/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/041221.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 21, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 251
Headlines
99 CENTS: CA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Overtime Suit Pact
99 CENTS: Shareholders Commence Securities Lawsuits in C.D. CA
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AON CORPORATION: NY Attorney General, Company Nears Settlement
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Seeks More Info on Suit Settlement
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: CA Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Settles Lawsuit by APMA, Healthcare Providers
CONNECTICUT: Reaches $41M Settlement in DMR Waiting List Lawsuit
DDi CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Certifies Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
FCC PRODUCTS: FDA Seizes Imported Ginseng For Unsafe Chemicals
FLOWERS FOODS: Reaches Settlement For Settles NC Kosher Pie Suit
HOME DEPOT: Vancouver Employees Lodges WA Sex Bias, Wage Lawsuit
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Final Fairness Hearing Set For Feb. 2005 in CA
IMPSAT FIBER: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors Lodge Fraud Suits in CA
LIQUID AUDIO: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
NANCY'S SPECIALTY: Recalls 30.7T lbs Crab Cakes For Mislabeling
NEW FOCUS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
NEW YORK: Minority Policemen Lodges Federal Complaint V. NYPD
NEW YORK: NYC Settles Suit On How To Handle Kids Of Abused Moms
ONVIA.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Lawsuits Over Tarceva Drug
PFIZER INC.: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Fraud Investigation
PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Directors Approve Insurance Settlement
QUALITY DINING: IN Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Investor Suit
RAYMOND GEDDES: Recalls 155,000 Necklaces Due To Injury Hazard
SHOE PAVILION: CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit Settlement Deemed Final
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Pork Gyoza Because of Shrimp Gyoza Content
UNITED STATES: ALCFC Supports IN Suit Demanding Parental Rights
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Seeks Appeal For Morelock Lawsuit in OR
ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
New Securities Fraud Cases
AUTOBYTEL INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
GEOPHARMA INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
PFIZER INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in NY
PFIZER INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
PFIZER INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ROYAL GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
VIMPEL COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in NY
*********
99 CENTS: CA Court Holds Fairness Hearing For Overtime Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California held a final
fairness hearing on December 20,2004 for the settlement of two
class actions filed against 99 Cents Only Stores, Inc., styled
"Melgoza vs. 99 Cents Only Stores," and "Ramirez vs. 99 Cents
Only Stores."
On May 7, 2003, Mr. Melgoza, a former Store Manager, filed a
putative class action on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated. The suit alleges that the Company improperly
classified Store Managers in the Company's California stores as
exempt from overtime requirements as well as meal/rest periods
and other wage and hour requirements imposed by California law.
Each store typically has one Store Manager and two or three
Assistant Store Managers.
Pursuant to the California Labor Code, the suit seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, penalties for failure to provide
meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties for former
employees, interest, attorney fees, and costs. The suit also
charges, pursuant to California's Business and Professions Code
section 17200, that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices by failing to make such payments, and seeks payment of
all such wages (in the form of restitution) for the four-year
period preceding the filing of the case through the present.
On June 9, 2004, Ramirez, a former Assistant Manager who is
represented by the same counsel as Melgoza, filed a putative
class action complaint that makes the same allegations with
respect to current and former Assistant Managers at our stores
that are named in the Melgoza action with respect to our current
and former Store Managers. The Ramirez complaint also added
claims for additional penalties on behalf of all purported class
members under California's new Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act of 2004.
On October 8, 2004, the Court issued an Order providing
tentative approval of the settlement agreement executed in these
Actions. The Company provided a reserve of $6.0 million for
this matter in the quarter ended March 31, 2004.
Another suit, styled "Galvez and Zaidi v. 99 Cents Only Stores,"
has been filed in the same court. The suit makes substantially
the same allegations as were made in the Melgoza complaint, plus
an additional claim for unreimbursed mileage. The Company
intends to demur to this new action. This matter has been
deemed related to the Melgoza and Ramirez cases and has been
stayed pending the conclusion of those cases.
99 CENTS: Shareholders Commence Securities Lawsuits in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores face several class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
On June 15, 2004, David Harkness filed a class action suit
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. Mr. Harkness, who seeks to represent all who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between March 11
and June 10, 2004, alleges that the Company's public statements
during the class period violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by failing to adequately describe various aspects of the
Company's operations and prospects. Two other plaintiffs, Ralph
Schwartz and Samuel Toovy, filed complaints in the same court on
June 24 and July 2, 2004, respectively, making substantially the
same allegations against the same defendants and seeking to
represent the same putative class.
On June 16, 2004, another alleged shareholder, Paul Doherty,
filed a shareholder derivative suit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court, repeating the allegations of the Harkness
complaint and demanding, purportedly on behalf of the Company,
damages and other relief against certain of the Company's
executive officers and directors for alleged breaches of
fiduciary and other duties.
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and:
(1) David E. Sharbutt, chairman and chief executive
officer,
(2) Kendall W. Cowan, chief financial officer,
(3) Michael Roberts, outside director and
(4) Steven Roberts, outside director
In November and December 2003 and January 2004, multiple
lawsuits were filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
and/or entities that purchased the Company's securities between
January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive. The suits sought
recovery of compensatory damages, fees and costs. Each lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, in either the Lubbock Division or the Dallas
Division. On February 27, 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated
into one action pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. On March 4,
2004, the Court appointed the Massachusetts State Guaranteed
Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff and approved its
selection of lead counsel for the consolidated action.
On May 18, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint. The consolidated complaint names three of the
original defendants (Alamosa Holdings, David Sharbutt and
Kendall Cowan), drops one of the original defendants (Steven
Richardson) and names two new defendants who are outside
directors (Michael Roberts and Steven Roberts). The putative
class period remains the same. The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act. The consolidated complaint seeks
recovery of compensatory damages, fees, costs, recission or
rescissory damages in connection with the Sections 11 and 15
claims, and injunctive relief and/or disgorgement in
connection with defendants' insider trading proceeds.
At the end of the putative class period on June 13, 2002, the
Company announced that its projection of net subscriber
additions for the second quarter of 2002 would be less than
previously projected. The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company made false and misleading
statements about subscriber additions during the putative class
period. The consolidated complaint also alleges that the
Company's financial statements were false and misleading because
it improperly recognized revenue and failed to record adequate
allowances for uncollectible receivables.
The suit is styled "Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund,
et al v. Alamosa Holdings, Inc., 5:03-cv-00289" filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
under Judge Sam R. Cummings.
Lawyer for the Company is George W. Bramblett, Jr, Haynes &
Boone, 901 Main St, Suite 3100, Dallas, TX 75202-3789, Phone:
214/651-5000 Fax: 214/651-5940 or E-mail:
george.bramblett@haynesboone.com. The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:
(1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,
(2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(3) Claxton & Hill, 3131 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 LB 103,
Dallas, TX, 75204-2471, Phone: 214.969.9099
(4) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
10021, Phone: 212.687.6655,
(5) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com
(6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(7) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
AON CORPORATION: NY Attorney General, Company Nears Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer signaled that talks with
Aon Corporation are progressing toward a settlement in his
investigation of the Chicago insurance broker's business
practices, the Chicago Tribune reports.
In a televised interview the attorney general told Bloomberg
News, "Hopefully we can move forward so that at a certain point,
and I don't know when chronologically it will be, we'll be able
to say, `Here's an agreement. Let's move on. This is now behind
us. That would be the best resolution for the markets."
It's unclear how much a settlement would cost Aon. Mr. Spitzer,
whose investigation has reportedly found evidence of deceptive
and coercive practices at Aon that may violate antitrust and
fraud laws has declined to offer further details abut the
negotiations. Aon also has acknowledged that some employees
violated the company's ethics codes.
An Aon spokesman said the company would not comment on the
attorney general's interview, his first public remarks regarding
Aon since launching a wide-ranging probe of broker compensation
last spring.
A settlement would go a long way toward removing the cloud
hanging over Aon since Mr. Spitzer rocked the industry in
October by filing a civil lawsuit against world's leading
broker, Marsh & McLennan Cos. In the suit, he alleged that Marsh
had cheated customers by faking bids, fixing prices and steering
bids to the highest-paying insurance companies. Soon after the
Marsh suit, insurance executives and investors wondered whether
similar abuses had occurred at Aon, the world's second-largest
broker. Together the two brokerages, which act as intermediaries
between commercial insurance buyers and sellers, serve most of
the Fortune 500.
Although Mr. Spitzer has filed no charges against Aon, the
investigation has hurt the company's reputation, which could
cost it customers and 51,000 employees worldwide. Aon has said
that "to the best of our knowledge" none of its employees has
engaged in bid rigging or soliciting fake price quotes.
One of Aon's specialties is helping insurance companies with
their own coverage needs, known as reinsurance. Mr. Spitzer has
been probing arrangements under which Aon steered business to
insurers who in turn would let the company arrange its
reinsurance. Fees for reinsurance can run into the tens of
millions of dollars. The scrutiny has already spurred the
company to stop accepting the lucrative incentives from insurers
known as contingent commissions. The company received about $200
million in such payments last year. Other changes are expected.
In the Bloomberg interview, Spitzer said his office is trying to
reach settlements with a number of insurance companies under
investigation. According to him, "Each one has a separate set of
facts, and resolution has to be calibrated to that. We're trying
to figure out what the best outcome should be."
As a result, Mr. Spitzer said he couldn't say what reforms will
emerge from his probe. Nor could he say how much customers could
save with the elimination of contingency fees. Aon may also
have to pay a fine to settle with the attorney general. Marsh
McLennan has set aside a reserve of $232 million toward an
eventual settlement of the bid-rigging claims.
The suit led Marsh to remove its CEO and other high-level
executives after Spitzer said he would not negotiate with senior
management because members had misled the attorney general.
Aon's CEO, Patrick Ryan, announced at the end of September that
he planned to step down after running the company for 40 years,
but he will remain as chairman once a successor is found.
Mr. Spitzer has vehemently said that he did not demand Mr.
Ryan's removal. In fact, he praised the level of cooperation he
is receiving from the Aon CEO and other company officials.
However, earlier in the investigation, officials in Mr.
Spitzer's office complained that Aon had been dragging its feet
in cooperating with the attorney general. The attorney general
also acknowledged that Mr. Ryan called his office after he made
comments to the Tribune that he was comfortable with the
company's past behavior.
