/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040817.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 17, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 162
Headlines
ALPHARMA INC.: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Reaches Settlement For Gas Royalties Suits
AZTAR CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of NJ Garage Collapse Lawsuit
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Squitieri & Fearon Lodge ERISA Suit in S.D. OH
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
CP SHIPS: Jigarjian Law Investigates Investor's Claims V. Notes
ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of NY Zyprexa Lawsuits
ELI LILLY: Faces NY Suits Over Medicaid Average Wholesale Prices
FLORIDA: A.G. Task Force To Stop Hurricane Charley Price-Gouging
JOHN FRIEDA: Recalls Pump Sprays Due To Yeast And Mold Content
KINDER MORGAN: CO Court Grants Plaintiff's Motion To Withdraw
KINDER MORGAN: Class Discovery Starts in Breach of Contract Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Proceeds in DE Investor Suit
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial in TX Employee Race Bias Suit in Recess
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: NJ Court Approves Securities Settlement
MICHIGAN: A.G., Treasurer Forge Plan To Protect State Pensioners
MURPHY OIL: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit Over June 2003 LA Fire
NEIGHBORS COFFEE: Recalls Whole Bean Coffees For Undeclared Nuts
NEWSDAY: Judge Directs Parties Involved To Set Rules For Talks
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues To Face Lead-Based Paints Litigation
NORTH DAKOTA: ND Judge Mulls Certification For Labor Lawsuit
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: CA Court Okays Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
PIZZA HUT: CA Court Issues Summary Judgment For Overtime Lawsuit
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
REWARDS NETWORK: Plan Participants Launch Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Reaches Pact With VT Over Claritin Drug Pricing
STERLING WATTERS: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit V. Hedge Fund
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Continues To Face MA Broker Lawsuits
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: JPMDL Orders ERISA Suit Consolidation
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek MA Suit Certification
VAXCEL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1.2T Ceilings Fans For Shock Risks
VERMONT: A.G. Sorrell Settles Antitrust Suit With Two Rx Firms
WAL-MART STORES: CA Appeals Court To Review Class Certification
New Securities Fraud Cases
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in MN
CP SHIPS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
CP SHIPS: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
CP SHIPS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CROSS COUNTRY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ENTROPIN INC.: Catanzarite Law Files Stock Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges CA Securities Suit
US UNWIRED: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
VISTACARE INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
VISTACARE INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges AZ Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ALPHARMA INC.: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the securities class action filed against AlPharma,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
This class action was brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Company's securities between April 28, 1999 and
October 30, 2000. The Company was named as a defendant along
with two of its board members, one of whom is an officer, and
two of its former officers. The class action alleged that,
among other things, the plaintiffs were damaged when they
acquired the Company's securities because, as a result of
alleged irregularities in the Company's Animal Health business
in Brazil, allegedly improper revenue recognition practices and
the October 2000 revision of its financial results for 1999 and
2000, the Company's previously issued financial statements were
materially false and misleading, thereby artificially inflating
the price of the Company's securities.
The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The
plaintiffs sought damages in unspecified amounts.
The District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with
prejudice as to all defendants and the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals has affirmed this ruling. This ruling terminates this
lawsuit subject to the plaintiff's right to request a hearing
before the United Sates Supreme Court.
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Reaches Settlement For Gas Royalties Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation reaches a settlement for the
litigation filed against it, over alleged gas royalty
underpayments.
A group of royalty owners purporting to represent Anadarko's gas
royalty owners in Texas was granted class action certification
styled Neinast, Russell, et al. v. Union Pacific Resources
Company, et al. in December 1999, by the 21st Judicial District
Court of Washington County, Texas, in connection with a gas
royalty underpayment case against the Company. This
certification did not constitute a review by the Court of the
merits of the claims being asserted. The royalty owners'
pleadings did not specify the damages being claimed, although a
demand for damages in the amount of $66 million was asserted.
The Company appealed the class certification order. A favorable
decision from the Houston Court of Appeals decertified the
class. The royalty owners did not appeal this matter to the
Texas Supreme Court and the decision from the Houston Court of
Appeals became final in the second quarter of 2002. In the
fourth quarter of 2003, the royalty owners filed a new petition
alleging that the class may properly be brought so long as "sub-
class" groups are broken out.
The same attorneys who filed the Neinast lawsuit as a state-wide
class action also filed a lawsuit, styled Hankins, Lowell F., et
al. v. Union Pacific Resources Group Inc., et al., in the 112th
Judicial District Court, Crockett County, Texas. The two
lawsuits are substantially identical, except that the Hankins
lawsuit is limited to royalty owners in Crockett and Sutton
Counties. The Texas Supreme Court has reversed certification of
this class; however, as with the Neinast case, the plaintiffs
indicated that they would seek certification of sub-classes and
continue to prosecute the claims.
The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle
these cases, subject to judicial approval. The Company expects
the court to approve the settlement in late 2004 or early 2005.
AZTAR CORPORATION: Seeks Dismissal of NJ Garage Collapse Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aztar Corporation asked the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania to dismiss the class action
filed against it and its affiliates Adamar of New Jersey, Inc.
and the Tropicana Casino and Resort in Atlantic City, relating
to the October 30, 2003 collapse of a portion of a parking
garage under construction at the Tropicana Casino and Resort in
Atlantic City, New Jersey, based on lack of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff, Scannicchio's Restaurant, is located in the
vicinity of the garage collapse. The lawsuit purports to be a
class action on behalf of Scannicchio's Restaurant and all
neighboring businesses for damages to buildings and loss of
profits. The action seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts for negligence and for private and public
nuisance.
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cambrex Corporation asked the United States District Court in
New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and five of its former and current officers.
The lawsuit has been brought as a class action in the names of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from October 21, 1998
through July 25, 2003. The complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose in timely fashion the January 2003 accounting
restatement and subsequent SEC investigation, as well as the
loss of a significant contract at the Baltimore facility.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Squitieri & Fearon Lodge ERISA Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of
the Cardinal Health Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan
and the Syncor International Employees' Savings and Stock
Ownership Plan (the "Plans"), who were invested in Cardinal
Health Shares through the Plans between October 24, 2000 and the
present (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that defendants Cardinal Health, Inc.
(NYSE:CAH), its Employee Benefits Policy Committee, and certain
of its officers and directors breached their duties under ERISA
by
(1) failing to properly manage the Plans' assets by
imprudently investing a significant amount of the
Plans' assets in Cardinal Health stock;
(2) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
participants and beneficiaries; and
(3) engaged in prohibited transactions under ERISA.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that,
during the Class Period, Cardinal Health stock was grossly
overvalued and should not have been sold to retirement plans and
was an imprudent retirement investment because
(i) Cardinal's business model for its pharmaceutical
distribution business was no longer viable and was in
the process of being scrapped and replaced with a new
business model which has led to a drastic decline in
profitability and undermined Cardinal's prospects for
growth;
(ii) Cardinal Health's pharmaceutical distribution business
improperly classified revenue to create the illusion of
revenue growth;
(iii) Cardinal Health improperly accounted for $22 million
recovered from vitamin antitrust litigation; and
(iv) the price of Cardinal Health common stock was therefore
artificially inflated during the Class Period.
For more details, contact Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon,
LLP by Mail: 32 East 57th St., 12th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by
Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles
County granted final approval to the settlement of the class
action filed against CEC Entertainment, Inc. entitled "Freddy
Gavarrete, et al. v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., dba Chuck E.
