, and
Umbrell, regional vice-president of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania,
had access to the telephone tapes that were at the center of the
eventual criminal indictments. It is alleged that these tapes
clearly establish the culpability of the three Commerce
Bank/Pennsylvania defendants.
During the grand jury proceedings, various Commerce officers
testified, many of them with representation from attorneys from
the law firm of a member of the Board of Directors of Commerce.
In December 2003 and January 2004, a few months after the raid
on White's law offices, the Chairman and CEO sold and/or
disposed of Commerce shares for insider sale proceeds of USD
$5.9 million. Despite the intimate knowledge of Commerce senior
executives, including its Chairman and CEO, of the investigation
and criminal grand jury proceedings, it is alleged that such
information was never disclosed to investors during the Class
Period and only became known on or about June 29, 2004.
Based on that, US Attorney Patrick Meehan announced a former
Commerce director and two executives had been indicted of
various charges which include conspiracy to commit honest
services fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, extortion and making
false statements to the FBI.
The complaint further alleges Commerce and certain of its
officers and directors engaged in improper, inherently
unsustainable, and potentially criminal bribery and bid-rigging
in order to win underwriting awards and gain government
deposits.
In recent indictments of two executives and a director of
Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, it is alleged such practices were
used to procure over USD $233 million (the current complaint
alleges USD $50 million) in government deposits (according to an
investigation of City records by the Philadelphia Daily News)
and USD $1.7 million in fees from the City of Philadelphia
alone. Moreover, the indictments indicate that the practices
included the direct participation of Commerce's chairman and
chief executive officer. Others involved have been indicted as
well.
Currently, 18% of Commerce's deposits are from municipalities,
more than any of its rivals. Analysts have expressed concern
that such government deposits may shrink as a result of the
indictments. Securities analysts have expressed concern that
Commerce Bank's government deposit base, and underwriting and
insurance businesses could suffer as a result of municipalities'
fear of "guilt by association" with Commerce Bank.
Additionally, since the filing of the first complaint by Scott +
Scott, significant new allegations have surfaced and will be
plead that Commerce laundered funds between its state and
federal political action committees (PACs), which have given
more than USD $3.1 million to candidates and political parties
since 1998, in order to circumvent Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board's rule G-37. Scott + Scott is informed that
Commerce Capital Markets employees contributed to the federal
PAC because the contributions to the state PACs would have
prevented Commerce from performing municipal underwriting
services for any municipalities in which the state PACs made
campaign contributions. Nevertheless, the federal PACs regularly
loaned funds to the state PACs. For example, on August 7, 2001,
Pennsylvania Auditor General Robert Casey Jr. received a USD
$25,000 campaign contribution from Compac, Commerce's
Pennsylvania state PAC. On the same day, Compac received a USD
$25,000 loan from Commerce's federal PAC. Casey subsequently
selected Commerce Bank for two state bond offerings.
Former employees have alleged that Commerce effectively required
certain of its employees to make contributions to the PACs. It
is alleged that Commerce improperly capitalized ordinary
expenses as pre-opening expenses for bank premises and
equipment, thereby artificially increasing reported net income.
Commerce capitalizes almost twice as much as its rivals for pre-
opening expenses per branch.
In October 2003, the FBI raided Commerce's main Pennsylvania
office at 20th and Market streets, which was not disclosed to
investors. Commerce Bank director and Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of Commerce Insurance Services, Inc. (and
Commerce's largest insider shareholder) George Norcross has been
the subject of at least one criminal RICO investigation and a
civil RICO lawsuit regarding his political activities in New
Jersey. According to press reports, of the 312 New Jersey
municipalities that share insurance costs, 305 used Commerce
Insurance Services for their risk management services as of
February 2003.
For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Phone:
619-233-45651-800-404-7770 (EDT) or 1-800-332-2259 (PDT) or by
E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.
RED HAT: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces that today a
class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Red Hat, Inc.
("Red Hat" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: RHAT) between December
19, 2003 and July 13, 2004, inclusive ("Class Period") and who
were damaged thereby. A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or, from Milberg Weiss upon
request. The action, numbered 5:04-CV-473-FL (1), is pending in
the Eastern District of North Carolina against defendants Red
Hat, Matthew Szulik (CEO), Kevin B. Thompson (CFO), Mark Webbink
(General Counsel), Timothy Buckley (former COO) and Paul Cormier
(Exec. VP).
The complaint charges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, in each
Form 10-Q and Form 10-K filed with the SEC, Defendants falsely
reported that they "ratably" recognized revenue from
subscriptions. In fact, as the market learned on July 13, it did
not. Instead, Defendants recognized revenue from subscriptions
on a monthly basis, rather than on a daily basis. For example,
if a subscription was signed on the last day of a month, a full
month's revenue would have been recognized on that day, rather
than a day's worth of revenue. After the auditor within
PriceWaterhouse Cooper rotated, the new auditor required
recognition of revenue from subscriptions on a daily basis as
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") requires. This
change in accounting practice resulted in Red Hat's having to
restate its financial results for fiscal years 2002, 2003 and
the first quarter of 2004. The restatement, Defendants have
admitted, "is expected to result in significant percentage
differences in certain items such as quarterly operating profit
and net income." During the short seven month class period,
Defendants Buckley and Szulik sold over $34 million and $37
million respectively, while the other defendants collectively
sold an additional $8 million in Red hat securities. As a result
of defendants' allegedly fraudulent scheme, the price of Red
Hat's securities was artificially inflated, allowing insiders to
sell Red Hat's securities for millions of dollars in proceeds,
and causing plaintiff and other class members to suffer damages.