Even with a settlement, the company faces more legal problems.
One of these problems includes a shareholders suit that was
initiated soon after Aon's stock lost about 30 percent of its
value in the wake of Mr. Spitzer's suit against Marsh McLennan,
and a class-action case brought by a client that alleges
inadequate disclosure of contingent commissions is moving
forward in Cook County court.
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Seeks More Info on Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York asked for additional information regarding the adequacy
of the settlement of the consolidated securities class actions
filed against Apropos Technology, Inc. and other issuers of
public offerings during the late 1990s.
In November 2001, shareholder litigation was filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
This lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters
of the Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of the Company's stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of receiving shares in the Company's IPO. The
lawsuit further claims that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.
In April 2002, an amended complaint was filed which, like the
original complaint, alleges violations of the registration and
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages. The Company understands that various other
plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action cases
against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and
their public offering underwriters in New York City, which along
with the case against the Company have all been transferred to a
single federal district judge for purposes of coordinated case
management.
In July 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of
the issuer defendants. In October 2002, the Court approved a
stipulation providing for the dismissal of the individual
defendants without prejudice. In February 2003, the Court
issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the
motion to dismiss the litigation filed by the Company and the
other issuer defendants. The claims against the Company under
the antifraud provisions of the securities laws were dismissed
with prejudice; the claims under the registration provisions of
the securities laws were not dismissed as to the Company or
virtually any other issuer defendant.
In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the
resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and
the litigation as against those defendants is continuing.
The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class action cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries
totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members
from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any other
participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to
the class members certain claims that they may have against the
underwriters of their IPOs.
The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs. The Company expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will
not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed
settlement.
Formal settlement documents, including a stipulation of
settlement and related documents, have now been filed with the
Court. The plaintiffs in the cases against the Company, along
with the plaintiffs in the other related cases in which issuer
defendants have agreed to the proposed settlement, have
requested preliminary approval by the Court of the proposed
settlement, including the form of the notice of the proposed
settlement that will be sent to members of the proposed classes
in each settling case. Certain underwriters who were named as
defendants in the settling cases, and who are not parties to the
proposed settlement, have filed an opposition to preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement of those cases.
In mid-September, the Court asked lead counsel for the
plaintiffs and for the issuer defendants for additional
information concerning the adequacy of the settlement amount and
how plaintiffs intend to allocate any consideration paid under
the settlement among the more than 300 separate class actions
that are included in the settlement. Counsel for the plaintiffs
and for the issuer defendants are in the process of providing to
the Court the information that it has requested. Consummation
of the proposed settlement remains conditioned upon receipt of
both preliminary and final court approval. If the Court
preliminarily approves the proposed settlement, it will direct
that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be published
in a newspaper and mailed to all proposed class members and
schedule a fairness hearing, at which objections the proposed
settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will determine
whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.
The suit is styled "In re Apropos Technology, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 9982,"
related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: CA Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Callidus Software, Inc. and certain of its present
and former executives and directors.
The suits allege that the Company and these executives and
directors made false or misleading statements or omissions in
violation of federal securities laws. The suit seeks damages on
behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased the
Company's stock during the period from November 19, 2003 through
June 23, 2004.
In October 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
ordered that any consolidated amended class action complaint be
filed by November 29, 2004.
In addition, in each of July and October 2004, derivative
complaints were also filed against the Company and certain of
its present and former directors and officers. The derivative
complaints allege state law claims relating to the matters
alleged in the purported class action complaint referenced
above.
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Settles Lawsuit by APMA, Healthcare Providers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Healthcare and other specialty healthcare providers
reached a settlement with The American Podiatric Medical
Association (APMA) over a national class action lawsuit, pending
approval by Judge Federico Moreno of the US District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. The agreement ends years of
dispute over CIGNA billing policies.
"We believe this agreement will benefit podiatric physicians now
and in the future," said APMA President Lloyd S. Smith, DPM. "We
will continue to vigorously pursue comparable litigation against
other health insurers to protect and further the interests of
our members. By agreeing to this settlement, CIGNA has made
improvements in its provider relations and the quality of care
for its beneficiaries; we hope to reach similar agreements with
other insurance companies."
Dr. Smith continued: "APMA's Board of Trustees, staff, and
members need to be congratulated on their hard work, which
brought about this settlement. In particular, I want to thank
Trustees Michael J. King, DPM, chair of APMA's Health Systems
Committee, and Ross E. Taubman, DPM, chair of APMA's Health
Policy Committee, for their devoted work in initiating,
facilitating, and resolving this lawsuit."
The settlement includes significant changes in CIGNA payment
policies as well as $11.55 million in direct payments to class
members, including podiatrists and all other non-MD and non-DO
health professionals. The class includes health care
professionals who provided services during a period of nearly 15
years to patients insured by CIGNA and other managed care
companies named in the suit. As part of the settlement, CIGNA
will make its claims editing process more transparent, reducing
confusion and disagreement over payments to podiatric physicians
and other health care providers. Practitioners will have many
more tools to understand and, if necessary, challenge CIGNA
payment decisions. CIGNA will make crucial information available
online, implement independent external review to resolve billing
disputes, and create a specialty provider advisory committee,
including a podiatric physician representative, to improve
communication between CIGNA and practitioners. The reduced
administrative burden on practicing podiatrists is worth
millions of dollars indirectly to APMA members. CIGNA currently
covers medical costs for more than 13 million people with plans
in all 50 states.
As previously reported in the December 15, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, CIGNA HealthCare, under the settlement
agreement will, among other things:
(1) Establish a fund of $11.55 million from which class
members can obtain compensation in an amount based on
the volume of claims they submitted to CIGNA HealthCare
over a period of nearly 15 years;
(2) Further enhance its specialty health care provider
claims processing and adjudication systems and
processes;
(3) Continue to expand and improve its on-line referral,
certification and claims management capabilities for
specialty health care providers;
(4) Provide via the Internet detailed information about
CIGNA HealthCare's specialty health care provider claim
coding policies, fee schedules and related payment
guidelines;
(5) Refrain from reducing its fee specialty health care
provider schedules for participating providers more
than once in a calendar year, in most circumstances;
(6) Implement an independent, external review process to
resolve billing disputes fairly and expeditiously; and
(7) Establish a specialty health care provider advisory
committee to maintain open and frequent communication
between CIGNA HealthCare and the providers and to
address relevant issues and concerns.
APMA, the California Podiatric Medical Association, the Florida
Podiatric Medical Association, the Texas Podiatric Medical
Association, Scott J. Ashton, DPM, and Robert Vranes, DPM,
brought suit against CIGNA on behalf of themselves and/or their
members, claiming that CIGNA improperly denied, delayed, and
diminished payments for health care services provided to
beneficiaries. Eventually, several lawsuits were combined into a
single nationwide class action to be litigated in Miami. The
class action followed the path taken by MDs and DOs in their own
managed care litigation. The MDs and DOs have settled with CIGNA
and Aetna.
Founded in 1912, the American Podiatric Medical Association is
the nation's leading professional society for foot and ankle
specialists. The association has component societies in 53
locations in the U.S. and its territories and a membership of
more than 12,000 doctors of podiatric medicine.
CONNECTICUT: Reaches $41M Settlement in DMR Waiting List Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Connecticut reached a tentative settlement with
advocates for the mentally retarded to settle a class action
lawsuit and possibly eliminate or reduce a years-long waiting
list for housing services, the Associated Press reports.
The five-year, $41 million agreement, which was completed just
recently, still needs approval from the legislature when it
reconvenes in January, but once approved, the settlement can be
signed by all parties and submitted to the U.S. District Court
for final action. Proponents are hoping that the agreement will
help solve one of the most financially vexing and emotional
problems that the Department of Mental Retardation and state
lawmakers have faced.
Some people have been on the agency's waiting list for up to 15
years. Their elderly parents have testified before the
legislature every year, expressing fears that they might die
before their adult children with mental retardation are finally
placed in an apartment or group home.
According to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, whose office
represented DMR in the negotiations with Arc/Connecticut, "The
bottom line is, this lawsuit never should have been necessary.
The state should have been undertaking this task without a
lawsuit."
As of Sept. 30, there were 1,064 people on DMR's waiting list
for residential placement, support or services, including
respite programs for family members, says DMR spokesman Matthew
McKeever. Under the proposed settlement, slots will be added to
remove about 150 more people from the list each year over the
next five years, which according to Mr. Blumenthal will cost
about $4.5 million per year, but the federal government under
the Medicaid program will reimburse much of it.
The settlement also calls for $5,000 a year, per person, for
about 100 people on the list with urgent needs and will also
require the state to retain an expert consultant to help develop
policies and procedures to continue to reduce the list beyond
July 1, 2009, Mr. Blumenthal told AP.
Sen. Cathy Cook, R-Mystic, who has a son with mental retardation
and has passionately advocated to eliminate the waiting list,
told Associated Press she was pleased state officials had
finally found a solution.
The groundwork for the settlement was laid earlier this year in
former Gov. John G. Rowland's budget proposal, according to Marc
Ryan, the governor's budget director. Lawmakers ultimately
approved $4.6 million for this fiscal year to place 150 people
with urgent needs, and to provide support to families of another
100.
DDi CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
DDi Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against certain of its current and
former officers and directors.
In October and November 2003, several class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. In December 2003, a related class action
complaint was filed in the Central District of California
alleging similar claims against similar parties, but also adding
causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the Company's February 2001 secondary offering. The latter
complaint also named as defendants a private investment firm and
the underwriters of the secondary offering.
On December 16, 2003, a federal district court judge
consolidated the Central District of California actions into a
single action, "In re DDi Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
CV 03-7063 MMM (SHx)." On May 21, 2004, the Court appointed as
Lead Plaintiffs Paul Poppe, LeRoy Schneider, and Rand Skolmick.
On July 26, 2004, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Company common stock between December 19, 2000 and April 29,
2002, including those who acquired Company common stock pursuant
to, or traceable to, its February 14, 2001 secondary offering.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and
alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or
failing to disclose material facts about the Company's reported
and projected financial results during the class period,
including reported and projected financial results in connection
with the registration statement and prospectus for the secondary
offering. Neither the Company nor any of it subsidiaries were
named as a defendant in this consolidated amended complaint.