Cheese's, et. al., Cause No. 00-08132 FMC (RZx)."
The lawsuit was filed by one former restaurant manager
purporting to represent restaurant managers of the Company in
California from 1996 to the present. The lawsuit alleges
violations of the state wage and hour laws involving unpaid
overtime wages and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.
On September 29, 2003, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiffs, which was subject to approval by
the Court, whereby the Company will pay $4.2 million plus up to
$50,000 for administrative fees to settle all claims of the
Plaintiffs. The settlement amount has been paid in full by the
Company with the exception of administrative fees.
CP SHIPS: Jigarjian Law Investigates Investor's Claims V. Notes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Jigarjian Law Office today announced that it is
investigating potential claims of investors who purchased CP
Ships Ltd. 4% Senior Subordinated Convertible Notes due 2024.
CP Ships said on August 9, 2004 it will restate financial
results going back nine quarters, likely cutting 2003 profit by
up to 36 percent, and its stock fell more than 20 percent in
unusually heavy volume. The Company said its new SAP accounting
system had revealed insufficient accruals for certain costs, and
it said certain Dec. 31, 2003 balances need to be written off.
The Company said that pending completion of the review and
publication of revised financial statements, investors should
not rely on previously reported financial statements for the
2003 and 2002 years or first quarter 2004.
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased securities of CP Ships Ltd. between
April 23, 2003 and August 6, 2004. No class has been certified.
Investors who purchased 4% Senior Subordinated Convertible Notes
may have claims in addition to those presently alleged in the
class action lawsuit.
For more details, contact Robert Jigarjian of THE JIGARJIAN LAW
OFFICE by Phone: 415-455-5391 or by E-mail:
info@jigarjianlaw.com
ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of NY Zyprexa Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed two motions for nationwide class certification
of the lawsuits filed against Eli Lilly & Co., relating to its
Zyprexa Drug in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
The Company has been named in approximately 60 product liability
cases in the United States involving plaintiffs claiming a
variety of injuries from the administration of Zyprexa. Most of
the cases allege that the product caused or contributed to
diabetes or high blood-glucose levels.
All the federal cases will be transferred to Judge Jack
Weinstein in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District
of New York for pretrial proceedings.
ELI LILLY: Faces NY Suits Over Medicaid Average Wholesale Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly & Co. faces suits filed in three counties in New York
(Suffolk, Rockland, and Westchester) claiming in general that as
a result of alleged improprieties by the manufacturers in the
calculation and reporting of average wholesale prices for
purposes of Medicaid reimbursement, the counties overpaid their
portion of the cost of pharmaceuticals. The suits also name
other pharmaceutical manufacturers as defendants.
A similar suit was filed in July 2004 by Central Alabama
Comprehensive Healthcare, Inc., in Alabama relating to Public
Health Service pricing. The suits seek monetary and other
relief, including civil penalties and treble damages.
The three New York county suits have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for
pretrial proceedings (along with several other suits to which
Lilly is not a party). The Suffolk County case is now the
subject of a pending motion to dismiss, and the Rockland and
Westchester cases are stayed pending the resolution of that
motion.
FLORIDA: A.G. Task Force To Stop Hurricane Charley Price-Gouging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist created the Attorney
General's Hurricane Task Force intended to stop the potential
onslaught of price-gougers emerging in the wake of Hurricane
Charley. Criminal and civil investigators from the Attorney
General's Office have been mobilized statewide for a crackdown
on price gouging on items that are in high demand following a
hurricane such as food, water, hotels, ice, gasoline and lumber.
Attorney General Crist and the state Governor toured the areas
damaged from the storm. Deputy Attorney General for Central
Florida John Carassas also convened the task force in Tampa to
review final mobilization details before investigators are
dispatched into the field.
"The most important thing is for our citizens to be safe," said
A.G. Crist. "One of the most egregious things a business can do
is to take advantage of our citizens through price gouging. The
Hurricane Task Force is prepared to identify and prosecute all
violators of the price gouging statute."
As a result of Governor Bush's declaration of a state of
emergency, the price gouging statute requires that the cost of
necessities like food and water must remain at the price that
was average during the 30 days immediately prior to Hurricane
Charley's making landfall. Otherwise, violators of the statute
are subject to civil penalties of $1,000 per violation up to a
total of $25,000 for multiple violations committed in a single
24-hour period.
AG Crist encourages all Floridians impacted by Hurricane Charley
to continue reporting potential price gougers to the state's
toll-free hotline, 1-800-646-0444. The more quickly citizens
report suspected price gougers to the hotline, the more promptly
investigators can respond to the problem.
JOHN FRIEDA: Recalls Pump Sprays Due To Yeast And Mold Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Frieda Professional Hair Care, Inc. is voluntarily
recalling its Frizz-Ease 5-Minute Manager Blow-Dry Styling
Spray, 6.7 fluid ounces (200 ml) pump spray.
The voluntary recall was initiated after a complaint was filed
and testing revealed the contaminating organisms as yeast and
mold. The yeast has been identified as a member of Candida
genus, a fungi found throughout the world and naturally
occurring within the human body. This fungi may cause minor
disorders (candidiasis) in normal healthy individuals such as
diaper rash, vaginitis, conjunctivitis and infections of the
nails and rectum. In immunocompromised patients more serious
disorders may occur. The mold organism has not been identified.
No illness has been reported, to date, in connection with this
recall.
The product recall is limited to the following lot codes:
S025AS064 and S025AS065. The code is printed on the bottom of
the bottle.
Frizz-Ease 5-Minute Manager bottles, not bearing the above
codes, are not affected by the recall nor any other John Frieda
Professional Hair Care Inc. products.
Consumers who purchased the recalled lots are urged to dispose
of the product, and contact the Company's consumer relations
department at 1-888-505-4254 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday EDST to receive a redemption coupon for
its full value.
KINDER MORGAN: CO Court Grants Plaintiff's Motion To Withdraw
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted the lead plaintiff's motion withdrawing from the class
action filed against Kinder Morgan, Inc., styled "Lamb v. Kinder
Morgan, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 00-M-516, (formerly Adams
v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. et al.)"
The case was originally filed on March 8, 2000 and seeks
compensatory damages against all defendants jointly and
severally, together with interest, attorney fees and expenses.
The plaintiffs brought claims alleging securities fraud under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of all people who purchased the common stock of Kinder
Morgan during the class period from October 30, 1997 to June 21,
1999.
The class period occurred prior to the installation of the
Company's current management team in October 1999. The
complaint centers on allegations of misleading statements
concerning operations of the Bushton Processing Plant and
certain contracts, as well as allegations of overstatement of
income in violation of accounting principles generally accepted
in the United States of America during the class period.
On February 23, 2001, the federal district court dismissed
several claims raised by the plaintiff, with prejudice, and
dismissed the remaining claims, without prejudice. On April 27,
2001, the Adams plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint.
On March 29, 2002, the federal district court dismissed the
Adams plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice. On
May 2, 2002, the Adams plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a published decision, on August 11, 2003, the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal, but
upheld the dismissal of Mr. Kinder, the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, from this action. The mandate from the
10th Circuit Court of Appeals was issued on October 17, 2003.
Briefing regarding class certification is complete and a
decision is pending. Merits discovery commenced on June 7,
2004. A settlement conference occurred on August 2, 2004. No
settlement was reached.
KINDER MORGAN: Class Discovery Starts in Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit filed against
American Processing, L.P., a former wholly-owned subsidiary of
Kinder Morgan, Inc. in the 100th Judicial District Court, Carson
County, Texas, "Darrell Sargent d/b/a Double D Production v.
