/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/041222.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, December 22, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 252
Headlines
ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
ARCHWAY COOKIES: Recalls Cookies Due To Glass Fragments
AUDIBLE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Working on PA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
BUSPAR LITIGATION: Idaho Receives $179,000 Antitrust Settlement
CANADA: Toronto Lesbians, Police Settle Pussy Palace Raid Suit
CELEBREX: FDA Reveals Clinical Trial Results on Cox-2 Inhibitor
CORIO INC.: Submits Securities Fraud Suit Settlement To NY Court
COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
CUTTER & BUCK: SEC Launches Fraud Complaint V. Ex-Comptroller
DAY-LEE FOODS: Recalls 25,000 lbs Pork Gyozas For Mislabeling
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
ELI LILLY: New Warning Issued On Effects of ADHD Drug Strattera
FRIEDMAN'S INC.: TX A.G. Abbott Launches Consumer Fraud Suit
GLOBAL CROSSING: JPMDL Transfers Shareholder Suits To NY Court
GLOBAL CROSSING: Subsidiaries Face Right-of-Way Suit in IL Court
GREEK FOODS: Recalls Greek Cheese Due To Listeria Contamination
HAIR CUTTERY: Black Customers Files MD Race Discrimination Suit
INFORTE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
INSURANCE FIRMS: Homeowners Insurance Fees Suit Proceeds in AR
KADOURI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites
KANA SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Scott + Scott Files Suit Over Staff Retirement
MSG/NUCLEOTIDES: TCF To Distribute $77T To Local Food Charities
NANCY'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Appetizers For Undeclared Allergens
NBO SYSTEMS: IL Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Gift Cards
NET PERCEPTIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Settlement
NEW YORK: Students Launch Civil Rights Lawsuit V. School System
PENTON MEDIA: Customers Launch TCPA Violations Suit in GA Court
PUERTO RICO: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Plaintiff in Lawsuit
RADIATION THERAPY: Attorney Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles T. Price Rome Securities Fraud Suit
SKECHERS USA: Reaches Preliminary Agreement To Settle Wage Suits
TEXAS: SEC Files Fraud Suit V. Perpetrators of Real Estate Scam
TEXAS AMERICAN: DC Court Enters Final Judgment V. Defendants
UNITED STATES: Opts To Settle Lawsuit Over "Gold Train" Thefts
VIA NET.WORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
WEST POINTE: Litigation To Resume Over Bank Securities in WI
Z-TEL COMMUNICATIONS: Fraud Suit Remand To IL State Court Sought
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHARLOTTE RUSE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
GEOPHARMA, INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit in FL
*********
ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerated Networks, Inc. (now known as Occam Networks, Inc.)
submitted the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.
In June 2001, three putative stockholder class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company, certain of its then officers and
directors and several investment banks that were underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering. The cases, which have
now been consolidated, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court
appointed a lead plaintiff on April 16, 2002, and plaintiffs
filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on April 19,
2002.
The Complaint was filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Company stock between June 22, 2000 and December 6, 2000 and
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act against
one or both of Accelerated Networks and the individual
defendants. The claims are based on allegations that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering was false and
misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose these arrangements.
These lawsuits are part of the massive "IPO allocation"
litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating
shares of successful initial public offerings. Over three
hundred other companies have been named in more than one
thousand similar lawsuits that have been filed by some of the
same plaintiffs' law firms. In October 2002, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants without
prejudice. On February 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by
the issuer defendants was heard and the court dismissed the
10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company.
On July 31, 2003, the Company agreed, together with over three
hundred other companies similarly situated, to settle with the
Plaintiffs. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), along with a
separate agreement and a performance bond of $1 billion issued
by the insurers, for these companies' guarantees, allocated pro
rata amongst all issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part of
an overall recovery against all defendants including the
underwriter defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU. Any
recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter defendants
reduces the amount to be paid by the issuer companies. The
settlement documents are in process. The settlement must be
approved by the members of the class of plaintiffs and by the
Court.
The suit is styled "In Re Accelerated Networks, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. (Sas)(Hb),"
related to "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
ARCHWAY COOKIES: Recalls Cookies Due To Glass Fragments
-------------------------------------------------------
Archway Cookies is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of
10 oz. Archway Holiday Cashew Nougat Cookies after the company
learned that some of the cookies may contain glass fragments,
which may cause injury if ingested.
These products are sold to consumers throughout the United
States. No other Archway Cookies brand products have been
involved in this voluntary recall, which is being coordinated
with the assistance of the Food and Drug Administration. Only
Archway Holiday Cashew Nougat Cookies with the following date
codes have been recalled.
The product being recalled is the Archway Holiday Cashew Nougat
10 oz. Cookie Packages; Product Code = 2750002054; Date Codes
Affected = FEB2005, FEB2805, FEB2905, MAR0305, MAR0405, MAR0505,
MAR1005, MAR1105, MAR2405. Consumers can find the product code
on the right-hand side of the package. The date code can be
found on the bottom right side of the front panel of the cookie
package.
While no serious injuries or illnesses have been reported,
Archway is advising the public that cookies from the packages
indicated above should not be consumed.
Consumers who have purchased the above Archway Cookies should
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund, whether
the cookies have been partially-consumed or not. Consumers with
questions may contact the Archway Cookies toll-free hotline at
1-800-850-2307.
AUDIBLE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its officers, directors and former directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.
Several suits were filed in June 2001 against the Company,
related to its initial public offering ("IPO") in July 1999.
Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York (the "IPO Litigations").
The complaints allege that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allegedly solicited and received "excessive" commissions from
investors and that some investors in the IPO allegedly agreed
with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the Company's
stock. An amended complaint was filed April 19, 2002. The
Company and the officers, directors, and former directors were
named in the suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and other
related provisions. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation
costs.
On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the IPO Litigations, including
the action involving the Company. On July 15, the Company,
along with other non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated
cases, also moved to dismiss the IPO Litigations. On February
19, 2003, the Court ruled on the motions. The Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the claims against it under Rule
10b-5, due to the insufficiency of the allegations against the
Company. The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of
the Securities Act were denied as to virtually all of the
defendants in the consolidated cases, including the Company.
The individual officers, directors and former director
defendants in the IPO Litigation signed a tolling agreement and
were dismissed from the action without prejudice on October 9,
2002.
In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this litigation was
structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants in the
consolidated actions, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies. The
settlement would provide, among other things, a release of the
Company and of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged
to be wrongful in the amended complaint. The Company would
agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial
settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or
release certain potential claims the Company may have against
its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurance
carriers.
In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
Court for preliminary approval. The court requested that any
objections to preliminary approval of the settlement be
submitted by July 14, 2004, and the underwriter defendants
formally objected to the settlement. The plaintiffs and issuer
defendants separately filed replies to the underwriter
defendants' objections to the settlement on August 4, 2004. If
the Court grants the motion for preliminary approval, notice
will be given to all class members of the settlement, a
"fairness" hearing will be held and if the Court determines that
the settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will
be approved.
The suit is styled "In Re Audible, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 5258 (Sas)(Hb)," 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
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Working on PA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, Inc. is working to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled "In re RAVISENT
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation Civil Action No. 00-CV-
1014."
The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from July 15, 1999 through April 27, 2000. This
complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On July 3, 2000, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action
complaint. On July 13, 2004, the Court denied the motion, and
the discovery stay was lifted. On September 24, 2004 the
defendants filed a stipulation with the court, suspending motion
and discovery deadlines pending negotiation of the settlement
documents. On October 23, 2004, the parties through their
respective counsel executed a memorandum of understanding to
settle the class action for $7,000. Although the Company
believes that such lawsuits or claims are without merit and that
it has meritorious defenses to the actions, it plans to settle
the litigation pursuant to the October 23, 2004 memorandum of
understanding.
The suit is styled "FINK v. WILDE, et al, 2:00-cv-01014-RBS,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.
Lawyers for the defendants are:
(1) Alexander D. Bono, James Reynolds, BLANK ROME COMISKY &
McCAULEY, LLP, One Logan Square, Philadelphia, PA
19103-6998, Phone: 215-569-5617, Fax: 215-832-5617, E-
mail: bono@blankrome.com or reynolds@blankrome.com,
(2) Edward Han, Elizabeth E. Karnes, Holly H. Tambling,
BROBECK, PHLEGER & HARRISON LLP, 2000 University
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-331-8000
(3) Meredith N. Landy, O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP, 2765 Sand
Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, Phone: 650-473-2600
Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:
(i) Marc Topaz, SCHIFFRIN AND CRAIG, Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706,
Fax: 610-667-7056
(ii) Eric J. Belfi, MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, 275 Madison
Avenue, Suite 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-
1818
(iii) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyd's Lane, Vero Beach, FL
32963, Phone: 561-231-4202
(iv) Michael T. Fantini, BERGER AND MONTAGUE, P.C., 1622
Locust St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Phone: 215-875-
0710, Fax: 215-875-5804
(v) Robert P. Frutkin, Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross,
LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS PC, 1515 Locust St., 2nd
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: 215-561-3600,
Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail: rpf@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com
(vi) Robert M. Roseman, SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, 1818
Market St., Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-496-0300, Fax: 215-496-6611, E-mail:
rroseman@srk-law.com
(vii) Stuart H. Savett, 1735 Market St., 3200 Mellon Bk Ctr.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7503, Phone: 215-575-7279, Fax:
215-575-7200
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, 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 officers and directors, or the
Individual Defendants, and several investment banks, or the
Underwriter Defendants, that were underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.
The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of investors who
purchased Company stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6,
2000. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against one or both the Company and the Individual
Defendants. The claims are based on allegations that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in our July 15,
1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices. The Plaintiffs allege that the
prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false
and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it
did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks damages
in an unspecified amount.
Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York. On July 15, 2003, the
Company's board of directors approved the terms of a settlement
proposal as set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU"), which has now been memorialized in a settlement
agreement, an Insurer-Insured Agreement, an Agreement Among
Insurers, and a Special Counsel Agreement.
The settlement agreement and related agreements set forth the
terms of a settlement between the Company, the Individual
Defendants, the Plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300 Issuer Defendants and the Individual
Defendants currently or formerly associated with those
companies. Among other provisions, the settlement provides for
our release and the release of the Individual Defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company
agreed to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing
to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims
that it may have against its underwriters. It is anticipated
that any potential financial obligation of the Company to the
Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance. The
agreement is subject to approval by the court, which cannot be
assured.