Pursuant to a June 13, 2004 scheduling order, the defendants
responded to the consolidated amended complaint on September 9,
2004 with a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed their
opposition on October 25, 2004. The defendants will file the
reply in support of the motion to dismiss on or before November
24, 2004. The hearing is scheduled for January 10, 2005.
The suit, styled "Raymond Ferrari v. Joseph P Gisch, et al,
2:03-cv-07063-NM-SH," is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Nora
M. Manella. Lawyers for the defendants are:
(1) Christopher R Dillon, John D Donovan, Jr, Bonni
Schroeder McGuire of Ropes and Gray, One International
Place, Boston, MA 02110-2624, Phone: 617-951-7827
(2) Harry A Olivar, Jr of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &
Hedges, 865 S Figueroa St, 10th Fl, Los Angeles, CA
90017-2543, Phone: 213-624-7707, Fax: 213-624-0643
(3) Paul B Foust, Jerry L Marks, Jeffrey A. Richmond,
Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, 601 S Figueroa St,
40th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5758, Phone: 213-689-
0200, E-mail: jmarks@hewm.com or jrichmond@hewm.com
(4) Jay C Gandhi, Amir M Kahana, Paul Hastings, Peter M.
Stone, Janofsky & Walker, 695 Town Ctr Dr, 17th Fl
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924, Phone: 714-668-6200, Fax:
714-979-1921
(5) Colleen Elizabeth Huschke, Christopher H McGrath, Paul
Hastings Janofsky & Walker, 3579 Valley Centre Dr, San
Diego, CA 92130, Phone: 858-720-2500, E-mail:
chrismcgrath@paulhastings.com
Law firms for the plaintiff are:
(i) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,
(ii) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(iii) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
support@milberg.com
(iv) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750,
(v) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com
(vi) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Certifies Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas certified a class in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Electronic Data Systems, Inc. and certain
of its former officers, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
The Company and certain of its former officers are defendants in
numerous purported shareholder class action suits filed from
September through December 2002 in response to its September 18,
2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about certain equity
hedging transactions that it had entered into, and the drop in
the price of EDS common stock. The cases allege violations of
various federal securities laws and common law fraud based upon
purported misstatements and/or omissions of material facts
regarding the Company's financial condition.
In addition, five purported class action suits were filed on
behalf of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and, in some
cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA and made misrepresentations to the
class regarding the value of EDS shares. The Company's motions
to centralize all of the foregoing cases in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas have been granted.
Representatives of two committees responsible for administering
the EDS 401(k) Plan notified the Company of their demand for
payment of amounts they believe are owing to plan participants
under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act") as a result of an alleged failure to register
certain shares of EDS common stock sold pursuant to the plan
during a period of approximately one year ending on November 18,
2002. The committee representatives have asserted that plan
participants to whom shares were sold during the applicable
period are entitled to receive a return of the amounts paid for
the shares, plus interest and less any income received, upon
tender of the shares to EDS.
On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action described above and the lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated ERISA action described above each filed a
consolidated class action complaint. The amended consolidated
complaint in the securities action alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its former
officers made false and misleading statements about the
financial condition of EDS, particularly with respect to the
NMCI contract and the accounting for that contract. The class
period is alleged to be from February 7, 2001 to September 18,
2002.
The consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation
of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants. The named
defendants are EDS, certain former officers of EDS and, with
respect to the ERISA claims, certain current and former officers
of EDS, members of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of
its Board of Directors, and certain current and former members
of the two committees responsible for administering the plan.
The Company's motions to dismiss the consolidated securities
action and the consolidated ERISA action were denied by the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 13,
2004 and February 3, 2004, respectively. On November 8, 2004,
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
certified a class in the ERISA action on certain of the
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, of all participants in
the EDS 401(k) Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the
defendants, for whose accounts the plan made or maintained
investments in EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund between
September 7, 1999 and October 9, 2002. Also on November 8,
2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
certified a class in the ERISA action on the allegations of
violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of all
participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the
defendants, for whose accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock
through the EDS Stock Fund between October 20, 2001 and November
18, 2002. A trial commencement date of September 26, 2005 has
been established for the consolidated securities action and the
consolidated ERISA action.
FCC PRODUCTS: FDA Seizes Imported Ginseng For Unsafe Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued a
warrant for the seizure of imported ginseng, and held for sale
at FCC Products, Inc., located in Livingston, N.J.
The U.S. Marshals Service, accompanied by an FDA investigator,
seized the ginseng. The exact amount and extent of distribution
at this time is unknown, but was probably small in scope. Due
to the uncertainty of the distribution, FDA is issuing a
nationwide warning to those who may have used this product.
The bulk and blended ginseng products held at FCC Products,
Inc., are adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act because they contain pesticide chemical residues that are
unsafe. The pesticide chemical residues, procymidone and
quintozene, are deemed unsafe because there has been no
tolerance established for residues of procymidone and quintozene
in ginseng.
During an inspection of FCC Products, Inc., FDA collected
samples of the firm's ginseng, which the firm uses as an
ingredient to blend into dietary supplements. FDA laboratory
analysis determined that the bulk ginseng products sampled at
FCC Products, Inc., contain pesticide chemical residues
procymidone and quintozene.
FDA is responsible for the enforcement of pesticide tolerances
and food additive regulations. A raw agricultural commodity or a
processed food or feed is deemed to be unsafe and adulterated,
and subject to FDA enforcement action, if a pesticide chemical
residue for which no tolerance has been set is present in food.
FDA is committed to promoting and protecting the public health
by taking action against unsafe products, and against products
that make claims that are false and misleading. FDA's mission
includes ensuring the safety or safety and effectiveness of a
broad spectrum of regulated products, including food, human and
animal drugs, vaccines, blood products, medical devices, devices
that emit radiation, and cosmetics.
FLOWERS FOODS: Reaches Settlement For Settles NC Kosher Pie Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods agreed to give $2.5 million to charity to settle a
lawsuit alleging it put pig fat into what were supposed to be
kosher pie crusts, the Associated Press reports.
The Georgia-based company, which had once owned a Mrs. Smith's
Bakery in Pembroke, N.C., didn't admit to passing off pie crusts
containing pork lard as kosher, but the company recently agreed
to a settlement to end a class-action lawsuit filed this spring.
Instead of admitting any wrongdoing, the company has instead
issued a letter of apology for what it calls an embarrassing
incident.
The plant in Pembroke has closed and Flowers no longer owns Mrs.
Smith's bakeries or makes pie crusts. If the allegations are
true, Orthodox Jews who ate the crusts inadvertently violated
their religious principles while eating Mrs. Smith's pie crusts
in 2000 and 2001. Jews who follow kosher diet rules are strictly
prohibited from eating pork products.
The Mrs. Smith's plant made regular pie crusts with pork lard.
It also baked crusts without milk or meat products. Those crusts
were stamped kosher by the Orthodox Union, a New York
organization that certifies kosher foods.
In 2001, Raleigh lawyer Marvin Schiller heard the allegations of
a plant employee that workers often substituted regular crusts
for kosher ones when the plant ran out. Mr. Schiller doesn't
observe kosher rules, but he said he agreed to become the lead
plaintiff in a lawsuit out of respect for his Orthodox Jewish
upbringing.
Since it was very impractical to find every Jewish person who
had eaten a Mrs. Smith's pie crust, lawyers in the case decided
instead to give the settlement money to charity. While Mr.
Schiller is set to receive $2,000 from the settlement, but has
stated that he will donate it to the neurology department at the
University of North Carolina.
Under the terms of the settlement, Flowers, which makes baked
goods at 34 plants throughout the country, will divide $1
million in cash among five groups, including the Orthodox Union.
The neurology department will get a $100,000 share, in addition
to Mr. Schiller's contribution. The company will also donate
$1.5 million worth of bread products to America's Second
Harvest, a national charity that helps the needy get food.
HOME DEPOT: Vancouver Employees Lodges WA Sex Bias, Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Depot USA, Inc., and area supervisors face allegations of
sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and requiring employees
to work off the clock.
Three women formerly employed at a Vancouver Home Depot Store
have joined together to sue Home Depot and five of its
supervisory and management personnel for sexual harassment, sex
discrimination and unlawful wage and hour practices. The suit
was filed recently in Clark County Superior Court on behalf of
Judy Newton, Amy Musgrave, and Charisse Vigneau. The suit claims
discrimination based primarily upon offensive and sexually
explicit comments and conduct by male co-workers that when
reported to Home Depot Management and Human Resources, went
unaddressed.
The lawsuit alleges that the women experienced ". aggressive
verbal and physical harassment and sexual horseplay from male
employees that included but was not limited to, forcible hand to
genital contact, coercive verbal and physical attempts at oral
sex, threats of sexual assault, open display and distribution of
pornographic materials, repeated reference and discussions by
male employees of sexual positions, penises and penis size,
solicitation of sex for money, and retaliation."
The plaintiffs' counsel comprised of Vancouver attorneys, Greg
Ferguson, and Scott Deutsch, from the Law Offices of Gregory D.
Ferguson, PC associating with attorney, Claudia Haywood, have
requested that a judge order "declaratory or injunctive relief
in order to restrain Defendants continuing unlawful employment
practices" and for permission to add additional female workers
to the suit by procedurally joining them in the case or through
a class action certification process. Although the complaint
does not specify their damages in a dollar figure, the
plaintiffs are seeking lost wages, past and future, damages for
humiliation and emotional distress, double damages and attorney
fees.
The plaintiffs, formerly employed at the Vancouver, Washington
store No. 4718, contend that when they reported their concerns
to management, they were told that it was their word against the
word of the men involved and that unless they had more evidence
nothing could be done about it. On one occasion, a male co-
worker handed Ms. Newton a CD/DVD that allegedly contained
graphic pornographic images. When she turned it over to Human
Resources she was told that she still didn't have enough
evidence. Ms. Newton eventually left employment when her mental
and physical condition began to deteriorate in the face of what
she and her co-litigants contend was continuous sexual
harassment and retaliation.