Parker & Parsley Gas Processing Co., American Processing, L.P.
and Cesell B. Cheatham, et al., Cause No. 878."
The suit asserts claims on behalf of over 1,000 producers who
process gas through as many as ten gas processing plants
formerly owned by American Processing, L.P. in Carson and Gray
counties and other surrounding Texas counties. The plaintiff
claims that American Processing (and subsequently, ONEOK, Inc.
(ONEOK), which purchased American Processing from the Company in
2000) improperly allocated liquids and gas proceeds to the
producers.
In particular, among other claims, the plaintiff challenges the
methods and assumptions used at the plants to allocate liquids
and gas proceeds among the producers and processors. The
petition asserts claims for breach of contract and Natural
Resources Code violations relating to the period from 1994 to
the present. To date, the plaintiff has not made a specific
monetary demand nor produced a specific calculation of alleged
damages. The plaintiff has alleged generally in the petition
that damages are "not to exceed $200 million" plus attorney's
fees, costs and interest. The defendants have filed a
counterclaim for overpayments made to producers.
Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., formerly known as Parker &
Parsley Gas Processing Company (Parker & Parsley), is a co-
defendant. Parker & Parsley has claimed indemnity from American
Processing based on its sale of assets to American Processing on
October 4, 1995. The Company has accepted indemnity and defense
subject to a reservation of rights pending resolution of the
suit. The plaintiff has also named ONEOK as a defendant. The
Company and ONEOK are defending the case pursuant to an
agreement whereby ONEOK is responsible for any damages that may
be attributable to the period following ONEOK's acquisition of
American Processing from the Company in 2000.
The purported class has not been certified. The defendants
expect to assert objections to class certification upon the
completion of class discovery.
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Proceeds in DE Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed in the Court
of Chancery for the state of Delaware, styled "Sergio M. Oliver,
et al. v. Boston University, et al. CA No 16570NC."
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Seragen, Inc., its wholly-owned
subsidiary, were initially named parties to the suit, along with
Boston University and others. The suit also named as defendants
Seragen's subsidiary Seragen Technology, Inc. and former
officers and directors of Seragen.
The complaint, as amended, alleged that Ligand aided and abetted
purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the Seragen related
defendants in connection with the acquisition of Seragen by
Ligand and made certain misrepresentations in related proxy
materials and seeks compensatory and punitive damages of an
unspecified amount.
On July 25, 2000, the Delaware Chancery Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. Seragen,
Ligand, Seragen Technology, Inc. and the Company's acquisition
subsidiary, Knight Acquisition Corporation, were dismissed from
the action. Claims of breach of fiduciary duty remain against
the remaining defendants, including the former officers and
directors of Seragen.
The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
took place on February 26, 2001. The court certified a class
consisting of shareholders as of the date of the acquisition and
on the date of an earlier business unit sale by Seragen. While
Ligand and Seragen have been dismissed from the action, such
dismissal is subject to a possible subsequent appeal upon
judgment in the action against the remaining parties.
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial in TX Employee Race Bias Suit in Recess
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the employee class action filed against Lufkin
Industries, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas is in recess, after it began in
December 2003.
An employee and a former employee filed the suit, alleging race
discrimination in employment. Certification hearings were
conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February of 1998 and in Lufkin,
Texas in August of 1998. The District Court in April of 1999
issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which
includes all persons of a certain minority employed by the
Company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The Company
appealed this class certification decision by the District Court
to the 5th Circuit United States Court of Appeals in New
Orleans, Louisiana. This appeal was denied on June 23, 1999.
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: NJ Court Approves Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
approved the settlement of the class action filed against
Measurement Specialties, Inc., styled "In re: Measurement
Specialties, Inc. Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. No. 1071
(D.N.J.)."
The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors. The complaint was
subsequently amended to include the underwriters of the
Company's August 2001 public offering as well as its former
auditors.
On April 1, 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle this class action lawsuit. On July 20, 2004, the
court approved the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the
agreement, the case has been settled as to all defendants in
exchange for payments of $7,500 from the Company and $590 from
Arthur Andersen, the Company's former auditors. Both the
Company's primary and excess D&O insurance carriers initially
denied coverage for this matter. After discussion, the
Company's primary D&O insurance carrier agreed to contribute
$5,000 and the Company's excess insurance carrier agreed to
contribute $1,400 to the settlement of this case.
MICHIGAN: A.G., Treasurer Forge Plan To Protect State Pensioners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox and State Treasurer Jay B.
Rising announced a new framework to monitor Michigan's
investment portfolio and protect State pension holders from
corporate misconduct.
"Recent corporate fraud cases prove that Michigan must continue
to be vigilant and aggressive in protecting the more than $47
billion in State retirement monies," Attorney General Cox said.
"Treasurer Rising and I will watch over Michigan's investments.
If a company commits misconduct, we will take the necessary
action to safeguard Michigan's pension holders."
The Department of Treasury invests in publicly traded securities
for employees and retirees in four retirement systems. Should
one of the companies in which the State invests mislead the
public or manipulate its financial information to defraud the
marketplace, Treasurer Rising will work with Attorney General
Cox to review the alleged wrongdoing and pursue appropriate
legal action.
"As fiduciary of the State of Michigan Retirement Systems, I
take the security and long-term welfare of our pension funds
very seriously," said Treasurer Rising. "Through this
collaborative effort, the message to investors and money
management firms is clear; the State of Michigan will protect
funds that belong to our employees and retirees, and will take
whatever steps are prudent to do that."
Attorney General Cox and State Treasurer Rising selected four
law firms, each with extensive experience in national securities
fraud litigation, to represent the State's interests in
potential securities fraud cases. The firms will recover losses
sustained by the State and similarly situated investors.
The firms selected include; Beman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco,
Burt & Pucillo; Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow; Kaplan
Fox; and Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz. In all, 20 national
firms were interviewed.
MURPHY OIL: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit Over June 2003 LA Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Murphy Oil
Corporation, relating to a June 10, 2003 fire that severely
damaged the Residual Oil Supercritical Extraction (ROSE) unit at
the Company's Meraux, Louisiana refinery.
The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel. Subsequent to the
fire, numerous class action lawsuits have been filed seeking
damages for area residents. All the lawsuits have been
administratively consolidated into a single legal action in St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for one action filed in
federal court. Additionally, individual residents of Orleans
Parish, Louisiana, have filed an action in that venue. On May 5,
2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St. Bernard
Parish amended their petition to include a direct action against
certain of the Company's liability insurers.
NEIGHBORS COFFEE: Recalls Whole Bean Coffees For Undeclared Nuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neighbors Coffee of Oklahoma City, OK, is recalling all whole
bean coffees produced with nuts as an ingredient. The hazelnuts,
almonds, peanuts, and/or pecans were undeclared ingredients used
in all nut-flavored, whole bean coffees packed in 8-ounce, 1-
pound, and 5-pound bags. People who have allergies to these nuts
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.
The whole bean, nut-flavored coffees in 8-ounce and larger
packages include the following flavors produced 2-12-04 through
8-12-04. The 5-pound bags are marked with lot numbers 0434-2254
on the front, bottom center of the package. The 8-ounce and 1
pound packages do not bear a lot code.
