/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040825.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 25, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 168 Headlines AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Complies With Discovery in NY Suit Pact ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Agrees To Settle Insurance Policy Lawsuit CALIFORNIA: Investor To Face DaimlerChrysler Shareholder's Suit CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Fiduciary Suit in DE CENTRAL PARKING: TN Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Settlement Signed on Company's Behalf DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended DE Securities Suit DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: DE Stockholders File Suits V. Protek Merger DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in NY Consumer Fraud Suit FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Stockholders Suit HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: SEC Asses CPA $10T Fine, Suspension IDAHO: Officials Forge Federal Reserved Water Rights Claims Pact IMPAC FUNDING: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Noteholder Fraud Lawsuit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: MA Court To Hear Motion To Dismiss Suit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: TX Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement LEASECOMM CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit MAJESTIC STAR: Seamen Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in N.D. IN MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Discovery Halted in AL Consumer Fraud Suit NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Claims Fund To Be Distributed NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement NEBRASKA: AG Office Says $110M Corn Settlement Includes Interest OCWEN FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in AL OCWEN FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits in IL ONE TOUCH: Judge Enters Judgment, Orders $1,608,102 in Penalties PETMED EXPRESS: Calls Suit Frivolous, Denies Allegations PFIZER INC.: Freidin & Brown Lodges FL Deceptive Practices Suit PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Workers at AK Plant File Race, Age Bias Lawsuit PLATINUM INVESTMENT: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint in NY REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. OH SEITEL INC.: TX Court Affirms Dismissal of Trespass Suit in TX SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit SHURGARD STORAGE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA STEVEN BOLLA: SEC Institutes Settled Administrative Proceedings TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Appeals Certification of CT Fraud Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Tribal Descendants To Receive Payments in Lawsuit WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in MA Court WORLD AIRWAYS: Faces Suits On Cancelled Nigeria Charter Flights Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases BELO CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX BELO CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in TX BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files CA Securities Fraud Suit EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO FERRO CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH GOLDEN STATE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA GOLDEN STATE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in TX INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Charles J. Piven Files TX Securities Suit INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodge TX Stock Suit INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges CA Suit KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Abraham Frutcher Files NY Securities Suit KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NY KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files NY Securities Suit LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Files CA Securities Suit NETOPIA INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA NETOPIA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA NETOPIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in VA ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Berman Devalerio Files Securities Suit in MN ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MN ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Stock Suit in MN THORATEC CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA WHITE ELECTRONIC: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in AZ ********* AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Complies With Discovery in NY Suit Pact -------------------------------------------------------------- Airnet Communications, Inc. is complying with discovery obligations in the settlement for the securities class action filed against it, the members of the underwriting syndicate involved in its initial public offering and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action, number 21 MC 92 (SAS), alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws and seeks unspecified monetary damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between December 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In substance, the allegations are that the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering charged commissions in excess of those disclosed in the initial public offering materials and that these actions were not properly disclosed. On July 15, 2002, the Issuers' Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of all issuers and individual defendants in similar lawsuits. In February 2003, the Motion to Dismiss was granted in part (with respect to the Company) and denied in part (with respect to all issuer defendants). The claims against the Company's two former officers named in the class action lawsuit have been dismissed without prejudice. The issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have since drafted and agreed upon a settlement, which is pending approval by the court. A committee of the Company's Board of Directors has accepted the pending settlement. Pending court approval, the individual tolling agreements dismissing the named individual defendants have been extended, so that the individual defendants will be covered by the settlement as well. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Agrees To Settle Insurance Policy Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In a proposed settlement filed in Nashville federal court, Allstate Insurance Company, agreed to make sure customers are notified whenever their credit scores were used to decide rates on insurance policies, The Tennessean reports. The proposed agreement also called for the reimbursement of affected policyholders with higher premiums paid because of blemishes on their credit records. Aside from notifying customers, Allstate also agreed to pay plaintiffs' lawyers $8 million in attorney's fees and to change some wording in policies, as well as to offer people covered by the settlement a free credit report. However, Judge Aleta Trauger must first grant preliminary approval for the proposed settlement. Once approved the settlement would end a part of the case that involves people who were existing Allstate customers or who signed for policies at higher rates without being told about the use of their credit records. CALIFORNIA: Investor To Face DaimlerChrysler Shareholder's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has ruled that billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian must answer a DaimlerChrysler AG shareholder's claims that the he wrongfully sold shares in the carmaker after obtaining insider information, Bloomberg.com reports. The judge ruled that investor Donald Johnson can proceed with his lawsuit, which is seeking class action status against Mr. Kerkorian, who he accuses of benefiting from non-public data about DaimlerChrysler's performance. The judge though dismissed some of the suit's other claims. The suit specifically alleges that James Aljian, who became a member of DaimlerChrysler's shareholder committee board after the merger, passed confidential information about the company's cash flow problems to Mr. Kerkorian in 1999. Mr. Kerkorian was once the largest shareholder of Chrysler Corp., which combined with Daimler-Benz AG to form the world's No. 5 automaker. Judge Cooper wrote in her 17-page decision that Johnson's suit stated enough facts about Kerkorian's alleged improper trading of DaimlerChrysler's shares to give rise to "a strong inference of wrongdoing" However officials of Tracinda Corporation, Mr. Kerkorian's investment company pointed out that the judge dismissed "the heart" of Johnson's case. According to Tracinda spokeswoman Carrie Bloom, while Mr. Johnson's case can go forward, the judge didn't make "a finding of fact" about the insider trading allegations. The case is titled, Donald Johnson v. James D. Aljian, CV 03- 5986, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles. CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Fiduciary Suit in DE --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of two former employees of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC") in Delaware Chancery Court demanding that CIBC ESC Management, a general partner of a Fund created and controlled by CIBC, turn over the Fund's books and records. The Complaint involves the CIBC Employee Private Equity Fund, a limited partnership, which was set up by CIBC in about 2000, presumably to reward its top producers by enabling them to invest along side of the investment bank, and reap a percentage of the profits. The Complaint alleges, however, that CIBC purportedly off loaded certain of its poorly producing investments onto the Fund, and generally acted recklessly and in conflict with the Fund and the interests of CIBC employees and investors, in order to improve the bank's financials, thereby losing millions of dollars for its employee-investors. The Complaint seeks to make the Fund and its general partner, a CIBC controlled entity, provide the named plaintiffs with access to certain books and records which plaintiffs allege will help them determine whether CIBC and the general partner, breached their fiduciary and contractual duties to the Fund and its investors. For more details, contact Lynda J. Grant, Esq. of Goodkind Labaton by Phone: (212) 907-0857 or by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com CENTRAL PARKING: TN Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Central Parking Corporation, its former CEO, its former CFO and its current CEO on behalf of purchasers of the Company's Common Stock. Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the Company's financial statements for the quarter and the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 and about the Company's internal controls in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which allegedly caused the plaintiffs to buy Company stock at inflated prices. The cases have been consolidated by the Court. By order dated December 10, 2003, the Court has consolidated the cases now identified as "In re: Central Parking Corporation Securities Litigation, civil action No. 03-CV-0546," appointed two individuals as co-lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2004 in which plaintiffs added the Company's Registered Public Accountant as a defendant and in which the plaintiffs added a number of allegations. The amended complaint also seeks to extend the putative class period during which investors purchased the Company's Common Stock by approximately nine months (the new class period is February 5, 2002 to February 13, 2003). On April 23, 2004, the Company filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs have responded to the motions to dismiss. DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Settlement Signed on Company's Behalf --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement for the securities class action filed against Daleen Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has been signed on the Company's behalf. The suit was filed by two plaintiffs purportedly on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's common stock between September 20, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The complaint is styled as "Angelo Fazari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Daleen Technologies, Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., Hambrecht & Quist LLC, Salomon Smith Barney Inc., James Daleen, David B. Corey and Richard A. Schell." The individual defendants, Mr. Corey, Mr. Schell and Mr. Daleen, have entered into tolling agreements with the plaintiffs resulting in their dismissal from the case without prejudice. The remaining defendants include the Company and certain of the underwriters from the Company's initial public offering (IPO). More than 300 similar class action lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York against numerous companies and their underwriters have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before one judge under the caption "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." The complaint includes allegations of violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by all named defendants, Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the individual defendants and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the underwriter defendants. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege in the complaint that, in connection with the IPO, the defendants failed to disclose "excessive commissions" purportedly solicited by and paid to the underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of the Company's common stock in the IPO to the underwriter defendants' preferred customers. Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriter defendants had agreements with preferred customers tying the allocation of shares sold in the IPO to the preferred customers' agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriters used their analysts to issue favorable reports about the Company to further inflate the Company's share price following the IPO. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants knew or should have known of the underwriters' actions and that the failure to disclose these alleged arrangements rendered the prospectus included in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in September 1999 materially false and misleading. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief. In June 2004, the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Defendant Issuers and Individuals was signed on the Company's behalf. Court approval of the settlement is required. Under the terms of the settlement, there would be no liability to be recorded by the Company. There is no assurance the settlement will be finalized. DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended DE Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against Daleen Technologies, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, styled "Kops Investment Advisors LLC v. Daleen Technologies, Inc., James Daleen, Gordon Quick, Ofer Nemirovsky, Daniel J. Foreman, Dennis G. Sisco, Stephen J. Getsy, and John S. McCarthy, Behrman Brothers, L.L.C., Behrman Capital II, L.P., Strategic Entrepreneur Fund II, L.P." The amended suit alleges the merger transaction between the Company and Protek Telecommunications Solutions Limited contemplated as part of the Investment and Acquisition Transactions is a freeze-out of Common Stock by the Series F Preferred stockholders through unfair dealing by the defendants and that the defendants have breached and continue to breach their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care and good faith to the plaintiff and other members of the class. The amended complaint seeks for the Merger, if consummated, to be rescinded and rescissory damages to be awarded to the class; for the defendants to be directed to account to the class for all profit received by the defendants and all damages sustained by the class; and for costs of the action including attorney's and experts fees to be awarded to the plaintiff. DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: DE Stockholders File Suits V. Protek Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daleen Technologies, Inc. faces class actions filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County opposing its merger with Protek Telecommunications Solutions Limited. The first suit was filed by an individual holder of the Common Stock of the Company and styled "Kurt Feierbend v. James Daleen, Gordon Quick, Daniel J. Foreman, Stephen J. Getsy, John S. McCarthy, Dennis G. Sisco, Ofer Nemirovsky, Daleen Technologies, Inc., Quadrangle Group LLC, Quadrangle Capital Partners LP, Behrman Capital and Behrman Brothers, L.L.C." The complaint, which is purported to be brought on behalf of the public holders of the Common Stock with respect to the Merger, generally alleges that: (1) the Company and its directors breached their fiduciary duties; (2) the consideration offered by Quadrangle Capital Partners LP and Behrman Capital is inadequate and that the transaction was a result of unfair dealing; (3) Behrman Capital, as controlling stockholder, breached its fiduciary duty to our minority stockholders by acting to further its own interests at the expense of the Company's minority stockholders; and (4) Behrman Brothers, Quadrangle Group and Quadrangle Capital Partners LP knowingly aided and abetted Behrman Capital's violations of fiduciary duty The complaint seeks to enjoin the Merger and related transactions, or if the Merger and related transactions are consummated, to rescind them; to recover damages in an unstated amount and to recover costs including attorney's fees associated with the lawsuit. On June 24, 2004, a purported class action complaint virtually identical to the complaint filed by Feierbend was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County by another individual holder of the Common Stock of the Company. The complaint is styled "Russell Winter v. James Daleen, Gordon Quick, Daniel J. Foreman, Stephen J. Getsy, John S. McCarthy, Dennis G. Sisco, Ofer Nemirovsky, Daleen Technologies, Inc., Quadrangle Group LLC, Quadrangle Capital Partners LP, Behrman Capital and Behrman Brothers, L.L.C." DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in NY Consumer Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in the class action filed against Delta Financial Corporation in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, alleging that the Company had improperly charged certain borrowers processing fees. The complaint sought certification of a class of plaintiffs, an accounting and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, including attorneys's fees, based upon alleged unjust enrichment, fraud and deceptive trade practices. In April 1999, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. In September 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was opposed by the plaintiffs, and in February 2000, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. In April 1999, the Company filed a motion to change venue and the plaintiffs opposed the motion. In July 1999, the Court denied the motion. The Company appealed, and in March 2000, the Appellate Court granted its appeal to change venue from New York County to Nassau County. In August 1999, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed in July 2000. In September 2000, the Appellate Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, from which the Company appealed. The Appellate Court denied the Company's appeal in December 2001. In June 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the Court in October 2001. The Company appealed that decision, but the Appellate Court denied its appeal in November 2002. The Company filed a motion to reargue in December 2002, which was denied by the Appellate Court in January 2003. FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Stockholders Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Sixth Circuit appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio upheld the dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2000 by Ford Motor Company stockholders who claimed the company misled them about the safety of tires on Ford Explorers, The Detroit News reports. In their suit, the Ford shareholders, which includes the Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 98 and the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority, claimed that Ford omitted information concerning the "dangerousness" of Ford Explorer models equipped with Bridgestone/Firestone ATX tires when making statements about the quality and safety of the Explorer. The SUV came under intense federal investigation over what caused Firestone tires to fail on Explorer models. Firestone was eventually forced to recall millions of tires by federal regulators. The suit filed on behalf of all shareholders who bought Ford stock between March 31, 1998 and August 31, 2000 also claims that Ford's financial statements during the recall period were false because Ford failed to include information concerning possible liability of related lawsuits and recalls. However, the three-judge panel in Cincinnati rejected arguments by Ford stockholders that they were misled investors by the Company's touting of its quality as "its best ever" and stating "quality comes first." Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy also wrote for the court that, "Such statements are either mere corporate puffery or hyperbole that a reasonable investor would not view as significantly changing the general gist of available information." Ford argued in the appellate court hearing that stockholders sufficiently were warned in a 1999 Securities and Exchange Commission filing that the Company was subject to 28 ongoing federal investigations of alleged safety defects and that recall campaign expenses could be substantial. HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: SEC Asses CPA $10T Fine, Suspension ------------------------------------------------------------ The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Kenneth K. Livesay. The Order finds that Livesay, a certified public accountant licensed to practice in the State of Alabama, served as assistant controller of HealthSouth Corporation (HealthSouth) from 1989 until November 1999. The Order finds that on April 3, 2003, the Commission filed a complaint against Livesay in SEC v. Kenneth K. Livesay et al., (Civil Action No. CV-03-S-0758-S), and that on August 19, 2004, the court entered an order permanently enjoining Livesay, by consent, from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. The Commission's complaint alleged, among other things, that Livesay directed other HealthSouth employees to record fictitious assets on the company's books, which matched generally fraudulent overstatements of income. The complaint alleged that the fraudulent entries were designed to avoid detection by HealthSouth's independent auditors. The Order also finds that on June 3, 2004, a judgment of conviction was entered against Livesay in United States v. Livesay, CR-03-C-0182-S, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, finding him guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of securities fraud and one count of willfully and knowingly falsifying books and records of HealthSouth. As a result of this conviction, Livesay was sentenced to 60 months probation, with the first six months home detention, to pay a $10,000 fine, to forfeit $750,000 and to pay a $200 assessment. Based on the above, the Order forthwith suspends Livesay from appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. Livesay consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the civil injunctive action. IDAHO: Officials Forge Federal Reserved Water Rights Claims Pact ---------------------------------------------------------------- Idaho State and Federal officials announced the settlement of federal reserved water rights claims filed in Idaho's Snake River Basin Adjudication for six Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA). "Once again the Bush Administration came to the table to work with Idahoans who are impacted by pressure on our state's natural resources," Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne said. "I believe the settlement announced today will avoid a scenario where the courts decide what is best for Idaho while accommodating the future economic needs of the region." "I am pleased that the United States, the State of Idaho, and private water users have reached agreement on the quantification of reserved water rights for these six Wild and Scenic Rivers and certain tributary streams and lakes in the Hells Canyon Area in Idaho," said Intermountain Region Forester Jack Troyer. "The agreement protects the outstandingly remarkable values for which these rivers were designated and will help to preserve the unique and significant resources of the HCNRA. At the same time, the agreement protects existing water rights and allows for continued community growth and development in these water basins in Central Idaho." In 2000, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the United States was entitled to water rights for the Main Salmon, Middle Fork Salmon, Rapid, Selway, Lochsa and Middle Fork Clearwater River, as well as for the HCNRA. The Court also ruled that the United States was only entitled to the minimum amount of water necessary to fulfill the purposes for which Congress designated each river and established the HCNRA. "Since Congress created an express federal reserved water right for Wild and Scenic Rivers and the HCNRA, the only question was how much water the United States would receive," Attorney General Wasden said. "Through good faith negotiations with the United States, Idaho was able to ensure that all existing water rights as of the date of the agreement were preserved and that additional water will be available for future development in the Salmon and Clearwater Basins. If the litigation had gone forward, these federal reserved water rights could potentially have affected up to a thousand junior water right claims as well as future water development in these basins." AG Wasden also noted that the HCNRA Act did not create a reserved water right on the Main Snake River. The Hells Canyon reserved water rights are limited to tributary streams and lakes within the Hells Canyon Recreation Area. "Like the Wild and Scenic Rivers settlement, all existing water rights within the HCNRA are protected," he said. These federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers total approximately 444 river miles in Central Idaho and include some of the nation's most revered whitewaters. "Thousands of people come from all over the world to experience the beauty and serenity of boating on these rivers," said Northern Region Forester Gail Kimbell. "In addition, these six designated rivers provide habitat for numerous threatened and endangered species, including chinook salmon, steelhead, and sockeye salmon, and bull trout." The HCNRA encompasses over 150,000 acres of pristine, rugged canyon country on the Idaho side of the Snake River, including a designated Wilderness Area. The HCNRA is also the home to threatened and endangered species, including chinook and steelhead salmon, and bull trout. Rather than litigating the issue of the quantity of water to which the United States was entitled under each of these claims through an expensive and time consuming trial, the parties reached a negotiated settlement that protects stream flows and lake levels in quantities sufficient to preserve these resources for this and future generations, while ensuring the availability of water for both existing and future private uses. "This agreement represents an excellent example of the type of federal, state and local cooperation on resolving water issues that affect us all" said Troyer. Parties to the Wild and Scenic River agreement include the State of Idaho, the Cities of Salmon and Challis, Idaho Power Company, environmentalists and irrigation and mining interests. The two settlements provide for the issuance of water rights decrees for the six Wild and Scenic Rivers and for 32 tributary streams and lakes in the HCNRA; and the subordination of these federal water rights to existing water rights and uses and to specified future rights and uses. IMPAC FUNDING: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Noteholder Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Impac Funding Corporation d/b/a Impac Leasing Group asked the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois to dismiss the class action filed against it as Case No. 04 L 391 entitled "Sally Sengpiel v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Impac Funding Corp. d/b/a Impac Leasing Group." The complaint contains allegation of a class action and alleges that the defendants required prepayment penalties on notes, which exceed an annual percentage rate of 8% per annum in violation of Illinois law. The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages and injunctive relief. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: MA Court To Hear Motion To Dismiss Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Cambridge District Court in Massachusetts will hear this month Leasecomm Corporation's motion to dismiss the class action filed against it and one of its dealers. The class sought to be certified is a nationwide class (excluding certain residents of the State of Texas) who signed identical or substantially similar lease agreements with the Company covering the same product. After the Company had filed a motion to dismiss, but before the motion to dismiss was heard by the Court, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the Company for declaratory relief, absence of consideration, unconscionability, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court allowed the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in March 2004. In May 2004, a purported class action on behalf of the same named plaintiffs and asserting the same claim was filed in Cambridge District Court. The Company has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: TX Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Texas State Court preliminarily approved the settlement for the class action filed by plaintiff Wallace Dickey against Leasecomm Corporation, Cardservice International, Inc., Linkpoint International, Inc., and Clear Commerce Corporation. The suit alleges that the plaintiff lease-financed through the Company the right to use certain computer software manufactured, distributed, and sold by the other defendants. The Plaintiff did not allege that the Company failed to provide the lease financing contemplated by the Leasecomm lease. Instead, the Plaintiff alleged that the other defendants' software failed to operate as well as he believed it would. He sued for a declaration that would allow him to rescind his contract, to recover money paid in the course of the transaction, and to recover damages allegedly caused by unspecified deceptive trade practices. The Plaintiff asserted his claims "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated." The Company denied all of the Plaintiff's allegations. The defendants agreed to a proposed class action settlement with the Plaintiff and his counsel. The proposed settlement, if granted final approval by the Court, would apply to all Texas residents who lease-financed through Leasecomm the same software rights that the Plaintiff lease-financed. The Court preliminarily approved certification of the Texas class for settlement purposes only, and the parties have distributed notice to all class members in accordance with the Court's instructions. Once the notice period expires, the parties will seek final Court approval of the class action settlement. The proposed class action settlement cannot become final without Court approval. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Orange County Superior Court for the State of California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action filed against Leasecomm Corporation, Galaxy Mall, Inc. and Electronic Commerce International, Inc. On April 29, 2003, Maria J. Smith filed the suit, alleging claims for unfair business practices and competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The essence of the claim is that Ms. Smith and others who are similarly situated were defrauded in connection with their acquisition of certain licenses that were financed by the Company. In May 2003, the Company filed a motion to stay the action in favor of a Massachusetts forum based on a forum selection clause contained in plaintiff's lease agreement with the Company. After filing the motion, Leasecomm entered into settlement negotiations with plaintiff's counsel to explore the possibility of resolving the matter on a class wide basis without the need for further litigation (meaning the settlement would, if accepted, apply not only to the named plaintiff but to others similarly situated). The parties have signed a stipulation setting forth the terms of their agreement and the Court has preliminarily approved the settlement, approved the form of notice to class members and has set a final approval hearing for October 15, 2004. The settlement must receive final approval to become effective. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Leasecomm Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of federal securities law. The purported class would consist of all persons who purchased Company securities between February 5, 1999 and October 30, 2002. The Complaint asserts that during this period the Company made a series of materially false or misleading statements about the Company's business, prospects and operations, including with respect to certain lease provisions, the Company's course of dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the Company's reserves for credit losses. In April 2004, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed which added additional defendants and expanded upon the prior allegations with respect to the Company. No motion or answer has been filed in response to the Complaint. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leasecomm Corporation asked the Superior Court in Massachusetts to dismiss a class action filed against it, a dealer, and a party purportedly related to the dealer. The class sought to be certified is a nationwide class who signed lease agreements identical to, or substantially similar to, the plaintiff's lease agreement with the Company, and covering the same product. The Complaint asserts claims for declaratory judgment, absence of consideration, unconscionability, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11. The claims concern the validity, enforceability, and alleged unconscionability of the lease of a product which enabled a merchant to process credit card payments. The Complaint seeks rescission of lease agreements with Leasecomm, restitution, multiple damages and attorneys fees under Chapter 93A, and injunctive relief. LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leasecomm Corporation asked the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California to dismiss a class action filed against it, styled "Margarita Hinojosa, et al. v. Leasecomm Corporation, case no. BC317371." Plaintiffs purport to bring claims against the Company on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated for fraud, unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq., false advertising under California Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq. and violations of various California consumer protection statutes. The essence of the claim is that plaintiffs and others who are similarly situated were defrauded in connection with their acquisition of credit card swipe machines that were financed by Leasecomm and which plaintiffs claim they intended to use to add value to telephone calling cards that could be used for their personal use or resale to others. During negotiations with plaintiffs' counsel prior to the filing of the Complaint, Leasecomm reached a proposed class action settlement of all claims. Immediately following the filing of the Complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, certification of a settlement class, approval of class notice and the setting of a final approval hearing. The settlement will require final Court approval to become effective. MAJESTIC STAR: Seamen Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in N.D. IN -------------------------------------------------------------- Majestic Star Casinos LLC faces two overtime wage lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. In August 2003 a former Company employee filed a complaint seeking back wages plus all other relief to which he may be entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Company's position is that the plaintiff was employed as an able-bodied seaman and thus is exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he may amend the complaint to a collective action. On July 20, 2004, another individual formerly employed with Majestic Star as an able-bodied seaman filed a similar complaint in the same court on behalf of himself and a class of employees similarly situated seeking back wages, plus all other relief to which he may be entitled, at law or in admiralty, including liquidated damages and attorney's fees under 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Potentially, the four seamen currently employed by the Company and approximately 19 former seamen could qualify for the class, if class action status were to be granted. The August 2003 FLSA Seaman's case is in discovery and the July 2004 FLSA Seaman's Case has not yet progressed to a formal discovery stage, and it is too early to determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss in either matter, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Discovery Halted in AL Consumer Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the complaint filed against MicroFinancial, Inc., Leasecomm Corporation and Galaxy Mall, Inc, in Bullock County State Court in Alabama has been halted, pending a discovery order to be entered into in connection with a schedule for class certification proceedings. On August 22, 2002, Plaintiff Aaron Cobb filed the suit, alleging: (1) breach of contract; (2) Fraud, Suppression and Deceit; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4) Conspiracy; (5) Conversion; (6) Theft by Deception; and (7) violation of Alabama Usury Laws The Complaint was filed on behalf of Aaron Cobb individually, and on behalf of a class of persons and entities similarly situated in the State of Alabama. More specifically, the Plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons and small business in the State of Alabama who allegedly were induced to purchase services and/or goods from any of the Defendants named in the Complaint. On March 31, 2003 the trial court entered an Order denying the Company's Motion to Dismiss. An appeal of the Order was filed with the Alabama Supreme Court on May 12, 2003. On February 20, 2004, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled the Company's application for rehearing. On February 24, 2004, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in which Plaintiff added Electronic Commerce International (ECI) as an additional party defendant. No new allegations were asserted against the Company in the Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2004 the Company filed an answer to the Amended Complaint denying the Plaintiff's allegations. The Company has also filed an additional motion to enforce a forum selection clause, which, if successful, would cause this case to be dismissed with leave to re-file in Massachusetts. Galaxy Mall has filed a similar motion. These motions are scheduled for hearing this September. NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Claims Fund To Be Distributed --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered the distribution of the remaining settlement fund for the securities class action filed against Nanophase Technologies, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO). Harbour Court LPI, a small stockholder of the Company, filed the suit in 1998, alleging that defendants had violated the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with soliciting consents to the IPO from certain of the Company's preferred stockholders. The supposed misrepresentations concerned purported mischaracterization of revenue that the Company received from its then-largest customer. The complaint further alleged the suit should be maintained as a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain former preferred stockholders whose shares of preferred stock were converted into common stock on or about the date of the IPO. The complaint sought unquantified damages and attorneys' fees. In September 2000, each defendant answered the complaint, denying all wrongdoing. After certain discovery, the Company decided to avoid protracted litigation and resulting defense costs by agreeing to settle all claims against all defendants for $800,000, plus up to an additional $50,000 for the cost of settlement administration. The settlement did not admit liability by any party. The Court ordered final approval of the settlement in January 2002 and concurrently dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In