After Judy Newton lodged a complaint with the Washington Human
Rights Commission, Home Depot's Seattle attorneys intervened and
began questioning employees, including Ms. Musgrave, who
testified that she had she had experienced the same behaviors
and had witnessed the sexual harassment of Judy Newton. Shortly
after standing up for and supporting Ms. Newton, Home Depot's
management fired Amy Musgrave. Home Depot cited "declining
performance" as the reason for her termination despite her
having received above average performance reviews. Charisse
Vigneau eventually transferred to a Home Depot store in Hawaii.
In addition to the sexual harassment, the women contend that
they and others were periodically forced to work off the clock
without pay, and were subjected to employee "lock-ins" where
management actually locked them in the store after hours forcing
them to work off the clock until their work was completed.
Lead counsel in the case attorney Greg Ferguson explained, "The
discrimination suit has been brought under the authority of
Washington's Law Against Discrimination that permits employees
to act as private attorneys general to support their rights and
the rights of others to work in an environment free from
discrimination and intimidation." Ferguson stated that, "this
case is intended to hold accountable a very large corporation
that has very little interest in recognizing its legal
responsibility to affirmatively address systemic sexual
harassment within its ranks. The extreme level to which this
conduct was permitted to escalate and ferment virtually
unchecked by management is quite telling as to the permissive
culture that prevails at Home Depot."
For additional information, please contact by telephone at 360-
906-1167, by fax at 360-695-5800 or by email at e-mail protected
from spam bots. A conformed copy of the complaint is on file at
Clark County Superior Court (http://www.courts.wa.gov),Judge
Woolard, Department 8, filed as case #04-2-06585-6.
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Final Fairness Hearing Set For Feb. 2005 in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will consider on February 24,2005 the final approval
for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against HPL Technologies, Inc., certain of its current and
former officers and directors and the Company's independent
auditors.
Between July 31, 2002 and November 15, 2002, several class-
action lawsuits were filed. They were later consolidated into a
single action, which alleges that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making a series of material
misrepresentations as to the financial condition of the Company
during the class period of July 31, 2001 to July 19, 2002. The
plaintiffs are generally seeking to recover compensatory
damages, costs and expenses incurred, interest and such other
relief as the court may deem appropriate. The parties have
stipulated to extend the time to respond to the consolidated
complaint.
The Company has entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with
the lead plaintiffs that resolves the Securities Class Action.
Under the Stipulation, the Company would issue shares of common
stock to the class. Final settlement is contingent on several
conditions, including court approval. The motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement was heard on November 4,
2004, and granted in an order issued on November 5, 2004.
The suit, styled "Marie Casden, et al. v. HPL Technologies Inc.,
et al., case no. C-02-3510," is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Vaughn Walker. Lead plaintiff is Fuller & Thaler Asset
Management, Inc. and counsel for the plaintiffs are Steven O.
Sidener, Joseph M. Barton and Gwendolyn R. Giblin of GOLD
BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San
Francisco, California 94105-2835, Phone: (415) 777-2230 Fax:
(415) 777-5189.
IMPSAT FIBER: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impsat Fiber Networks, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of a consolidated securities class
action filed against it, certain individuals who were then
officers and directors of the Company, and the underwriters to
the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
This lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all
shareholders that the Company and its underwriters violated
various provisions of the securities laws in connection with the
IPO in February 2000. Pursuant to the Plan, the plaintiffs in
the IPO Class Action received in connection with their claims
the assignment of any insurance proceeds that the Company
receives in connection with the litigation, but otherwise the
claims of the plaintiffs against the Company or any of its other
assets, have been discharged as part of the Chapter 11
proceedings.
Pursuant to a Court order in August, 2001, the IPO Class Action
was consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92," an intra-
district proceeding involving approximately 900 lawsuits
relating to the initial public offerings of approximately 310
companies. In July 2002, the Company and the other defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied as to the Company
and one individual officer in February 2003. In April 2003, the
Company was advised that global settlement discussions between
the plaintiffs and the Company's insurer (on behalf of the
Company and the individual defendants) to resolve plaintiffs'
claims against all 310 companies had reached an advanced stage.
Among other things, the proposed settlement would result in a
broad release of claims against the Company, its officers and
directors, and other issuers, and their officers and directors
without a direct financial contribution by the Company.
Settlement papers seeking preliminary approval of the settlement
and certification of the investor class were submitted to the
court in June 2004. The settlement is subject to court
approval.
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors Lodge Fraud Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers
face three shareholder class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.
The suits were purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock between September 5, 2003 and June
22, 2004 and generally allege that the defendants made false or
misleading statements concerning the clinical trial of iseganan.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.
The Complaint alleges that IntraBiotics, a biopharmaceutical
company, and certain of its officers and directors issued
materially false statements concerning the Company's drug
iseganan, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 10,2004). Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose:
(1) that iseganan was not safe and well-tolerated at
therapeutically relevant doses when administered to the
oral cavity;
(2) that the drug caused a higher rate of ventilator -
associated pneumonia ("VAP") and mortality as compared
to placebo;
(3) that 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) that as a result of the above, the defendants
statements concerning iseganan were lacking in any
reasonable basis.
The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Jeffrey S.
White. The suits are styled:
(i) Colandrea v. Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
Case no. 3:04-cv-02675-JSW,
(ii) Lyons v. Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:04-cv-03064-JSW,
(iii) Sharpe v. Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al,
Case No. 3:04-cv-03408-JSW,
Lawyers for the Company are Boris Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung,
Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E. Salceda of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
boris.feldman@wsgr.com, cfoung@wsgr.com, knassiri@wsgr.com,
isalceda@wsgr.com.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(a) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(b) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
(c) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL,
32963, Phone: 561.231.4202,
(d) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(e) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
415.477.6710,
(f) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com
(g) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com
(h) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com
(i) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com
(j) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
LIQUID AUDIO: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, certain of its former officers and directors,
and various of the underwriters in its initial public offering
(IPO) and secondary offering, styled "In re Liquid Audio, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, CV-6611."
The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that
various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in
our IPO and secondary offering of securities. The plaintiffs
brought claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also
against us and certain of our former directors and officers,
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 8, 1999
and December 6, 2000.
Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies. All of these "IPO allocation" securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordinated pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."
Defendants have filed omnibus motions to dismiss the actions on
common pleading issues. In October 2002, the Company's former
directors and officers, named as defendants, were dismissed from
the litigation without prejudice. In February 2003, the court
granted in part and denied in part the omnibus motions to
dismiss. The court did not dismiss any claims against the
Company.
A stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer-
defendants, including us, has been submitted to the court.
There is no guarantee that the settlement will become effective,
as it is subject to a number of conditions, including approval
of the court.
NANCY'S SPECIALTY: Recalls 30.7T lbs Crab Cakes For Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy's Specialty Foods, a Newark, California, firm is
voluntarily recalling approximately 30,700 pounds of crab cakes
possibly mislabeled as petite quiches, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.
The packages are labeled as containing quiches with bacon but
actually contain crab cakes, which is a known allergen
(shellfish). The product subject to recall is "NANCY*S Petite
Quiche, Party Essentials, Gourmet Appetizers, 4 - Lorraine, 4 -
Florentine, 4 - Three Cheese." Each package bears the code
"77298 01285," and lot number "2184N" and "Est. 19294" inside
the USDA seal of inspection. The crab cakes were produced on
August 5, 2004, and were distributed to retail establishments
nationwide.
The firm discovered the problem following a consumer complaint.
FSIS has received no reports of allergic reactions associated
with consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an
allergic reaction should contact a physician.
Media with questions may contact company Vice President of
Operations David Joiner at (510) 494-5211. Consumers with
questions may contact company Director of Marketing Diane
DeMartini at (510) 494-5269. Consumers with other food safety
questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline
at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time), Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.
NEW FOCUS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Focus, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class actions
filed against it and several of its officers and directors. The
suit also named as defendants the underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering:
(1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,
(2) Chase Securities, Inc.,
(3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and
(4) CIBC World Markets Corp.
On November 7, 2001, a Class Action Complaint was filed against
Bookham, Inc. and others in the same court. On April 19,
2002, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Amended Complaint names as defendants Bookham, Goldman,
Sachs & Co. and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., two of the
underwriters of Bookham's initial public offering in April2000,
and Andrew G. Rickman, Stephen J. Cockrell and David Simpson,
each of whom was an officer and/or director at the time of the
initial public offering.
The Amended Complaints assert claims under certain provisions of
the securities laws of the United States. They allege, among
other things, that the prospectuses for Bookham's and New
Focus's initial public offerings were materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters in connection with the offerings, and in not
disclosing certain alleged arrangements among the underwriters
and initial purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of
Bookham, or common stock, in the case of New Focus, from the
underwriters.
The Amended Complaints seek unspecified damages (or in the
alternative rescission for those class members who no longer
hold ordinary shares, in the case of Bookham or common stock, in
the case of New Focus), costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees,
interest and other expenses. In October 2002, the individual
defendants were dismissed, without prejudice, from the action.
In July 2002, all defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint. The motion was denied as to Bookham
Technology plc and New Focus in February 2003.
Special committees of the board of directors authorized the
companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers. The parties have negotiated a settlement which
is subject to approval by the court. A stipulation of settlement
for the claims against the issuer defendants, including the
Company, has been submitted to the Court for preliminary
approval.
Under the stipulation of settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters. There is no guarantee that the settlement will
become effective, as it is subject to a number of conditions,
including Court approval.
The suit is styled "In re New Focus, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related " In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
NEW YORK: Minority Policemen Lodges Federal Complaint V. NYPD
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nine black and Latino police officers initiated a federal
discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission on behalf of the officers, who are all
members of Transit District 4, a subway-based unit serving
central Manhattan, the New York Newsday reports.
The officers are charging that their careers were sabotaged in
part for failing to meet departmental quotas, according to the
complaint, which comes in the wake of $26.8 million settlement
awarded last February to 11,000 Police Department employees who
claimed race discrimination in a class-action suit against the
city.
Beginning in 2004, EEOC complaint alleges, the officers were
denied paid overtime, left to work outdoor shifts during the
Republican National Convention, and punished for making too few
arrests and writing less tickets than expected. The complaint
further alleges that after the officers complained to their
supervisor, Capt. Ernest Van Glahn, through union delegates,
they were required to attend performance enhancement courses and
were disciplined. Because of this, the officers said their
careers are tainted.