Flavors:
Almond Amaretto
Chocolate Hazelnut
Coco Mocho Nut
French Vanilla Almond
Honey Maple Praline
Snickerdoodler
Vanilla Nut Creme
Banana Nut Creme
Chocolate Pecan Fudge
Dark Roast Hazelnut
Hazelnut
Mochadoodle
Sooner Smoother
Butter Pecan
Cinnamon Choc. Almond
Dutch Choc. Almond
Hazelnut Creme
Nutterfinger
Southern Pecan
Caramel Nut
Coco Caberet
Frangelico Creme
Holiday Cheer
Pralines & Creme
Toasted Almond
The recalled whole-bean, nut-flavored coffees were distributed
nationwide in retail stores and through mail orders.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the nut-
containing products were distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of nuts as an ingredient. No illnesses have
been reported to date in connection with this problem.
The problem has been corrected by Neighbors Coffee voluntarily
eliminating any and all nut additives in their flavored coffees.
Consumers with allergies to nuts or any concern about allergies
to nuts who have purchased whole bean 8 ounce, 1 pound, or 5
pound bags of nut-flavored coffee are urged to return them to
the place of purchase for an exchange or full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-800-299-9016.
NEWSDAY: Judge Directs Parties Involved To Set Rules For Talks
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a six-page memo, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Wall directed
Newsday and the 10 advertisers suing New York-based paper to
discuss the rules for ongoing talks that intend to provide
rebates to those affected by the paper's inflated circulation
numbers, the New York Newsday reports.
The new ruling, which amended an even earlier ruling that placed
no restrictions on settlement negotiations by Newsday or Hoy
with aggrieved advertisers, also expressed concern over the
"preeminence of Newsday as an advertising source in Long Island
area" and its apparent refusal to accept ads from East Coast
Realtors, one of four businesses involved in the filing of the
lawsuit seeking class-action status.
According to the advertisers' lawyer, Joseph O. Giaimo, who was
seeking class-action status for the suit against Newsday, the
judge's memo was a great victory for his clients and further
stated, "The profound effect is Newsday cannot unilaterally make
settlements without some qualified participation by my office."
The Tribune Co., parent of Newsday and Hoy, has already set
aside $35 million for potential reimbursements.
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues To Face Lead-Based Paints Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., other former manufacturers of lead pigments
for use in paint, and lead-based paint, and the Lead Industries
Association (which discontinued business operations in 2002)
continue to face various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.
Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, large U.S. cities or their public housing authorities
and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as
class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of
theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent
product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability,
breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and
abetting, enterprise liability, market share liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of
state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and
similar claims.
The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and asserted
health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints,
including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or
indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring
expenses and costs for educational programs.
Several former cases have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of
the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are
on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in
favor of the defendants.
NORTH DAKOTA: ND Judge Mulls Certification For Labor Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
East Central District Judge Douglas Herman is set to decide by
August 27, 2004 whether a lawsuit by seven individuals against
the North Dakota Labor Department is entitled for class action
status, KXMC 13 reports.
The lawsuit, which was filed in March, claims that state Labor
Commissioner Mark Bachmeier and the Department of Labor have
failed to enforce the state's Human Rights Act. The suit further
claims that Commissioner Bachmeier did not offer the plaintiffs
an administrative hearing as required by law on their
discrimination complaints and/or left them in limbo by not
issuing a finding in their case.
In a June hearing, the judge denied a request from the defendant
to dismiss the lawsuit and cited instead that two of the
plaintiffs were wrongfully denied the right to have complaints
handled through the administrative hearing that was denied.
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: CA Court Okays Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the settlement of the employee class actions
filed against Novellus Systems, Inc.
On April 4, 2003, Thomas Graziani, et al. filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon. On August 1, 2003, David Robinson,
et al. filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division.
Both lawsuits sought collective and/or class action status for
field service engineers who work for the Company and both
lawsuits allege that field service engineers are entitled to
compensatory damages in the form of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.
At a mediation held on March 1, 2004, the parties to both
lawsuits agreed to a settlement to be documented on or before
April 2, 2004. Subsequently, the parties have agreed to the
material terms of a settlement, including a cap on exposure to
Novellus of $2.5 million. On May 3, 2004, a fully-executed
agreement resolving these matters was filed with the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
PIZZA HUT: CA Court Issues Summary Judgment For Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Order entered on July 20, 2004 by Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California granted class representative Ann Coldiron's Motion
for Summary Judgment, ruling that Pizza Hut violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by misclassifying her as an exempt
employee, and thus exempt from overtime pay, during the time she
worked as a Restaurant General Manager (RGM) for Pizza Hut.
The law firm of Castle, Petersen & Krause LLP brought the case
to court on behalf of Ms. Coldiron of La Verne to recover unpaid
overtime wages. Attorneys argued that despite the executive
sounding title of RGM, Ms. Coldiron, and others similarly
situated, were misclassified as exempt as their primary or
principal duties were non-managerial. Approximately 90% of their
time was spent performing production-related, non-exempt tasks
alongside the "subordinates" they supervised. The tasks included
making pizzas, taking telephone orders and cleaning the
facilities. Coldiron and her management counterparts worked in
excess of 50 hours per week without overtime pay.
On May 4, 2004, the Court granted Ms. Coldiron's Motion for
Class Certification. This allows all current and former Pizza
Hut employees nationwide who were employed as an RGM or RTM at
any time between August 18, 2000 and the present to recover
unpaid overtime from Pizza Hut by joining this class action. The
class action is seeking damages for the class members in the
amount of time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 in one
week plus penalties; "double damages" may be granted for up to
the three-year time period and could reach upwards of $100,000
per class member.
The Court has approved notice of this action to approximately
3,100 current and former Pizza Hut RGMs and Restaurant Training
Managers (RTM), which are currently being processed by the law
firm representing Ms. Coldiron. Preliminary calculations based
on interviews, absent supporting actual payroll records,
indicate that the recovery sought for the 3,100 class members is
expected to reach the $300 million range.
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of the Company's officers and directors.
The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of investors in the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, alleges
that the defendants misstated or omitted material information
concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Damages are sought
in an unspecified amount.
REWARDS NETWORK: Plan Participants Launch Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rewards Network, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries face a
class action filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
then removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, by Bistro Executive, Inc., Westward
Beach Restaurant Holdings, LLC and MiniBar Lounge, all of which
were participants in the Company's Dining Credits Purchase Plan,
and their respective owners.
The complaint purports to be a class action brought by the named
plaintiffs on behalf of a class consisting of all restaurants
located in California who participated in the Plan and all
persons in California who provided personal guaranties of
obligations under the Plan. The complaint claims that amounts
paid by the Company under the Plan constituted loans, and
asserts claims for damages and equitable and injunctive relief
for violations of California usury laws and the California
Unfair Business Practices Act and declaratory relief. The
complaint seeks, among other relief, disgorgement of all
purported "interest" and profits earned by the Company from the
Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege to be a significant
portion of an amount in excess of $300 million, and treble
damages for all purported "interest" paid within one year prior
to the filing of the complaint.
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Reaches Pact With VT Over Claritin Drug Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corporation reached a national settlement with
the state of Vermont, resolving claims by Vermont, all other
states, and the federal government, that it bilked Medicaid
programs in all states and the District of Columbia by
misreporting pricing information for the popular allergy
medication Claritin, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell
announced in a statement.
Pursuant to the civil settlement, Schering Plough agrees to pay
a total of $282,343,012.00 to the United States and to the
participating states to resolve its liability for the pricing
misinformation, representing double the damages to the Medicaid
program. The total share of the settlement for Vermont's
Medicaid program will be $1,187,580.36, of which the State of
Vermont will receive $447,126.73, with the remainder going to
the federal government.