January 2003, the Court approved interim payment to plaintiffs of $17,102 in settlement administration costs. On August 3, 2004, the Court ordered distribution of the approximately $23,000 in remaining settlement funds and approved up to an additional $7,000 in further settlement administration costs. NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed against Nanophase Technologies, Inc. and its president and chief executive officer Joseph Cross. In November 2001, George Tatz, a purchaser of 200 shares of the Company's common stock, filed the suit, alleging the defendants violated the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with the Company's public disclosures, including certain press releases, concerning the Company's dealings with Celox, a British customer. The complaint further alleged the action should be maintained as a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock from April 5, 2001 through October 24, 2001. The complaint sought relief including unquantified compensatory damages, attorneys' and expert witness' fees. In March 2002, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the Company and four of its officers (Joseph Cross; Daniel Bilicki, its vice president of sales and marketing; Jess Jankowski, its then acting chief financial officer; and Gina Kritchevsky, its then-current chief technology officer) were liable under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with the Company's press releases, publicly-filed reports and other public disclosures concerning the Company's relationship with Celox and the Company's purportedly improper booking, and later reversal, of $400,000 in revenue from a one-time sale to that customer treated as a bill and hold transaction. The amended complaint alleged the same class and sought the same relief as in plaintiff's initial complaint. In November 2002, defendants answered the amended complaint, denying all alleged wrongdoing. Following certain discovery, in June 2003, the Company decided to avoid protracted litigation and resulting defense costs by agreeing to settle all claims against all defendants for $2,500,000. Thereafter, the Court certified the class alleged in the amended complaint. The Court later ordered final approval of the settlement and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. The settlement did not admit liability by any party. NEBRASKA: AG Office Says $110M Corn Settlement Includes Interest ---------------------------------------------------------------- The office of Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning reiterated that farmers will be paid interest on the $110 million StarLink Corn Settlement will include interest, which was reached with the makers and distributors of the genetically modified corn that was mistakenly introduced into the food supply, the Yankton Daily Press & Dakotan reports. The attorney general's office clarifies that the settlement will include a 4 percent interest after farmers expressed concern about delays in getting their money. According to the attorney general interest began accruing since Sept. 24, 2002 and that payments from the settlement could begin soon after a September 2, 2004 court hearing. The settlement would give farmers who did not grow StarLink corn but suffered from a consumer backlash when it was revealed that it had gotten into the food supply up to $2 per acre in payments. Engineered with a bacterium's gene that's deadly to the corn borer pest, the StarLink corn was approve in 1998 by the Environmental Protection Agency for use in animal feeds, but not for human consumption. After being mistakenly mixed with corn intended for food or export and causing a worldwide drop in corn prices, StarLink's creator Aventis SA, Starlink maker StarLink Logistics Inc. and Avanta USA, which owns StarLink distributor Garst Seed Co. were sued by farmers soon after. The lawsuit was elevated to class action status, which would include every farmer who did not grow StarLink and thus making them eligible for a share of the estimated $70 million settlement after expenses are paid. In 2001, Aventis agreed to compensate farmers and grain elevators across the country. That agreement, between Aventis, Nebraska and 16 other states, called for the company to pay farmers up to 25 cents per bushel for tainted corn and reimburse them for other losses and so far some $130 million have been shelled out for payment. A third settlement called for $9 million to be paid to consumers who said they suffered allergic reactions from eating food products that contained the genetically modified corn. OCWEN FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in AL --------------------------------------------------------------- Ocwen Federal Bank FSB reached an agreement to settle the class action filed against it in Alabama State Court, challenging the Bank's mortgage servicing practices, and particularly certain fees charged to borrowers. In the proceeding, which relates to loans that were part of a portfolio that the Bank acquired from a third party, plaintiffs alleged common law and Alabama state law claims against the Bank and other defendants. The Bank recently concluded an agreement with counsel for the plaintiffs to settle the case on a non-class basis and to dismiss all claims with prejudice. Pursuant to this settlement agreement, on August 6, 2004, the parties jointly filed a Joint Motion to Vacate and to Dismiss the case with the Court. OCWEN FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits in IL --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against Ocwen Financial Corporation and certain of its affiliates, including Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the Bank's mortgage servicing practices. Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants violated federal and state statutes, including the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state deceptive trade practices statutes, and assert common law claims. The lawsuits seek actual and punitive damages, and injunctive and other relief. The consolidated suit, styled: In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604, is at an early stage of proceedings, and the court has not yet considered a motion for class certification. ONE TOUCH: Judge Enters Judgment, Orders $1,608,102 in Penalties ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, entered an Order and Amended Judgment as to Defendants Richard B. Parnell and One Touch Marketing, Inc. (OTM). Previously, on June 9, 2004, the court had entered a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against Defendants Parnell and OTM. The Final Judgment and Order (collectively, the "Judgment") were both entered following the Commission's motion for summary judgment, to which the defendants failed to respond. The Judgment orders the defendants Parnell and OTM, jointly and severally, to pay $663,000 in disgorgement, $141,051 in prejudgment interest and a $804,051 penalty. The Judgment enjoins Parnell and OTM from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. According to the complaint, Parnell and OTM violated various registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws in connection with the unregistered nationwide sales of securities designated as partnership units in Internet Broadcast Group, a purported general partnership formed to engage in the wireless and hardwired cable business in Muskegon, Michigan and Mesa, Arizona. The Commission's complaint alleged that Parnell and OTM, his wholly controlled company, functioned as brokers by selling the securities without first having registered as such as required by applicable securities laws. Further, the Commission's complaint alleged that Parnell and OTM used a variety of false and misleading sales literature, correspondence and telephone statements to sell the securities. The action is titled, SEC v. Internet Broadcast Group, et al., Civil Action No. 96CV02226 (RCL) (D.D.C.) (LR-18441). PETMED EXPRESS: Calls Suit Frivolous, Denies Allegations -------------------------------------------------------- PetMed Express, Inc. (Nasdaq:PETS) denies the allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint filed by the law firm, Milberg Weiss. PetMed Express has experienced substantial growth in both sales and profits during the period of time referenced in the complaint, and the complainant's own allegations concede this fact. PetMed Express will not be bullied by this frivolous suit. Filed by Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PetMed Express, Inc. ("PetMed" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PETS) between June 18, 2003, and July 26, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the complaint is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Menderes Akdag, Marc Puleo, and Bruce S. Rosenbloom ("Defendants"). The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint states that Defendants issued a series of statements to the market regarding the Company's financial results and operations, but failing to disclose and/or misrepresenting that: (1) the Company's business model enabled the company to experience sustained financial growth since the model shifted costs to veterinarians (who are the Company's competitors), (2) the business model made the Company dependent on the cooperation of veterinarians to fill prescriptions, (3) the defendants could not guarantee the quality, safety or efficacy of PetMed drugs because, as an unauthorized reseller of many products, the Company had to obtain such products through unauthorized channels, prompting veterinarians to refuse refilling prescriptions through PetMed, and (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were not sustainable, causing the stock to trade at artificially high prices. During the class period while PetMed's stock price was inflated, Defendants and Company insiders sold almost $65 million in privately held PetMed's stock. For investment relations, contact PetMed Express, Inc., Pompano Beach, Bruce S. Rosenbloom, CFO by Phone: 954-979-5995 PFIZER INC.: Freidin & Brown Lodges FL Deceptive Practices Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Miami law firm Freidin & Brown, P.A., has filed a class- action fraud suit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against Pfizer Inc., which recently pleaded guilty to criminal charges of illegal marketing of Neurontin, its best-selling epilepsy drug. The 47-page, five-count suit - filed this month on behalf of two South Florida women and a class of people in similar situations - says the patients were both prescribed Neurontin for conditions not approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, which authorized the drug only as a supplementary treatment for epilepsy and certain nerve pain relating to shingles. Instead, the suit says, Warner Lambert and its Parke-Davis, Inc. subsidiary - both acquired by Pfizer in 2000 - launched, in the late 1990s, an illegal, deceptive and highly profitable scheme to get doctors to prescribe the drug as a primary medication for such unauthorized uses as bipolar disorder, nerve pain and neuropathy, among a host of other uses. The suit is titled, Ana Medero and Shirley Levin v. Pfizer, Inc., Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis, Inc., Miami-Dade Circuit Court, 11th Judicial Circuit, Case No. 04-17021-Ca 32. "The outrage is the deceptive practices of Warner-Lambert (now Pfizer) hurt people suffering from serious medical conditions," said Omar Malone, a lawyer with Freidin & Brown, who represents the women. "People rely on drug manufacturers to provide some measure of relief. And rather than provide relief through approved FDA medications, Warner-Lambert went behind the FDA's back to promote these drugs to the most vulnerable in our society. This drug was promoted big-time among people with bipolar syndrome, for instance. We have fielded hundreds of calls on this, including people who have suffered side effects, and expect to file more suits shortly." The suit alleged Shirley Levin of Boca Raton and Ana Medero of Miami were prescribed Neurontin for neuropathy, an unapproved use. Malone said Levin spent nearly $5,000 out of pocket for the drug, and Madero spent $10,000 and suffered hallucinations and other side effects. The suit was filed against Pfizer, Warner Lambert, which manufactured and marketed the drug through its Parke-Davis subsidiary before Pfizer acquired it in 2000, and Parke-Davis. The suit charges the defendants with violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Like the criminal charge that preceded the civil suit, the action provides a window into the manner in which drug companies use sophisticated tactics to promote drugs for unapproved uses to goose up their profits. The government charged, and the suit alleges, that Pfizer goosed up sales for the drug through non-approved uses by flying doctors to lavish resorts, paying them kickbacks as consultants' and speakers' fees for unapproved uses, and fired salespeople if they didn't recruit enough doctors to prescribe Neurontin for pain. The government also said Pfizer suppressed a study revealing the drug to be less effective than a sugar pill placebo in treating bipolar disorder, leaving both doctors and patients uninformed. The case against Neurontin goes back to 1996, when Warner- Lambert employee and whistleblower David Franklin revealed the scheme to the government. Although Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million in criminal and criminal penalties in pleading guilty last May, that payment was a fraction of the drug manufacturer's $2.7 billion in sales from Neurontin in 2003, up from $97 million in 1997. For more details, contact T. Omar Malone of Freidin & Brown, P.A. by Mail: One Biscayne Tower, 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste 3100, Miami, FL 33131 by Phone: (305) 371-3666 by Fax (305) 371-6725 by E-mail: omalone@freidinbrown.com or visit their Web site: http://www.freidinbrown.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Workers at AK Plant File Race, Age Bias Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and ConAgra Poultry Company face a purported class action complaint styled "Angela Goodwin, et al. v. ConAgra Poultry Company and Pilgrim's Pride" in the United States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado Division. The suit alleges racial and age discrimination at one of the facilities the Company acquired from ConAgra. The Company is evaluating the defense and materiality of the claim. Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, can be determined at this time, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. PLATINUM INVESTMENT: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) against respondents Platinum Investment Corporation (Platinum), Andrew Antonucci (Antonucci) and Mathew Beaulieu (Beaulieu). According to the Order Instituting the Proceedings (OIP), the Commission's Division of Enforcement alleges that Platinum is a registered broker-dealer with which Antonucci and Beaulieu were associated. The Division also alleges in the OIP that the respondents were named as defendants in a civil injunctive action filed by the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 31, 2002. In that action, according to the Division's allegations in the OIP, the Commission's Complaint alleged that the respondents and other defendants raised over $1.5 million through fraudulent unregistered stock offerings conducted through Platinum and that they defrauded investors by making material misrepresentations with respect to the securities involved in the offerings. The Division also alleges in the OIP that in the civil injunctive action the respondents, upon their consent, were permanently enjoined from further violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the OIP are true, and to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and to determine what, if any, remedial sanctions are appropriate and in the public interest. The Order requires the administrative law judge to issue an initial decision no later than 300 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice. REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. OH --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds & Reynolds Co., one of its current officers and a former officer face several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock (NYSE:REY), between January 22, 2003 and June 24, 2004, inclusive. This complaint alleges that the company, a current officer and a former officer violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Reynolds securities, an earlier Class Action Reporter Story (August 3,2004) states. No class has yet been certified in the above action. SEITEL INC.: TX Court Affirms Dismissal of Trespass Suit in TX -------------------------------------------------------------- The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling dismissing plaintiffs' claims in a class action filed against Seitel, Inc. and its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd., entitled "Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., et al., Cause No. DC-00-214," in the 229th District Court of Starr County. The suit charges a number of defendants, for geophysical trespass. The plaintiffs allege that certain defendants conducted unauthorized 3-D seismic exploration of the mineral interests, and sold the information obtained to other defendants. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. All of the defendants have obtained summary judgments dismissing the plaintiffs' claims, and the case was appealed before the San Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV. On March 24, 2004, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. Appellants have sought review in the Texas Supreme Court. SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California for Orange County limited the class of potential members in the class action against Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. to California customers of the Company. The suit, styled "Gary Drake v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. et al (Case No. 02CC00152)," alleges that the Company misrepresents the size of its storage units. The suit seeks damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Company under California statutory and common law relating to consumer protection, unfair competition, fraud and deceit and negligent misrepresentation. SHURGARD STORAGE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA -------------------------------------------------------------- Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California styled as Patricia Scura et al. v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (Case No. C 02-5246-WDB). The complaint alleges that the Company required its hourly store employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work times and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed before and after hours and during meal periods. The lawsuit seeks class action status and seeks damages, injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the Company under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California statutory wage and hour laws and laws relating to unlawful and unfair business practices. STEVEN BOLLA: SEC Institutes Settled Administrative Proceedings --------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled administrative proceedings against Steven and Susan Bolla based on the entries of injunctions against them. Steven Bolla consented to the SEC's imposition of an order barring him from associating with any broker, dealer or investment adviser. Susan Bolla consented to the SEC's imposition of an order barring her from associating with any investment adviser. In the Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings, Steven and Susan Bolla admit that a U.S. District Court entered injunctions against them in SEC v. Steven M. Bolla, Washington Investment Network, Susan Bolla and Robert Radano, Case No. 1:02CV1506 (D.D.C.) (CKK). The injunctions were based on the Commission's District Court complaint alleging that Steven Bolla violated a June 2000 SEC order barring him from associating with any investment adviser. The Commission's complaint alleges that Steven Bolla managed the finances of Washington Investment Network, Inc. (WIN), an investment adviser, and dealt with WIN clients for ten months after he was barred. The SEC charged Susan Bolla with aiding and abetting WIN's violations of the SEC's bar order. The complaint alleges that Susan Bolla, who had no previous investment advisory or other securities experience, was set up as the nominal co-owner of WIN to conceal her husband's association with the firm. The complaint charges that Steven and Susan Bolla aided and abetted WIN's investment adviser fraud by failing to disclose Steven Bolla's bar, or any other aspect of his disciplinary history, to WIN clients while Steven Bolla was associating with the firm subsequent to his bar. In addition, the complaint alleges that Steven Bolla committed fraud by making material misrepresentations to one of his advisory clients regarding a private placement investment he was soliciting as an unregistered broker-dealer. The final District Court judgment as to Steven Bolla enjoins him from violating Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), and orders him to pay $117,500 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $57,500 penalty. In a prior SEC action, Steven Bolla was enjoined in June 2000 from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act in. The final District Court judgment as to Susan Bolla enjoins her from violating Sections 203(f), 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Appeals Certification of CT Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Travelers Insurance Co. appealed the Connecticut Superior Court's certification of the class action filed against it, its parent company, certain of the Company's affiliates (collectively TLA) and its former affiliate Travelers Property Casualty Corporation. The suit, styled "Lisa Macomber, et al. vs. Travelers Property Casualty Corporation, et al.," alleges Travelers Property Casualty Corporation purchased structured settlement annuities from the Company and spent less on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities than agreed with claimants; and that commissions paid to brokers of structured settlement annuities, including an affiliate of the Company, were paid, in part, to Travelers Property Casualty Corporation. The amended complaint was dismissed and following an appeal by plaintiff in September 2002 the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of several of the plaintiff's claims. On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a nation wide class action involving the claims of violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Statute, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy against the TLA. UNITED STATES: Tribal Descendants To Receive Payments in Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lawrence Piersol ordered the federal government to settle a class action lawsuit over treaty-related payments from the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Aberdeen for descendants of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe, the Rapid City Journal reports. The suit was filed by Barry LaBeau, a lineal descendant of the tribe claiming that he and about 2,000 other descendants should have received the money, which has since ballooned to nearly $1 million. According to Mark Meier-henry, a Sioux Falls lawyer for the descendants, the judge ruled that the federal government has to payeach class member $475. In his decision the judge wrote, "The federal government breached its trust duties owed to the class members by unreasonably delaying the partial distribution of the money requested in 1982," which according to attorney Meier-henry was used by Congress for other purposes. Attorney Meier-henry also stated, "A trustee should have paid out this money prior to 1983, had the government done that, then Congress couldn't have raided the cookie jar. That's what the judge found." WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in MA Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Wave Systems Corporation faces nine securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Seven of these suits also name the Company's Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer as defendants and two name the Company's Chairman of the Board. The purported class action complaints have been filed by alleged purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the purported class period July 31, 2003 through February 2, 2004. The complaints claim that the Company and the named individuals violated the federal securities laws by publicly disseminating materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company, relating to Intel and IBM agreements, resulting in the artificial inflation of the Company's Class A Common Stock price during the purported class periods. The complaints do not specify the amount of alleged damages plaintiffs seek to recover. WORLD AIRWAYS: Faces Suits On Cancelled Nigeria Charter Flights --------------------------------------------------------------- World Airways, Inc. faces seven purported class actions (four in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, one in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia, and one in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois) and four individual complaints (one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, one small claims action in New York, one small claims action in New Jersey, and one small claims action filed in California) arising out of the discontinuance of charter flights upon the expiration of the Company's obligation to provide services under an air services agreement. The purported class action cases were consolidated for discovery purposes into the Eastern District of New York. The Company had operated the charter flights between cities in the United States and Lagos, Nigeria for Ritetime Aviation and Travel Services, Inc. (Ritetime). The Company's obligation to perform air services for Ritetime ended with the last chartered flight on December 30, 2003. From the allegations made by the various plaintiffs, it appears that Ritetime continued to sell tickets to passengers for flights purportedly scheduled to depart after the expiration of the Company's contractual obligations for air services, the Company stated in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiffs purport to act for themselves and on behalf of other persons who held tickets issued by Ritetime for the non-contracted flights. Ritetime is also named as a defendant in each of these lawsuits. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys fees, based on various legal theories including: (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) negligent misrepresentation, (4) unjust enrichment, (5) illegal/excess tax and (6) violations of U.S. federal laws and regulations governing air transportation and of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Statute The Company's insurance carrier has responded and assumed the defense of these cases. During March 2004, Ritetime filed a Demand to Arbitrate in Peachtree City, Georgia, and subsequently the Company responded and filed a counterclaim. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is investigating this matter and the Company is negotiating the terms of a settlement with the DOT, without however admitting or denying any allegations. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- September 20-21, 2004 REINSURANCE SUMMIT Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 20-21, 2004 NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21, 2004 ADVANCED E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21, 2004 PARALEGALS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin City Center, Dallas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 23, 2004 MOLD LITIGATION & MANAGEMENT UPDATE BridgeportCE Millennium Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, CA Contact: (818) 505-1490; Fax: (818) 505-1497 September 27-28, 2004 BAD FAITH CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 27-28, 2004 REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.com September 29-30, 2004 CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.com October 4-5, 2004 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 7-8, 2004 WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, West Palm Beach Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 15, 2004 CLASS ACTIONS American Bar Association ABA-CLE National Institute, New York, NY Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org October 21, 2004 PARALEGALS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 25-26, 2004 SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26, 2004 ADVANCED E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 15, 2004 CLASS ACTIONS American Bar Association ABA-CLE National Institute, New Orleans Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org November 1-2, 2004 REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2004: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT PLI New York Center -- New York, NY Practising Law Institute Contact: 212-824-5865; sgreenblatt@pli.edu November 4-5, 2004 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY ISSUES ALI-ABA Washington, D.C. Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 8, 2004 ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 8, 2004 ZYPREXA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2004 SULFATE ATTACK ON CONCRETE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2004 HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2004 ARTHRITIS DRUG LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2004 ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 11-12, 2004 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 December 2-3, 2004 TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS ALI-ABA New York Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 December 6-7, 2004 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 6-7, 2004 MTBE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 9-10, 2004 ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 9-10, 2004 ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, NV Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 9-10, 2004 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 9-10, 2004 PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 13-14, 2004 ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 15-16, 2004 WELDING ROD LITIGATION American Conferences New Orleans Contact: http://www.americanconference.com January 19-21, 2005 CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ALI-ABA San Juan, Puerto Rico Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 February 10-11, 2005 ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY ALI-ABA Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 3-5, 2005 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 9-11, 2005 CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ALI-ABA Maui, Hawaii Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 April 13-16, 2005 INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 12-13, 2005 OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS ALI-ABA Boston Tuition Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 19-20, 2005 DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ALI-ABA Chicago Tuition $ Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 TBA FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ August 02-31, 2004 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY August 02-31, 2004 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 02-31, 2004 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 02-31, 2004 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 02-30, 2004 AVOIDING MALPRACTICE CLAIMS: THINGS TO DO (AND NOT DO) ON THE FIRST DAY YOU REPRESENT A CLIENT CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 13-31, 2004 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org _______________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged New Securities Fraud Cases BELO CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of Belo Corp. (NYSE:BLC) ("Company") common stock during the period between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 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 by Phone: 410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com BELO CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Belo Corp. ("Belo") (NYSE:BLC) common stock during the period between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Belo and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Belo is a media company which owns four daily newspapers, 19 television stations, 10 local and regional cable news channels and more than 30 Web sites. Belo's flagship property is The Dallas Morning News newspaper. The complaint alleges that beginning as early as 2003, defendants initiated and engaged in a scheme to defraud advertisers at The Dallas Morning News as well as Belo's investors by intentionally overstating the circulation of The Dallas Morning News in order to fraudulently extract higher incentive payments from the paper's advertisers. These fraudulent inflated circulation numbers were reported to investors and the market on a regular basis and the ill-gotten gains from the scheme artificially inflated Belo's financial results. As a result, defendants' scheme not only defrauded advertisers, but artificially inflated the value of Belo's stock, thus defrauding investors as well. According to the complaint, the scheme involved creating an incentive program for third-party vendors who sold The Dallas Morning News to the public. The more newspapers these vendors claimed to have to sold to the public, the larger the incentive payment and the purported circulation of the newspaper. The individuals who should have monitored this program for abuse were the circulation managers at The Dallas Morning News. Instead of encouraging the circulation managers to carefully audit the third-party vendors, however, Belo created an incentive program for the circulation managers as well. Thus, when third-party vendors reported fraudulent circulation numbers in order to receive incentive payments, the circulation managers themselves had an incentive to turn a blind-eye to the scheme. On August 5, 2004, Belo reported its circulation numbers for The Dallas Morning News were overstated by 1.5% for the daily paper and 5% for the Sunday paper. Belo also announced the resignation of defendant Barry Peckham, the Executive Vice President in charge of circulation at The Dallas Morning News. Belo announced it was conducting an internal investigation and that it would refund to advertisers all amounts that they had been overcharged. In response to this announcement, Belo's stock price plummeted from $23.21 at the close of business on August 5, 2004 prior to the announcement to a low of $18 the next day before finally settling at $21.55, on unprecedented volume of over 4.6 million shares traded. For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/belo/ BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files CA Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Biolase Technology, Inc. ("Biolase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLTI) between October 29, 2003 through July 16, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The action, is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, against defendants Biolase, Jeffrey W. Jones (CEO) and Edson J. Rood (CFO). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between October 29, 2003 through July 16, 2004. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Class Period, beginning in October 2003, Biolase reported double-digit revenue and profit growth and represented that the Company would grow its business even more rapidly in 2004. Among other things, the Company represented that Biolase was effectively penetrating the largely untapped market for dental lasers, and that the Company could both increase its impressive growth of 2003 while at the same time ramping up its marketing efforts. As defendants knew but failed to disclose to the investing public, such representations were materially false and misleading when made because, among other reasons: (1) demand for the Company's products was declining during the Class Period, especially internationally. This was masked by the fact that increased sales, recognized by the Company upon shipment to distributors, reflected inventory-buildup by distributors, who would meet end- user demand from existing inventory, which would foreseeably lead to decreased growth and profitability for Biolase; (2) The Company's introduction of Diolase Plus, a low- priced ($12,000) alternative to its main product, the Waterlase system ($50,000), confused purchasers and led to decreased demand for the Waterlase system. The investing public was wholly unaware of the materially negative effect that Diolase Plus was having on Biolase's business; and (3) the Company's growth in revenue and profitability could not continue, much less increase, in line with the Company's representations. On July 16, 2004, the Company announced that its performance in the second quarter of 2004 would be far worse than expected and would force the Company to materially lower its expected sales growth for 2004, due to weakened demand. In reaction to this surprising announcement that business was not, and would not be, as good as the Company had previously represented, the price of Biolase common stock plummeted, falling 27% in one day, from $12.05 per share on July 16, 2004 to $8.78 per share on July 19, 2004 (the next trading day), on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Express Scripts, Inc. ("Express Scripts" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ESRX) between October 29, 2003 through August 3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose numerous illegal practices and inflated the Company's revenues. It was disclosed that New York State Attorney General, Elliott Spitzer alleged in a lawsuit that the Company conducted an intricate and elaborate scheme that inflated millions of dollars of costs of prescription drugs to New York state's employee health plan. The lawsuit details how Express Scripts engaged in switching a patient's prescription from one prescribed drug to another for which Express Scripts received money from the drug manufacturer. On news of these investigations, Express Scripts stock fell to $62.48 from a class period high of $79.81. For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site: http://www.srk-law.com FERRO CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ferro Corporation ("Ferro" or the "Company") (NYSE:FOE) between October 28, 2003 through July 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is pending against defendants Ferro, Hector Ortino (CEO, President and Chairman) and Thomas M. Gannon (CFO and Vice President). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (1) the Company materially understated costs and expenses and overstated its earnings and net income by failing to properly account for the activities within Ferro's polymer additives business; (2) the Company's financial statements were not in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"); and (3) defendants' positive statements regarding the Company's financial condition lacked any reasonable basis in fact. On July 23, 2004, Ferro announced that its earnings for the second quarter of 2004 would fall short of expectations by over 70% based upon the Company's internal review of "inappropriate accounting entries in its Polymer Additives business," which revealed a multi-million-dollar overstatement of earnings. In reaction to this news, shares of Ferro stock declined over $4.00 per share, or 16.21 percent, to close at $20.68 on unusually high trading volume. For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site: http://www.srk-law.com GOLDEN STATE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. 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 Golden State Vintners, Inc. ("Company') (Nasdaq:VINT) between December 23, 2003 and April 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 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 by Phone: 410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com GOLDEN STATE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., commenced a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who sold the publicly traded securities of Golden State Vintners, Inc. (Nasdaq: VINT) ("Golden State Vintners") between December 23, 2003 and April 23, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that Defendants made false statements in a December 23, 2003 merger proxy statement in order to keep the price of Golden State Vintners securities artificially low and thus facilitate the company's takeover by the O'Neill Acquisition Co., LLC, an entity controlled by Golden State Vintner's President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey B. O'Neill. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. (NYSE: IES) securities between November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Charles J. Piven Files TX Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. (NYSE:IES) ("Company") between November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. 