One of the officers, Jackie Robinson, 38, a 12-year veteran,
said he and the other officers had no recourse but to bring the
lawsuit. The other officers are Emmanuel Bowser, Leon Guzman,
Scott Harrison, Frederick Inman, Charles Panton, Michael Ryan,
Jose Martinez and Ronald Saintilus.
Attorneys for the officers said the problems faced by minorities
in the Police Department persist despite February's record
settlement. "It's clear that one lawsuit wasn't enough, and so
now we're back," said retired Sgt. Anthony Miranda, chairman of
the National Latino Officers Association. One hundred Blacks in
Law Enforcement Who Care, headed by co-founder Lt. Eric Adams,
are also filing the suit.
However, Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne, NYPD's chief
spokesman, defended the department in a brief statement. "The
Police Department has had an extremely positive record in this
regard, registering a 23 percent decrease in those types of
complaints since 2002," Mr. Browne said.
One police official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said
the charges are baseless. "This supervisor treated his
subordinates based upon performance, not race, and those who
didn't like it cried quota," the official said.
Norman Siegel, one of the attorneys defending the officers, said
the defendants were willing to hold off going to federal court
if Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly act
on the officers' concerns. "They need to speak up; they need to
intervene," Mr. Siegel said of the mayor and police
commissioner. "If they choose not to do that, we are on a
confrontation course."
NEW YORK: NYC Settles Suit On How To Handle Kids Of Abused Moms
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of New York recently settled a protracted class-action
lawsuit by victims of domestic violence, conceding that children
could not be placed in foster care just because their mothers
had been abused, the Chicago Tribune reports.
The settlement follows a state high court ruling that the city
could not remove children from families in which the sole
problem was domestic violence.
The agreement ends a battle about how New York should handle the
issue of abusive households and children in a manner that is
likely to influence practices nationwide. Child welfare agencies
struggle with how to handle violent households, since such homes
can be particularly dangerous, even lethal, for children, but
removal from the abused parent often a loving guardian can also
be crushing to children.
ONVIA.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia.com, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, former executive officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark
T. Calvert, and its lead underwriter, Credit Suisse First Boston
(CSFB).
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000.
The complaint charged defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and
Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions. The complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading because they
failed to disclose:
(1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to
provide them with significant amounts of restricted
Onvia shares in the initial public offering (IPO) in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions; and
(2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under
which the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO
to those customers in exchange for the customers'
agreement to purchase Onvia shares in the after-market
at predetermined prices.
The complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well
as attorney fees. On October 9, 2002, an order of dismissal
without prejudice was entered, dismissing former officers Glenn
S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert. In June 2003, Onvia, along with
most of the companies named as defendants in this litigation,
accepted a settlement proposal negotiated among plaintiffs,
underwriters and issuers. The major points of the settlement
are:
(i) insurers will provide a $1 billion guaranty payable to
plaintiffs;
(ii) companies will assign excess compensation claims
against underwriters to plaintiffs;
(iii) companies will agree not to assert pricing claims
or claims for indemnification against the underwriters;
(iv) companies and their officers and directors will be
released from any further litigation relating to these
claims; and
(v) companies will agree to cooperate in any document
discovery.
The final settlement agreement must be negotiated and approved
by the court. If the final settlement is approved, the Company
will be released from any future liability under this lawsuit.
The Company expects the court to preliminarily approve the
settlement agreement in 2005.
The suit is styled "In re Onvia.com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related " In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Lawsuits Over Tarceva Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: OSIP) faces several class
action lawsuits alleging that the Company issued false and
misleading statements concerning the survival benefit associated
with the Company's flagship product Tarceva(TM) and the size of
Tarceva's potential market upon U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approval of the drug.
The Company continues to believe in the potential of its
flagship product, Tarceva, to become a major product in the
treatment of human cancer. The Company noted that Tarceva is the
only EGFR inhibitor to have demonstrated a survival benefit in
non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is only the second drug
of any kind to have shown a survival benefit in pancreatic
cancer, the Company said in a statement.
The FDA approved Tarceva for the treatment of patients with
locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer
(NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior chemotherapy regimen
after a review lasting just 3.5 months. The Company further
noted that the announcement by a competitor that its EGFR
inhibitor had failed to demonstrate a survival benefit in NSCLC
is consistent with the Company's previously stated beliefs that
Tarceva is differentiated from the competition and well
positioned to rapidly emerge as the leading EGFR inhibitor in
the treatment of human cancer, the statement continued.
PFIZER INC.: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Fraud Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (www.erisafraud.com)
commenced an investigation against Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer" or the
"Company") (NYSE:PFE) for violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The investigation focuses
on investments in Company stock by the Pfizer Savings Plan and
the Pharmacia Savings Plan (the "Plans").
Keller Rohrback's investigation also focuses on concerns that
Pfizer and other fiduciaries for the various Plans may have
breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and
prudence by
(1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
assets by investing a significant amount of the Plans'
assets in Pfizer stock when it no longer was a prudent
investment for participants' retirement savings;
(2) failing to monitor and provide fiduciary appointees
with information that the appointing fiduciaries knew
or should have known that the monitored fiduciaries
needed in order to prudently manage the Plans' assets;
(3) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
participants and beneficiaries regarding Pfizer's
business prospects and financial performance as a
result of among other problems, the safety of Celebrex;
and
(4) breaching their duty to avoid conflicts of interest.
For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o of Keller Rohrback
L.L.P. by Phone: (800) 776-6044 by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.seattleclassaction.com.
PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Directors Approve Insurance Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philips International Realty Corp., a real estate investment
trust, recently revealed that its Board of Directors had
authorized a settlement, pursuant to the terms of an Agreement
and Claims Release dated December 10, 2004, with the Company's
insurance carrier of a pending claim for reimbursement of costs
incurred in defense of a class action filed against the Company
and its directors in connection with the plan liquidation.
Pursuant to the Company's plan of liquidation, its Board of
Directors has declared a tenth liquidating distribution of $0.10
per share which will be payable on December 30, 2004. The record
date is December 22, 2004. However, shareholders must continue
to own their shares up to and including December 30, 2004 in
order to be entitled to the liquidating distribution of $0.10
per share. Effective December 20, 2004, the Company's shares
will be traded with due bills which will entitle the owner of
the stock to receipt of the distribution. The Company has
approximately 7.4 million shares of common stock and common
stock equivalents, which will participate in this distribution.
On October 10, 2000, the stockholders approved the plan of
liquidation, which was then estimated to generate approximately
$18.25 in the aggregate in cash for each share of common stock
in two or more liquidating distributions. The Board of Directors
subsequently advised shareholders to expect total distributions
to be within 1% of this $18.25 estimate due to certain economic
factors which arose following adoption of the plan of
liquidation and which depressed retail rents and the Company's
real property values. The tenth liquidating distribution
declared by the Board of Directors brings the total payments to
date to $18.10 per share. Prior distributions of $13.00, $1.00,
$0.75, $0.50, $0.50, $0.50, $1.00, $0.50 and $0.25 per share
were paid on December 22, 2000, July 9, 2001, September 24,
2001, November 19, 2001, October 22, 2002, March 18, 2003,
September 16, 2003, January 6, 2004 and August 27, 2004,
respectively. The amount and timing of any future distributions
to shareholders, which in the aggregate are unlikely to exceed
$0.05 per share, remain subject to the Company's realization of
certain claims for refund of real estate and transfer taxes
paid, and the costs incurred to complete all wind-down
activities and dissolve the corporation.
QUALITY DINING: IN Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Joseph Superior Court, Indiana Judge Michael Scopelitis
heard oral arguments on a defendants' motion to dismiss a
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in June, the South Bend
Tribune reports. During the hearing, attorneys representing
Quality Dining, board members and top executives attempted to
convince a judge to throw out a lawsuit seeking to block the
company from returning to private ownership.
However, a lawyer for the shareholder group spent even longer
telling the judge why the case should go forward because of
alleged fraudulent and illegal business moves by those leading
Mishawaka-based Quality Dining.
Last month, the Quality Dining board of directors agreed to an
offer made by Dan Fitzpatrick and four other shareholders to buy
the company and take it private for $3.20 per share. The
proposal has yet to go before public shareholders and
franchisers. The Fitzpatrick-led merger group has cited ongoing
expenses of remaining a public company as a reason to return to
private ownership.
South Bend attorney Edward Sullivan, the Quality Dining lawyer,
pointed out to Judge Scopelitis that under Indiana law
shareholders are not allowed to challenge a proposed corporate
merger. And South Bend attorney Richard Nussbaum also said that
the lawsuit failed to state a proper claim and that the suit
should be dismissed, as should a request for a court order to
halt the effort to make the company private.
Meanwhile, plaintiff attorney Joseph Gielata of Wilmington,
Delaware, argued there were numerous issues of alleged fraud and
claimed company officials had breached their fiduciary duty by
allegedly promoting their own interests over those of the public
stockholder. Mr. Gielata further alleged that company officials
had intentionally understated earnings to keep the Quality
Dining price per share low.
To this argument, Quality Dining lawyer's Mr. Sullivan argued
another reason to dismiss the case was that the price of Quality
Dining's proposed buyout to shareholders is now higher at $3.20
per share, than the $3 per share that dissident shareholders
claimed was fair. Mr. Sullivan and other Quality Dining lawyers
will also file additional arguments Monday at the same time
lawyers for the plaintiff will have until December 31 to file
arguments, and then Judge Scopelitis will rule.
Mr. Fitzpatrick started Quality Dining as a Burger King
franchisee in 1981. Thirteen years later, he took it public were
public shareholders took hold of about 6.4 million shares, which
puts the deal by the Fitzpatrick-led group, known as QDI Merger
Corp., at about $20.5 million.
With headquarters at Edison Lakes Corporate Park, Quality Dining
owns the Grady's American Grill, Papa Vino's Italian Kitchen and
Spageddies restaurant concepts. It operates 124 Burger Kings, 39
Chili's Grill & Bar, six Papa Vino's, three Grady's, three
Spageddies and one Porterhouse Steaks and Seafood restaurants.
RAYMOND GEDDES: Recalls 155,000 Necklaces Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Geddes Co. Inc., of Baltimore, Maryland is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 155,000 Metallic Necklaces.