The civil settlement was entered under the False Claims Act in
federal district court in Philadelphia, and is subject to the
court's approval. In addition to the civil settlement, the
settlement also resolves federal criminal claims; Schering Sales
Corporation, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough, pleaded guilty to
criminal kickbacks and will pay a fine of $52.5 million.
Medicaid is a program jointly funded by the federal and state
governments to provide assistance to the medically needy. Among
other services, Medicaid pays for prescription drugs. A
complicated pricing mechanism seeks to ensure that each state
Medicaid program pays reasonably low prices for pharmaceuticals.
As part of this mechanism, drug manufacturers who wish to have
Medicaid pay for their products are required by federal law to
agree to provide "best price" information to the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), the federal agency that
oversees Medicare and Medicaid. "Best price" is the lowest price
that a manufacturer offers its products for sale to commercial
purchasers.
This information is used by CMS to calculate a rebate which the
manufacturer must pay back to each state Medicaid program that
has purchased its drugs. The amount of the rebate is intended to
reflect the difference between the manufacturer's "best price"
and the amount the state actually paid, which is usually greater
than the "best price." The rebate does not ensure that the state
receives the "best price," but it lessens the difference between
the "best price" and the amount actually paid.
Vermont, the other states, and the federal government alleged
that, from the first quarter of 1998 through the fourth quarter
of 2000, the states received less money in rebates than they
would have been entitled to from Schering-Plough for its
Claritin products had Schering-Plough appropriately reported
certain payments and incentives. In 1996, 1997, and 1998,
Schering-Plough entered into agreements with CIGNA and
PacifiCare, two large HMOs, to sell Claritin to those HMOs at
certain prices. During the contract periods, the HMOs
threatened to drop Claritin because the contract price was
substantially above that of other antihistamine products
available in the marketplace, particularly Allegra, a main
competitor. In response, Schering-Plough gave certain
economic benefits to the HMOs.
According to the states and federal government, these benefits
had the net effect of lowering the price of Claritin below that
which was reported by Schering-Plough to CMS as its "best
price." Schering denies that the benefits had any impact on
"best price." The HMOs continued to make Claritin available to
their clients.
Schering-Plough already has paid to Medicaid some of the money
due under the settlement. This is because, in the spring of
2003, Schering-Plough itself reported the impact of the economic
benefits it had given to PacifiCare, and provided rebates to the
states adjusted to account for this new pricing information. The
total amount of this adjustment was $53,579,924.00. It is
included in the $282,343,012.00 value of today's global
settlement. Thus, for example, the State of Vermont has already
received $89,976.05 of its share, with an additional $357,150.68
pending payment.
In addition to the monetary recoveries, Schering-Plough has
agreed to enter into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the
federal Department of Health and Human Services Office of
Inspector General which mandates corrective action for the
company, including reporting certain pricing information to the
states and certifying the accuracy of that information, as well
as certifying the accuracy of information submitted to CMS
pursuant to the Medicaid drug rebate laws.
STERLING WATTERS: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit V. Hedge Fund
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency
enforcement action August 11 against Angelo Haligiannis and
Sterling Watters Group LP (Fund), a hedge fund, as well as the
Fund's general partners, Sterling Watters Capital Advisors, LLC,
and Sterling Watters Capital Management, Inc. (Defendants). The
complaint alleges that the Defendants have systematically been
defrauding investors who purchased limited partnership interests
in Sterling Watters. Since 1996, Haligiannis has raised at least
$27 million in the Fund by grossly misrepresenting the Fund's
performance to investors and potential investors. Haligiannis
and Sterling Watters distributed to investors phony account
statements that recorded fictitious quarterly and annual
investment gains and account balances. Haligiannis and Sterling
Watters also inflated Sterling Watters investment returns in
marketing materials in an effort to induce investments in
Sterling Watters. For example, Haligiannis provided investors
marketing materials that falsely claimed that the Fund had $180
million in assets and had achieved returns of over 1,500 percent
since inception. As recently as two weeks ago, Sterling Watters
sent investors quarterly account statements that showed an
aggregate of tens of millions of dollars of investor equity in
the fund. In fact, the Fund's brokerage records show that the
Fund has lost money over the years and is now essentially
worthless.
The complaint charges violations 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 by all Defendants, and
violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 by Haligiannis and the Fund's general
partners. Upon the Commission's application, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York yesterday entered a
temporary restraining order and an order freezing the
Defendants' assets. The Court also ordered a verified accounting
from all Defendants and expedited discovery. The litigation is
pending. The action is titled, SEC v. Haligiannis, et al., 04 CV
06488, RJH, SDNY (LR-18831).
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Continues To Face MA Broker Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unumprovident Corporation continues to face two class actions
filed in the Superior Court in Worcester, Massachusetts. The
suit also names as defendants several of the Company's
subsidiaries:
(1) The Paul Revere Corporation (Paul Revere),
(2) The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company,
(3) The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company, and
(4) Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
One purported to represent independent brokers who sold certain
individual disability income policies with benefit riders that
were issued by subsidiaries of Paul Revere and who claimed that
their compensation had been reduced in breach of their broker
contract and in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act (the Massachusetts Act). A class was certified
in February 2000.
In April 2001, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on
the breach of contract claim. Notwithstanding the jury verdict,
the judge was obligated to rule separately on the claim that
UnumProvident and its affiliates violated the Massachusetts Act.
In September 2002, the judge ruled that Paul Revere violated the
Massachusetts Act and awarded double damages plus attorneys'
fees. Complicating the matter was the unexpected death of the
trial judge.
In March 2003, a new judge was assigned to the case so the
parties can proceed to conclude matters before the trial court.
As to calculating damages, interest, and attorneys' fees, as of
July of 2004 almost all of these issues had been resolved, and
the case should be perfected for appeal by the end of the third
quarter. The Company feels strongly that the judge's ruling
that the Massachusetts Act was violated is contrary to both the
law and the facts of the case and plans to appeal after the
judgment is made final.
The career agent class action purports to represent all career
agents of subsidiaries of Paul Revere whose employment
relationships ended on June 30, 1997 and who were offered
contracts to sell insurance policies as independent producers.
The career agents claimed that the termination of their
employment relationship was contrary, inter alia, to promises of
lifetime employment. Class certification was denied for the
career agents. The career agent plaintiffs have since re-filed
their complaint seeking class action status by limiting the
issues to compensation matters similar to those in the certified
broker class action. A motion for certification of a class with
respect to this narrower claim was filed, but has not been acted
upon.
In addition, the same plaintiffs' attorney who had initially
filed the class action lawsuits filed approximately 50
(including the two individual career agents who brought the
class action referenced above) individual lawsuits on behalf of
current and former Paul Revere sales managers alleging various
breach of contract claims. Of the 48 general manager cases, one
was arbitrated and all the others have been settled.
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: JPMDL Orders ERISA Suit Consolidation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the
transferring of more than twenty class actions and derivative
suits filed against UnumProvident Corporation, several of its
subsidiaries, and some of their officers and directors for
conordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
Each of these actions, discussed below, contends, among other
things, that the defendants engaged in improper claims handling
practices in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) or various state laws or failed to disclose
the effects of those practices in violation of the federal
securities laws.