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 by Phone: 410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodge TX Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all securities purchasers of the Integrated Electrical Services (NYSE: IES) ("IES" or the "Company") from November 10, 2003 through August 13, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges IES, C. Byron Snyder, Herbert Allen, Jeffrey Pugh, and William W. Reynolds with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company failed to appropriately adjust for actual costs in a series of large contracts; (2) that with respect to one contract the Company inappropriately accounted for general and administrative costs; (3) that the Company incorrectly recorded margin on a particular contract; (4) that the Company improperly recognized revenue on the substantial contract; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (6) that as a result of the foregoing the Company's financial results violated the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and were materially inflated at all relevant times. On August 2, 2004, IES announced that it had rescheduled its fiscal 2004 third quarter earnings release and conference call, due to its ongoing evaluation of certain large and complex projects at one subsidiary that experienced project management changes in the latter part of the third quarter. On this news, shares of IES fell $0.85 per share, or 10.08 percent to close, on August 3, 2004, at $7.58 per share. Then, on August 13, 2004, IES announced that it had delayed the filing of its quarterly report on Form 10-Q. News of this shocked the market. Shares of IES fell $2.65 per share, or 40.27 percent, on August 16, 2004, to close at $3.93 per share. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges CA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("IntraBiotics") (NASDAQ: IBPI) securities between September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material, adverse facts concerning the Company's wonder drug, iseganan, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) iseganan was not safe and well-tolerated at therapeutically relevant doses when administered to the oral cavity; (2) the drug caused a higher rate of ventilator-associated pneumonia ("VAP") and mortality as compared to placebo; (3) despite knowing and/or recklessly disregarding the aforementioned facts, the defendants nevertheless raised capital through offerings of its common stock in order to portray to the market that iseganan was a viable marketable product that was on the "fast track" to FDA approval; and (4) as a result of the above, the defendants' statements concerning iseganan were lacking in any reasonable basis. On June 23, 2004, the Company announced that an independent data monitoring committee recommended to the Company that it discontinue its pivotal trial of iseganan for the prevention of VAP based on an interim analysis of the data. Shares of IntraBiotics fell $9.45 per share, or 69 percent, to close at $4.23 per share on unusually high trading volume. For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: IBPI@bernlieb.com KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Abraham Frutcher Files NY Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of KongZhong Corporation's ("KongZhong" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KONG) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period between July 9, 2004 and August 17, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and alleges that KongZhong and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading prospectus (the "Prospectus") with the Securities & Exchange Commission in connection with the initial public offering of KongZhong common stock, which took place on or about July 9, 2004 (the "IPO"). Also named as Defendants are the underwriters for the IPO. The Prospectus, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective on or about July 9, 2004, and 10 million of the Company's ADSs were sold to the public, raising approximately $100 million. KongZhong describes itself as "the leading provider of advanced second generation, or 2.5G, wireless interactive entertainment, media and community services, in terms of revenue, to customers of China Mobile Communications Corporation, or China Mobile, which has the largest mobile subscriber base in the world." The complaint alleges that the Prospectus failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that in early June 2004 KongZhong had carried inappropriate content on its interactive voice response service, which was in violation of the Company's agreement with China Mobile; (2) that in response to such violation, KongZhong would be subject to sanctions that could materially impact its business; and (3) because of the above, KongZhong's relationship with China Mobile would be negatively impacted. On August 9, 2004, KongZhong issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2004, ending June 30, 2004. It reported earnings of $0.19 per ADS. On August 18, 2004, KongZhong issued a press release announcing that it had been notified by China Mobile of a sanction imposed on the Company. In addition to suspending the Compnay's new applications for new products, according to the press release, China Mobile also suspended the approval of KongZhong's applications, if any, to operate in new platforms until June 30, 2005. In response to this announcement, the price of KongZhong ADSs declined to $5.59 per ADS. For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Lawrence D. Levit, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119 by Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (212) 714-2444 or (800) 440-8986 by Fax: (212) 279-3655 or by E-mail: Jfruchter@aftlaw.com or Llevit@aftlaw.com KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired KongZhong Corporation American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") (NASDAQ: KONG) securities between July 9, 2004 (the date of the IPO for the ADSs) and August 17, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files NY Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased KongZhong Corporation ("Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") (Nasdaq:KONG) during the period between July 9, 2004 (the date of the IPO for the ADSs) and August 17, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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 by Phone: 410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Files CA Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Ligand" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:LGND) between March 3, 2004 through August 2, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Ligand and David E. Robinson and Paul V. Maier ("Defendants") violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. In violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented 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 Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site: http://www.srk-law.com NETOPIA INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of Netopia, Inc. (Nasdaq:NTPA) ("Company") common stock during the period between November 5, 2003 and August 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 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 by Phone: 410/986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com NETOPIA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netopia, Inc. ("Netopia") (NASDAQ:NTPA) common stock during the period between November 5, 2003 and August 16, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Netopia and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Netopia develops, markets and supports broadband and wireless products and services. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Netopia's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public, the following material adverse facts: (1) the Company was experiencing weaker than claimed gross margins due to higher component costs (including shipping and surcharges); (2) the Company was actually experiencing decreases in average selling prices to its key carrier customers; (3) certain of the Company's top customers were declining to participate in the Company's roll out of its 802.11g launch; (4) the Company's receivables (and earnings) were overstated by virtue of the fact that the Company's clients were not even capable of paying for prior shipments; (5) the Company's largest customers were, early on, altering their purchasing mix, which defendants were keenly aware would result in dramatically lower average selling prices; (6) the Company's European customers had changed delivery standards resulting in a pushing out of potential revenue into future quarters; and (7) as a result of the above, the Company was not on track to achieve stated projections and, moreover, the Company's accounting was false and misleading. On August 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing that "it will file today a Form 12b-25 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission with notice of late filing of the Report on Form 10-Q for the third fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004. As Netopia previously announced on July 22, 2004, Netopia's Audit Committee has initiated an inquiry into Netopia's accounting and reporting practices, including the appropriateness and timing of revenue recognition of software license fees in two transactions with a single software reseller customer." For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/netopia/ NETOPIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all securities purchasers of the Netopia, Inc. (Nasdaq: NTPA) ("Netopia" or the "Company") from November 5, 2003 through August 16, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Netopia, Alan Lefkof, and William Baker with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company inappropriately timed the recognition of software license fees in two transactions with a single software reseller customer; (2) that as a result of this, the Company's financial results were materially inflated by $2.25 million; (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times. On July 6, 2004, Netopia announced preliminary results for the third fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004. Netopia announced that it expected operating expenses for the third fiscal quarter to include a specific bad debt charge of approximately $750,000 relating to non-payment from a software reseller. News of this shocked the market. Share of Netopia fell $.88 per share, or 15.09 percent, on July 7, 2004, to close at $4.95 per share. On July 22, 2004, Netopia announced results for the third fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, and the initiation of an internal review by its Audit Committee of the accounting treatment and revenue recognition of certain software transactions. On this news, shares of Netopia fell $.71 per share, or 16.47 percent, on July 23, 2004, to close at $3.60 per share. On August 17, 2004, Netopia announced that it would delay the filing of its quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q. The market reacted sharply to this final blow. Shares of Netopia fell $.59 per share, or 20.21 percent, on August 17, 2004, to close at $2.33 per share. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in VA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all securities purchasers of the Primus Telecommunications Group (Nasdaq: PRTL) ("PRIMUS" or the "Company") from August 5, 2003 through July 29, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges PRIMUS, Neil L. Hazard, and K. Paul Singh with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that the Company was operating in a new competitive reality where major incumbent carriers used long distance offerings as a "loss leader" to encourage customers to subscribe to their bundled local, cellular and broadband services; (2) that the Company's core long distance and dial-up Internet service provider products ("ISP") were experiencing significant pricing pressures; (3) that the Company's wireline long distance usage was continuing to appreciably decline due to increased use of cellular phones and Internet services; (4) that the Company was forced to accelerate investment in voice-over-Internet protocol ("VoIP") and mobile virtual network operator ("MVNO") networks; and (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's growth and progress. On July 29, 2004, after the close of the market, PRIMUS announced its results for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. The Company reported a net loss for the quarter of $15 million compared to net income of $20 million in the second quarter of 2003. News of this shocked the market. Shares of PRIMUS fell $1.70 per share, or 50.75 percent, on July 29, 2004, to close at $1.65 per share. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Berman Devalerio Files Securities Suit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul Travelers") (NYSE:STA), claiming the company and its predecessor misled the investing public about its business operations, financial results and reserves. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all former holders of Travelers Property Casualty Corp. ("Travelers") Class A and Class B common stock who acquired shares of The St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul") common stock pursuant to St. Paul's materially false and misleading registration statement, which included the joint proxy statement/prospectus, as amended and filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 13, 2004, in connection with the issuance of St. Paul's common stock to Travelers' shareholders in St. Paul's stock-for- stock merger with Travelers on April 1, 2004 (the "Merger") to form The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements about St. Paul's business operations, financial results and reserves which artificially inflated St. Paul's common stock. The lawsuit asserts that had the true facts about St. Paul been disclosed to Travelers' shareholders, they would not have voted to approve the Merger or would not have accepted the stock exchange ratio offered. On July 23, 2004, less than four months after the closing of the Merger, the new St. Paul Travelers Companies announced that it would add $1.63 billion to reserves due to the need to increase reserves from St. Paul's business, which had reserved on a "less conservative" basis. The second quarter results were delayed to determine whether the combined company would have to reflect a second quarter loss on its income statements due to the increased reserves. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers issued an announcement disclosing it had reported a $300 million second quarter loss due to the $1.63 billion reserve adjustments. By the time the true extent of required reserve increase and its adverse impact against St. Paul Travelers were fully disclosed to the markets on August 5, 2004, the per-share price of St. Paul Travelers common stock had declined by $6.02 or 14.77% to close at $34.75 on August 5, 2003 -- causing massive losses to former Travelers shareholders. For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. by Mail: Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, 515 N. Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 by Phone: (800) 349-4612 or by E-mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MN --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of its client and on behalf of former holders of shares of Travelers Property Casualty Corporation ("Travelers") Class A and Class B common stock -- formerly (NYSE:TAP.A) (NYSE:TAP.B) -- who acquired shares of St. Paul Travelers' stock pursuant to joint proxy statement / prospectus / registration statement ("Prospectus/Registration Statement") and on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of the St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. (NYSE:STA) ("St. Paul Travelers" and the "Company") from April 2, 2004, through August 5, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period'). The complaint charges St. Paul Travelers, Jay Fishman, Thomas A. Bradley, John C. Treacy, and Robert I. Lipp with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 17, 2003, St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul") and Travelers announced that they had signed a definitive merger agreement that would create the nation's second largest commercial insurer, to be known as St. Paul Travelers. According to the complaint, on February 13, 2004, St. Paul filed a joint proxy statement/ prospectus / registration statement ("Proxy/Registration Statement"). The materially false and misleading Proxy/Registration Statement provided historical balance sheets of both St. Paul and Travelers, individually as of September 30, 2003. Moreover, the Proxy/Registration Statement also included an unaudited pro forma condensed combined balance sheet as of September 30, 2003, which combined the historical consolidated balance sheets of St. Paul and Travelers, giving effect to the Merger as if it had been consummated on September 30, 2003. On April 1, 2004, the merger was completed. On July 23, 2004, the Company shocked the market when it stated that the historic accounting and actuarial methods of St. Paul were being conformed to those of Travelers and all St. Paul assets and liabilities are being recorded at fair value on the opening balance sheet and that as a result, the Company would take a $1.625 billion reserve charge. On news of this shares, shares fell $0.89 per share, or 2.44 percent, to close at $35.66 per share on July 23, 2004. Then, on August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers reported a net loss for the second quarter ended June 30, 2004, of $275 million, or $0.42 per basic and diluted share. The net loss was, in part, attributable to the unprecedented reserve charge. On news of this, shares of St. Paul Travelers fell an additional $1.73 per share, or 4.74 percent, to close at $34.75 per share on August 5, 2004. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus/Registration Statement and statements made by the defendants were materially false and misleading and failed to disclose, among other things, the following: (1) that the merger between St. Paul and Travelers was far from a "merger of equals" and was more representative of a "bailout" of St. Paul; (2) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded that fact that St. Paul's insurance methodologies and practices with respect to those used to calculate reserves were less conservative that those of Travelers and if revealed, would impair the success of the merger; (3) that as a consequence of the forgoing, the Company's reserve reduction was materially insufficient; and (4) as such, St. Paul Travelers' earnings and assets were materially overstated at all relevant times. For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Angela Wallis of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail: stolldc@cmht.com or awallis@cmht.com ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul Travelers" or the "Company") (NYSE:STA) (formerly known as The St. Paul Companies, Inc. or "St. Paul") on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of former shareholders of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.'s ("Travelers") Class A and Class B common stock who acquired St. Paul's common stock pursuant to a St. Paul registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with St. Paul's stock-for-stock merger with Travelers on April 1, 2004. The Complaint charges St. Paul and certain of the Company's officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims that St. Paul's registration statement was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that: (1) there were significant disparities between the accounting and actuarial methods of St. Paul and Travelers, requiring St. Paul Travelers to increase its claims reserves by $1.171 billion to conform St. Paul's less conservative accounting and actuarial methods to that of Travelers; (2) St. Paul's then-existing exposure to certain adverse financial conditions of a construction contractor, a reduction in reinsurance recoverables, and other similar conditions, required St. Paul Travelers to increase its claims reserves by an additional $466 million; and (3) the aggregate $1.637 billion of required increase in claims reserves due to these existing but undisclosed facts relating to St. Paul would require St. Paul Travelers to record a significant charge to its income statement, adversely impacting earnings. The true facts were disclosed to the market on July 23, 2004, when St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain conditions relating to St. Paul required the Company to increase its claims reserves by $1.6 billion. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers further announced that the required $1.6 billion increase in claims reserves would result in an operating loss of $310 million or $0.47 per basic and diluted share for the quarter. The per share closing price of St. Paul common stock was $40.77 on April 1, 2004, the date on which each share of Travelers' Class A and Class B common stock was exchanged for 0.4334 share of St. Paul common stock pursuant to the materially false or misleading registration statement. By the time the true extent of the required reserve increase and its adverse effects against St. Paul Travelers were fully disclosed to the market on August 5, 2004, the per share price of St. Paul common stock had declined by $6.02 or 14.77% to close at $34.75 on August 5, 2004 -- causing massive losses to former Travelers shareholders. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Stock Suit in MN -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling Schachter") initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul Travelers") (NYSE: STA) and certain of its current and former officers and directors, on behalf of former shareholders of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.'s ("Travelers") Class A and Class B common stock who acquired St. Paul Travelers common stock pursuant to a joint proxy statement / prospectus / registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with The St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul") stock-for-stock merger with Travelers on April 1, 2004. The complaint alleges that St. Paul Travelers' registration statement was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose that there were significant disparities between the accounting and actuarial methods of St. Paul and Travelers, requiring St. Paul Travelers to increase its claims reserves by over $1 billion to conform St. Paul's less conservative accounting and actuarial methods to that of Travelers adversely impacting earnings, capital accumulations and cash. On July 23, 2004, St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain conditions relating to St. Paul required it to make "reserve valuation adjustments" totaling $1.625 billion. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers further announced that the required $1.625 billion increase in claims reserves would result in an operating loss of $310 million or $0.47 per basic and diluted share for the quarter. On April 1, 2004, shares of Travelers Class A and Class B were exchanged for .4334 shares of St. Paul Travelers common stock pursuant to the false and misleading registration statement. Between April 1, 2004, and August 5, 2004 shares of the combined Company have fallen approximately $6.02, representing a decline of approximately 14.8% to close at $34.75 on August 5, 2004. For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Willy Gonzalez by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or wgonzalez@zsz.com THORATEC CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Thoratec Corporation ("Thoratec" or the "Company")(Nasdaq:THOR) between April 28, 2004 and June 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Thoratec and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations concerning Thoratec's operations and prospects artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public, adverse facts including: (1) the true market for "Destination Therapy," Throratec's flagship treatment option for end-stage heart failure, was far less than claimed; (2) less than 75 hospital centers have been designated Medicare-approved for Destination Therapy, though defendants claimed there were approximately 900 qualified centers in the U.S.; (3) Medicare had rigid, preset reimbursement guidelines and schedules for Destination Therapy that could only translate into a serious negative impact on Thoratec's FY 2004 sales projections for the HeartMate ventricular assist device; (4) Cardiothorasic surgeons, concerned about HeartMate's reliability in long-term settings, were rejecting and/or not accepting the device for Destination Therapy patients; (5) demand for Destination Therapy implants was not growing at the rate claimed; (6) the Company's Destination Therapy implant estimate for FY2004 was grossly overstated and internally projected to be a fraction of the estimate; (7) Thoratec's FY2004 revenue projections of $190-$200 million were overstated by tens of millions; (8) reimbursement charges were delaying implants, and the Company knew that significant expansion of existing implant programs was delayed until the expected October 1, 2004, availability of a significant increase in certain reimbursement rates; (9) HeartMate implant sales would be depressed until Q4 2004, and the Company's Q1 2004 earnings shortfall would not be made up until Q1 2005, at best. As a result of defendants' false statements, Thoratec's stock price traded at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to $14.55 on May 24, 2004 and $14.84 on June 8, 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $143.7 million of corporate notes. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. 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 WHITE ELECTRONIC: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in AZ --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of White Electronic Designs Corporation ("White Electronic" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:WEDC) between January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against White Electronic, Hamid R. Shokrgozar, Edward A. White and William J. Rodes ("Defendants"). The complaint charges 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 issued materially false and misleading statements regarding White Electronic's increasing revenues and long-term growth prospects, charging that Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that White Electronic's increasing revenues and earnings could not be sustained and that orders for sales of the Company's microelectronic products for use in military weapons and procurement programs had been declining since at least the second quarter of fiscal 2003. Defendants failed to disclose that the declines marked a long-term change in priorities by the U.S. military following the build-up of orders prior to the armed conflict in Iraq. On June 9, 2004, White Electronic issued a press release announcing its forecast of net sales of between $24-$25 million for the third quarter of fiscal 2004, the period ending July 3, 2004, far short of analysts' consensus estimates of approximately $30 million. On this news, the price of White Electronic shares fell 13.9% to $5.16 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume For more details, contact Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 ********* 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 * * *