The necklaces contain high levels of lead. CPSC regulations ban
children's products from containing high levels of lead due to
the risk of lead poisoning resulting from contact with these
products. The necklaces also contain a sharp point, posing a
laceration hazard to young children. The company has not
received any reports of incidents. This recall is being
conducted to prevent the possibility of injury.
The recalled necklaces have medallions that came in four
different designs depicting frogs, dolphins with a small bead on
the tail, a sunshine smiley face and an alien face on a
starburst. The medallion is on a black rope chain surrounded by
a metallic bead with a coil section.
Manufactured in China, the necklaces were sold through mail
order catalogs nationwide and on the Internet from August 1998
through November 2004 for about $1.
Consumers should immediately take these necklaces away from
young children and contact the company to receive a refund.
Consumer Contact: Call Raymond Geddes toll-free at
(888) 431-1722 between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday. Consumers also can contact the company via e-mail at:
consumeraffairs@raymondgeddes.com.
SHOE PAVILION: CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit Settlement Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court of California's approval of the
settlement of the class action filed against Shoe Pavilion, Inc.
is deemed final, after plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.
On March 5, 2002, the Company was sued by one of its store
managers who asserted that he and all other store managers in
California were improperly classified as "exempt" employees
under California's wage and hour laws and therefore are entitled
to overtime wages. An amended complaint seeking class action
status on behalf of all store managers in California was
subsequently filed with the court.
The Company denied the plaintiff's claims and filed an answer
challenging class certification. In December 2003, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement of the lawsuit. Under the
terms of the agreement, which required court approval, the
Company would pay store managers a stipulated cash settlement
based upon the number of weeks worked for the period from April
1, 1998 through December 31, 2003. The court granted final
approval of the settlement on July 15, 2004. Any appeal from
the court order approving the settlement was required to be
filed by September 13, 2004. No appeal was filed and the time
to appeal the court's order has expired.
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, various of its officers and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of
securities.
The suit, styled "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596,"
alleges improper and undisclosed activities related to the
allocation of shares in the Company's initial public offering,
including obtaining commitments from investors to purchase
shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.
Similar lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies'
initial public offerings were filed during 2001, and this
lawsuit is being coordinated with those actions (the
"coordinated litigation"). Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on or about April 19, 2002, bringing claims for
violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws
and seeking an unspecified amount of damages.
On July 1, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which the Company and its named officers and directors are a
part, on common pleadings issues. On October 8, 2002, pursuant
to stipulation by the parties, the court dismissed the officer
and director defendants from the action without prejudice.
On February 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in
part a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants,
including the Company. The court's order dismissed all claims
against the Company except for a claim brought under Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933.
A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval of the proposed settling parties and the
court.
The suit is styled "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596,"
related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Pork Gyoza Because of Shrimp Gyoza Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's Company of Monrovia, California is recalling Trader
Joe's Pork Gyoza, code 2594DL1, because the bag of the pork
filled gyoza has the potential to contain shrimp gyoza, too. The
product code can be found on the bottom left corner of the bag.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to shellfish
run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction
if they consume this product. Gyoza is also known as an Asian
dumpling, or potsticker. There have been no reports of illness
or injury associated with this product.
Trader Joe's Pork Gyoza were potentially sold from Trader Joe's
retail stores in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware,
Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Virginia & Washington.
This recall is a result of a discovery of shrimp gyoza mixed in
with pork gyoza. This product code was removed from sale in all
Trader Joe's stores.
UNITED STATES: ALCFC Supports IN Suit Demanding Parental Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------
With American divorce statistics rising annually and the
majority of divorces involving children who 90% of the time, end
up in mother's custody with fathers being reduced to visitors
and a paycheck in their children's lives, many father's rights
groups have emerged demanding equality in America's domestic
relations courts. One group in particular is the Alabama
Coalition for Fathers and Children (ALCFC). The ALCFC has a
national and international network of supporters who all claim
to be victims of biased domestic relations courts.
On June 18th, 2004 the Friday before Father's Day the ALCFC
staged a D-Contamination raid on the Jefferson County Family
Court in Birmingham, Alabama in a symbolic attempt to clean up
Alabama Family Law. On October 29th, 2004 group leaders appeared
as Grim Reapers at the Jefferson County Domestic Relations Court
in Birmingham symbolizing that to fathers and children the court
is a real life "House of Horrors" and that the court is
responsible for the "Death of Fatherhood". And once again on
December 1st, 2004 at the same court showed up in full Santa
costumes and helpers to attempt to "Save Father Christmas".
Alan Rusmisel, Vice-President and co-founder of ALCFC remarks,
"There can be no doubt about the negative effects on children
caused by fatherlessness. These courts with their self-appointed
social engineers, are the main perpetrator of fatherlessness in
America and especially here in Alabama. Here we have a "good ole
boy" justice system that is run by nothing more than child
abusers. If separating a child from a fit and loving parent is
not child abuse, I do not know what is. The ALCFC's tactics of
peaceful direct action is an attempt to bring these issues to
the court of public opinion. The judges are not held accountable
for their biased and unconstitutional actions against parents
and children and the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission who is
responsible for over seeing judges, is a perfect example of the
fox guarding the henhouse. It is my opinion that this
brotherhood structure is not an accident but, a well built money
making machine for the members of Alabama Bar Association. The
sad part is our innocent children are paying the price."
The Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children is also
addressing these issues in other venues. The ALCFC provided
testimony to the Alabama Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on
Child Support Guidelines in March 2004. This prompting the
filing of a Federal Lawsuit by member and supporter James
Blackston (see Blackston v. Alabama http://www.fa-
ir.org/alabama/cs/2004_suit/Complaint_2004_6.pdf) alleging that
the state violated a federal court order and gerrymandered the
hearings. The ALCFC is supporting the national class-action suit
demanding the restoration of parental rights as mandated by the
U.S. Constitution initiated by the Indiana Civil Rights Council
and filed in Alabama by ALCFC member Dr. Richard Weiss. The
group is also preparing equal parenting legislation to be
presented to the Alabama Legislature in January 2005.
President and co-founder John Kral added, There should be no
reason to have to file lawsuits in order to get permission to
take our own children to get an ice crŠme cone or have lunch
with them at their school. These are fundamental issues
concerning parent's and children's rights and the ALCFC wants
judges held accountable for denying these rights. We just want
to be able to love and nurturer our children without undue state
intervention."
The Alabama Coalition for Fathers and Children are registering
members of families who have been victimized by domestic
relation courts at their website http://www.alcfc.com.This is
in order to gain support and provide helpful information
directly to victims.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Seeks Appeal For Morelock Lawsuit in OR
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhaeuser Company (NYSE: WY) will seek to appeal a recent
order from the U.S. District Court in Oregon granting class
action status to the plaintiffs in the Morelock Enterprises,
Inc. lawsuit.
Weyerhaeuser contends that the ruling handed down earlier today
is wrong as a matter of law. Weyerhaeuser will file its request
to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
the same court currently reviewing the company's appeal of the
Ross-Simmons hardwoods case. The Morelock case alleges
Weyerhaeuser unlawfully monopolized an alleged market for
finished alder lumber in the United States. In 2003, the jury
rejected a similar claim in the Ross-Simmons case.
Weyerhaeuser has not recorded a reserve related to this matter
and is unable to estimate at this time the amount of charges, if
any, that may be required for this matter in the future.
ZHONE TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has fully briefed Zhone Technology, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
securities class action filed against Tellium, Inc. and its
then-current directors, executive officers and underwriter.
On various dates between approximately December 10, 2002 and
February 27, 2003, numerous class-action securities complaints
were filed, alleging the defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1933 by making false and misleading statements preceding its
initial public offering and in its registration statement
prospectus relating to the securities offered in the initial
public offering. The complaints further allege that these
parties violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by acting
recklessly or intentionally in making the alleged misstatements.
The actions seek damages in an unspecified amount, including
compensatory damages, costs, and expenses incurred in connection
with the actions and equitable relief as may be permitted by law
or equity.
On May 19, 2003, a consolidated amended complaint representing
all of the actions was filed. On August 4, 2003, Tellium and
its underwriters filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On
April 1, 2004, the Court issued its decision granting Tellium's
and the underwriters' motions to dismiss, while allowing
plaintiffs an opportunity to seek leave to file a further
amended complaint. On May 14, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
second consolidated and amended class action complaint.
On June 25, 2004, the Company, as Tellium's successor-in-
interest, moved to have the second consolidated and amended
class action complaint dismissed with prejudice. The motion to
dismiss has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting the
Court's decision on the motion.
The suit is styled "IN RE TELLIUM, INC., et al v. SECURITY
LITIGATION, et al., case no. 1:02-cv-05878-FLW-AMD," filed in
the United States District Court in New Jersey, under Judge
Freda L. Wolfson.
The lead plaintiffs in the suit are Vijay Naidu and Judith
Traube. Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert J. Berg, BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP,
2050 Center Avenue, Suite 200, Fort Lee NJ 07024,
Phone: 201-592-3201, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com
(2) Leo W. Desmond, Thirteen Main Street, Suite Four,
Sparta, NJ, 07871, Phone: (973) 726-4242
(3) Joseph J. DePalma, LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG AND RIVAS,
LCC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com
(4) Larisa V.K. Gjivoje, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, One Newark
Center, 16th floor, Newark, NJ 07101-3174 Phone:
(973)639-1234
Lawyers for the defendants are:
(i) Joseph T. Boccassini, MCCARTER & ENGLISH LLP, Four
Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark NJ 07102,
Phone: (973) 622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070, E-mail:
jboccassini@mccarter.com
(ii) Richard B. Harper, BAKER BOTTS LLP, 30 Rockefeller
Plaza, New York NY 10112, Phone: (212) 408-2675, Fax:
212 259-2475, E-mail: richard.harper@bakerbotts.com
(iii) Anthony P. Larocco, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, One
Newark Center 10th floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5497, Phone:
(973) 848-4000, E-mail: alarocco@kl.com
New Securities Fraud Cases
AUTOBYTEL INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court Central
District of California, Southern Division on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Autobytel, Inc. ("Autobytel" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:ABTLE) between July 24, 2003 and October
21, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that their statements were materially false and misleading when
made because:
(1) the Company inappropriately recorded revenue/income
associated with its dealer sales credits;
(2) as a result of this, the Company's financial results
were materially inflated;
(3) the Company's financial results were in violation of
GAAP;
(4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to issue
earnings or projection reports;
(5) the Company was experiencing weaker than claimed CRM
revenues and zero growth in its dealer network size;
and
(6) as a result of the above, Autobytel's financial results
were materially inflated at all relevant times.