On July 15, 2002, the case of Rombeiro v. Unum Life Insurance
Company of America, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of
Sonoma County, California. It was subsequently removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On January 21, 2003, a First Amended Complaint was filed,
purporting to be a class action. This complaint alleges that
plaintiff individually was wrongfully denied disability benefits
under a group long-term disability plan and alleges breach of
state law fiduciary duties on behalf of himself and others
covered by similar plans whose disability benefits have been
denied or terminated after a claim was made. The complaint
seeks, among other things, injunctive and declaratory relief and
payment of benefits.
On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint seeking
injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
long-term disability insurance policyholders. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.
On November 4, 2002, the case of "Keir, et al. v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. This case purports
to be a class action on behalf of a putative class of group
long-term disability participants insured under ERISA plans
whose claims were denied or terminated on or after June 30,
1999.
The amended complaint alleges that these claimants had their
claims improperly challenged and allege that the Company and its
insurance subsidiaries breached certain fiduciary duties owed to
these participants in ERISA plans in which the Company is the
claims adjudicator. The Company maintains that the allegations
are false and that the claims, as framed, are not permissible
under ERISA's carefully structured avenues of relief.
On April 29, 2003, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint. This action was transferred to the
Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the multidistrict
litigation transfer order.
On February 11, 2003, the case of "Harris, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. This case purports to be a
class action. The complaint alleges that individuals were
wrongfully denied benefits and alleges causes of action under
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
common law fraud, intentional misrepresentation, and breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of policyholders.
Alternatively, the complaint alleges violations of ERISA. The
complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief as well as
restitution and punitive damages.
On April 4, 2003, the case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The
Company denies the allegations in the complaint and will
vigorously defend the litigation and any attempt to certify the
putative class. This action was transferred to the Eastern
District of Tennessee as part of the multidistrict litigation
transfer order.
On February 25, 2003, the case of "Davis, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs are seeking representative status as a class of
disability participants insured under ERISA plans. The
complaint alleges that these claimants had their claims
improperly denied or terminated and that the Company breached
certain fiduciary duties owed to these participants in ERISA
plans. The complaint also alleges violations under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The
complaint seeks reversal of claim denials or contract
rescissions and re-determination by an independent person of
claims of the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated,
appointment of a master to oversee certain claim handling
matters, and treble damages under RICO. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.
On April 30, 2003, the case of "Taylor v. UnumProvident
Corporation, et al.," was filed in the Circuit Court for Shelby
County, Tennessee in the Thirteenth Judicial District at
Memphis. The plaintiff seeks to represent all individuals who
were insured by long-term disability policies issued by
subsidiaries of UnumProvident and who did not obtain their
coverage through employer sponsored plans and who had a claim
denied, terminated, or suspended by a UnumProvident subsidiary
after January 1, 1995.
Plaintiff alleges that UnumProvident Corporation and its
subsidiaries employed various unfair claim practices in
assessing entitlement to benefits by class members during this
period and, as a result, wrongfully denied legitimate claims.
The plaintiff and the class seek contractual, equitable, and
injunctive relief. On June 9, 2003, the defendants removed this
action to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee. The Company denies the allegations in
the complaint and will vigorously defend the litigation and any
attempt to certify the putative class. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation transfer order.
On July 18, 2003, "Contreras v. UnumProvident Corporation, et
al.," was filed in the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs allege claims on behalf of a putative class of ERISA
plan participants, beneficiaries, third-party beneficiaries, or
assignees of group long-term disability insurance issued by the
insuring subsidiaries of UnumProvident, who have had a
disability claim denied, terminated, or suspended by
UnumProvident on or after June 30, 1999. Plaintiffs assert bad
faith claims practices by UnumProvident in violation of ERISA.
Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief to require,
among other things, that UnumProvident re-evaluate all
previously denied, terminated, or suspended claims. This action
was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of
the multidistrict litigation transfer order.
On September 17, 2003, the case of "Rudrud, et al. v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al.," was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class of
disability participants insured under ERISA plans. The
complaint alleges that these claimants had their claims
improperly denied or terminated and that the Company breached
certain fiduciary duties owed to these participants in ERISA
plans. The complaint also alleges violations under RICO and
Massachusetts state law. The complaint seeks payment of
benefits, reversal of claim denials or contract rescissions and
re-determination by an independent person of claims of the named
plaintiffs and others similarly situated, appointment of a
master to oversee certain claim handling matters, restitution
and damages, and treble damages under RICO. This action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee as part of the
multidistrict litigation order.
Another suit, styled "Azzolini v. CorTs Trust II for Provident
Financial Trust, et al.," was filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased UnumProvident Corporate-Backed Trust Securities
(CorTs) certificates pursuant to an initial public offering by
an entity unaffiliated with the Company on or about April 18,
2001 through March 24, 2003.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by the Company's and
certain underwriter defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff asserts that UnumProvident issued and/or failed to
correct false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and
earnings directed to the investing public.
Three additional actions alleging similar claims and purporting
to be class actions were filed, two in the Southern District of
New York, "Strahle v. CorTs Trust II for Provident Financing
Trust I, et al.," and "Finke v. CorTs Trust II for Provident
Financing Trust I, et al.," filed on March 23, 2003 and May 15,
2003, respectively, and the third in the Eastern District of New
York, "Bernstein v. CorTs for Provident Financing Trust I, et
al.," filed on July 7, 2003. These actions all have been
transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings.
On February 18, 2004, the court consolidated each of these
actions other than the Bernstein action under the Azzolini
caption. The Bernstein action makes identical allegations as
the other actions, but with respect to a different series of
CorTs securities.
On March 19, 2004, amended complaints were filed in both the
Azzolini and Bernstein actions. The amended complaints assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against UnumProvident and
one of its officers. The Azzolini plaintiff seeks to represent
a putative class of purchasers of certain CorTs certificates
between March 21, 2001 and March 24, 2003. The Bernstein
plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of purchasers of a
different series of CorTs certificates between February
8, 2001 and March 10, 2003. On April 19, 2004, the defendants
moved to dismiss the complaints in each of these actions. The
court has not as of yet ruled on those motions. Discovery is
stayed in each of these actions pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The court entered a
schedule providing for the completion of all pretrial
proceedings in these actions by December 2005.
On November 13, 2003, the case of "Dauphinee, et al. v.
UnumProvident, et al.," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. This action is
brought as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
representative plaintiffs and all disabled individuals insured
under a UnumProvident long-term disability plan. The complaint
alleges that UnumProvident and its subsidiaries fraudulently and
otherwise unlawfully denied and terminated long-term disability
insurance benefits. Additionally, the complaint alleges misuse
of authority as an ERISA claims fiduciary. The complaint seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief to require, among other
things, that UnumProvident re-evaluate all previously denied,
terminated, or suspended claims.
On December 22, 2003, the Tennessee Federal District Court
entered an order consolidating all of the above actions other
than the Taylor action for all pretrial purposes under the
caption "In re UnumProvident Corp. ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions."
Among other things, the court in that order appointed a lead
counsel in the actions and directed lead counsel to file a
consolidated amended complaint in the ERISA Benefit Denial
Actions, which was filed on February 20, 2004. On March 26,
2004, the defendants answered the complaints in these actions,
and simultaneously filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
in the "ERISA Benefit Denial Actions." The court has not yet
ruled upon that motion.