A motion for preliminary approval by the court of the proposed
settlement was filed on June 25, 2004. On July 14, 2004, the
underwriter defendants filed a memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement with
Defendant Issuers' and Individuals. On August 4, 2004 the
Plaintiffs and Issuer Defendants filed replies to the
Underwriter Defendants. On October 13, 2004 the Court
determined the criteria for Section 11 class certifications, and
certified the Section 11 class in four of the six cases that
were the subject of class certification motions, noting that the
Court's intention was to provide strong guidance to all parties
regarding class certification in the remaining two cases. The
Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
company's case.
The suit is styled "In re Ravisent Tech. IPO Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-10683-SAS," 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
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
BackWeb Technologies, 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, six of its officers and directors, and
various underwriters for BackWeb's initial public offering,
styled "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No.01-CV-10000."
Similar cases have been filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the initial public offerings of more than 300
other companies, and these cases have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."
The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the prospectus
from the Company's September 8, 1999 initial public offering
failed to disclose certain alleged improper actions by the
underwriters for the offering, including the receipt of
excessive brokerage commissions and agreements with customers
regarding aftermarket purchases of shares of Company stock. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of defendants, including the
Company, on common pleadings issues. In October 2002, the Court
dismissed all six individual defendants from the litigation
without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation. On February 19,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the
claims against the Company. No trial date has yet been set.
A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including BackWeb. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court. In
September 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.
The suit is styled "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No.01-CV-10000
(Sas)," 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
BUSPAR LITIGATION: Idaho Receives $179,000 Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Idaho has received $179,267.37 from an antitrust
settlement involving the prescription drug BuSpar, Attorney
General Lawrence Wasden announced in a statement. AG Wasden
advised the Idaho Legislature and Governor Kempthorne that the
money has been deposited into the state's general fund.
The payment comes from the 2003 settlement of an antitrust suit
against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Watson Pharma, Inc. and
Danbury Pharmacal, Inc. The money compensates the State of
Idaho for Medicaid and state agency purchases of BuSpar. Idaho
and 34 other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
had alleged that Bristol and the other defendants acted in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws to prevent generic
BuSpar from coming to the marketplace.
"The consequence of the illegal conduct was that lower cost
generic substitutes were delayed in arriving on the market,
resulting in higher prices for the drug," Attorney General
Lawrence Wasden said. "Idaho taxpayers paid more for this drug
in the form of Medicaid reimbursements and other state purchases
than they would have paid in a free and competitive marketplace.
The resulting higher state costs meant less money was available
to the legislature to fund other essential state programs.
Individual Idaho consumers, who were affected in the same way,
have also received restitution payments."
In July, 276 Idahoans who submitted claims received restitution
checks totaling more than $162,000. The amount of the refund
was determined by the amount of BuSpar purchased. The average
refund was $588.
BuSpar is a treatment for generalized anxiety disorder. For
more information, contact Bob Cooper by Phone: (208) 334-4112
CANADA: Toronto Lesbians, Police Settle Pussy Palace Raid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto lesbians and the city's police service recently reached
a settlement that stems from an incident that took place on
September 14, 2000, when police raided a special lesbian
bathhouse party called the Pussy Palace, which attracted 355
nearly naked women, the Gay.com UK reports.
The Toronto Women's Bathhouse Committee had filed a human rights
complaint, claiming in part that two female police officers
checked inside the bathhouse for alcohol violations, and then
five male officers entered and lingered in private areas.
Several of the committee's members filed a $1.5 million class-
action lawsuit.
The police charged two organizers with three counts of
permitting disorderly conduct and six licensing violations, even
though the Pussy Palace had been granted a special alcohol
license. According to several officers named in the complaint,
they had launched the raid after anonymous complaints surfaced
alleging drug use, physical violence and sexual activity.
In 2002, as the case when through the system, Judge Peter Hryn
of the Ontario Court ruled the defendants' privacy rights had
been breached in a situation that did not require urgent police
action. During the defamation trial that followed, Judge Janet
McFarland of the Ontario Superior Court declared, "It is no part
of a police officer's job to breach the Charter of Rights of any
citizen. To do so is misconduct of the most serious kind."
Under the terms of the settlement, which is expected to be
finalized very soon, the Toronto Police Service will pay
$350,000 to a group of lesbian complainants, and all current and
future Toronto police officers, including police chiefs, will
have to undergo gay and lesbian sensitivity training.
When the settlement was reached, both the human rights complaint
and the lawsuit were dropped. "It feels like the end of a very
long journey," J.P. Hornick, one of the complainants told
Canada's Globe and Mail. "It has been a grueling process. On a
personal level, I would have to use the word 'vindication."
"The larger battle here is for the police to understand the
community they serve," Ms. Hornick continued. "That is the most
important and exciting part for me."
CELEBREX: FDA Reveals Clinical Trial Results on Cox-2 Inhibitor
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration revealed the results of a
clinical trial of the Cox-2 inhibitor Celebrex or celecoxib,
saying that the data was all preliminary and that it would
continue to study the effects of the drug on people's health.
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has stopped drug
administration in an ongoing clinical trial investigating a new
use of Celebrex (celecoxib) to prevent colon polyps because of
an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in patients
taking Celebrex versus those taking a placebo, the FDA
announced. Patients in the clinical trial taking 400 mg. of
Celebrex twice daily had a 3.4 times greater risk of CV events
compared to placebo. For patients in the trial taking 200 mg.
of Celebrex twice daily, the risk was 2.5 times greater. The
average duration of treatment in the trial was 33 months. A
similar ongoing study comparing Celebrex 400 mg. once a day
versus placebo in patients, followed for a similar period of
time, has not shown increased risk.
However, the FDA stated ". although these are important
findings, at this point FDA has seen only the preliminary
results of the studies. FDA will obtain all available data on
these and other ongoing Celebrex trials as soon as possible and
will determine the appropriate regulatory action."
"While we have not seen all available data on Celebrex, these
findings are similar to recent results from a study of Vioxx
(rofecoxib), another drug in the same class as Celebrex. Vioxx
was recently voluntarily withdrawn by Merck. Another drug in
this class, Bextra (valdecoxib) has shown an increased risk for
CV events in patients after heart surgery. Bextra and Celebrex
are the only two selective COX-2 agents currently on the U.S.
market," the agency continued.
"Physicians should consider this evolving information in
evaluating the risks and benefits of Celebrex in individual
patients. FDA advises evaluating alternative therapy. At this
time, if physicians determine that continued use is appropriate
for individual patients, FDA advises the use of the lowest
effective dose of Celebrex . Patients who are currently taking
Celebrex and have questions or concerns about the drug should
discuss them with their physicians," the FDA announced.
Celebrex was approved in 1998 for the treatment of
osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Previous large studies
of Celebrex, including clinical trials and epidemiology studies,
have not suggested the sort of CV risk found in the NCI polyp
study. Because similar long-term studies of other products in
the class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS),
other than Cox-2 inhibitors have not been done, it is not known
whether other NSAIDS pose a similar risk. The FDA will provide
updates on Celebrex in particular and this class of drugs in
general as more information becomes available.
CORIO INC.: Submits Securities Fraud Suit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corio, Inc. submitted the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against it to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York for
preliminary approval.
In November 2001, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, certain of its officers and certain of the
underwriters involved in its initial public offering. This is
one of approximately 300 similar lawsuits in a coordinated
proceeding sometimes referred to as "IPO allocation lawsuits" or
"laddering lawsuits."
The plaintiffs generally allege that the underwriters engaged in
undisclosed improper practices by giving favorable allocations
of IPO shares to certain investors in exchange for excessive
brokerage commissions and/or agreements for those investors to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined
higher prices. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages.
In June 2003, the plaintiffs in these cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants. Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs proposed to dismiss and
release all claims against participating defendants in exchange
for a contingent 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. Under the guaranty, the insurers or companies
will be required to pay the amount, if any, by which $1 billion
exceeds the aggregate amount ultimately collected by the
plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all the cases. If
the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is
required under the guaranty, Corio would be responsible to pay
its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of the
self-insured retention under its insurance policy, which is $1
million.
In July 2003, Corio tentatively agreed to accept this settlement
proposal. The settlement is subject to acceptance by a
substantial majority of the issuer defendants and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement. The settlement is also subject
to approval by the Court, which cannot be assured, and the
underwriters recently objected to the settlement.
COSINE COMMUNICATIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoSine Communications, 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 officers and directors
and the investment bank underwriters involved in its initial
public offering (IPO).
The complaint generally alleges that various investment bank
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
related to the allocation of shares in CoSine's IPO. The
complaint brings claims for the violation of several provisions
of the federal securities laws against those underwriters, and
also against the Company and each of the directors and officers
who signed the registration statement relating to the initial
public offering.
Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 250 other
companies. The lawsuit and all other "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.
In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation. The issuer
defendants filed a coordinated motion to dismiss on common
pleading issues, which the Court granted in part and denied in
part in an order dated February 19, 2003. The Court's order
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against the
Company but did not dismiss the Section11 claims against the
Company.
In June 2004, a stipulation for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, was
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval. Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against participating issuer defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuer defendants in
all of the related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the
plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have
against the underwriters.
Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all the cases, up to the limits of the applicable
insurance policies. The Company will not be required to make
any cash payments under the settlement, unless the Company's
insurer is required to pay on the Company's behalf an amount
that exceeds the Company's insurance coverage. The settlement
is still subject to a number of conditions, including
certification of a class for settlement purposes and formal
Court approval.
The suit is styled "In re CoSine Communications, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10105 (Sas),"
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
CUTTER & BUCK: SEC Launches Fraud Complaint V. Ex-Comptroller
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges
against Martin Julien Marks, the former President and Chief
Operating Officer of Cutter & Buck Inc., a sportswear company
based in Seattle, Washington. The charges stem from Marks's
role in a scheme to improperly boost the company's revenue by
shipping products to warehouses, and his subsequent efforts to
conceal the wrongdoing from the company's auditors and
shareholders. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint,
Marks agreed to settle the charges without admitting or denying
the Commission's allegations, consenting to orders permanently
enjoining him from violations of the antifraud and other
provisions of the federal securities laws and requiring him to
pay $45,777 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest.
Marks also consented to the entry of an order barring him from
serving as an officer or director of a public company, and an
order prohibiting him from practicing before the Commission as
an accountant.
According to the Commission's complaint, filed in the Western
District of Washington, Marks pushed Cutter's sales department
to avert a revenue shortfall confronting the company in the
closing days of the fiscal year ended April 30, 2000. Cutter
negotiated deals with three purported distributors under which
Cutter would ship them a total of $5.7 million in products.