On October 21, 2004, the Company revealed its third quarter 2004
financial results would be rescheduled because the Audit
Committee and Board of Directors of the Company were directing
an internal review of the accounting treatment of certain
credits that were recognized as revenue during the preceding
quarters. These revelations shocked the market, causing
Autobytel's share price to plummet the next day from the
previous day's close of $8.81, to close on October 22, 2004, at
$6.88, a one-day drop of nearly twenty two percent (22%) as a
result of this news.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron 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.
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Charlotte Russe Holding Inc. (Nasdaq: CHIC)
("Charlotte" or the "Company") from January 22, 2004 through
December 6, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Charlotte, Mark Hoffman, and Daniel Carter
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Charlotte is a mall-based specialty retailer of apparel and
accessories targeting young women between the ages of 15 and 35.
The Company has two distinct store concepts: Charlotte Russe and
Rampage.
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 strategic repositioning of the Rampage stores
was failing to produce tangible results;
(2) that other measures, promoted by management, as actions
designed to improve operations, were proving futile in
both the merchandising and store organizations; and
(3) that as a result of the above, the defendants' fiscal
2004 projections were lacking in any reasonable basis
when made.
On September 9, 2004, Charlotte reported revised guidance for
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, which will end on September
25, 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Charlotte
fell $3.43 per share, or 23.44 percent, on September 9, 2004, to
close at $11.20 per share. Then on December 6, 2004, Charlotte
reported that Donna Desrosiers, Executive Vice President and GMM
for the Charlotte Russe chain, had resigned for personal
reasons. The Company also announced that, as a result of weaker
than expected sales during the quarter to date, it was now
forecasting that comparable stores sales would decline mid to
high single-digits during the first quarter of fiscal 2005
ending on December 25, 2004. The Company had previously guided
investors to expect a low single-digit comparable sales increase
for the quarter. On this news shares of Charlotte fell $0.82 per
share, or 7.52 percent, on December 7, 2004, to close at $10.09
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.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Conexant
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:CNXT) between March 1, 2004 and November
4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and former
GlobespanVirata, Inc. shareholders who received shares of
Conexant in the merger.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against defendant Conexant and one or
more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.
For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: 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.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
initiated a class action in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Conexant
Systems, Inc. ("Conexant") (NASDAQ:CNXT) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 1, 2004 and November
4, 2004 (the "Class Period"), and former GlobespanVirata, Inc.
("Globespan") shareholders who received shares of Conexant in
the merger.
The complaint charges Conexant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Conexant is a fabless semiconductor company.
The complaint alleges that on March 1, 2004, Conexant completed
its acquisition of Globespan in a merger transaction claiming
that "We have made outstanding progress toward integrating the
organizations, systems, technologies and processes of Conexant
and GlobespanVirata over the past two months and are in a strong
position as we begin combined operations today." In fact, as
would later be admitted, the merger had not been successful and
the Company was facing severe integration problems with respect
to the combined companies' parallel DSL and wireless technology
offerings, as well as their sales and administration functions.
Additionally, Conexant would claim throughout the Class Period
that its wireless LAN ("WLAN") business was experiencing reduced
growth, citing competition from Taiwan-based chip suppliers
when, in fact, its WLAN business, which had been the premier and
top producer for wireless local area networks, was not being
integrated properly in the merger, and defendants were
neglecting to develop and build products, resulting in massive
loss of market share.
On November 4, 2004, Conexant released its financial and
operational results for the fourth quarter ended October 1,
2004, reporting that its "fourth fiscal quarter 2004 revenues of
$213.1 million decreased 20 percent from the third fiscal
quarter revenues of $267.6 million," and stating that
"'Conexant's sequential decline in revenues to $213.1 million in
the fourth fiscal quarter was largely due to excess channel
inventory that resulted from lower-than-expected customer demand
....'" On this news Conexant stock fell 10% on November 5, 2004.
For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/conexant/.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of Conexant Systems, Inc.
("Conexant" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CNXT) between March 1,
2004 and November 4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Murray Frank complaint alleges that on March 1, 2004,
Conexant acquired Globespan. Conexant claimed, "We have made
outstanding progress toward integrating the organizations,
systems, technologies and processes of Conexant and
GlobespanVirata over the past two months and are in a strong
position as we begin combined operations today." However, the
merger had not been successful, as was later admitted, and the
Company faced severe problems combining the two companies'
parallel DSL and wireless technology offerings. Sales and
administration operations also experienced integrations
problems. Conexant claimed that the growth in its wireless LAN
("WLAN") business was slowing. Integration problems also beset
the Company's WLAN business, formerly the top producer for WLAN.
Defendants also neglected research and development of new
products, resulting in huge market share losses.
On November 4, 2004, Conexant announced that its "fourth fiscal
quarter 2004 revenues of $213.1 million decreased 20 percent
from the third fiscal quarter revenues of $267.6 million." As a
result of this disclosure, Conexant's stock price fell 10% on
November 5, 2004. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP and its predecessor
firms have devoted its practice to shareholder class actions and
complex commercial litigation for more than thirty years and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders
in class actions throughout the United States.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron 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.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Conexant
Systems, Inc. (NasdaqNM: CNXT) ("Conexant") between March 1,
2004 and November 4, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including all
former holders of GlobespanVirata, Inc. ("Globespan") who
acquired Conexant shares in the merger completed March 1, 2004.
The complaint alleges that Conexant violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading statements concerning its
integration with Globespan. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Conexant repeatedly stated that the integration was
successful when in fact there were significant problems with
respect to the combined companies' parallel DSL and wireless
technology offerings, as well as their sales and administration
functions. The complaint alleges that Conexant issued false and
misleading statements when it claimed that its wireless LAN
("WLAN") business was experiencing reduced growth due to
competition from Taiwan-based chip suppliers when, in fact, the
problem was actually caused by the combined companies' WLAN
business not being properly integrated in the merger.
On November 4, 2004, Conexant released its financial and
operational results for the fourth quarter ended October 1,
2004, reporting that its "fourth fiscal quarter 2004 revenues of
$213.1 million decreased 20 percent from the third fiscal
quarter revenues of $267.6 million," and stating that
"Conexant's sequential decline in revenues to $213.1 million in
the fourth fiscal quarter was largely due to excess channel
inventory that resulted from lower-than-expected customer
demand. . . ." On this news Conexant stock fell from a close of
$1.76 on November 4, 2004, to close at $1.60 on November 5,
2004.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.
GEOPHARMA INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit against GeoPharma, Inc.
("GeoPharma" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:GORX) and two of the
Company's senior officers, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of GeoPharma on December 1, 2004
(the "class period"). The case was filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.
GeoPharma manufactures, packages and/or distributes private
label dietary supplements, overt-the-counter ("OTC") drugs,
pharmaceuticals and health and beauty care products for
companies under two related entitles: Innovative Health
Products, Inc. and Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Innovative
Health Products specializes in the development and manufacture
of nutritional supplements. According to the Company, Belcher
Pharmaceuticals is a FDA-registered drug development and
manufacturing facility for generic and OTC drugs. On May 18,
2004, the Company changed its name from Innovative Companies,
Inc., to GeoPharma, Inc.
According to the complaint, the Company and certain of its top
officials issued material misstatements about FDA approval of
Mucotrol, a product which is manufactured by the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which
manufactures both prescription and over-the-counter drugs. In a
press release issued on December 1, 2004, the Company and its
top officials created the impression that the Federal Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") had approved Mucotrol for marketing
in this country as a prescription drug. At this announcement,
GeoPharma's stock jumped up 153% to $11.25 per share. The volume
of shares traded was extraordinary -- 42 million shares, for a
stock whose average daily volume was 22,000. In the afternoon of
December 1, 2004, the stock price dropped and trading was halted
at $6.81, after it was disclosed that the FDA had told the press
that it had no record of Mucotrol. The FDA later stated that it
had cleared Mucotrol for marketing but only as a device, not a
prescription drug. Apparently, this approval was granted because
of Mucotrol's similarity with a product already on the market.
On December 2, 2004, in a conference call with investors after
the close of the markets, the defendants finally acknowledged
that Mucotrol was a device, not a prescription drug. On this
disclosure, the Company's stock fell as low as $5.37 on December
3, 2004.
The complaint alleges that GeoPharma and the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, Secretary and director, Mihir K. Taneja, and
Kotha Sekharam, President, principal spokesman and director of
the company, were privy to non-public information concerning the
Company's business, finances, products, markets and present and
future business prospects through their access to internal
corporate documents, conversations with and reports from other
corporate officers and employees, and attendance at management
and Board of Directors meetings and committees thereof. These
defendants knew or but for their recklessness would have known
that Mucotrol had been approved by the FDA as a device, not a
drug.
For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: 888-476-6529 or by E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com.
OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of OSI
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSIP) ("OSI") between April 26,
2004 and November 18, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including all
persons who acquired shares in OSI's equity offering priced on
November 10, 2004.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, OSI
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the survival benefits of OSI's cancer
treatment drug Tarceva and false and misleading statements about
the size of Tarceva's potential market. On April 26, 2004, OSI
announced that Tarceva had met its primary end-points and that
the it would be seeking FDA approval for Tarceva based upon its
findings in its clinical trials. OSI stated that the study
showed that patients who took Tarceva lived on average two
months longer than patients who took a placebo. On this news,
OSI stock increased $52.96 per share, rising from a close of
$38.14 on April 23, 2004, to close at $91.10 per share on the
next trading day.
On November 17, 2004, OSI completed an equity offering for $445
million in proceeds. The very next day, OSI announced that the
FDA had approved Tarceva for use in the treatment of patients
with advanced lung cancer. However the market also learned about
severe limitations on the number of patients who could use
Tarceva to obtain the survival benefits of the drug. On this
disclosure, OSI Pharmaceuticals' stock price fell from a close
of $64.25 on November 18, 2004, to close at $58.16 per share on
November 19, 2004.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.