The Company also announced the SEC has made an inquiry into the
Company's results as filed in their Form 10-K. On Monday, June
14, 2004, Red Hat announced unexpectedly that its Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO") was resigning "to pursue other
interests." The Company claims that its restatement is unrelated
to its former CFO's resignation. Red Hat stock plummeted $4.62
or 22.7% per share, losing $600 million in market capitalization
to close at $15.73 per share.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or
contact Maya Saxena and Joseph E. White by Mail: 5355 Town
Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
(561) 361-5000 by E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milbergweiss.com
RED HAT: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action
suit against Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or the "Company") RHAT and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of all
purchasers of Red Hat securities from December 18, 2003 through
July 12, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Red Hat, Matthew J. Szulik (CEO), and
Kevin B. Thompson (CFO) with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC as a result of the issuance of
materially false and misleading financial results throughout the
Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.
Throughout the Class Period, in filings with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), defendants
materially inflated Red Hat's revenues, net income, and
operating profits by reporting that the Company had earned a
greater amount of revenue from its Linux software subscription
contracts (its main revenue source) in the period in which
contracts were received than the actually was earned. Defendants
recognized revenue from subscriptions on a monthly basis, rather
than on a daily basis. For example, if a subscription contract
was signed on the last day of a month, a full month's revenue
would have been recognized on that day, rather than a day's
worth of revenue.
As a result of defendants' alleged fraudulent scheme, Red Hat
securities traded at artificially inflated prices, causing
plaintiff and other class members to suffer damages. During the
Class Period, defendants Szulik and Thompson obtained more than
$37 million through personal sales of Red Hat common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
On June 16, 2004, Red Hat's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
advised the Company to correct the method it used to recognize
revenue from subscription contracts so as to come into
compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"). Defendants' financial statement fraud was revealed to
the public on July 13, 2004 in a press release in which the
Company admitted that revenue had been incorrectly reported
during the Class Period and that it would have to restate its
financial results for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004 and the
first quarter of fiscal year 2005. In conjunction, with its
announcement of the restatement, Red Hat also revealed that the
SEC was investigating the accuracy of one of the Company's
fiscal year 10-K reports.
Not even a full month before the stunning July 13, 2004
restatement and SEC inquiry announcements, following the
announcement that Red Hat's CFO was resigning, defendant Szulik
assured investors that the Company was not being investigated by
the SEC and that it would not be restating its financial
results.
After the market became aware that Szulik's assurances were
false, that Red Hat's financial results dating as far back as
fiscal year 2002 had been materially inflated, could not be
relied upon, and would be restated, and that the SEC was
investigating the accuracy of the Company's financial
statements, the price of Red Hat common stock plunged more than
22% on July 13, 2004 to close at $15.73 on extremely heavy
trading volume.
For more details, contact Arthur Stock, Esquire, Casey M.
Preston, Esquire, Diane R. Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager
of Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by
Fax: 215-875-5715 or by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net.
RED HAT: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Red Hat,
Inc. (NASDAQ:RHAT) between June 19, 2001 and July 13, 2004,
inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against Red Hat and Matthew
Szulik, Kevin B. Thompson and Timothy J. Buckley.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements to the market and concealed material adverse facts
concerning the Company's financial performance.
In particular, the Company's Form 10-K filed with the Securities
& Exchange Commission ("SEC") for the fiscal years 2002, 2003,
2004 and the first quarter of fiscal 2005, and the press
releases announcing the financial and business performance were
materially false and misleading by omitting to state that it had
improperly recognized revenues in its subscription business.
On July 13, 2004, Red Hat announced that it would be restating
its financial results for the fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004 and
the first fiscal quarter of 2005 due to improperly recognizing
revenues from its subscription agreements. Coupled with this
disclosure, the Company also revealed that it was the subject of
a review of its Form -10K by the SEC. Shares of Red Hat reacted
negatively to these disclosures, falling $4.62 per share to
close at $15.73, representing a decline of 22.7% on very heavy
trading volume.
For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476.
RED HAT: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT), between June 19, 2001 and July 13,
2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Red Hat securities.
For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com
RED HAT: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Red Hat,
Inc. RHAT publicly traded securities during the period between
December 18, 2003 and July 12, 2004.