The parties have engaged in certain limited discovery in
connection with a court-ordered mediation to take place later
this year, as well as certain discovery on the merits of the
claims asserted in the actions. On April 9, 2004, the plaintiffs
in Taylor and in the ERISA Benefit Denial Actions separately
filed motions seeking certification of a plaintiff class. The
defendants opposed each of those motions. The court has not yet
ruled upon the motions. The court entered a schedule providing
for the completion of all pretrial proceedings in these actions
by December 2005.
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek MA Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Worcester County Superior Court,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts to grant class certification for
the lawsuit filed against UnumProvident Corporation, styled
"Jewel, et al. v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al."
Plaintiffs seek to represent all individual long-term disability
policyholders and all participants in group long-term disability
plans which are not covered by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) who had coverage issued by an insuring
subsidiary and whose claims for long-term disability benefits
were denied, or whose payments of long-term disability benefits
were terminated or suspended, on or after July 1, 1999.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants employed various unfair
claim practices and seek declaratory, contractual, and
injunctive relief.
On April 20, 2004, the defendants answered the complaint by
denying generally the allegations and asserting various
defenses. The defendants have not yet responded to the
certification motion.
VAXCEL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1.2T Ceilings Fans For Shock Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vaxcel International Co. Ltd., of Glendale Heights, Illinois is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 1,200 Ceiling Fans
with Light.
These ceiling fans were assembled without the proper wire
insulation sleeving, which could result in exposed wiring.
Consumers could receive an electrical shock during installation
or removal.
These down-rod-mount, dual-motor, 36-inch ceiling fans were sold
in chrome, stone white, brush nickel, polished brass, antique
brass, or weathered patina finishes. Model number 355-6645 is
printed on the box and on a label located on the central housing
of the ceiling fan. The brand names of the fans are "Aire Tek"
and "Turn-of-the- Century Apollo Series" which is written on the
packaging only. A label located on the central housing of the
ceiling fan displays the File Number "E215078," the UL Listing
Mark, and the model number 355-6645. Vaxcel had previously
recalled the same model fan sold under the "Aire Tek" brand
name.
Manufactured in Taiwan, the ceiling fans were sold at Menard
stores nationwide between January 2002 and May 2002 for between
$350 and $450.
Consumers should contact Vaxcel to verify if they have one of
the recalled ceiling fans and to receive a free replacement
ceiling fan if they do. To avoid the risk of shock while
checking or removing a recalled fan, consumers should turn off
the power source to the fan. Consumers are encouraged to use a
professional electrician. Vaxcel will reimburse consumers up to
$75 for charges incurred in removing recalled fans.
For more details, contact Vaxcel International by Phone:
(800) 482-9235 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday.
VERMONT: A.G. Sorrell Settles Antitrust Suit With Two Rx Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General William H. Sorrell's Antitrust Unit settled a
civil law enforcement action along with 49 other states, the
District of Columbia, and the commonwealths of the Northern
Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico, against Perrigo Company and
Alpharma, Inc., charging the companies with antitrust violations
that resulted in the destruction of competition in the market
for over-the-counter generic versions of liquid suspension
Children's Motrinr.
The civil complaint and settlement order will be filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Federal
Trade Commission also announced the settlement of its own
lawsuit against Perrigo and Alpharma. The state and federal
cases will be filed together in the same court.
To resolve this civil law enforcement action, Perrigo and
Alpharma have agreed to make combined payments of $10,000 to
each litigating state, and will be paying approximately $1
million into funds administered by the National Association of
Attorneys General to help support future antitrust enforcement
efforts.
Perrigo and Alpharma, Inc., are the only two FDA-approved
manufacturers of generic over-the-counter versions of liquid
Children's Motrin, a drug product used to temporarily reduce
fever and relieve minor aches and pains in children. The states
allege that, in 1998, Perrigo and Alpharma entered into an
agreement that gave Perrigo 100% of the market for generic
versions of this product. The states further allege that
Alpharma never began selling its generic product, and that
Perrigo captured a 100% share of the market. The lack of
competition caused wholesalers to pay more for this product than
they would have paid in a competitive market.
"The secret dealings of some pharmaceutical manufacturers and
marketers that lower competition and threaten higher prices to
consumers are very much on our screen," said Attorney General
Sorrell. "Our message should be heard loud and clear: play fair,
play by the rules, or we will come after you."
Because this lawsuit was filed as a law enforcement action, the
states sought civil penalties and equitable relief. The relief
that was obtained through the settlement will help ensure that
these companies will not engage in similar conduct in the
future.
Motrin is a registered trademark of Johnson & Johnson, which is
not a party in this lawsuit.
WAL-MART STORES: CA Appeals Court To Review Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
After a San Francisco district court granted class action status
to a sex discrimination case against retail giant Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. (WMT), the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
California on a motion filed by the defendant agreed to review
the lower court's ruling, the Dow Jones Newswires reports.
Granted class action status by District Court Judge Martin
Jenkins in San Francisco, the suit, which accused Wal-Mart of
paying its female workers less than men holding comparable
positions and frequently overlooking them for promotions,
allowed the six current and former Wal-Mart employees from
California to represent all former and current female Wal-Mart
employees who worked at its U.S. stores anytime since Dec. 26,
1998 encompassing an estimated 1.6 million women.
Christened by legal experts as the largest class action in U.S.
history, Wal-Mart denied the suit's allegations of
discriminatory practices against its women employees and at the
same time argued that the case is "unmanageable" due to the
immense size of the class.
According Plaintiff's attorneys, oral arguments before a panel
of three appellate court judges will be heard by the end of the
year. They also expect the court to rule by next spring.
Wal-mart spokeswoman Mona Williams on behalf of the retail giant
told Dow Jones Newswires, "Obviously we are very pleased with
the court's decision, we feel we have strong arguments and look
forward to presenting them. Our next step is to file an
appellate brief outlining why we think this case should not
proceed as a class action."
Attorney Joe Sellers, one of the lawyers representing the
plaintiffs in the case stressed the appeals court's decision to
review the case's class-action status doesn't imply that the
court will reverse the lower court's ruling, according to him
"They just want to look at it more carefully." He further
stated, "Given the extensive factual finding made by the
district judge and the careful legal analysis in his decision,
we feel pretty confident about the outcome."
New Securities Fraud Cases
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Biolase Technology, Inc. ("Biolase" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:BLTI) between October 29, 2003 and July
16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint charges Biolase and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Biolase's financial performance
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. Biolase designs, manufactures and markets
proprietary dental laser systems to dentists, oral surgeons and
other specialists. On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed,
Biolase reported preliminary results, which were below analysts
expectations for the second quarter of 2004, causing Biolase
shares to plummet 27 percent on July 19, 2004. Plaintiff alleges
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material
adverse facts during the Class Period, which defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded, including that:
(1) Waterlase, the Company's best-selling laser system and
primary product, was not gaining market share, and
demand for the product was not increasing at the rates
represented by defendants;
(2) Biolase had introduced a lower-priced, entry level
laser which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's
reported earnings were false and misleading;
(3) Defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by
granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and
(d) the Company would not achieve the earnings growth
forecasted.
For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Biolase
Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLTI) ("Biolase") between October 29,
2003 and July 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also
included are all those who acquired Biolase's shares through its
acquisition of PAC Live and in the secondary offering on or
around February 27, 2004.
The Complaint alleges that Biolase, a medical technology company
that designs, manufacturers and markets proprietary dental laser
systems, and certain of its officers and directors recognized
revenue in advance of earning it and failed to record adequate
reserves for returns, causing Biolase's financial results to be
inflated. As a result of this inflation, the Company as it was
able to complete a secondary stock offering of 2.8 million
shares in February 2004 at $18.80 per share.
On July 16, 2004, Biolase reported preliminary results for the
second quarter of 2004. On this news, the Company's stock
declined to $8.78. The Company's CFO resigned within two weeks.
According to the complaint, defendants knew that Biolase was not
performing nearly as well as represented. Defendants concealed
from the investing public that:
(1) Waterlase was not gaining market share and demand for
the product was not increasing at the rates represented
by defendants;
(2) Biolase had introduced a lower priced entry-level laser
which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's
reported earnings were false and misleading;
(3) defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by
granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and
(4) Biolase would not achieve the earnings growth
forecasted.
For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Ceridian
Corporation. (NYSE: CEN) ("Ceridian") between April 17, 2003 and
July 19, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are
all those who acquired Ceridian's shares through its
acquisitions of Recruiting Solutions, COBRA Business and Fleet
Team, Inc.
The Complaint alleges that Ceridian and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants caused
Ceridian's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements, including the improper capitalization of assets and
certain costs that should have been expensed.
On July 19, 2004, the Company announced the postponement of its
second quarter 2004 earnings release. Specifically, the Company
cited that the release would be delayed to complete an internal
review focusing on the capitalization and expensing of certain
costs in it U.S. Human Resource Solutions business. On this news
Ceridian shares dropped significantly, falling 11% to $18.20 per
share.
For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net
CP SHIPS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of CP Ships
Limited (NYSE:TEU) between January 29, 2003 and August 9, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against defendant CP Ships and
one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com
CP SHIPS: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of CP Ships Limited ("CP
Ships" or the "Company") (NYSE:TEU) between January 29, 2003 and
August 9, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed against CP Ships and certain officers and directors
("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
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented that the
Company had overstated its net income by $22 to $27 million,
that it had insufficiently accrued certain costs, and that its
financial results were not in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.
On August 9, 2004, CP Ships announced that, along with its
release of second quarter 2004 earnings results, it would
restate previously reported financial results as it had
insufficiently accrued certain costs in its container shipping
operations. News of this shocked the market and sent shares of
CP Ships tumbling, shedding $3.70 per share or 22.4%, to close
at $12.85 per share.
For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
800-495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com
CP SHIPS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of CP Ships, Ltd.
(NYSE: TEU) ("CP") between April 23, 2003 and August 6, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all those who
acquired their shares through CP's acquisition of Roe Logistics.
The Complaint alleges that CP, a container shipping company
offering its customers door-to-door, as well as port-to-port
containerized services for the international transportation of a
range of industrial and consumer goods, and certain of its
officers and directors failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts:
(1) that CP overstated its net income figures by $22 to $27
million;
(2) that CP insufficiently accrued certain costs which
caused the Company's net income figures to be
materially inflated;
(3) that CP's financial results were in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
the Company's own accounting interpretations; and
(4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
results were materially inflated at all relevant times.
On August 9, 2004, CP announced that in conjunction with the
release of second quarter 2004 results it would restate
previously reported financial results, the Company
insufficiently accrued certain costs which caused the Company's
net income figures to be materially inflated. On this news, CP
fell $3.70 per share or 22.36%, on August 9, 2004, to close at
$12.85 per share.
For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net
CROSS COUNTRY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Cross Country
Healthcare (Nasdaq: CCRN) ("Cross Country") between October 25,
2001 and August 6, 2002, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also
included are all those who acquired Cross Country's shares
through its acquisition of NovaPro.
The Complaint alleges that Cross Country, a provider of travel
nurse staffing services and per diem nurse staffing services,
and certain of its officers and directors issued materially
false and misleading statements. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants knew but concealed from the investing
public that:
(1) the demand for the Company's short-term, temporary
nursing contracts, Cross Country's core business, was
not as great as represented by defendants, and
(2) the Company was experiencing problems with staffing
orders for temporary nurses being received and then
abruptly cancelled by hospitals, a problem which, if
disclosed to the market, would have a materially
negative impact on the Company's stock price.
On the news of the decline in demand and drop in the number of
its full-time nurses, Cross Country shares fell to a then all-
time low of $13.06 in intra-day trading, a decline of more than
50% from the previous day's closing price of $26.19. Cross
Country's share price closed below the IPO price for the first
time in its history, and it did so definitively at $14.34, or
15% below the IPO price and 45% below the previous day's close.
For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net
ENTROPIN INC.: Catanzarite Law Files Stock Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Catanzarite Law Corporation initiated a class action lawsuit
against Entropin, Inc. (OTC BB: ETOP) ("Entropin') and certain
of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Eastern Division, Case No. CV
04-06180. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of stock
and warrants in Entropin's March 15, 2000 public offering in
which investors purchased units consisting of one share of
common stock and one common stock purchase warrant.
The complaint charges that Entropin and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
efficacy and timeline for clinical development of its
developmental drug Esterom.
For more details, contact Jim Tice, Esq. by Phone: 800-326-5544
by E-mail: jtice@catanzarite.com or visit the litigation Web
site: http://www.entropinlitigation.com
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Ligand
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: LGND) ("Ligand") between July 22,
2003 and August 2, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Ligand, pharmaceutical company that
discovers, develops and markets drugs, and certain of its
officers and directors failed to disclose that inventory de-
stocking at the wholesale level was occurring because the
Company was unloading Avinza inventory which was about to
expire, that the overall demand of the Company's products was
down due to inventory de-stocking, and that Medicaid
prescriptions were increasing, causing the Company to pay large
rebates to Medicaid and that in fact the increase in rebates was
not a one-time occurrence.
On August 3, 2004, Ligand announced that its second-quarter loss
increased, and that its outside auditor had resigned. Shares of
Ligand fell almost 40% or $5.40 per share to close at $8.18 per
share.
For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net
US UNWIRED: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of US Unwired,
Inc. (OTCBB:UNWR) between May 23, 2000 and August 13, 2002,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Louisiana against defendant US Unwired, William L.
Henning Jr., Robert W. Piper and Jerry E. Vaughn. 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.
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com
VISTACARE INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Vistacare,
Inc. (Nasdaq:VSTA) between November 6, 2003 and August 5, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona against defendant Vistacare and one or more
of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.
For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 or Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
VISTACARE INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges AZ Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of VistaCare, Inc. ("VistaCare") (NASDAQ:VSTA)
publicly traded securities during the period between November 6,
2003 and August 5, 2004 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges VistaCare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. VistaCare is a provider of hospice services in the United
States through interdisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses,
home healthcare aides, social workers, spiritual and other
counselors and volunteers.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused VistaCare's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
concealed the following material adverse facts from the
investing public during the Class Period:
(1) that the Company had manipulated the Company's EPS
during the Class Period by understating the Company's
Medicare reserves; and
(2) that the Company's mix of patients requiring shorter
hospital stays was declining, forcing the Company to
increase reserves beyond the Medicare credit of $18,661
per patient, the equivalent of approximately 150 days.
On August 5, 2004, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing second quarter financial
results for the quarter ending June 30, 2004. The press release
stated that results for the quarter were impacted by the
Company's decision to accrue $6.2 million in the quarter for its
Medical annual per-beneficiary payment cap reserve. This news
caused a dramatic decline in VistaCare's share price, from a
closing price of $18.72 on August 5, 2004 to $15.28 on August 6,
2004, for a total one-day decline of 18%.
For more details, contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or
Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or by
E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/vistacare/
*********
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 * * *