Cutter recognized revenue for the supposed sales, which
constituted over 10% of the quarter's revenue. In reality, the
distributors had no obligation or ability to pay for any of the
goods unless and until Cutter's sales force found actual
customers to purchase the products. The distributors essentially
acted as warehouses, rendering revenue recognition for the
shipments improper under generally accepted accounting
principles (known as "GAAP"). Marks signed Cutter's annual
Commission filings falsely announcing revenue of $54.6 million
for the fourth quarter and $152.5 million for the fiscal year;
because these amounts included $5.7 million in bogus revenue on
the distributor sales, they overstated Cutter's true quarterly
and annual revenue by 12% and 4%, respectively.
By early 2001, when Cutter sales personnel failed to deliver
customers for the products, the distributors returned the
products to the company. The Commission's complaint allege that
Marks asked Cutter's then-CFO to divide the product returns
among multiple sales divisions on the company's financial
records in order to conceal the magnitude of the returns from
the Company's board of directors and independent auditors.
The Commission's complaint charges Marks with securities fraud
(Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder) and causing Cutter to report false financial
information to the Commission (Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1). The complaint also charges Marks
with lying to accountants (Rule 13b2-2 under the Exchange Act),
falsifying the company's books and records (Section 13(b)(5) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder), and causing
Cutter's failure to maintain accurate books and records and
internal controls (Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of
the Exchange Act). The action is titled, SEC v. Martin Julien
Marks, United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle Division, Civil Action No. 04-CV-2481 Z]
(LR-19004; AAER-2154).
DAY-LEE FOODS: Recalls 25,000 lbs Pork Gyozas For Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Day-Lee Foods, a Santa Fe Springs, California, establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 25,000 pounds of pork filled
gyozas because of mislabeling, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced.
The packages state that the gyozas are filled with pork, but
they may instead contain shrimp, a known allergen. The products
subject to recall are one pound bags of "TRADER JOE'S PORK GYOZA
POTSTICKERS, PORK AND VEGETABLE DUMPLINGS." Each bag bears the
code "2594DL1," on the bottom left corner, as well as "Est.
17309" inside the USDA mark of inspection, which is located on
the nutrition facts panel.
The gyozas were produced on September 15 and 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 and
Washington.
The problem was discovered by a consumer. FSIS has received no
reports of allergic reactions associated with consumption of
this product. Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should
contact a physician.
Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact
Day-Lee General Manager Mark Miller at (562) 802-6801.
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.
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
eGain Communications Corporation 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 then
officers and directors and the underwriters connected with the
Company's initial public offering of common stock.
The suit alleged generally that the prospectus under which such
securities were sold contained false and misleading statements
with respect to discounts and excess commissions received by the
underwriters as well as allegations of "laddering" whereby
underwriters required their customers to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation of IPO
shares. The suit sought an unspecified amount in damages on
behalf of persons who purchased the common stock between
September 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000.
Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more
than 300 other companies and other individuals. The over 1,000
complaints were consolidated into a single action. The Company
reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as
to our liability and that of its officers and directors. The
settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration
by the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of
liability.
The suit is styled "In Re Egain Communications Corp. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case no. 01 Civ. 9414
(Sas)," 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
ELI LILLY: New Warning Issued On Effects of ADHD Drug Strattera
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised health care
professionals about a new warning for Strattera, a drug approved
for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults
and children. The labeling is being updated with a bolded
warning about the potential for severe liver injury following
two reports (a teenager and an adult) in patients who had been
treated with Strattera for several months, both of whom
recovered.
The labeling warns that severe liver injury may progress to
liver failure resulting in death or the need for a liver
transplant in a small percentage of patients. The labeling also
notes that the number of actual cases of severe liver injury is
unknown because of under-reporting of post-marketing adverse
events. The bolded warning indicates that the medication should
be discontinued in patients who developed jaundice (yellowing of
the skin or whites of the eyes) or laboratory evidence of liver
injury.
Strattera has been on the market since 2002 and has been used in
more than 2 million patients. In clinical trials of 6000
patients, no signal for liver problems (hepatotoxicity) had
emerged.
FDA has asked the manufacturer to add a bolded warning about
severe liver injury to the labeling. Eli Lilly has agreed to
alert health care professionals about the new information in a
Dear Health Professional letter. The company will also update
the patient package insert with information about the signs and
symptoms of liver problems, which include:
(1) Pruritus (Itchy skin)
(2) Jaundice
(3) Dark urine
(4) Upper right-sided abdominal tenderness
(5) unexplained "flu-like" symptoms
Health care professionals are encouraged to report any
unexpected adverse events associated with Strattera directly to
Eli Lilly, Indianapolis, Ind., at 1800-LillyRx or to the FDA
MedWatch program at 1800-FDA-1088. The MedWatch form is
available online at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety/3500.pdf
for download by mail (or fax, 1800-FDA-0178) to MedWatch, HFD-
410, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20857.
FRIEDMAN'S INC.: TX A.G. Abbott Launches Consumer Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sued Friedman's Inc. of
Savannah, Georgia, the nation's third-largest jewelry chain,
alleging the Company misled its customers about the level of
"required" insurance coverage when applying for installment
credit on purchases.
"The Company represents itself as a long-term, reliable friend
of the customer, yet it went to great lengths to lure unwitting
customers into misleading insurance contracts as part of jewelry
purchases on credit," said Attorney General Abbott. "The
company should have been clear that these `side' agreements are
completely optional with such purchases."
The Attorney General's investigation alleges the Company ran
afoul of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by pressuring
lower-income customers into signing a "statement of insurance"
while getting approved for purchases on credit. Such optional
"credit" insurance protects the loan if the consumer misses
payments or defaults. Company employees neglected to disclose
the full nature, extent and expense of the coverage, and some
customers were billed for the full credit insurance.
Friedman's, which is incorporated in Delaware, touts itself as a
"trusted neighborhood jeweler" since 1920, has operated 650
retail jewelry outlets in 22 southeastern and midwestern states,
including 65 stores in Texas. The Company offers multiple forms
of credit on jewelry purchases, including the store's own
"Advantage Credit" program - a card that triggers the Company's
retail installment credit contract with the customer.
It is within this line of credit that the Company engaged
consumers in the scheme to buy credit insurance, which, often
unbeknownst to buyers, can include property, life and disability
insurance. This coverage should have been represented as
optional to the customer, not mandatory, according to the
lawsuit. Consumers who believe they signed a contract for
credit insurance with Friedman's without the company giving the
proper disclosures may file a complaint with the Attorney
General by calling toll-free 800/252-8011, or by going online to
the agency's Consumer Protection Web site:
http://www.oag.state.tx.us. The Attorney General requests the
court to order civil penalties of up to $20,000 per violation of
the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, restitution to harmed
consumers and attorneys' fees.
For more information, contact Angela Hale, Paco Felici,
Jerry Strickland, or Tom Kelley, by Phone: (512) 463-2050 or
visit the Website: http://www.oag.state.tx.us.
GLOBAL CROSSING: JPMDL Transfers Shareholder Suits To NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation transferred the
shareholder class actions filed against Global Crossing Ltd, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Gerard Lynch.
Following the Company's April 27, 2004 announcement that the
Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
2003, eight separate class action lawsuits all purporting to be
brought on behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Courts in New Jersey, New York and
California.
The complaints in the lawsuits allege that the Company defrauded
the public securities markets by:
(1) understating its access costs and accrued access
liabilities,
(2) misrepresenting that the Company monitored the accuracy
of systems that measured access costs and that the
Company adjusted its "best estimates" of access costs
according to data generated from those monitoring
systems,
(3) failing to disclose that the Company lacked sufficient
internal controls over accounting matters, and
(4) publishing overstated financial results in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.
The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and allege that, during the applicable class period,
the Company failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company had materially understated its accrued cost of access
liability by $50to $80 and that the Company had insufficient
internal controls to detect the understatement of costs.
Plaintiffs contend that such misstatement or omissions
artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock, which
declined when the "true" costs were disclosed. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages as well as other relief.
On June 4, 2004, the Company asked the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") to centralize all of the
related cases (and any others that might be filed) before a
single court. Originally, the Company requested that the cases
be consolidated in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. After discussions with two plaintiff
groups, however, a joint request was made to transfer the cases
to Judge Gerard Lynch of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York based on his past involvement
in prior cases involving the Company. In an order dated October
22, 2004, the JPMDL Panel granted the joint request and
reassigned the cases to Judge Lynch. There are also
applications by two of the plaintiffs to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the class actions. The Company anticipates that
once lead plaintiff and lead counsel are appointed, they will
file a consolidated amended complaint. Defendants then will
have a chance to move to dismiss the amended complaint.
GLOBAL CROSSING: Subsidiaries Face Right-of-Way Suit in IL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three of Global Crossing, Ltd.'s subsidiaries face a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, alleging they had no right to
install a fiber optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the
plaintiffs to certain railroads.
Pursuant to an agreement with Qwest Communications Corporation,
the Company has an indefeasible right to use certain fiber
optical cables in a fiber optic communications system
constructed by Qwest within the rights-of-way. The complaint
alleges that the railroads had only limited rights-of-way
granted to them that did not include permission to install fiber
optic cable for use by Qwest or any other entities. The action
has been brought on behalf of a national class of landowners
whose property underlies or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-
way within which the fiber optic cables have been installed.
The action seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and
alleges that the wrongs done by the Company involve fraud,
malice, intentional wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and/or
reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff landowners.
As a result, plaintiffs also request an award of punitive
damages.
The Company made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify the
Company in the lawsuit. In response, Qwest has appointed
defense counsel to protect the Company's interests.
GREEK FOODS: Recalls Greek Cheese Due To Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greek Foods & Gifts Direct, Inc. of New Jersey is recalling 387
cases (36-400 gram packages per case) of Provato brand Manouri
Traditional Greek Cheese because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.
The Manouri cheese is white and vacuum-packed in plastic bags,
square cut, bearing a red & blue label with the brand name of
Provato, and having an expiration date of 21-06-2005. The
imported cheese was partly sold in New Jersey, New York,
Virginia, California and Illinois through retail stores.
The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
FDA which revealed that the cheese contained the bacteria, after
the product had been released by the FDA in error.
Consumers who have purchased the affected 400 gram packages of
Provato brand Manouri Cheese are urged to return it to the place
of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-800-665-1488.
HAIR CUTTERY: Black Customers Files MD Race Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eight women have filed a federal class action against Hair
Cuttery's parent company, claiming that the Virginia-based salon
chain discriminates against black customers, the Associated
Press reports.
The action grows out of a lawsuit filed this year by Paulette
Harris, an Anne Arundel County woman who said the salon tried to
charge her more because she is black. In that suit, Ms. Harris
said that a Hair Cuttery employee tried to charge her $8 extra
for her shampoo because of her "ethnic" hair and that she was
asked to pay in advance because, she said the staff told her,
"ethnic" people tend to leave without paying.
In the class action request filed in U.S. District Court, other
Baltimore-area women recounted similar experiences at local Hair
Cuttery stores. All of them say that they were overcharged for
haircuts, paying as much as almost four times the listed price
some have even reported that racially insensitive comments were
made by staff members at the salons.
Hair Cuttery is a walk-in unisex chain with 800 stores and is
owned by Creative Hairdressers Inc. of Falls Church, Virginia,
who has denied any discrimination, according to court papers.
Hair Cuttery lawyer Steven R. Semler noted in court papers that
once Ms. Harris was told the cost for her haircut would be $21
rather than $13, she called the company headquarters' customer
service department, which instructed the salon to charge the
lower price. He wrote that the company "emphatically denies" the
comment about paying ahead of time.
However, Ms. Harris' lawyer, Barry R. Glazer, told The
(Baltimore) Sun he was not surprised that more women came
forward after publicity emerged about Harris' case. "The
incident was so outrageous," he said. "After speaking and
dealing with Paulette, it occurred to me that this was probably
extensive."
Another of the plaintiffs who came forward were Danielle
Peterson of Columbia, who claims she was regularly charged more
for haircuts than the $13 price listed for all customers;
Lillian Blackman of Baltimore, who claims she was charged $48
for the $13 service and was told by the manager that the price
was higher because "products are more expensive" for African-
Americans' hair and Johnette Smith, who claims that she had paid
$20 for a service that costs white customers $10. Ms. Smith also
adds that the employee who shampooed her hair put on "heavy
Playtex gloves," saying that she was allergic to the shampoo.
She however claims in the lawsuit that she watched as the
hairdresser shampooed white customers without the gloves.
The class action suit also names as plaintiffs "other African-
American women similarly charged fees in excess of the list
price based upon their race." Ms. Harris' case, which was
originally filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court, but was moved
to federal court after the company requested for its transfer.
The company had cited that it should be moved to an area were
juries are thought to be less sympathetic to plaintiffs.
If a federal judge approves the class action, other women who
say they have had similar experiences might be able to share in
any damage awards, which is asking for $100,000 in compensatory
damages and $450,000 in punitive damages for each plaintiff.
INFORTE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inforte Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
Philip S. Bligh, an officer of Inforte, and Stephen C.P. Mack
and Nick Padgett, both former officers of Inforte. The suit
also names as defendants the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering - Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Salomon
Smith Barney Inc.
The Case is among more than 300 putative class actions against
certain issuers, their officers and directors, and underwriters
with respect to such issuers' initial public offerings,
coordinated as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)" (collectively, the "Multiple IPO
Litigation").
An amended class action complaint was filed in the Case on April
19, 2002. The amended complaint in the Case alleges violations
of federal securities laws in connection with Inforte's initial
public offering occurring in February 2000 and seeks
certification of a class of purchasers of Company stock,
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' and expert witness
fees and other costs. The amended complaint does not allege any
claims relating to any alleged misrepresentations or omissions
with respect to our business. The individual defendants (Mr.
Bligh, Mr. Mack and Mr. Padgett) have been dismissed from the
case without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and a
tolling agreement.
The Company has moved to dismiss the plaintiff's case. On
February 19, 2002, the Court granted this motion in part, denied
it in part and ordered that discovery in the case may commence.
The Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's purported
claim against Inforte under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, but left in place the plaintiff's claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Company has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU"), along with most of the other defendant issuers in the
Multiple IPO Litigation, whereby such issuers and their officers
and directors (including Inforte and Mr. Bligh, Mr. Mack and Mr.
Padgett) will be dismissed with prejudice from the Multiple IPO
Litigation, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.
Under the terms of the MOU, neither Inforte nor any of its
formerly named individual defendants admit any basis for
liability with respect to the claims in the Case. The MOU
provides that insurers for Inforte and the other defendant
issuers participating in the settlement will pay approximately
$1 billion to settle the Multiple IPO Litigation, except that no
such payment will occur until claims against the underwriters
are resolved and such payment will be paid only if the recovery
against the underwriters for such claims is less than $1 billion
and then only to the extent of any shortfall.
Under the terms of the MOU, neither Inforte nor any of its named
directors will pay any amount of the settlement. The MOU
further provided that participating defendant issuers will
assign certain claims they may have against the defendant
underwriters in connection with the Multiple IPO Litigation.
The MOU is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including, among others, approval of the Court. Pursuant to the
MOU, the parties have filed motions with the Court seeking
certification of the class and approval of the settlement
contemplated by the MOU. The Court has not yet ruled on the
motions.
The suit is styled "In re Inforte Corp. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, case no. 01 Civ. 10836 (Sas)," related to
"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
INSURANCE FIRMS: Homeowners Insurance Fees Suit Proceeds in AR
--------------------------------------------------------------
The suit filed against most of the nation's top homeowners
insurance companies over fees customers say the firms should pay
is set to proceed in Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas,
the Texarkana Gazette reports.
The suit relates to the fees customers say the insurance
companies should pay, like having a general contractor to
oversee reconstruction when there is a loss. In general,
homeowners have had to foot the bill for the general
contractor's profit and overhead, however they believe insurance
companies were liable for these costs, which could range from
$100 to $5,000. The insurance companies argue that the general
contractor supervises subcontractors and does not actually
perform any work. The suit is filed against:
(1) State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,
(2) Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.,
(3) Foremost Insurance Co.,
(4) Allstate County Mutual Insurance Co.,
(5) Farmers Insurance Co. Inc.,
(6) Nationwide General Insurance Co. and
(7) Chubb Lloyd's Insurance Co. of Texas
The suit also names the major companies' subsidiary or sister
companies as defendants.
Presiding Judge Kirk Johnson told lawyers he expects little
nonsense or petty arguments as the lawsuit gets under way. Just
before the scheduled hearing starts, Judge Johnson convened the
lawyers of both parties and told them that they will have to
exchange evidence between themselves. The Judge also told them
that he does not want general objections on issues, "especially
those that would drag out the proceedings and drive up the cost
of litigation. I don't want the litigation to be sidetracked
with a lot of motions for sanctions," according to the Gazette
It is expected to take at much of the first part of the year to
wrestle through the exchange of evidence as both sides gear up
for the class certification hearing. In the upcoming hearing
Judge Johnson must decide if the customers have a common
complaint that necessitates having one lawsuit instead of
individual lawsuits, the Gazette states.
Mike Angelovich, a lawyer with Nix, Patterson & Roach, who
represents the customers with another Texarkana firm, Keil &
Goodson, however, told the Gazette that if the lawsuit is not
certified as a class action, they would still have individual
plaintiffs or customers, who could have cases of their own.
Meanwhile, the insurance companies have down played the
seriousness of the suit saying that the class-action suit is not
new or novel and there have been nine similar suits where class
certification had not been granted in the United States.
KADOURI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kadouri International Foods, Inc., 234 Starr Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11237 is recalling SNACKSOFT WHOLE PITTED DRIED APRICOTS
because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have a
severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.
The recalled product, SNACKSOFT WHOLE PITTED DRIED APRICOTS, is
packaged in a 12 oz. styrofoam tray with a code of Best Before
31.12.2005. The product was sold to stores in New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut.
The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Dept. of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory Personnel
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in SNACKSOFT WHOLE
PITTED DRIED APRICOTS in packages which did not declare sulfites
on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some
asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite
sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of
sulfites.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
Consumers who have purchased SNACKSOFT WHOLE PITTED DRIED
APRICOTS should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at (716) 381-6100.
KANA SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
KANA Software, 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 current and former officers and
the underwriters for its initial public offering:
(1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,
(2) Lehman Bros,
(3) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,
(4) Wit Soundview Capital Corporation.
The suit is similar to hundreds of other cases, filed in the
same court, alleging violations of various securities laws by
more than 300 issuers of stock and the underwriters for such
issuers.
The suit against the Company was filed on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs who purchased the Company's stock between September
21, 1999 and December 6, 2000 in connection with its initial
public offering. Specifically, the complaints allege that the
underwriter defendants engaged in a scheme concerning sales of
the Company's and other issuers' securities in the initial
public offering and in the aftermarket.
In July 2003, the Company decided to join in a settlement
negotiated by representatives of a coalition of issuers named as
defendants in this action and their insurers. Although the
Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit, it
has decided to accept the settlement proposal to avoid the cost
and distraction of continued litigation. Because the settlement
will be funded entirely by KANA's insurers, the Company does not
believe that the settlement will have any effect on its
financial condition, results of operation or cash flows. The
proposed settlement agreement is subject to final approval by
the court.
The suit is styled "In Re Kana Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 6822 (Sas),"
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:
(i) 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
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) 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
(v) 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
(vi) 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
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corporation 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, certain of its former officers and directors
and the underwriters of its initial public offering.
Between January 11 and December 6, 2001, hundreds of class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against 310 issuers
(including the Company), 55 underwriters and numerous
individuals including certain of the Company's former officers
and directors.
The complaints against the Company were filed purportedly on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during the time period between March 15 and December 6,
2000. The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on
allegations that the Company's underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with its initial public offering and
that the underwriters entered into undisclosed arrangements with
some investors that were designed to distort and/or inflate the
market price for its common stock in the aftermarket. These
actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes. No specific
amount of damages has been claimed.
The Company and the individual defendants have demanded to be
indemnified by underwriter defendants pursuant to the
underwriting agreement entered into at the time of the initial
public offering. Presently all claims against the former
officers have been withdrawn without prejudice.
The Court suggested that the parties select six test cases to
determine class-action eligibility. The Company is not a party
to any of the test cases. In June 2003, a proposed settlement
was structured between plaintiffs, issuer defendants, issuer
officers and directors named as defendants, and issuers'
insurance companies. This proposed settlement provides, among
other matters, that:
(1) issuer defendants and related individual defendants
will be released from the litigation without any
liability other than certain expenses incurred to date
in connection with the litigation;
(2) issuer defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0 billion
in recoveries by plaintiff class members;
(3) issuer defendants will assign certain claims against
underwriter defendants to the plaintiff class members;
and
(4) issuer defendants will have the opportunity to recover
certain litigation-related expenses if plaintiffs
recover more than $5.0 billion from underwriter
defendants.
Loudeye's board of directors approved the proposed settlement in
August 2003. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the Court, which was accompanied
by a brief filed by the issuer defendants in support of the
plaintiffs' motion. The Court requested that any objections to
preliminary approval of the settlement be submitted by July 14,
2004, and the underwriter defendants formally objected to the
settlement. The plaintiffs and issuer defendants separately
filed replies to underwriter defendants' objections to the
settlement on August 4, 2004. On October 13, 2004 the Court
issued an order granting plaintiffs' September 2, 2003 motion
for class certification in each of the six test cases.
The suit is styled "In Re Loudeye Technologies, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigations, Case no. 01 Civ. 6872
(Sas)," 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:
(i) 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
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) 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
(v) 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
(vi) 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
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Scott + Scott Files Suit Over Staff Retirement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consulting firm Mercer's troubled parent company Marsh &
McLennan Companies is facing a class action suit alleging staff
have suffered in their retirement accounts, the IPE
International Publishers Limited reports.
According to the Connecticut-based law firm Scott & Scott, it
has filed the suit in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York "on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Marsh & McLennan Companies Stock Investment
Plan".
The law firm further stated that the lawsuit has been filed to
recover losses that current and former Marsh employees have
suffered in their retirement accounts and alleges that MMC
"breached fiduciary duties owed to current and former
employees".
Scott & Scott's action follows plans to cut 3,000 jobs in the
wake of New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's investigation
into Marsh's insurance market practices - which cost the job of
chief executive Jeffrey Greenberg.
"Five senior executives have also left the company and its board
of directors, Scott & Scott added. "Thus far, Marsh has set
aside $232m for legal costs associated with the bid-rigging
scandal.
Last week MMC said it had completed medium-term bank financings
totaling $3bn, with Citibank as global coordinator and Bank of
America and Deutsche as joint lead arrangers.
MSG/NUCLEOTIDES: TCF To Distribute $77T To Local Food Charities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Toronto Community Foundation (TCF) will distribute $77,000
to local food charities as part of the settlement of a class
action lawsuit against manufacturers of flavour enhancers in
common foods such as peanut butter, it was also known as
MSG/Nucleotides Class Action Litigation.
"This funding will help improve access to affordable, nutritious
foods in underserved parts of Toronto," said TCF President and
CEO Anne Swarbrick. "We're pleased to be working with exemplary
local food organizations to ensure that the benefits of this
settlement address real needs in our community and enable
neighbourhoods to develop greater self-sufficiency."
TCF is distributing the funds to the City-sponsored Community
Food Animators Project, a partnership between FoodShare Toronto,
The Stop Community Food Centre, Second Harvest, Afri-Can
FoodBasket and Public Interest Strategy and Communications.
Under this initiative, food animators will work with community
organizations to develop food projects such as community gardens
and kitchens, fresh food markets and emergency food programs in
Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. The animators will engage
communities, in particular youth and seniors, in the effort to
build community food security, reduce isolation and create
public space.
"Food security programs are a vital intervention to improve
household food access and build neighbourhood capacity," said
Debbie Field, Executive Director of FoodShare Toronto. "Support
through the Toronto Community Foundation for the Community Food
Animators Project will improve the quality of life for Toronto
residents. It will also build effective networks among community
organizations and public and private sector partners at the
municipal and provincial level."
The settlement stems from price fixing by multinational chemical
producers that forced Canadian food manufacturers to pay more
for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides. The inflated price was
passed on to consumers, who ended up paying more for popular
foods such as peanut butter. Since there is no way of tracking
the consumers affected by this lawsuit, TCF and other Canadian
community foundations were asked to distribute this settlement
in a way that benefits Canadian consumers.
Fifteen community foundations across Canada were asked to
distribute funds from the lawsuit to ensure broad geographic
representation. The amount allocated to each foundation from
total compensation of approximately $963,000 is based on
population. Other parts of the settlement compensate food
manufacturers and other purchasers of raw MSG and nucleotides,
as well as grocer organizations.
"Community foundations were asked to distribute the lawsuit's
proceeds because we have a broad national reach and we work with
an extremely wide range of charitable organizations," said
Monica Patten, President and Chief Executive Officer, Community
Foundations of Canada. "Our network distributed more than $90
million last year, we have a proven track record in funding
community initiatives and we're happy to use those skills to
pass this settlement back to Canadians."
The Toronto Community Foundation is a charitable organization
dedicated to making Toronto the best place to live, work, learn
and grow. TCF helps philanthropic citizens establish endowment
funds for charitable giving and identifies areas of greatest
need in the community to help ensure that grants have the
greatest impact on improving Toronto's quality of life.
Community Foundations of Canada (CFC) is the national membership
organization for one of the country's fastest growing charitable
movements. Over the past decade, the number of Canadian
community foundations has more than tripled and so have their
combined assets. There are more than 143 community foundations
in cities, towns and rural areas across Canada. Community
foundations are locally-run public foundations that build and
manage endowment funds to support charitable activities in their
area.
Initiated in London, Ontario on September 7, 2001, the case
involved price fixing between 1990 and 1999. Class action
representatives from Quebec followed suit on September 25, 2001
and in British Columbia on October 4, 2001.
The plaintiffs in the case were Bona Foods Ltd. a Toronto-based
family-owned food processing company that manufactures and
distributes Italian-style deli meats to food distributors,
pizzerias, supermarkets and restaurants throughout Canada and
the La Cie McCormick Canada Co., a global manufacturer and
distributor of spices and seasonings for consumers and the food
industry. Its Canadian office is located in London, Ontario.
Both were represented by the law firm of Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey
and Dowler LLP.
Named as Defendants in the case were Archer Daniels Midland
Company, Ajinomoto Co., Inc., Ajinomoto U.S.A Inc., Takeda
Chemical Industries Ltd., CJ Corp. f/k/a Cheil Jedang
Corporation, CJ America Inc., Daesang America Inc., f/k/a Miwon
America Inc., Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd.
The total compensation amount of approximately $963,000 will be
shared among:
(1) Community Foundations 45% (including $77,000 to the
Toronto Community Foundation)
(2) Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors 25%
(3) Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers 25%
(4) General Romeo Dallaire Foundation 5%
For more details, visit
http://www.classaction.ca/pdf/MSG_Notice_Cert_settlement.pdfor
http://www.classaction.ca/pdf/Main_Agreement.pdfor
http://www.classaction.ca/content/actions/msg_nucleotides.asp.
NANCY'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Appetizers For Undeclared Allergens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy's Specialty Foods is voluntarily recalling approximately
6,000 packages of Petite Quiche appetizers because they may
contain an undeclared allergen. Some of the 6,000 packages
actually contain Seafood Crab Cake appetizers, which have known
allergens (fish, crab), rather than Petite Quiche appetizers.
Persons who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to fish or
shellfish run the risk of a serious or life-threatening
allergenic reaction if they accidentally consume these products.
The Company believes that all the mislabeled packages were
shipped to retail stores in the Dallas area. A consumer in the
Dallas, Texas area discovered the problem and notified the
Company. No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported.
The recall affects 12-count boxes of Nancy's Petite Quiche
bearing the packaging code 2184N. Nancy's is advising consumers
to check the code dates of all 12-count Petite Quiche identified
by UPC 77298 01285 in their freezer in order to determine
whether the packages contain the 2184N code affected by this
recall. These packages were produced on August 5, 2004.
Additional information on how to read our date codes will be
provided on our web site (http://www.nancys.com/recall)starting
Friday December 17, 2004. Any packages showing this date code
should be returned to the local retailer for a full refund.
Alternatively, consumers can contact 1-800-701-0812 or visit
http://www.nancys.com/recallto have questions answered or
receive shipping materials to return the product to the company
for a refund.
Nancy's is taking this voluntary action to ensure the safety of
its consumers and is working closely with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service in the recall
process. Nancy's is committed to the quality and integrity of
its products and sincerely regrets any inconvenience to
consumers and retail customers.
NBO SYSTEMS: IL Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBO Systems, Inc. faces a class action filed in Illinois State
Court in St. Clair County, in connection with gift cards sold at
the St. Clair Square Mall in St. Clair County, Illinois.
Thomas Ripperda, et al, filed the suit alleging that the term
"valid thru" appearing on the face of the gift card next to the
expiration date of the gift card is misleading. The plaintiff
seeks a return of all administrative fees charged against his
gift card prior to the "valid thru" date. If a class were
certified, then the plaintiff would seek to recover similar fees
with respect to all gift cards that the Company sold.
Under the terms and conditions of the gift cards and the gift
card program, the Company disclosed it may charge an
administrative fee against a gift card if the gift card is not
used within 90 days from the date of purchase. The "valid thru"
date is typically between 12 months and 18 months after the date
the gift card is purchased. In some cases, the administrative
fee reduces the amount of the gift card prior to the "valid
thru" date on the card. The Company disclosed the charge of an
administrative fee on the back side of the gift card and again
in the written terms and conditions that are distributed to
customers when they purchase the gift cards. The Company also
disclosed that a gift card may be renewed after the "valid thru"
date with the payment of a renewal fee.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss, but the plaintiffs
have not yet filed an opposition. The parties are conducting
discovery.
NET PERCEPTIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Net Perceptions, 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 and:
(1) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., the lead
underwriter of the Company's April 1999 initial public
offering,
(2) several other underwriters who participated in the
initial public offering,
(3) Steven J. Snyder, the Company's then president and
chief executive officer, and
(4) Thomas M. Donnelly, the Company's chief financial
officer
The suit has been assigned to the judge who is also the pretrial
coordinating judge for substantially similar lawsuits involving
more than 300 other issuers. An amended class action complaint,
captioned "In re Net Perceptions, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9675 (SAS)," was filed on April
22, 2002, expanding the basis for the action to include
allegations relating to the Company's March 2000 follow-on
public offering in addition to those relating to its initial
public offering.
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by not disclosing certain
actions taken by the underwriter defendants in connection with
the Company's initial public offering and follow-on public
offering. The amended complaint alleges specifically that the
underwriter defendants, with the Company's direct participation
and agreement and without disclosure thereof, conspired to and
did raise and increase their underwriters' compensation and the
market prices of the Company's common stock following its
initial public offering and in its follow-on public offering by
requiring their customers, in exchange for receiving allocations
of shares of the Company's common stock sold in its initial
public offering, to pay excessive commissions on transactions in
other securities, to purchase additional shares of the Company's
common stock in the initial public offering aftermarket at pre-
determined prices above the initial public offering price, and
to purchase shares of the Company's common stock in its follow-
on public offering. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and certification of a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons who acquired the Company's common
stock between April 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000.
The plaintiffs have since agreed to dismiss the claims against
Mr. Snyder and Mr. Donnelly without prejudice, in return for
their agreement to toll any statute of limitations applicable to
those claims; and those claims have been dismissed without
prejudice. On July 15, 2002, all of the issuer defendants filed
a joint motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in all of the
related cases. On February 19, 2003, the court ruled against
the Company on this motion.
A special committee of the Company's board of directors has
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, issuer
defendants and their insurers. The parties have negotiated a
settlement which is subject to approval by the Court.
The suit is styled "In re Net Perceptions, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9675 (SAS)," 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:
(i) 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
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) 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
(v) 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
(vi) 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: Students Launch Civil Rights Lawsuit V. School System
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York's Department of Education faces a class action filed by
seven students in the United States District Court in Brooklyn,
New York, alleging the schools denied them their constitutional
right to a basic education, the New York Times reports.
The 43-page lawsuit, filed with the assistance of Advocates for
Children, a nonprofit group that monitors education, the Legal
Aid Society and the Manhattan law firm of Dewey Ballantine,
claims that the students have suffered irreparable harm by being
denied their constitutional right to a basic education. The
suit also argues that the plaintiffs, ages 7 to 21, have been
deprived of a minimally adequate education because of systemic
flaws in the way the school system processes former juvenile
offenders and delinquents.
According to the suit, "Schools in the community often refuse to
admit class members upon their release from court-ordered
settings." Furthermore the suit goes on to state, "Plaintiffs
and class members have spent weeks, and in some cases several
months, out of school or warehoused in alternative settings
where court-involved youth are segregated and that do not afford
them minimally adequate educational services." The lawsuit
argues that under city regulations, such students must be placed
in a school within five days of applying, and no school can turn
them away.
A student, known only as Exhibit D, had attended high school in
Brooklyn until he was arrested and sent to a detention center a
year and a half ago. After he was discharged, he tried to go
back to school but was turned away from one after another
because of his record and as a result, he missed 51 days of
classes last year, the New York Times reports.
In response to the filing of the suit, Jerry Russo, the press
secretary for Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, told the Times,
"We are disappointed at the filing of the litigation, given the
positive changes we have been making."
However, lawyers for the students say that change has not
happened fast enough. According to Elisa Hyman, the deputy
director of Advocates for Children, "These problems began before
Chancellor Klein took over, and while the department has made
some recent changes, our clients' needs have yet to be
addressed."
The lawyers for the students pointed out that two-thirds of the
5,200 students released from court-ordered detention each year
do not return to school, primarily because of longstanding
administrative roadblocks. They want the court to order
education officials to implement a "plan of correction" that
would offer the students re-enrollment or remedial educational
services, among other things.
The lawyers also argued that school officials do not have a
system for tracking and monitoring the enrollment and transfer
of students returning to schools and that due-process rights are
being denied because officials do not provide adequate notice of
the students' rights and an explanation of the procedure by
which they can return to community schools.
"These are young people ready for a new start," Nancy
Rosenbloom, a staff lawyer at the Legal Aid Society told the
Times. "To turn them away from the schoolhouse door is simply
cruel."
Ms. Hyman added, "Resources must be dedicated toward ensuring
that any involvement in the court system does not automatically
derail a young person's future opportunities. Education is the
key to rehabilitation."
Margaret Loftus, a lawyer who is the associate director of the
Juvenile Justice Project of the Correctional Association of New
York, gave the court a declaration in support of the plaintiff's
motion for class-action status.
PENTON MEDIA: Customers Launch TCPA Violations Suit in GA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penton Media, Inc. faces a class action filed in Georgia
Superior Court for Richmond County by Allison & Associates, Inc.
The suit makes allegations under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) prohibition against the transmission of
unsolicited fax advertisements.
The lawsuit is a putative class action (although the class has
not yet been certified by the court) that seeks to represent a
class of plaintiffs comprised of all individuals and entities
who, during the period November 3, 1999, through the present,
received one or more facsimiles sent by or on behalf of the
Company advertising the commercial availability of its products
or services and who did not give their prior expressed
permission or invitation to receive such faxes. The statutory
penalty for a single violation of the TCPA is $500, although the
penalty can increase to $1,500 per violation if the Company is
found to have willfully or knowingly violated the law.
The case is currently pending in the Richmond County, Georgia,
Superior Court as the Company is complying with the Court's
Order for discovery. As the law regarding class actions and the
TCPA is unsettled, the Company is uncertain as to the outcome of
this case.
PUERTO RICO: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of Plaintiff in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Superior Court of Puerto Rico to dismiss
and substitute one of the plaintiffs in the class action filed
against Telecommunicaciones de Puerto Rico, Inc.
On November 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight
business service subscribers filed a class action suit under the
Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act") and the
Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971. The plaintiffs have
claimed that the Company's charges for touchtone service are not
based on cost, and therefore violate of the Act. The plaintiffs
have requested that the Superior Court:
(1) issue an order certifying the case as a class action,
(2) designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
class,
(3) find that the charges are illegal, and
(4) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
excess payments made since September 1996
On December 30, 2003, the Company filed its answer to the
complaint and requested dismissal on the grounds that the claim
is not a legitimate class action suit. On February 17, 2004,
the plaintiffs filed their first set of interrogatories and
request for admissions to initiate discovery. A status
conference was held on April30, 2004 and the Superior Court
ruled that at this stage of the proceedings the discovery
process would be addressed, but not limited to the determination
of the class. On June 28, 2004, a second hearing was held.
During this hearing the Company was ordered to submit responses
to the plaintiffs' request for admissions and to their first and
second sets of interrogatories. The Company submitted its
responses to the plaintiffs' request for admissions and to their
first and second sets of interrogatories on July 6 and July 16,
2004, respectively. However, these responses were limited to
the issue of class certifications, and the interrogatories and
requests for admissions relating to the merits of the case were
objected and a protective order was requested. The Superior
Court denied the Company's requests and ordered full responses.
On July 16, 2004, the Company filed a writ of certiorari with
the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking reversal of the
Superior Court's order allowing discovery concerning the merits
of the case before the class certification issue is resolved.
On October 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion opposing the writ
of certiorari. A determination is pending before the Court of
Appeals.
RADIATION THERAPY: Attorney Files Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two months after it was filed in federal court, a shareholder
class-action lawsuit against Radiation Therapy Services, a Fort
Myers-based radiation oncology company has been recently
dropped, the Napa Daily News reports.
The lawsuit against the firm, which operates 21st Century
Oncology, with locations in Fort Myers, Bonita Springs and
Naples, claimed the company violated U.S. Securities and
Exchange regulations. According to the suit, company officers
failed to disclose material, adverse information about the
company during a public stock offering June 17 to September 8.
The plaintiff in the case was the Kissel Family Trust, based in
Westminister, California. Tampa attorney Chris Barker, who was
working with the lead counsel, Schiffrin & Barroway LLP in Bala
Cynwyd, Pa, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on December 9.
The voluntary dismissal was filed without prejudice, which means
the plaintiff reserves the right to amend the lawsuit and re-
file.
According to Mr. Barker, he has no information about what has
occurred saying that he was simply instructed by the lead
counsel to file the dismissal notice with the court. Attorneys
with the Pennsylvania law firm could not be reached for comment.
The original lawsuit had alleged that heavy trading occurred on
the Nasdaq during the initial offering, in which 5.5 million
shares of common stock were offered at $13 a share. Radiation
Therapy Services trades under the symbol RTSX.
Radiation Therapy Services provides radiation treatment to
cancer patients in 41 freestanding centers and 11 hospital-based
centers that function in 17 regional networks in eight states.
Those states are Florida, Alabama, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland,
Nevada, New York and North Carolina.
The lawsuit states that the company prospectus had indicated
that Radiation Therapy's growth strategy was to increase its
market share within its regional networks and to move into new
regions, expand its offering of advanced treatment services, add
more radiation oncologists and pursue other growth avenues.
During initial trading, 5.5 million shares of stock were sold to
the public, which raised $71.5 million for the company,
according to the lawsuit. On September 9, Banc of America
Securities evaluated Radiation Therapy for investors'
consideration and issued a "sell" rating and an $11 target
price.
The company failed to disclose that the initial public offering
was "purely a liquidity event for management/owners, not a
source of growth capital" the lawsuit says of the bank
securities house report.
Moreover, the company was engaged in numerous transactions that
increased the company's risk of violating state and federal laws
governing corporate medical practices, such as fee splitting and
physician referrals. The securities house said Radiation Therapy
paid $6.6 million to outside companies controlled by senior
management.
SERVICE CORPORATION: Settles T. Price Rome Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International (NYSE: SCI) settled the
securities lawsuit filed earlier this year by T. Rowe Price and
various of its related entities pending against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers. T. Rowe Price had
opted out of the previously announced settlement of the
securities class action lawsuit that had been pending against
the Company since January 1999. T. Rowe Price filed a separate
lawsuit in Texas state court in June 2004.
The terms of the settlement call for the Company to pay a total
of $14.8 million, of which $2.0 million has already been
recognized and paid into escrow in conjunction with the class
action settlement. As a result, the Company will recognize
litigation expenses of $12.8 million on a pretax basis in the
fourth quarter of 2004. Payment of the $12.8 million will occur
in 2004.
Commenting on the announcement, Robert L. Waltrip, Chairman and
CEO, said: "This settlement brings to a close all material
litigation related to our 1999 securities class action lawsuit.
We believe that the decision to settle this litigation is in the
best interests of our shareholders. This will enable us to more
fully focus our energy on the many opportunities we see for
growth and prosperity in the future."
For more details, contact Debbie Young - Director of Investor
Relations by Phone: (713) 525-9088 or Greg Bolton - Director /
Corporate Communications by Phone: (713) 525-5235 or visit their
Web site: http://www.sci-corp.com.
SKECHERS USA: Reaches Preliminary Agreement To Settle Wage Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. (NYSE:SKX) reached a preliminary agreement to
settle three disputed class action lawsuits brought by former
and current store managers, assistant store managers and
employees of the Company's retail stores.
The first two suits, filed December 2, 2002 and February 25,
2004, alleged that the Company improperly classified the
Company's store managers and assistant store managers as exempt
under California's wage and hour laws. The third suit, filed
July 7, 2004, alleged that the Company improperly deducted the
cost of work uniforms from employee wages. The plaintiffs were
also seeking to amend the complaints to allege meal and rest
time violations of the California law. All three suits sought
damages and civil penalties, as well as injunctive relief
against the Company. The Company denied all liability.
The preliminary settlement, which addresses claims dating back
to 1998 and is still subject to court approval, fully resolves
all claims brought by the plaintiffs in these California
lawsuits. Many other retail companies doing business in
California have similarly settled such claims in recent years
rather than risk the exposure and expense of continued
litigation. Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, the
Company will pay a potential maximum settlement amount of $1.8
million to cover claims made by eligible class members,
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and costs of a third-party
administrator. While the matter is still subject to court
approval, the Company is estimating that the settlement will
lead to a pre-tax charge of $1.8 million ($1.1 million after
tax), or approximately $0.025 cents per diluted share, in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2004.
Commenting on the settlement, Philip Paccione, the Company's
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, stated, "We are
pleased to put these matters behind us. While the Company denies
all liability in every one of these cases, it has agreed to the
settlement to resolve all of the claims and avoid engaging in
future expensive, distracting and protracted litigation."
TEXAS: SEC Files Fraud Suit V. Perpetrators of Real Estate Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
United States district court in Tyler, Texas against four
individuals and a number of entities that carried out a $6
million fraudulent offering of securities.
In its complaint, the Commission alleged that the defendants
deceived investors, promising to generate investment returns
through the development of real estate in Texas, Virginia and
South Carolina. In fact, according to the Commission, the
defendants used the investors' money to make ponzi payments to
investors and support their own extravagant lifestyles. Also on
December 8, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider granted the
Commission's motion for the appointment of a receiver to collect
and preserve investors' assets.
On December 13th, at the Commission's request, the Court
conducted a hearing on the Commission's request for a
preliminary injunction against the defendants. Brown, Sherman
and Ware consented, without admitting or denying the allegations
in the Commission's complaint, to the entry of the preliminary
injunction, which the Court entered. Since Fleder could not be
located prior to the hearing, the Court continued the
preliminary injunction hearing until February 7, 2005, to allow
the Commission additional time to serve him with the papers in
the case. The Court further granted the Commission's motion to
enter an order freezing Fleder's personal assets and entered an
agreed order modifying the receivership order and freezing
certain assets belonging to Brown and entities he controls.
In its action, the Commission charged the following individual
defendants: Jack A. Brown, 65, of Tyler, Texas, a former
registered representative who allegedly sold the securities;
Jules B. Fleder, 64, of Beverly Hills, Calif., the alleged
mastermind behind the fraudulent offerings; Bernard Ware, 46, of
Los Angeles, Calif., an attorney and allegedly one of Fleder's
business associates; and Roger Sherman, 70, of Las Vegas, Nev.
In its complaint, the Commission alleges that, beginning in May
2002, Brown offered investors in the Tyler, Texas area the
opportunity to invest in three purported real estate
developments - Tyler Real Estate, LLC, Smith Mountain Lake, LLC
and Prairie Lake Estates, L.P. According to the complaint, Brown
solicited investors using offering documents which, among other
things, falsely claimed that: investor monies would be used to
develop tracts of real estate in South Carolina, Virginia and
Texas; investors would share in the profits realized from sale
of the developed land; and specific entities owned the land, and
would convey the land to one of the Issuers. According to the
complaint, investor funds were used for virtually everything but
the development of real estate - including making ponzi payments
to investors and purchasing a house and a sailboat for Fleder.
The Commission alleges in its complaint that the defendants
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. In addition to seeking the relief described
above, the Commission is also seeking orders of permanent
injunction, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil
money penalties. The Commission is also seeking disgorgement
from numerous relief defendants, who hold title to, or received
proceeds from the sale of, assets allegedly acquired with
investor funds. The action is titled, SEC v. Jack A. Brown,
Jules Fleder, Roger Sherman, Bernard Ware et al., Civil Action
No. 6:04cv537, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler Division.
TEXAS AMERICAN: DC Court Enters Final Judgment V. Defendants
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John D. Bates, U.S. District Judge for the
District of Columbia, entered a final judgment of permanent
injunction and other relief against defendants Alan E. Humphrey
and Richard E. Lee, who have both consented to the entry of the
judgments against them, without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Commission's complaint. The final judgment
against Alan E. Humphrey, who is currently in Chapter 13
bankruptcy, permanently enjoins him from future violations of
the registration, antifraud and lying to auditors provisions of
the federal securities laws, permanently bars him from acting as
an officer or director of a public company, and orders him to
pay a $50,000 civil penalty over two years with interest,
subject to the approval of the bankruptcy court. The final
judgment against Richard E. Lee permanently enjoins him from
future violations of the registration and antifraud provisions
of the federal securities laws, and orders him to pay a $50,000
civil penalty over three years with interest.
In a prior ruling on Feb. 20, 2003, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia issued default judgments against
defendant Texas American Group, Inc., permanently enjoining it
from violating the registration, antifraud and reporting
provisions of the federal securities laws, and against defendant
William Grosvenor, permanently enjoining him from violating the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.
In its complaint, the Commission alleged that in 1995 and 1996,
the defendants repeatedly made false statements about the
company's assets and financial condition in filings with the
Commission, at investor seminars, and in promotional materials
and advertisements. The complaint further alleged that during
the same period, Texas American Group issued over 170 million
unregistered shares of its common stock in sham offshore
transactions.
According to the complaint, the defendants claimed that Texas
American Group owned the Amarilla Golf and Country Club,
purportedly a $148 million resort in the Canary Islands, even
though Texas American Group never actually owned Amarilla. The
complaint also alleged that Texas American Group falsely claimed
to own various other assets, including internet lottery and
casino games, a hotel development and management company, and a
London pathology testing service. The complaint further
alleged that Texas American Group falsely claimed in national
advertisements recommending the stock that it had $300 million
in assets.
In addition, as alleged in the complaint, the defendants issued
over 170 million unregistered shares of Texas American Group
stock to various offshore persons and entities, for the
purported purpose of obtaining real estate and other assets.
Notwithstanding the offshore nature of the transactions, the
complaint alleged that the issuance of this stock did not
qualify for the Regulation S safe harbor from registration
because Texas American Group's actions constituted a scheme to
temporarily place the securities offshore in order to evade the
registration requirements of the federal securities laws. The
complaint alleged that Texas American Group's scheme to evade
the registration requirements of the federal securities laws was
evidenced by the fact that:
(1) many, if not all, of the transactions for which Texas
American Group issued stock were shams;
(2) in many cases the stock was issued to entities that
appeared to be controlled by individuals associated
with Texas American Group; and
(3) the stock flowed back into the United States almost
immediately after the expiration of what was then the
40-day restricted period under Regulation S.
The complaint alleged that by their conduct, all of the
defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as set forth in Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also alleged that Texas American
Group, Humphrey and Grosvenor violated the antifraud provisions
of the Securities Act of 1933, as set forth in Section 17(a).
The complaint further alleged that Texas American Group,
Humphrey and Lee violated the registration provisions of Section
5 of the Securities Act. In addition, the complaint alleged that
Humphrey violated Rule 13b2-2 of the Exchange Act for lying to
an auditor about the Amarilla transaction and that the company
violated Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20,
12b-25, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 in connection with various
reporting violations. The action is titled, SEC v. Texas
American Group, Inc., Alan E. Humphrey, Richard E. Lee, and
William Grosvenor, Civil Action No. CV 00-1955, RCL, D.D.C.
UNITED STATES: Opts To Settle Lawsuit Over "Gold Train" Thefts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government agreed to settle the "Gold Train" suit
brought by Hungarian Holocaust survivors who have claimed that
for decades that U.S. soldiers looted their possessions near the
end of World War II, the Palm Beach Post reports.
Federal District Judge Patricia Seitz in Miami, who spoke of a
"season of miracles," gave both parties 60 days to work out
"still significant" issues in the case, which involved 24
freight cars filled with treasures stolen from Hungarian Jews,
some of whom now live in Palm Beach, Martin, Broward and Miami-
Dade counties.
Attorney Samuel Dubbin, a member of the families' legal team, is
hoping that the two months the judge gave them will be more that
enough to resolve the remaining differences. Mr. Dubbin stated
that any monetary settlement is symbolic under these
circumstances, since, according to him, no amount of money can
compensate for what his clients have been through.
As many as 400,000 Hungarian Jews were stripped of their
property and killed by the Nazis in the last months of the war.
Estimates of the value of the train's contents vary from $50
million to $120 million.
The lawsuit sought up to $10,000 each for as many as 30,000
Hungarian Jews and their survivors. The survivors finally sued
the U.S. government in 2001, claiming that the Army mishandled,
lost and looted their families' valuables.
Though details of the agreement and the ongoing negotiations
were kept under wraps, discussions have reportedly included how
much each Holocaust survivor should receive and whether the most
needy of them would get a larger share of the reparations.
The resolution of the lawsuit, which was spurred in part by
unusual pressure to settle from both Republican and Democratic
lawmakers, came just as the government, which had vehemently
denied any responsibility was scheduled to argue for dismissal
of the case.
The Gold Train had been filled by the Nazis with gold, silver,
paintings, Oriental rugs, furs and other goods seized from
Hungarian Jews. The U.S. Army seized control of the riches in
July 1945 and American officers helped themselves to china,
silverware and artwork for their homes and offices, according to
a commission, which was appointed by President Clinton. This
commission lifted the official secrecy about the train in 1999.
In contrast to its own denial, the U.S. government had pushed
European governments, banks and insurers to make reparations to
Holocaust survivors and slave laborers.
Ronald Zweig, director of New York University's Taub Center for
Israel Studies, said the Hungarian Jews who lost their property
were blaming the wrong country. Mr. Zweig told the Palm Beach
Post, "The United States government has chosen to be generous.
They did nothing wrong, if it had gone to a discussion in court,
the U.S. would have won hands down."
Mr. Zweig, who wrote a book on the thefts and acted as a
consultant for the U.S. Justice Department, further told the
Palm Beach Post that the valuables made of gold were loaded onto
a truck for Austria, but eventually were buried by Hungarian
soldiers, but French troops would later discover them in 1945.
The valuables were eventually returned to Hungary's communist
government. Mr. Zweig also adds, their own governments,
beginning with the fascist regime of 1944 and the communist
leaders of 1948 robbed the Hungarian Jews, but still, Mr. Zweig
said he had no qualms about a settlement. "Who is going to stand
up against a generous payment to Holocaust survivors? I'm not,"
he quips.
VIA NET.WORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, certain of the underwriters who supported its
initial public offering (IPO) and certain of its officers.
The amended consolidated suit alleges that the prospectus the
Company filed with its registration statement in connection with
its IPO was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that:
(1) the named underwriters had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for the right to purchase large
blocks of VIA IPO shares; and
(2) the named Underwriters had entered into agreements with
certain of their customers to allocate VIA IPO shares
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional VIA shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices thereby artificially inflating the
Company's stock price.
The Complaint further alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder arising out of the alleged failure to
disclose and the alleged materially misleading disclosures made
with respect to the commissions and the Tie-in Arrangements in
the prospectus. The plaintiffs in this action seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.
Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York. On June 30, 2003, the special litigation committee of the
board of directors of the Company conditionally approved the
global settlement between all plaintiffs and issuers in the IPO
Litigations; the Company is in the process of completing a
settlement with the plaintiffs in the case. The settlement
would provide, among other things, a release of the Company and
of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the
action to be wrongful by the plaintiffs. Under the proposed
settlement, the Company would agree to undertake other
responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. The special
litigation committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to
a number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation. Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a
hearing on fairness and approval by the Court overseeing the IPO
Litigations.
The suit is styled "In re Via Net.Works, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, case no. 01 Civ. 9720 (Sas),"
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:
(i) 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
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) 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
(v) 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
(vi) 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
WEST POINTE: Litigation To Resume Over Bank Securities in WI
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for three shareholders of West Pointe Bank, an Oshkosh
financial institution will ask Fond du Lac County Judge Peter
Grimm to deny any and all motions seeking dismissal of the
lawsuit that claims fraud by its board of directors, because the
board failed to turn over evidence its says would be critical to
prove its case against the directors, Appleton Post Crescent
reports.
Judge Grimm is set to hold a hearing to settle several motions
filed in the civil lawsuit claiming a breach of fiduciary duties
on the part of board members at West Pointe Bank.
The plaintiffs in the civil complaint accused board members of
wrongfully issuing themselves stock, misleading stockholders and
conducting other activities in an attempt to gain a majority,
controlling share of the company.
Filed in April by James H. Lang of Oshkosh and David and Mary
Jane Conger of Winneconne, the lawsuit is seeking the release of
detailed financial information, removal of the board of
directors and the return of stock by certain officers and
directors of the institution.
According to the complaint, the board in 1997 opted to buy
49,900 shares for an employee incentive stock-option plan, but
only 11 percent of the stock, or 5,400 shares, went to employees
who weren't directors, while the remaining 44,500 shares were
issued to members of the board.
Attorneys for the board of directors in September asked for
summary judgment or full dismissal of the case. They are also
seeking to eliminate class-action status or status that would
make every shareholder a plaintiff in the case. The lawyers
argued that the lawsuit doesn't represent the opinions of a
majority of their shareholders.
Z-TEL COMMUNICATIONS: Fraud Suit Remand To IL State Court Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to remand to state court the
consumer class action filed against Z-Tel Communications, Inc.,
over its monthly rates.
Susan Schad, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, filed the suit on May 13, 2004, alleging that the
Company engaged in a pattern and practice of deceiving consumers
into paying amounts in excess of their monthly rates by
deceptively labeling certain line-item charges as government-
mandated taxes or fees when in fact they were not. The
complaint seeks to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of
all persons or entities who contracted with Z-Tel for
telecommunications services and were billed for particular taxes
or regulatory fees. The complaint asserts a claim under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act
and seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.
On June 22, 2004, the Company filed a notice of removal in the
state circuit court action, removing the case to the federal
district court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, C.A. No. 4 C 4187. The plaintiff filed a motion to
remand the case to the state circuit court, and the motion is
still pending.
The suit is styled "Susan Schad v. Z-Tel Communications, Inc.
Case No. 04-CV-4187" and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Joan B. Gottschall.
Lawyers for the defendants are Marvin Alan Miller, Anthony F.
Fata, Dominic J. Rizzi of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone:
(312) 782-4880. Lawyers for the defendants are Richard M.
Waris, James Joseph Sipchen, Brendan John Nelligan of Pretzel &
Stouffer, Chtd., One South Wacker Drive, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL
60606-4673, Phone: (312) 346-1973.
Z-TEL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Z-Tel Technologies, 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 current and former
directors and officers and firms engaged in the underwriting of
the Company's initial public offering of stock (IPO).
During June and July 2001, three separate class action lawsuits
were filed, along with approximately 310 other similar lawsuits
filed against other issuers arising out of initial public
offering allocations. The suits have been assigned to a Judge
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for pretrial coordination.
The lawsuits against the Company have been consolidated into a
single action. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on
April 20, 2002. A Second Corrected Amended Complaint, which is
the operative complaint, was filed on July 12, 2002.
The Amended Complaint is based on the allegations that the
Company's registration statement on Form S-1, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in connection with the
IPO, contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to
state facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
by failing to disclose that the underwriters allegedly had
received additional, excessive and undisclosed commissions from,
and allegedly had entered into unlawful tie-in and other
arrangements with, certain customers to whom they allocated
shares in the IPO. The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint
assert claims against the Company and the directors and officers
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the SEC there under.
The plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint assert claims against
the directors and officers pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC thereunder. The plaintiffs seek an undisclosed amount
of damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, experts' fees and
other costs and disbursements. Initial discovery has begun.
The Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from our
Underwriters.
A settlement has been reached by the respective lawyers for the
plaintiffs, the issuers and insurers of the issuers. The
principal terms of the proposed settlement are:
(1) a release of all claims against the issuers and their
officers and directors,
(2) the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
certain claims the issuers may have against the
Underwriters and
(3) an undertaking by the insurers to ensure the plaintiffs
receive not less than $1 billion in connection with
claims against the Underwriters.
Hence, under the terms of the settlement the Company's financial
obligations will likely be covered by insurance. The Company's
board of directors has approved the settlement. To be binding,
the settlement must be executed by the parties and thereafter
submitted to and approved by the court. The settlement will not
be binding upon any plaintiffs electing to opt-out of the
settlement.
The suit is styled "In Re Z-Tel Technologies, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 5074
(Sas)," 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:
(i) 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
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) 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
(v) 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
(vi) 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
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
January 20-21, 2005
VIOXXr LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Philadelphia at Franklin Plaza Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 24-25, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENCING OBESITY CLAIMS: THE LATEST INFORMATION
ON LEGAL
EXPOSURES, LEGISLATION
AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
American Conferences
St. Regis Hotel, Washington DC
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
January 24-25, 2005
THIRD ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP TEN
ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 31-February 01, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL
LITIGATION
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 31-February 01, 2005
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 10-11, 2005
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
February 14-15, 2005
REINSURANCE 101 CONFERENCE: LITIGATION & ARBITRATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 14-15, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 17-19, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING
American Bar Association
Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org
February 22-23, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2005: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
February 28, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 28 - March 1, 2005
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
February 28 - March 1, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 1, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXPOSURES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 3-4, 2005
TRANSPORTATION MEGACONFERENCE VII
American Bar Association
New Orleans, LA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org
March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Coral Gables
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 7-8, 2005
CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 18, 2005
CONFERENCE ON INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
American Bar Association
New York
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org
March 14-15, 2005
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect
The Plaza New York, New York
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-436-6094
April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
August 25-26, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
City to be announced
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 07-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-31, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-31, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
December 01-31, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
January 11, 2005
WHY OUR CLIENTS' INSURANCE POLICIES MAY NO LONGER MEET THEIR
GREATEST NEEDS AND WHAT THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT
ABA-CLE
Contact: 800-285-2221
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHARLOTTE RUSE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud 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 Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Charlotte Russe Holding Inc. (NasdaqNM: CHIC) ("Charlotte
Russe") between January 22, 2004 and December 6, 2004 (the
"Class Period"), including all persons who acquired shares in
the April 20, 2004 equity offering.
The Complaint alleges that Charlotte Russe violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically the complaint alleges that the
Charlotte Russe's statement were false or misleading because it
failed to disclose that the fact that the strategic
repositioning of Rampage stores was failing to produce tangible
results and because other measures, promoted by management as
actions designed to improve operations, were proving futile in
both merchandising and store organizations. On September 9,
2004, Charlotte Russe revised its financial guidance for the
quarter ending September 25, 2004. On this news, Charlotte Russe
shares fell from a close of $14.63 per share on September 8,
2004, to close at $11.20 per share on September 9, 2004. On
December 6, 2004, Charlotte Russe Executive Vice President Donna
Desrosiers resigned and Charlotte Russe forecasted a decline in
comparable store sales for the quarter ending December 25, 2004.
On this bad news, Charlotte Russe fell from a close of $10.91
per share on December 5, 2004, to close at $10.09 per share on
December 6, 2004.
For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.
GEOPHARMA, INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit on in Tampa, Florida federal court on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of GeoPharma, Inc.
("GeoPharma") (NASDAQ: GORX) between July 13, 2004 to December
2, 2004, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 13,
2004, before the market opened for trading, GeoPharma and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., issued a
press release reporting that GeoPharma had met with success in a
clinical study of its drug, MF5232, later named "Mucotrol," in
treating patients with mucositis. Mucositis is an inflammation
of the mucosa of the mouth that develops in cancer patients
receiving radiation therapy and some patients with HIV/AIDS. In
the press release, GeoPharma's President, Dr. Kotha Sekharam,
described Mucotrol (which he invented), as a "drug." The stock
rose 13% on the news and closed on July 13, 2004 at $5.44.
On December 1, 2004, GeoPharma announced in a press release that
its subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., had received FDA
approval for its "prescripition drug," Mucotrol. GeoPharma
estimated that sales to the U.S. oncology market for Mucotrol
could reach $75 million to $300 million per year. GeoPharma
stock rose to $11.25, or 153%, on the news. On December 2, 2004,
however, financial reporters learned after questioning the
Company that Mucotrol was not a "drug" at all, but a device,
making it far less attractive to market than a new drug.
GeoPharma's claim that it had obtained FDA approval of Mucotrol
was also untrue, as well as GeoPharma's announcement of
potential annual U.S. sales of $75 million to $300 million.
GeoPharma recanted its claim that Mucotrol was a drug in a
December 2, 2004 press release. GeoPharma's stock price dropped
from $11.25 to $6.81, on inordinate volume of 42 million shares
traded.
For more details, contact Vianale & Vianale by Phone:
888-657-9960 or visit their Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.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 * * *