The complaint charges Red Hat and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Red Hat provides an enterprise operating system and
related systems management services based on open source
technology for the information technology infrastructure
requirements of large enterprises.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Red
Hat's financial results and growth rates. Its reported earnings
were misleading in part due to revenue recognition where it
recorded revenue prior to earning the revenue, in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Company also
misled investors by concealing the impact of competition from
Novell. As a result of these false statements, the Company's
stock, which began the Class Period trading at less than $15 per
share, climbed as high as $28.73 per share. The individual
defendants benefited from the inflated price of Red Hat stock by
selling more than 1.9 million shares of their Company stock for
proceeds of more than $35.6 million.
On July 13, 2004, Red Hat stunned the market when it issued a
press release announcing that "it has corrected the manner in
which it recognizes revenues for certain of its subscription
agreements and, as a result, will restate its audited financial
statements for the fiscal years ended February 29, 2004,
February 28, 2003, and February 28, 2002, and its unaudited
financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2004."
Upon these disclosures, Red Hat's stock dropped to as low as
$15.59 per share before closing at $15.73 per share on July 13,
2004, some 45% below the Class Period high of $28.73 per share
and a one-day drop of 21%, on volume of 55 million shares. The
stock later dropped to as low as $14.77 per share.
For more details, contact William Lerach of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800-449-4900 or by E-mail:
wsl@lcsr.com.
RED HAT: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Red Hat, Inc. (NASDAQ: RHAT) securities between June 19, 2001
and July 13, 2004, inclusive. The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, against the company and certain key officers and
directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.
For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046,
by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com.
RED HAT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
behalf of all purchasers securities of Red Hat, Inc. RHAT from
December 18, 2003 through July 12, 2004, inclusive.
The complaint charges that Red Hat, Matthew Szulik, and Kevin
Thompson violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 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 inappropriately recognized revenues
from its subscriptions;
(2) that as a consequence of the aforementioned practice,
the Company manipulated its quarterly earnings as its
net income and operating income were, at all relative
times, materially overstated;
(3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
(5) that the Company's financial results were materially
and artificially inflated at all relevant times.
On July 13, 2004, Red Hat announced that it had corrected the
manner in which it recognized revenues for certain of its
subscription agreements and, as a result, would restate its
audited financial statements for the fiscal years ended February
29, 2004, February 28, 2003, and February 28, 2002, and its
unaudited financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended May
31, 2004. The news shocked the market. Shares of Red Hat fell
$4.62 or 22.70 percent per share, on July 13, 2004, to close at
$15.73 per share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
RED HAT: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a federal
securities fraud class action in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against Red
Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT), Matthew J.
Szulik, Kevin B. Thompson, Timothy J. Buckley, Paul J. Cormier,
and Mark H. Webbink on behalf of purchasers of RHAT securities,
during the period between March 19, 2002 and July 12, 2004 (the
"Class Period").
The complaint will charge defendants with issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5. Among other things, the complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, Defendants:
(1) engaged in a scheme to defraud Red Hat's investing
public by prematurely recognizing revenue from
subscriptions in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(2) misrepresented its net income and financial results;
(3) misrepresented that its financial statements were
prepared in accordance with GAAP; and
(4) reported enormous profits by selling over $77 million
worth of personally held stock at artificially inflated
prices as a result of Defendants' fraud on the market.
On July 13, 2004, Defendants revealed that they would be
restating financial results for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004
and the first quarter of 2004 as a result of the change in the
way they recognized revenue from subscriptions, noting that they
would now be recognizing revenue from subscriptions on a daily
basis rather than on a monthly basis. The restatement,
Defendants have admitted, "is expected to result in significant
percentage differences in certain items such as quarterly
operating profit and net income." As at least one analyst has
said, this situation "raises questions about the company's
financial controls and infrastructure."
The Company also announced that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") had made an inquiry into the Company's
results for one year, though the basis for the inquiry has not
yet been fully disclosed. Notably, on June 14, 2004, Red Hat
announced unexpectedly that its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO")
was planning to resign "to pursue other interests." The Company
claims that its restatement is unrelated to its CFO's
resignation.
The market reacted negatively to the impending restatement and
the SEC inquiry, which news alone resulted in a loss of market
capitalization for Red Hat of over $600 million. The stock
closed at $15.73 per share, which was $4.62 or 22.7% down from
the previous day's close at $20.35.
For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr., of Shareholder
Relations Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 or by E-mail: vsoler@whesq.com
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Veritas Software
Corporation (VRTS) from April 21, 2004 through July 2, 2004,
inclusive.
The complaint charges that Veritas, Edwin J. Gillis and Gary L.
Bloom violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
fact that the Company could not meet the financial
expectations;
(2) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
that earnings for the second quarter were unachievable
because negotiations for significant contracts would
not close prior to the close of the quarter;
(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
(4) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
statements concerning expectations were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.
On July 6, 2004, before the market opened, Veritas announced
preliminary results for its fiscal second quarter ended June 30,
2004. The Company announced an unexpected earnings shortfall.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Veritas fell $9.55 or
35.97 percent per share, on July 6, 2004, to close at $17.00 per
share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll-free) or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: 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 * * *