PFIZER INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated an
expanded securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly-traded common stock of Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE: PFE)
("Pfizer" or the "Company") between November 1, 2000 and
December 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning
the safety and marketability of Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra
products. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that at all times
during the Class Period, Defendants were aware of strong
indicators that Celebrex and Bextra, drugs known as "Cox-2
Inhibitors," posed serious undisclosed health risks to
consumers, that these undisclosed health risks would limit their
marketability, and that the potential financial liability Pfizer
faced from the harms these drugs caused posed a serious threat
to the Company's finances. Nevertheless, Defendants concealed
these facts from the investing public.
Toward the close of the Class Period, a series of factual
revelations from several sources caused the market to gradually
perceive the truth about Pfizer's Bextra and Celebrex products.
For example, on November 4, 2004, the Calgary Herald reported
that "Celebrex, a popular pain drug touted as the safe
alternative after Vioxx was pulled from drugstore shelves, is
suspected of causing at least 14 deaths and numerous heart and
brain side effects." Then, on November 10, 2004, the New York
Times revealed a study finding that "[t]he incidence of heart
attacks and strokes among patients given Pfizer's painkiller
Bextra was more than double that of those given placebos." As a
result of these and other revelations, Pfizer's share price
dropped from a closing price of $29.45 on November 3, 2004 to
$27.15 on November 11, 2004 -- a drop of 8%.
Today, Pfizer shocked the market by revealing that "[i]n the
Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC) trial, patients taking
400mg and 800mg of Celebrex daily had an approximately 2.5 fold
increase in their risk of experiencing a major fatal or non-
afatal cardiovascular event compared to those patients taking
placebo, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Based
on these statistically significant findings, the sponsor of the
trial, the NCI, has suspended the dosing of Celebrex in the
study." Pfizer's share price has dropped precipitously in
response to this news, down over 13% from the previous close, in
heavy trading.
For more details, contact Donald J. Enright or Michael G.
McLellan of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran's Washington, DC by
Phone: 866-592-1960 or by E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com or
mgm@ftllaw.com.
PFIZER INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Pfizer, Inc.
("Pfizer" or the "Company") (NYSE:PFE) between November 1, 2000
and December 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and omitted
material facts about the safety and marketability of Pfizer's
Celebrex and Bextra products. Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendants were aware of strong indications that Celebrex and
Bextra, drugs known as "Cox-2 Inhibitors," posed serious and
undisclosed health risks to the drug's consumers, that the
undisclosed health risks would hinder their marketability, and
that the potential financial liability Pfizer would face due to
these drugs' harms posed a serious financial threat to the
Company. Despite such knowledge, Defendants continued to conceal
these facts from consumers and the investing public.
A series of revelations caused the market to learn the truth
about Bextra and Celebrex. On November 4, 2004, the Calgary
Herald reported that "Celebrex, a popular pain drug touted as
the safe alternative after Vioxx was pulled from drugstore
shelves, is suspected of causing at least 14 deaths and numerous
heart and brain side effects." Then, on November 10, 2004, the
New York Times revealed a study finding that "(t)he incidence of
heart attacks and strokes among patients given Pfizer's
painkiller Bextra was more than double that of those given
placebos." This news shocked the market, causing Pfizer's share
price to drop 8% over the next eight days.
Before the market opened today, Pfizer again shocked the market,
revealing that "(i)n the Adenoma Prevention with Celecoxib (APC)
trial, patients taking 400mg and 800mg of Celebrex daily had an
approximately 2.5 fold increase in their risk of experiencing a
major fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular event compared to those
patients taking placebo, according to the National Cancer
Institute (NCI). Based on these statistically significant
findings, the sponsor of the trial, the NCI, has suspended the
dosing of Celebrex in the study." Pfizer's share price has
dropped precipitously in response to this news.
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP and its predecessor firms have
devoted its practice to shareholder class actions and complex
commercial litigation for more than thirty years and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders in
class actions throughout the United States.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron 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.
PFIZER INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer"
or the "Company") [NYSE: PFE] between November 1, 2000 and
December 16, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants Pfizer and certain officers and directors of the
Company.
The case name is Morabito v. Pfizer, Inc., et al. The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating
the market price of the Company's securities.
The complaint arises out of defendants' false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning the safety and marketability
of Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra products. At all times during
the Class Period, defendants were aware that Celebrex and
Bextra, drugs known as "Cox-2 inhibitors," posed serious
undisclosed health risks to consumers. Defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that the undisclosed health risks posed
by these drugs would limit their marketability, and that
potential financial liability Pfizer faced from the harms these
drugs caused posed a serious threat to the Company's financial
condition. Nonetheless, defendants concealed these facts from
the investing public, thereby damaging Plaintiff and the Class.
Toward the close of the Class Period, a series of factual
revelations from several sources caused the market to gradually
perceive the truth about Pfizer's Bextra and Celebrex products.
On December 17, 2004, Pfizer issued a press release announcing
the Company has discovered an increased risk of heart problems
with patients taking its painkiller Celebrex. The press release
came after a study revealed that the use of Celebrex in patients
taking 400mg to 800mg of the drug daily were found to have a
risk of 2.5 times greater of experiencing major heart problems
than those who were not. This level of risk was even greater
than the one found in patients taking Vioxx that led Merck to
withdraw Vioxx from the marketplace.
For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., or Derek Behnke of
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.
ROYAL GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Royal Group Technologies Limited (NYSE: RYG)
("Royal Group," or "Royal," or the "Company") from February 11,
1999 through October 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Royal Group and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Royal Group is a vertically integrated manufacturer of
polymer-based home improvement, consumer and construction
products. Royal Group's operations are located primarily in
Canada and the United States, with international locations in
Mexico, South America, Europe and Asia.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Royal Group's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. The statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants knew, but failed to disclose the following:
(1) that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and/or
conspiracy whereby defendants used false invoices to
steal money from the Company and defraud shareholders;
(2) that the defendant's use of false invoices caused the
Company to overstate inventory and allowed defendants
to delay writedowns on these assets in order to
maintain purportedly strong earnings results;
(3) that defendants falsely portrayed that the Company's
U.S. window business was strong;
(4) that the Company materially overstated its financial
results during the Class Period; and
(5) that as consequence of the above, the defendants'
projection for fiscal year 2003-2004 were materially
overstated and were lacking an any reasonable basis
when made.
On October 15, 2004, Royal Group disclosed the first Royal
Canadian Mounted Police ("RCMP") production order for three
Royal Group current or former executives who faced allegations
of defrauding shareholders and creditors. The court documents
named company founder, controlling shareholder and non-executive
chairman Vic De Zen, former CFO Gary Brown and then current
President and CEO Douglas Dunsmuir. The investigation relates to
allegations that De Zen, Brown and Dunsmuir violated sections of
the Criminal Code for fraud and conspiracy by circulating or
publishing a prospectus or statement or account which they knew
was false, for a period between January 1996 and July 2004. The
news shocked the market. Shares of Royal Group fell $1.12 per
share, or 12.49 percent, on October 18, 2004, to close at $7.85
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.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Swift Transportation Co., Inc.
(Nasdaq:SWFT) ("Swift" or the "Company") from October 16, 2003
through October 1, 2004, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The action, entitled Tuttle v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
et al., Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, and names as
defendants, the Company, Gary R. Enzor, Patrick J. Farley, Jerry
C. Moyes, and William F. Riley III. A copy of the complaint can
be obtained from the Court or can be viewed on Wechsler Harwood
web site at: www.whesq.com.
The complaint charges defendants 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 conditional safety rating given to the Company
by the FMSCA was not an error, but rather a true
representation of Swift's performance;
(2) that making the internal changes necessary to improve
the rating was fiscally prohibitive;
(3) that the Company had to absorb the cost of the new
Department of Transportation regulations requiring that
drivers be paid for loading time and time waiting to
load;
(4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company was
losing its competitive position and revenue, however,
in order to maintain the appearance of financial well-
being, for the benefit of defendant Moyes' personal
finances, the Company systematically under-depreciating
its capital assets thereby artificially inflating its
revenues;
(5) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
results were in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
(7) the Company's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times.
On September 15, 2004, Swift announced that it had adopted a new
repurchase program, under which it may acquire up to $150
million of its common stock over the next several months.
Additionally, Swift also announced that it expects Q3 earnings
to range between 26 cents and 31 cents per share. This news
shocked the market. Shares of Swift fell $2.18 per share, or
14.9 percent, on September 15, 2004, to close at $16.09 per
share. On October 1, 2004, Swift announced that the previously
disclosed informal inquiry by the SEC into certain stock trades
by the company and insiders, including defendant Moyes, had
become a formal investigation. The investigation centers around
certain stock trades made by defendant Moyes as well as selected
the Company repurchases. On this news, shares of Swift tumbled
an additional $.95 per share, or 5.4 percent, on October 4,
2004, to close at $16.54 per share.
For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Shareholder Relations
Department at Wechsler Harwood LLP by Phone: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-
mail: clowther@whesq.com.
VIMPEL COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Open Joint Stock Company
"Vimpel-Communications" ("VimpelCom" or the "Company")
(NYSE:VIP) between March 25, 2004 and December 7, 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 Southern District of New York against defendants VimpelCom,
Alexander V. Izosimov (CEO) and Elena A. Shmatova (CFO).
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.
VimpelCom is an Open Joint Stock Company organized under the
laws of the Russian Federation that maintains principal
executive offices in Moscow. The primary trading market for its
securities is the New York Stock Exchange where its shares trade
as American Depositary Receipts ("ADR"s), with each ADR
representing one quarter of a share of VimpelCom common stock.
The Company provides wireless telecommunications services under
the Bee Line and EXCESS brands. Most of the Company's operating
income is generated by its wholly-owned subsidiary, KBI Impulse
("KBI").
The complaint alleges that at all relevant times the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to report millions of dollars of
contingent tax liability arising from intra-company transfers
between VimpelCom and KBI, despite defendants' knowledge or
reckless disregard of the Company's tax exposure. The truth was
revealed on December 8, 2004, when defendants disclosed that the
Company had received "an act with preliminary conclusions"
stating that the Company owes approximately $90 million in
unpaid tax and $67 million in fines and penalties. On this
announcement, the Company's ADR price dropped 32%, from an
opening price of $40.30 on December 7, 2004 to a closing price
of $27.10 on December 8, 2004 on extremely 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 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *