/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050607.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 111 Headlines ALAMANCE FOODS: Recalls Whipped Toppings Due to Dairy Component AXT INC.: Shareholders File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms Launch Identity Theft Lawsuit in NJ CANADA: Suit Filed Over Skyservice Flight 560 Landing Accident CONEXANT INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in NJ CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Pennsylvania Contamination Tort Suit DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Consumers File Payday Loans Lawsuits DORAL FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Expand Class For Shareholder Suit GENESIS ENERGY: Faces PQS Indemnification Claim For LA Lawsuits INFORMATICA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Pact INTERNET CAPITAL: Final NY Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 2006 JESSICA'S BAKERY: Recalls Muffins For Undeclared Milk Allergens KENTUCKY: Parishioners Convey Understanding For $120M Settlement MARATHON OIL: Named in NY Stockholder Fraud Lawsuit V. Ashland MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Launch State Suits For Fraud MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Conversion Fee Suit Trial Set For Oct. MCNEIL CONSUMER: Recalls TYLENOL Packs Due to Confusing Labels OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement PETCO ANIMAL: Pomerantz Haudek Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline PLAINS RESOURCES: DE Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement PLUG POWER: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement PMA CAPITAL: Presents Arguments For Dismissal of PA Stock Suit PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Publix Drinking Water Due to Taste, Odor SIDLEY AUSTIN: Cliff Fonstein Joins Law Firm's New York Office SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: NY Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Considers Securities Lawsuit Dismissal SPITZER AUTO: OH Judge OKs $10M Suit Settlement Over $97.50 Fee SPRINT CORPORATION: IL Lawsuit Certified, Company Secrets Spared SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Allows Securities Suit To Proceed WATCHGUARD TECNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Plaintiff Deadline WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits V. Calypso Washing Machine New Securities Fraud Cases ABLE LABORATORIES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in NJ CARRIER ACCESS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CO CARRIER ACCESS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO CRAY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MD POSSIS MEDICAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN POSSIS MEDICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN POSSIS MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN ********* ALAMANCE FOODS: Recalls Whipped Toppings Due to Dairy Component --------------------------------------------------------------- Alamance Foods, Inc. of Burlington, North Carolina is recalling 770 cases of 7 ounce cans of non dairy (Parve) topping bearing the label "Flavor Right (Parve) Whipped Topping", product code number 72205, because the product contains a dairy component and people who have allergies to dairy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled cans of whipped topping were distributed Nation wide. The product comes in a metal 7-ounce aerosol can marked on the neck of the can with code number 72205 and bearing the label, "Flavor Right (Parve) Whipped Topping". One person was treated and released after experiencing an allergic reaction to the dairy component in the product. The recall was initiated after testing confirmed the presence of a dairy component in the product. Investigation to date has not yet determined the manner in which the dairy component was introduced to the product during the manufacturing process. Consumers who have purchased code number 72205 of the 7 ounce can non dairy (Parve) topping are urged to return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-476-9111. AXT INC.: Shareholders File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA -------------------------------------------------------------- AXT, Inc., and its chief executive officer for China operations face a consolidated securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 15, 2004, a purported securities class action was filed, styled "City of Harper Woods Employees Retirement System v. AXT, Inc. et al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ." The Court consolidated the case with a subsequent related case and appointed a lead plaintiff. On April 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, captioned as "Morgan v. AXT, Inc. et al., No. C 04 4362 MJJ." The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a class of all purchasers of Company securities from February 6, 2001 through April 27, 2004. The complaint alleges that the Company announced financial results during this period that were false and misleading. On May 24, 2004, AXT disclosed to the SEC that an investigation by AXT's Audit Committee confirmed that the Company had "not followed requirements for testing of products and provision of testing data and information relating to customer requirements for certain shipments made over the past several years." The Company further disclosed that during the first quarter of 2004, AXT increased its reserve for sales returns "related to our failure to follow certain testing requirements and provision of testing data and information to certain customers." No class has yet been certified in the above action, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 15,2004) states. The suit is styled "Thomas O. Morgan, et al. v. AXT, Inc et al., case no. 3:04-cv-04362-MJJ," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Representing the Company are David Banie and David Priebe of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 2000 University Avenue, East Palo Alto, CA 94303, Phone: 650-833-2000, Fax: 650-833-2001, E-mail: david.banie@dlapiper.com, david.priebe@dlapiper.com. Representing the plaintiffs are Peter A. Binkow and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (310) 201-9160, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and Elizabeth P. Lin, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand Ave., Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213/617-1200, Fax: (213) 617-1975 and E-mail: elin@milbergweiss.com. BANK OF AMERICA: Law Firms Launch Identity Theft Lawsuit in NJ -------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey law firms of Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman and Lynch Keefe Bartels initiated a complaint against Bank of America in New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Mercer County (Jones v. Bank of America) on behalf of Trenton resident, Cindy Jones. The attorneys expressed their intention to seek class action status to represent other identity theft victims as well against financial services giant Bank of America for damages resulting from the theft of tens of thousands of customer information files. Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, with offices in Princeton, Mount Holly and Nutley NJ, and Lynch Keefe Bartels, with offices in Shrewsbury, New Jersey will serve as co-counsel in this matter and seek class action status by the Court. Ms. Jones, a customer of Bank of America, was informed that her personal financial information, including her Social Security number, were found in the possession of individuals arrested by Hackensack, New Jersey police in the growing scandal. Of immediate concern to her attorneys, are potential unauthorized use of Ms. Jones' identity between the times of the theft and the arrests, the need (and cost) to carefully monitor Ms. Jones' credit reports for unauthorized activity during the next several years, and the availability of Ms. Jones' identity for her own use. Hackensack, New Jersey police stated that more than 676,000 customers were affected when bank employees illegally sold information on more than 1 million accounts from 4 financial services companies: Bank of America, Wachovia, PNC and Commerce Bank. Police first announced arrests of 9 people, including 7 current and former bank employees, on Monday, May 23, 2005. "Bank of America reported alerting about 60,000 customers who were included on computer disks discovered by police, bank spokeswoman Alex Liftman said Monday," reported the Associated Press ("Banks Notify Customers of Data Theft" by Paul Nowell, May 23, 2005. CNN/Money reported: "As this gets going, these numbers are going to go up and up, Hackensack Detective Captain Frank Lomia told CNN, adding that more arrests may be coming in the case. . The data-theft may have been the biggest ever in banking, the Hackensack NJ police department said in a statement citing an unnamed Treasury Department official." ("Bank Security Breach May Be Biggest Yet", CNN/Money, May 23, 2005) Reports of lax handling and rampant selling of confidential and personal customer financial information increasingly blankets the press. Epidemic demand for stolen identities appears to have been met by easy availability. According to a news story carried by several New Jersey newspapers, "Protecting Your Privacy" by Ellen Simon of the Associated Press (May 24, 2005) highlighted examples of problems confronting and solutions available financial services companies, based on interviews computer security professionals who spoke of relatively inexpensive prevention steps, such as: Monitored internal audit trails, restricting data access, limiting data collection, basic encryption, secure shipping, and simple background checks. The experts also raised corporate management hurdles security measure confront, like low priority and cost-benefit perceptions. "Bank of America has a fiduciary responsibility to protect clients' confidential personal and account information and could have taken some reasonable steps to prevent these thefts," explains Arthur Penn, Esq., a partner and mass torts and class action litigation attorney at the New Jersey law firm of Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman. "Bank of America is in a business based on trust, and they violated that trust. So this lawsuit seeks to hold them accountable." "This is more than a story about the massive theft of customers' personal financial data," says John Keefe, Jr., Esq., a partner and New Jersey mass torts and class action litigation attorney at Lynch Keefe Bartels. "This is also a story about the massive failure of the bank, or banks, to take reasonable actions to protect their customers' personal financial information from identity theft." For more details, contact Steven Reichenstein of Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman, Phone: 609-520-0900. CANADA: Suit Filed Over Skyservice Flight 560 Landing Accident -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of passengers who were on Skyservice Flight 560 from Toronto to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005. The class action also includes the claims of the passengers' family members. The lawsuit arises out of a landing accident involving Flight 560, which was carrying 318 passengers. As the Boeing 767 approached the landing strip in Punta Cana, it descended suddenly and crashed into the runway. The landing was so forceful that the airplane's fuselage sustained significant structural damage and resulted in the airplane bouncing off the runway three times before finally coming to a stop. Linda Maggisano, a passenger on Flight 560, who was travelling with her 2 month-old and 2 year-old sons, as well as seven other family members, commenced the class action. For the passengers of Flight 560, the ordeal was terrifying. "I thought my life was over," stated Ms. Maggisano. "I was especially frightened for my infant son, who was nearly thrown from my arms." Another passenger, Patricia McLean said: "This was the most traumatic event in my life. I am very concerned about my injured back and the crack to my neck found on an x-ray." To Mukesh Mehta the accident was "a near death experience. We were thrown around the plane like rag dolls." Mr. Mehta was also critical of Skyservice's handling of the incident: "Skyservice failed to even apologize - this is no way to treat airline passengers." Michelle Armstrong also directed disappointment at the charter carrier: "I am terribly upset that no one appears to be taking this seriously - especially since so many of us have been injured." Joel Rochon, one of the lawyers retained by Ms. Maggisano, commented: "The passengers are very upset and are looking for answers from Skyservice as to how such a serious accident and near disaster happened." For more details, contact Allison Phillips of Rochon Genova LLP, Phone: (416) 363-1867, Web site: http://www.skyserviceclassaction.com. CONEXANT INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Conexant, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial and secondary public offerings. In November 2001, Collegeware Asset Management, LP, on behalf of itself and a putative class of persons who purchased the common stock of the Company between June 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000, filed a complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing and selling the Company's common stock in the initial and secondary offerings without disclosing to investors that the underwriters had (1) solicited and received undisclosed and excessive commissions or other compensation and (2) entered into agreements requiring certain of their customers to purchase the stock in the aftermarket at escalating prices. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The complaint was consolidated with approximately 300 other actions making similar allegations regarding the public offerings of hundreds of other companies during 1998 through 2000. In June 2004, the Company, and its then named officers and directors entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs that will, among other things, result in the dismissal with prejudice of all the claims against them. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement, subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. The settlement remains subject to a number of conditions and final approval. It is possible that the parties will not reach agreement on the final settlement or that the settlement will not be approved. Even if the settlement is approved, individual class members will have an opportunity to "opt out" of the class and to file their own lawsuits, and some may do so. The suit is styled "In re Conexant Inc. Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. 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, Mail: 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 CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Conexant Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers face a consolidated securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In December 2004 and January 2005, the Company and certain current and former officers were named as defendants in several complaints filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities (Nasdaq: CNXT) between March 1, 2004 and November 4, 2004. The suits seek to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints allege that defendants' Class Period representations about the Company's operations, made in Conexant press releases, were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company was stuffing the channel with products, such that its revenues did not reflect the true, end-user demand for its products; (2) that the Company's inventory glut would lead to lowered revenues as distributors and retailers would need to exhaust existing inventory before purchasing new products from Conexant; (3) that the combined company was suffering from serious operating deficiencies, particularly in the wireless local area network ("WLAN") division of Globespan that was not effectively integrated into the combined company's operations, causing the Company to lose its leadership position in the WLAN market; (4) that, contrary to defendants express representations that the Globespan integration was "on schedule" and that "outstanding progress" was being made in that regard, integration of the Globespan acquisition was mishandled, causing such a massive drain on the Company that, by the end of the Class Period, the outlook for the much larger combined company was worse than Conexant's stand-alone prospects. On November 4, 2004, defendants issued a press release announcing disappointing results for the fourth quarter of 2004, including a loss of $367.5 million ($0.79 per share) which was blamed on poor demand, inventory buildup and failed product launches. Later that day, the Company held a conference call to discuss its fourth quarter results. Defendant Geday's response to an analyst's question revealed that the Company's inventory glut was not a recent phenomenon, but had been building for as long as five quarters. In reaction to the Company's press release and conference call, the price of Conexant securities dropped to $1.60 per share on November 5, 2004 from $1.76 on November 4, 2004. These suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (New Jersey cases) and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (California cases). The California cases have now been consolidated with the New Jersey cases so that all of the class action suits are now being heard in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same judge. CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Pennsylvania Contamination Tort Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crompton Corporation and other entities that conduct or conducted business near the Petrolia, Pennsylvania facility were named as defendants in a toxic tort class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County, Pennsylvania, claiming damages allegedly arising from alleged contamination in and around the Bear Creek Area Chemical Site. In addition to seeking property damage, damages for personal injury, punitive damages and other compensatory damages, plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to cleanup up the alleged contamination, response costs and medical monitoring. Plaintiffs have not yet set out in their pleadings a claim for a specific amount of damages. This action is in the early stages of litigation and the Company cannot predict its outcome. DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Canadian Consumers File Payday Loans Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Financial Group, Inc. and its Canadian subsidiary face several class actions filed by customers who were allegedly subjected to usurious charges in payday loan transactions. On August 19, 2003 a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Margaret Smith, commenced an action against the Company and the Company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of a purported class of Canadian borrowers (except those residing in British Columbia). The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing usury and seeks restitution and damages in an unspecified amount, including punitive damages. On February 1 and 2, 2005, the Company brought a motion to stay the action against it on jurisdictional grounds and the Company's Canadian subsidiary brought a motion to stay the action against it based on its arbitration clause. The judgments on those motions are under review. On October 21, 2003, another former customer, Kenneth D. Mortillaro, commenced a similar action against the Company's Canadian subsidiary but this action has since been stayed because it is a duplicate action. On November 6, 2003, the Company learned of substantially similar claims asserted on behalf of a purported class of Alberta borrowers by Gareth Young, a former customer of the Company's Canadian subsidiary. The Young action is pending in the Court of Queens Bench of Alberta and seeks an unspecified amount of damages and other relief. Like the plaintiff in the MacKinnon action referred to below, Mortillaro, Smith and Young have agreed to arbitrate all disputes with the Company. On January 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced an action against the Company's Canadian subsidiary and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of British Columbia residents who, Mr. MacKinnon claims were overcharged in payday-loan transactions. The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount. On February 3, 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary's motion to stay the action and to compel arbitration of MacKinnon's claims, as required by his agreement with the Company's Canadian subsidiary, was denied; the Company's Canadian subsidiary appealed this ruling. On September 24, 2004, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed the lower court's ruling and remanded the matter to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision. On March 1, 2005, Mr. MacKinnon's application for certification of his action was dismissed. Mr. MacKinnon has appealed that dismissal and brought a series of motions requesting that the motions judge reconsider her decision. The Company's Canadian subsidiary is opposing these motions and has renewed its application to stay the action based on its arbitration clause. On April 15, 2005 the solicitor acting for Mr. MacKinnon commenced a further identical proposed class action against the Company's Canadian subsidiary on behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons. The Company's Canadian subsidiary has brought a motion to stay the Parsons action as a duplicate action. Similar class actions have been commenced against the Company's Canadian subsidiary in Manitoba, New Brunswick Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The Company is named as a defendant in the actions commenced in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland but has not been served with the statements of claim in these actions to date. The claims in these additional actions are substantially similar to those of the Ontario actions referred to above. DORAL FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Expand Class For Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which filed a shareholder class action lawsuit against Doral Financial Corporation (NYSE: DRL) reports that due to recent disclosures in Doral's May 26, 2005 Form 8-K, those who purchased Doral securities between the now expanded dates of May 15, 2000, and May 26, 2005, are now included. Shares of Doral continued to drop after the Company stated it will reduce the value of its interest-only securities by as much as $600 million and is currently in default on two indentures. The stock traded below $10 in the first half-hour of trading this morning. During the Class Period, the stock traded over $49.00 per share. It is presently trading at just over $12.00 per share. Originally, the shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Doral Financial Corporation (NYSE:DRL - News) securities who purchased between October 10, 2002 and April 19, 2005 (the ``Class Period''). Shares of Doral continued to drop today after the Company said that it will reduce the value of its interest-only securities by as much as $600 million and is in default on two indentures. The stock traded below $10 in the first half-hour of trading this morning. During the Class Period, the stock traded over $49.00. The complaint alleges that Doral and certain of its officers and directors violated the securities laws by improperly valuing its I/Os by using flawed loss assumption, artificially high prepayment assumptions and artificially low discount rates. As a result of such conduct, Doral's stock price traded at artificially inflated levels. The complaint alleges that while the stock price was artificially inflated certain insiders sold more than $10,000,000 in Doral stock and earned cash incentive bonuses. For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-619-251-0887 or +1-800-332-2259, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-scott.com. GENESIS ENERGY: Faces PQS Indemnification Claim For LA Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Genesis Energy LP faces an indemnification claim filed by Pennzoil-Quaker State Company (PQS), in relation to the five consolidated class actions/mass tort actions filed against PQS, in relation to a fire and explosion that occurred at the Pennzoil Quaker State refinery in Shreveport, Louisiana, on January 18, 2000. The five suits were brought by neighbors living in the vicinity of the PQS Shreveport, Louisiana refinery in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo Parish, Louisiana, Cause Nos. 455,647-A, 455,658-B, 455,655-A, 456,574-A, and 458,379-C. PQS has brought a third party demand against the Company and others for indemnity with respect to the fire and explosion of January 18, 2000. The Company was also named a defendant in a complaint filed on January 11, 2001, in the 125th District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2001-01176. From the Company, Pennzoil-Quaker State Company (PQS) was seeking property damages, loss of use and business interruption suffered as a result of a fire and explosion that occurred at the PQS claimed the fire and explosion were caused, in part, by the Company selling to PQS crude oil that was contaminated with organic chlorides. In December 2003, the Company's insurance carriers settled this litigation for $12.8 million. INFORMATICA CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Pact ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Informatica Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "In re Informatica Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)." Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from April 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000. It names as defendants the Company, one of the Company's current officers, and one of the Company's former officers and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April 29, 1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000 follow-on public offering. The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants. The Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants. The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have against the underwriters. The Informatica defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not believe will occur. The settlement will require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement. The Court has set a hearing date of January 9, 2006 to consider final approval of the settlement. The suit is styled "In re Informatica Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, under docket number 01 Civ. 9922 (Sas). The suit is related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiff firms in this suit are: (i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail: 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), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119- 1065, Phone: 212.594.5300, (iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 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, Mail: 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), Mail: 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, Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com For more information on this lawsuit, please visit http://securities.stanford.edu/1021/INFA01/20020419_r01c_019922. pdf INTERNET CAPITAL: Final NY Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Final fairness hearing for the the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Internet Capital Group, Inc., certain of its present and former directors and its underwriters is set for January 9,2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In May and June 2001, nine class action complaints were filed on behalf of present and former stockholders of the Company. The complaints generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on, among other things, the dissemination of statements allegedly containing material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions received by the underwriters of the initial public offering and follow-on public offering of the Company as well as failure to disclose the existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with some of the purchasers in these offerings to buy additional shares of the Company's stock subsequently in the open market at pre-determined prices above the initial offering prices. The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the alleged class members an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses. The claims in these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes (together with claims against other issuers and underwriters) before one judge in the Southern District of New York federal court. In April 2002, a consolidated, amended complaint was filed against these defendants which generally alleges the same violations and also refers to alleged misstatements or omissions that relate to the recommendations regarding the Company's stock by analysts employed by the underwriters. In June and July 2002, defendants, including the Company defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on numerous grounds. The Company's motion was denied in its entirety in an opinion dated February 19, 2003. In July 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors approved a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would provide for, among other things, a release of the Company and of the individual defendants (who had been previously dismissed without prejudice) for the wrongful conduct alleged 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 insurers. The complete terms of the proposed settlement is on file with the Court. The Court overseeing the litigation granted preliminary approval of the settlement in February 2005 subject to a change in the terms to bar cross-claims by defendant underwriters for contribution, but not for indemnification or otherwise. The parties to the settlement have now agreed on revised language to effectuate the changes regarding contribution/indemnification claims requested by the Court and that language has been submitted to the Court. Assuming the Court accepts those revisions, notice of settlement is expected to be sent to the settlement class in or about September 2005. The suit is styled "In re Internet Capital Group, Inc. Initial Public Offering Sec. Litigation," 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 JESSICA'S BAKERY: Recalls Muffins For Undeclared Milk Allergens --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica's Bakery Corporation, 739 Hempstead Tpke., Franklin Square, NY 11010, is recalling Keikito Muffins because they may contain undeclared milk allergens. Consumers who are allergic to milk allergens may run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Keikito Muffins are packaged in 8 oz., plastic wrapped styrofoam trays, coded May 2, 2005. They were sold in the New York City Metropolitan area and Nassau County. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis by laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared milk allergens in Keikito Muffins which did not declare a milk ingredient on the label. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who are allergic to milk allergens and purchased Keikito Muffins are urged to return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (516) 565-2911. KENTUCKY: Parishioners Convey Understanding For $120M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed $120 million priest sexual abuse settlement would impose staggering costs on the Catholic diocese in Covington, Kentucky, however many parishioners at Sunday Mass expressed their understanding of the need to compensate victims of decades of abuse, The Associated Press reports. Char Allen, attending Mass at the Cathedral Basilica of The Assumption, told AP that the settlement means the victims get the help they need and the issue is no longer hanging over the diocese. He adds that he victims deserve to be compensated by the diocese because the priests involved used the diocese to cover their activities. He told AP, "I can't imagine going through that, being a victim of your own faith." Last week, the Diocese of Covington pledged $120 million, which was the largest settlement of its kind in the nation's history, to end a two-year-old class action lawsuit filed on behalf of more than 100 alleged victims of sexual abuse by priests. As previously reported in the February 18, 2003 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the class action suit, which was filed in Boone County Circuit Court by Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley, claims that 21 priests and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did nothing to stop the misconduct. According to the court filings, from about 1956, information on the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed from the public, including parents of children in schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the diocese. Specifically, the suit accuses the diocese, which is just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati, of a 50-year cover- up of sexual abuse by priests and others. The diocese told AP that the settlement fund would consist of $80 million from insurance and $40 million from church real estate and investments. It also added that part of the fund would be put aside for victim counseling. Another parishioner, Jack Gartner, told AP as he left the basilica, "If we have to give up the property ... which is materialism, then that's what we have to do. He adds, "You do bad things and suffer the consequences." He also added: "It's hard for me to imagine that money can justify or satisfy the individuals who have endured this kind of abuse." Under the settlement, victims would be grouped into four categories based on the severity of abuse with compensation ranging anywhere from $5,000 to $450,000 per person, before attorney fees are deducted. During weekend services, priests assured churchgoers that paying the settlement wouldn't adversely affect schools, churches or charitable causes. The diocese though, which spans 14 counties and has 89,000 parishioners, began belt-tightening efforts, saying it would move its offices and announce some layoffs. The lawsuit also covers some Kentucky counties that were part of the Covington Diocese until 1988, when a new diocese in Lexington was formed. MARATHON OIL: Named in NY Stockholder Fraud Lawsuit V. Ashland -------------------------------------------------------------- Marathon Oil Corporation was named as a defendant in a class action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County against Ashland, Inc. and the individual members of Ashland's board of directors. The suit also names as defendants Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC (MAP) and Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB). On April 8, 2005, Ashland stockholder Shiva Singh filed the suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The action arises from the proposed transaction in which Ashland would transfer its entire 38% interest in MAP as well as certain other businesses to the Company. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty as well as aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against Ashland, its directors, the Company and MAP. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty and negligence as well as aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence against CSFB. The complaint seeks to recover from defendants an unstated sum of damages. The complaint also seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction (and any related shareholder vote) between Ashland and the Company; to require defendants to fully disclose all material facts before completion of any such transaction; and to require defendants to obtain a current, independent fairness opinion concerning the proposed transaction. To the extent that the proposed transaction is consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment, the complaint asks the court to rescind such transaction(s) and award damages. The complaint also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling granting approval to the settlement of the consolidated antitrust class action filed against MasterCard International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. by a number of U.S. merchants, challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under U.S. federal antitrust law. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, challenged MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule and a similar Visa rule. Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of credit cards. The plaintiffs also claimed that MasterCard and Visa conspired to monopolize what they characterized as the point-of-sale debit card market, thereby suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM payment systems. On June 4, 2003, MasterCard International signed the Settlement Agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this matter, which the Court approved on December 19, 2003. A number of class members have appealed the District Court's approval of the settlement. These appeals are largely focused on the court's attorneys' fees award as well on the court's ruling on the scope of the release set forth in the Settlement Agreement. On January 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order affirming the District Court's approval of the U.S. merchant settlement agreement. The time for which class members may seek certiorari of the Second Circuit's decision with the Supreme Court expired on May 31, 2005. Several lawsuits were commenced by merchants who have opted not to participate in the plaintiff class in the U.S. merchant lawsuit, including Best Buy Stores, CVS, Giant Eagle, Home Depot, Toys `R' Us and Darden Restaurants (collectively, the "Opt Out Plaintiffs"). The majority of these cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. MasterCard has entered into separate settlement agreements with each of the Opt Out Plaintiffs resolving their claims against MasterCard. The District Court has entered orders dismissing with prejudice each of the Opt Out Plaintiff's complaints against MasterCard. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Launch State Suits For Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mastercard International, Inc. and Visa continue to face individual or multiple complaints brought in 19 different states and the District of Columbia under state unfair competition statutes on behalf of putative classes of consumers. The suits assert that merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services sold. While these actions are in their early stages, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the complaints in a number of state courts for failure to state a cause of action. Courts in Arizona, Iowa, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine, North Dakota, Kansas, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia have granted the Company's motions and dismissed the complaints with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed several of these decisions. The plaintiffs in Minnesota have filed a revised complaint on behalf of a purported class of Minnesota consumers who made purchases with debit cards rather than on behalf of all consumers. On January 6, 2005, the Company moved to dismiss the Minnesota complaint for failure to state a claim. In addition, the courts in Tennessee and California have granted the Company's motion to dismiss the respective state unfair competition claims but have denied the Company's motions with respect to unjust enrichment claims in Tennessee and Section 17200 claims for unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices in California. The Tennessee decisions are expected to be appealed by both parties. The Company is awaiting decisions on its motions to dismiss in the other state courts. On March 14, 2005, MasterCard was served with a complaint that was filed in Ohio state court on behalf of a putative class of consumers under Ohio state unfair competition law. The claims in this action mirror those in the consumer actions described above but also name as co-defendants a purported class of merchants who were class members in the U.S. merchant lawsuit. Plaintiffs allege that Visa, the Company and the class members of the U.S. merchant lawsuit conspired to attempt to monopolize the debit card market by tying debit card acceptance to credit card acceptance. The Company's time in which to respond to the complaint is currently running. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against MasterCard International, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit also names as defendants Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corporation and several member banks in California. On October 8, 2004, a new purported class action lawsuit was filed by a group of merchants, alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The complaint contains similar allegations to those brought in the interchange case described in the preceding paragraph, and plaintiffs have designated it as a related case. The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction against MasterCard (and Visa) setting interchange and engaging in "joint marketing activities," which plaintiffs allege include the purported negotiation of merchant discount rates with certain merchants. On November 19, 2004, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. On March 29, 2005, the Court granted the Company's request for permission to file a motion for partial summary judgment, and the Court scheduled oral argument on that motion for July 8, 2005. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 25, 2005. The suit is styled "Kendall et al v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al, case no. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs are Richard Joseph Archer, Archer & Hansen, 3110 Bohemian Highway, Occidental, CA 95465, Phone: 707-874-3438, Fax: 707-874-3438, E-mail: archerdic@aol.com; and James Archer Kopcke, Golden & Kopcke, LLP, 22 Battery Street, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-399-9995, Fax: 415-398-5890 E-mail: jameskopcke@yahoo.com. Representing the Company are Jay Neil Fastow, Gianluca Morello, and Debra J. Pearlstein, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153, Phone: 212-310-8644, Fax: 212-310-8007, E-mail: jay.fastow@weil.com, gianluca.morello@weil.com, debra.pearlstein@weil.com; and Wesley Railey Powell and Nancy Karen Raber of Clifford Chance US LLP, 31 West 52d Street New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-878-3309, Fax: 212-878-8375, E- mail: wesley.powell@cliffordchance.com and Nancy.raber@cliffordchance.com. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Conversion Fee Suit Trial Set For Oct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the antitrust class action filed against MasterCard International, Inc. and other credit card firms and financial institutions is set for October 10,2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Visa U.S.A., Inc., (2) Visa International Corporation, (3) several member banks including Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Citibank (Nevada), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA Corporation, and Diners Club A number of federal class actions were initially filed, alleging, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee." Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserts two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: (1) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently more;" and (2) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have conspired with its members to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and encourage institution" and collection "of second tier currency conversion surcharges." The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. Defendants have moved to dismiss the MDL Complaint. On July 3, 2003, Judge Pauley issued a decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss in part. Judge Pauley dismissed the Truth in Lending claims in their entirety as against the Company, Visa and several of the member bank defendants. Judge Pauley did not dismiss the antitrust claims. Fact discovery in this matter has closed but expert discovery is ongoing. On November 12, 2003 plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on October 15, 2004. On March 9, 2005, Judge Pauley issued a decision on defendants' motion to reconsider the class certification decision. The Judge ruled that the arbitration provisions in the cardholder agreements of member bank defendants, Bank One, MBNA, Providian, Household and Bank of America are valid as to those respective banks and MasterCard and, consequently, cardholders of those banks can no longer participate in the class action certified in his earlier decision and must pursue any claims through arbitration. Plaintiffs have moved for further reconsideration. Judge Pauley declined to give effect to the arbitration clauses in the Citibank and Chase cardholder agreements; both banks have noticed an appeal of that decision. The suit is styled "In re: Currency Conversion Litigation, case no. 1:01-md-01409-WHP," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William H. Pauley III. Representing the plaintiffs are Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 3700, Chicago, Illinois 60603 and Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax: (415) 288-4534. MCNEIL CONSUMER: Recalls TYLENOL Packs Due to Confusing Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals is voluntarily recalling all lots and all flavors of Children's TYLENOLr Meltaways 80 mg packaged in bottles and blisters, Children's TYLENOLrSoftChews 80mg packaged in blisters, and Junior TYLENOLr Meltaways 160mg packaged in blisters. The blister package design, as well as the information on the blister package and on the blister and bottle cartons may be confusing and could lead to improper dosing, including over-dosing. Some Children's TYLENOLr Meltaways 80mg and Children's TYLENOLr SoftChews 80mg are packaged in a blister package designed to be convenient for parents who need dosing flexibility depending on the age or weight of the child. The package design includes blister cavities that contain one tablet while other cavities contain two tablets. Concerns have been raised that labeling on the carton and on the back of the two-tablet cavities may erroneously suggest to the consumer that two tablets provide a total of 80mg of the active ingredient, acetaminophen, when two tablets would actually provide 160mg of acetaminophen. Consumers should know that each tablet of Children's TYLENOL Meltaways and Children's TYLENOL SoftChews contains 80 mg of this active ingredient. Each tablet is imprinted with the number "80" to reflect this amount. Caregivers should be guided by the dosage directions in the "Drug Facts" labeling on the carton for the correct number of individual tablets to be given based on the child's age and weight. In addition, some Children's TYLENOLr Meltaways 80mg are packaged in a bottle. The bottle is packaged in a carton. Concerns have been raised that the information on the front panel of the carton for Children's TYLENOLr Meltaways 80mg may be confusing to some consumers in determining the proper dosage. The carton labeling says that each dose provides 80 mg of acetaminophen. Consumers should know that each tablet of Children's TYLENOL Meltaways contains 80 mg of acetaminophen. Caregivers should be guided by the dosage directions on the bottle label for the correct number of individual tablets to be given based on the child's age and weight. Concerns have also been raised that the carton labeling for Junior TYLENOLr Meltaways 160mg may be confusing to some consumers in determining the proper dosage. This labeling says that each dose provides 160 mg of acetaminophen. Consumers should know that each tablet of Junior TYLENOL Meltaways contains 160 mg of acetaminophen. Caregivers should be guided by the dosage directions in the "Drug Facts" labeling on the carton for the correct number of individual tablets to be given based on the child's age and weight. Taking more than the recommended dose (overdose) of acetaminophen may cause liver damage when taking the product for fever or pain relief over the course of the three- or five-day period specified by the labeling. McNeil is working with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in this recall and in the effort to alert consumers and retailers nationwide about this issue. Consumers or retailers who have questions or concerns about a product described in this alert should contact McNeil's Consumer Relationship Center at 1-877-895-3665 (English) or 1-888-466-8746 (Spanish) or visit http://www.TYLENOL.com.The website contains written material and photos of the product and the packaging. Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of these products should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088, by Fax at 1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-410, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch Web site: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Openwave Systems, Inc., five of its present or former officers and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and secondary public offering. The suit is styled "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS). The suit is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000. Three of the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice, subject to an agreement extending the statute of limitations, through September 30, 2003. The complaint alleges liability as under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices. The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued. No specific damages are claimed. Similar allegations were made in over 300 lawsuits challenging public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants. Plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Openwave Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies responsible for insuring the issuers, and for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have against the underwriters. The Openwave Defendants will not be required to make any cash payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not believe will occur. The settlement will require final approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement. The suit is styled "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 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, Mail: 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 PETCO ANIMAL: Pomerantz Haudek Schedules Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP set a June 17, 2005 deadline for investors to seek appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed by the firm against PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. ("PETCO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PETCE). The lawsuit was filed against the company and three of the Company's senior officers, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of PETCO from November 18, 2004 to April 14, 2005 (the "class period"). The case was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit is seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants reported strong earnings and sales growth and represented that such growth would continue in 2005. In fact, unbeknownst to investors, PETCO's fourth quarter earnings were materially artificially inflated through accounting manipulation. In particular, PETCO had been under-accruing expenses, thereby inflating its earnings. For the same reason, the Company's favorable projections for 2005 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were premised on the continuation of the improper accounting practices. The complaint further alleges that PETCO and the Company's Chief Executive Officer, James M. Myers, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Rodney Carter and PETCO's Chairman of the Board, Brian K. Devine, were privy to confidential and proprietary information concerning the Company, its operations, finances, financial condition, and present and future business prospects. Because of their possession of such information, the defendants had a duty to disseminate promptly accurate and truthful information with respect to PETCO's financial condition and performance, growth, operations, financial statements, business, products, markets, management, earnings and present and future business prospects, and to correct any previously issued statements that had become materially misleading or untrue, so that the market price of PETCO's common stock would be based upon truthful and accurate information. For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com. PLAINS RESOURCES: DE Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the class action filed against Plains Resources, Inc. in the Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County, styled "Alfons Sperber v. Plains Resources Inc., et al.," is deemed final after no appeals were filed This suit, brought on behalf of a putative class of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. common unitholders, asserted breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims against Plains All American L.P., Plains AAP, L.P., and Plains All American GP LLC and its directors, as well as breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Company and its directors. The complaint sought to enjoin or rescind a proposed acquisition of all of the Company's outstanding stock as well as declaratory relief, an accounting, disgorgement and the imposition of a constructive trust, and an award of damages, fees, expenses and costs, among other things. This lawsuit has been settled in principle. The court approved the settlement and the settlement became final in March 2005. PLUG POWER: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Plug Power, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors after a fairness hearing was held on April 19,2005 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In September 2000, a shareholder class action complaint was filed, alleging that the Company and various of its officers and directors violated certain federal securities laws by failing to disclose certain information concerning our products and future prospects. The action was brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company stock who purchased the stock between February 14, 2000 and August 2, 2000. Subsequently, fourteen additional complaints with similar allegations and class periods were filed. By order dated October 30, 2000, the court consolidated the complaints into one action, entitled Plug Power Inc. Securities Litigation, CV-00- 5553(ERK)(RML). By order dated January 25, 2001, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. Subsequently, the plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint extends the class period to begin on October 29, 1999 and alleges claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. Subsequently, plaintiffs withdrew their claims under the Securities Act. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the state of development of the Company's technology in a registration statement issued in connection with our initial public offering (IPO) and in subsequent press releases. The Company served its motion to dismiss the claims in May 2001. By order dated January 21, 2003, the Court dismissed all claims relating to pre-IPO press releases, the IPO prospectus and all but three post-IPO press releases. The Court ruled that the three remaining press releases raised questions of fact that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants at this time. On December 29, 2004, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which is subject to final approval by the Court. The settlement does not call for payment by the defendants and would be covered by directors and officers insurance. The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was submitted to the Court on January 5, 2005. On January 19, 2005, the Court entered an order certifying the class for the purposes of settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, setting forth procedures for notice to the plaintiff class, and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing for April 29, 2005. Pursuant to the Court's January 19, 2005 order, members of the plaintiff class who wish to be excluded from the class must mail a request to be excluded no later than April 11, 2005. The suit is styled "In re Plug Power Securities Litigation, case no. 1:00-cv-05553-ERK-RML," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Edward R. Korman. Representing the Company are Gregory A. Markel, Ronit Setton, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP One World Financial Center New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212-504-6000 Fax: 212-504-6666, E- mail: greg.markel@cwt.com, ronit.setton@cwt.com; and Nancy I. Ruskin Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2000 Fax: 212-225-3499, E- mail: nruskin@cgsh.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Lionel Z. Glancy, Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. 1801 Avenue of the Americas Los Angeles, CA 90067 (2) Mel E. Lifschitz 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 (3) Samuel H. Rudman, Steven G. Schulman Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P. One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 PMA CAPITAL: Presents Arguments For Dismissal of PA Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PMA Capital Corporation presented oral arguments for the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain of its directors and key executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Several purported class actions were initially filed in 2003 on behalf of alleged purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior Convertible Debt and 8.50% Monthly Income Senior Notes. On June 28, 2004, the Court issued an order consolidating the cases under the caption "In Re PMA Capital Corporation Securities Litigation (civil action no. 03-6121)" and appointing Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund and Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and Death Benefits as lead plaintiff. On September 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 5, 1999 and February 11, 2004. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making materially false and misleading public statements and material omissions during the class period regarding the Company's underwriting performance, loss reserves and related internal controls. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act by making materially false and misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses about the Company's financial results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and related internal controls. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings, interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. On April 11, 2005, the Company presented oral arguments in the District Court with respect to a motion to dismiss all claims. The judge's decision with respect to such motion is pending. The lawsuit is in its earliest stages; therefore, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the impact on the Company. The suit is styled "AUGENBAUM v. PMA CAPITAL CORPORATION et al., case no. 2:03-cv-06121-PBT," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Petrese B. Tucker. Representing the plaintiffs are Robert A. Kauffman, Arthur Stock and Sherri Savett of Berger and Montague, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4636, E-mail: astock@bm.net; and Salvatore J. Graziano of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300. Representing the Company are David M. Howard, Michael L. Kichline, Joseph A. Tate of Dechert LLP, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, 1717 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2973, Phone: 215-994-2218, E-mail: david.howard@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com, joseph.tate@dechert.com. PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Publix Drinking Water Due to Taste, Odor -------------------------------------------------------------- Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall on Publix 1- gallon (3.78L) and 2.5-gallon (9.45L) drinking water with the manufacturing plant code PLT 12595 and the following code dates: (1) 1 gallon: PDR May 02, 2005 and PDR May 04, 2005 (the code can be found on the back of the container). (2) 2.5-gallon: PDR APR 27, 2005 and PDR May 03, 2005 (the code can be found on the front of the container). This water may not meet Publix quality specifications for taste and odor. The product was distributed in Publix stores in the following counties: Broward, Miami-Dade, Indian River, Martin, Monroe, Okeechobee, St. Lucie and Palm Beach, Florida. "Although no confirmed illnesses have been reported, we have received notification from customers as to the odor and taste of the drinking water. Therefore, we're issuing a voluntary recall because customer satisfaction and safety are our first priorities," said Anne Hendricks, manager of media and community relations, Publix Miami Division. "Customers who have purchased the recalled product may return it to their store for a full refund or replacement. If customers have further inquiries they may contact Publix Consumer Relations at 1-800 242-1227." Publix is owned and operated by its 129,500 employees, with 2004 sales of $18.6 billion. Currently Publix has 853 stores in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee. The company has been named one of Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For in America" for eight consecutive years. In addition, Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer service is recognized as tops in the grocery business, most recently by an American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. SIDLEY AUSTIN: Cliff Fonstein Joins Law Firm's New York Office -------------------------------------------------------------- Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP reports that Cliff Fonstein joined the firm's national employment and labor practice as a partner, resident in the firm's New York office. Mr. Fonstein will focus on labor and employment law and employment class action litigation. Mr. Fonstein advises and litigates on behalf of Fortune 500 companies on a variety of employment and labor issues ranging from executive contracts to the defense of discrimination, trade secret and unfair competition claims. In particular, Mr. Fonstein focuses on representing companies in the financial services industry, having most recently defended a major Wall Street bank in employment litigation in federal and state courts as well as before the NASD and NYSE. He has also defended employers in large class actions, prevailed in a multi- million dollar whistle blower claim and advised a telecommunications company regarding the anti-competition provisions in its senior management's employment contracts. He has achieved successful results for his clients, whether defending a single plaintiff discrimination claim before a state administrative agency or in a complicated, multi-plaintiff litigation involving a group of highly compensated employees. "Cliff has successfully taken on some of the most complex and closely observed employment cases of recent years, in disparate industries," said Thomas A. Cole, chair of the firm's Executive Committee. "He is equally well regarded for his abilities in providing clients with effective preventative advice, an approach Sidley is committed to taking with its broad client base. We are very pleased to welcome Cliff as a partner in the firm." Mr. Fonstein said, "Sidley has a great national employment practice that I have long respected. I look forward in particular to working with Brian Gold, who chairs the national Employment and Labor Group, and Laura Allen, who heads a team in New York that has successfully represented and continues to work with many of the country's major financial and investment institutions." A graduate of the UCLA School of Law, Mr. Fonstein completed Judicial Externship with the Honorable Jay Rabinowitz of the Alaska Supreme Court. He received a B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley, Phi Beta Kappa, having received an AFL- CIO Scholarship. Mr. Fonstein was most recently a partner with O'Melveny & Myers. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP is one of the world's largest full-service law firms, with more than 1,550 lawyers practicing in 14 domestic and international cities. The firm represents a broad range of clients. For more details, contact Janet Zagorin of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, Phone: +1-212-839-8797, E-mail: jzagorin@sidley.com and Robin Wagge of Rubenstein Associates, Phone: +1-212-843-8006, E-mail: rwagge@rubenstein.com. SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: NY Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Sirenza Microdevices, Inc., various of its officers and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of securities. The suit, styled "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596," alleges improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the Company's initial public offering, including obtaining commitments from investors to purchase shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices. Similar lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies' initial public offerings were filed during 2001, and this lawsuit is being coordinated with those actions (the "coordinated litigation"). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on or about April 19, 2002, bringing claims for violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws and seeking an unspecified amount of damages. On July 1, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of which the Company and its named officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues. On October 8, 2002, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the court dismissed the officer and director defendants from the action without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants, including the Company. The court's order dismissed all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including final approval of the proposed settling parties and the court. The suit is styled "In re Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10596," related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300, (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has yet to rule regarding the adequacy of the class representative in the class action filed against Sonus Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors and a former officer. Several of its shareholders filed suits in June 2002 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between December 11, 2000 and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages. The complaints were essentially identical and alleged that the Company e made false and misleading statements about our products and business. On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on various grounds. On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, at the conclusion of which the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 30, 2004, and the Company filed its opposition on September 10, 2004, to which the plaintiffs replied on September 30, 2004. On February 16, 2005, the court certified the class and appointed a class representative. On March 9, 2005, the court appointed the law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel, and the court also ordered additional filings as to the adequacy of the class representative. The court has not yet held a hearing or issued a decision on the matter. SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Considers Securities Lawsuit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard Sonus Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its current officers and directors on June 1,2005. The Court has yet to release a ruling. On December 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the Company's restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the first three quarters of 2003. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of false or misleading statements to the market concerning its revenues, earnings, and financial condition. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused our stock price to be artificially inflated. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004. On January 28, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants. On March 22, 2005, the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion. SPITZER AUTO: OH Judge OKs $10M Suit Settlement Over $97.50 Fee --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David Matia of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court approved a $10 million settlement for a lawsuit against Spitzer Auto Dealer that was brought on behalf of 74,000 Ohio consumers. The settlement brings to an end five years of litigation involving a $97.50 fee Spitzer inserted, as a preprinted line item, into its Buyers Agreement. The Class of consumers are represented by David M. Paris of the Nurenberg, Plevin Law Firm and Ronald I. Frederick. Spitzer had been inserting a $97.50 fee in its Buyers Agreements since, at least, the early 1980's. In 1989, the Ohio Attorney General called this practice deceptive and forced Spitzer to stop charging this fee for what it described in its contracts as "delivery and handling." However, Spitzer continued the practice by changing the description of the fee to "dealer overhead." In 2000, Lisa Washington and Carol Violand filed suit against the Spitzer Dealerships claiming that this fee violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act because it was deceptive, made consumers believe that it was non-negotiable and, in effect, was an add-on item, which raised the sales price of vehicles to be in excess of the advertised price. A total of 120,000 consumer transactions were reviewed for the time period between August 1998 and December 2004. It was determined that consumers were charged and paid this fee in approximately 74,000 instances. The settlement requires that Spitzer pay damages to each customer in the amount of $134.20, which is comprised of a combination of cash and coupon. In addition, the settlement requires that Spitzer remove this pre- printed fee from its Buyers Agreements. For more details, contact Tamara Brininger or Attorney David Paris of Nurenburg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy, Phone: +1-216-310-5873 or +1-216-906-1173. SPRINT CORPORATION: IL Lawsuit Certified, Company Secrets Spared ---------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron both certified a class action lawsuit over Sprint Corporation's early termination fee and dismissed a protective order, which guarded the wireless company's trade secrets, revenue data, pricing models, internal policies and unique computer systems, The Madison County Record reports. Jessica Hall of Granite City, who is the lead plaintiff in the suit, can now send previously confidential Sprint documents to the Federal Communications Commissions. In his May 20 certification order, Judge Byron wrote, "The record indicates that Sprint uses standardized means and methods to impose and collect early termination fees and every class members has essentially the same claim against Sprint." He adds, "This is a classic case for certification." The judge gave Sprint 24 hours to make an objection to whatever Ms. Hall intends to send the FCC. Ms. Hall had sued Sprint last year claiming that it improperly charged her $150 for canceling her wireless contract before it expired. She asked Judge Byron to certify her as representative of a plaintiff class. From the beginning, Ms. Hall and Sprint agreed to keep some documents confidential, thus they stipulated a protective order, which Judge Byron signed. In March, CTIA, the Wireless Association petitioned the FCC to block the suit arguing that the fee fell within the definition of rates, which states may not regulate. The group warned that the suit threatened the rate structure behind the industry's "ubiquitous deployment, innovative services, affordable prices and soaring subscribership." Ms. Hall promptly withdrew her consent to the protective order, telling Judge Byron she did not know when she agreed to it that CTIA would petition the FCC. After that she then moved to set aside the order so she could provide previously confidential Sprint documents to the FCC. Sprint though opposed the motion, arguing that a stipulation cannot be withdrawn unless it is illegal, fraudulently induced or contrary to public morals. The firm argued that it did not know when it agreed to the protective order that CTIA would petition the FCC. On May 20, Judge Byron signed an order vacating the protective order, however Sprint immediately filed an emergency motion to keep the protective order in force. Then on May 25, the judge denied Sprint's motion, but he did modify his May 20 order. In his modified order, the judge said that Ms. Hall would identify what she intended to submit to the FCC, and Sprint would have 24 hours to review it and object. Currently, the FCC requested public comments on the CTIA petition in the Hall case and a CTIA petition on a similar case in South Carolina. SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Allows Securities Suit To Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Kansas refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Sprint Corporation, on behalf of purchasers of Sprint FON Group (NYSE: FON) and PCS Group (NYSE: PCS) common stock between August 11, 2000 and February 13, 2003. The suit also names as defendants several of the Company's executives and Ernst & Young LLP. The complaint charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market. Specifically, the Company's press releases and SEC filings overstated the Company's earnings and net assets by failing to reserve for the likely reversal of over $100 million in tax benefits attributable to highly questionable tax shelters used by Sprint Corporation's executive officers, and Defendants failed to reveal that these tax shelters caused a conflict of interest between the executives and Sprint Corporation and its accountants, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March 17,2003) states. Defendants asked the court to dismiss the suit. In September 2004, the court denied the motion. Following denial of the dismissal motion, the parties stipulated that the case can proceed as a class action. All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend to vigorously defend this matter. The consolidated securities suit is styled "State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment, et al. v. Sprint Corporation et al., case no. 2:03-cv-02071-JWL-JPO," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas under Chief Judge John W. Lungstrum. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Allyn Z. Lite, Bruce D. Greenberg, Joseph J. DePalma, Katrina Blumenkrants, Mary Jean Pizza and Susan D. Pontorerio of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas LLC, Two Gateway Center - 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: 973-623-3000, Fax: 973-623-0858, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com, bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com, jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com, kblumenkrants@ldgrlaw.com, spontoriero@ldgrlaw.com (2) Christopher L. Nelson, Gregory M. Castaldo, Jacob A. Goldberg, Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway LLC, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056, E-mail: cnelson@sbclasslaw.com, gcastaldo@sbclasslaw.com, jgoldberg@sbclasslaw.com, rschiffrin@sbclasslaw.com Representing the Company are: (i) David N. Greenwald, Francis P. Barron, Michael A. Paskin, Ronald S. Rolfe, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10019- 7475, Phone: 212-474-1922, Fax: 212-474-3700, Email: dgreenwald@cravath.com, fbarron@cravath.com, mpaskin@cravath.com, rrolfe@cravath.com (ii) Mark A. Thornhill, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne-- Kansas City, 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400, Kansas City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-474-8100, Fax: 816-474-3216, E-mail: mthornhill@spencerfane.com WATCHGUARD TECNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP set a June 7, 2005 deadline for purchasers of WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. ("WatchGuard" or the Company) (Nasdaq:WGRD) securities, during the class period of February 12, 2005 to March 15, 2005, to seek appointment by the Court as lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit filed by the firm. The lawsuit was filed on April 19, 2005 in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges that WatchGuard and certain of its officers and directors knowingly or recklessly misrepresented the Company's earnings throughout the Class Period, and thereby caused the Company's stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The truth, known to each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public, entailed that: (1) WatchGuard's Q1-Q3 2004 reported financial results were materially false and misleading due to inaccurate income statement classification of early pay incentive discounts taken by customers, under-accrual of customer rebate obligations and timing of revenue recognition associated with specific products and services (resulting from an overstatement of product revenue and understatement of deferred revenue); (2) the Company's February 12, 2004 projections were materially false and misleading; (3) The functionality and value of the Company's "Firebox X" product was grossly overstated, and this product did not materially or accurately improve the Company's gross margins, streamline the Company's management or otherwise reduce its reliance on custom components; and (4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Firebox X was not tracking as defendants claimed. On March 16, 2005, WatchGuard disclosed that: (i) certain errors were discovered in its audit process and that it would need to reclassify early pay incentive discounts from interest expense to reduce its revenue for its pervious financial results for 2002, 2003 and the first three quarters of 2004; (ii) an error was discovered in the Company's handling of lease incentives; and (iii) the errors reflected a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting. The market reacted swiftly to this disclosure, with the Company's stock price falling to a closing price of $3.17 on March 16, 2005. For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits V. Calypso Washing Machine ---------------------------------------------------------------- Whirlpool Corporation faces 10 purported class action lawsuits in eight states related to its Calypso clothes washing machine. Three of the original purported class actions have been dismissed. The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of warranty based on the allegations that the washing machines have various defects. There are no allegations of any personal injury, catastrophic property damage, or safety risk. The complaints generally seek unspecified compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. New Securities Fraud Cases ABLE LABORATORIES: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP initiated a securities fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Able Labatories, Inc. ("Able" or the "Company") (NASDAQNM: ABRX), Dhananjay G. Wadekar and Robert Weinstein on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired securities of Able Labatories between October 30, 2002 and May 18, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). A copy of the complaint is available from the court and will be posted on our website, www.chitwoodlaw.com until expiration of the lead plaintiff deadline, July 22, 2005. The Complaint alleges that starting on October 30, 2002 and continuing until May 18, 2005, defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding Able's business and earnings. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Able failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) the Company's product testing procedures failed to meet standard industry practices and good manufacturing practices established by the FDA; (2) the Company was faced with potentially enormous liabilities and fines as a result of its breaches of good manufacturing practices; (3) the Company's breaches jeopardized not only its current drug offerings but also the likelihood that drugs in development would gain FDA approval; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' opinions and statements concerning Able's current and future earnings lacked a reasonable basis at all times. On May 19, 2005, Able announced that it had identified departures from standard operating procedures and good manufacturing practices with respect to certain laboratory testing practices and that as a result of these observations, the Company would be recalling additional products in the future. Able also announced on May 19 the resignation of Wadekar from his positions as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. This news shocked the market. Shares of Able fell $18.37 per share, or $74.59 per share, on May 19, 2005, to close at $6.25 per share. During the Class Period, insiders sold over 480,000 shares for proceeds exceeding $9,000,000. For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888, E-mail: lantonino@chitwoodlaw.com, Web site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com. CARRIER ACCESS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CO -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Carrier Access Corporation (NASDAQ: CACSE) securities between October 21, 2003, and May 20, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, against the company and certain key officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net. CARRIER ACCESS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Carrier Access Corporation (Nasdaq: CACSE) ("Carrier Access," or the "Company") between October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Also included in this case are all shareholders who acquired Carrier Access stock as Paragon Networks shareholders or in the January 29, 2004 Carrier Access public offering. The Complaint charges Carrier Access, Roger L. Koenig, Nancy G. Pierce, and Timothy R. Anderson with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the Company's financial results and business prospects. This allowed the defendants to: (1) acquire Paragon Networks using inflated Company stock, (2) sell 6 million shares of the Company to the public in January 2004, raising $78 million, (3) obtain listing on the Russell 3000 Index, and (4) enable the Individual Defendants to sell nearly 1.3 million personally held shares in the Company, reaping nearly $15.8 million. On May 5, 2005, Carrier Access announced that it received a Nasdaq Staff Determination letter, indicating that the Company's stock was subject to delisting from the Nasdaq. On May 20, 2005, Carrier Access announced that it was reviewing revenue and cost recognition issues. The press release stated that "certain revenues and direct costs have been recorded in incorrect periods. The amounts that have been quantified to date are significant..." On this news, Carrier Access's share price fell to a close of $4.61 per share on May 20, 2005. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. CRAY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Cray, Inc. ("Cray" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CRAY) securities during the period between July 31, 2003 and May 12, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Cray and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Cray is engaged in the design, development, marketing and support of high-performance computer systems, commonly known as supercomputers. More specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that Cray's system of internal controls was inadequate because it failed in a number of key aspects, including inadequate review of third-party contracts and lack of software application controls and documentation; (2) that as a consequence of the above, it was difficult for Cray to manage basic operational tasks, such as the development of software applications, or to manage customer requirements and specifications for systems per contract; and (3) that the defendants' statements about the Company's status and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On March 16, 2005, Cray announced that it would delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004. Although the Company had not completed its formal assessment process under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Company expected that it would identify one or more material weaknesses and that it would conclude that its system of internal controls was not effective. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Cray fell $0.78 per share or 25.9 percent, on March 17, 2005, to close at $2.23 per share. On May 9, 2005, Cray reported financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2005. Total revenue for the quarter was $37.6 million, compared to $42.1 million in the same period of the previous year. On this news shares of Cray fell another $0.61 per share or 29.3 percent, on May 10, 2005, to $1.47 per share. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Mail: 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com. MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MD --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of the securities of Martek Biosciences Corporation, Inc. (Nasdaq:MATK); "Martek" or the "Company", from December 9, 2004 to April 27, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against defendants Martek, Henry Linsert Jr. (CEO) and Peter L. Buzy (CFO). Martek sells oils containing two fatty acids, DHA, (docosahexaenoic acid) and ARA (arachidonic acid), both of which, according to the Company, may provide health benefits. The complaint alleges that the Company at all relevant times stated in its public filings that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other such organizations in Europe and Asia, had compiled data showing that the dietary intake of DHA and ARA is less than half the level recommended by the World Health Organization and that, "this possible dietary deficiency will result in an increase in demand for DHA- supplemented products." Additionally, the Company stated that it was increasing manufacturing capacity to keep apace with growing demand and that growing demand would drive 2005 revenue to $290 million to $310 million, a year-over-year increase of 57% to 68%. The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors: (1) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their statements, with respect to demand for the Company's products, had no reasonable basis in fact when made and (2) to maintain the appearance of high consumer demand for its products the Company stuffed its distribution channels. On April 27, 2005, Defendants announced that full-year 2005 sales would be only $220 to $240 million, well below guidance. On this news, Martek shares fell $27.59, or 45.9%, to close at $32.49, making it the biggest percentage loser on NASDAQ in trading that day, on extremely heavy trading volume. The complaint charges that Defendants were motivated to engage in the fraudulent practices alleged herein in order to allow the Company to complete an offering of 1,756,614 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $49.10 per share for net proceeds of approximately $81.4 million on January 26, 2005. For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower B Suite 500, Washington, D.C., 20005, Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com. POSSIS MEDICAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Possis Medical, Inc. ("Possis" or the "Company") (NYSE:POSS), between September 24, 2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Possis and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated Possis' stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Possis develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices, including the AngioJet System - a non-surgical, minimally invasive catheter system designed to rapidly remove blood clots using a stream of water. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented material adverse facts, including that: (1) the AngioJet System, the Company's key product, was not more effective than existing alternatives, including competing drug therapies, nor did AngioJet reduce significant procedural complications or significantly increase positive benefits such as improved blood flow or other similar effects; (2) the AngioJet could not be expanded as a "technology platform" because AngioJet was not in the first instance effective for routine use in a broad range of heart attack patients to reduce the size of a patient's damaged tissue area; and (3) as a result of the foregoing problems, Possis could not maintain its projected revenue growth or achieve sustained revenue growth targets as high as 35%. The Complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true safety and efficacy of AngioJet, and defendants' ability to expand and develop Possis' AngioJet technology, because it enabled defendants to artificially inflate the price of Possis shares and then allowed defendants and other Company insiders to sell more than 361,730 shares of their privately held Possis stock to the unsuspecting public for proceeds in excess of $7.07 million while in possession of material adverse, non-public information about the Company. On August 24, 2004, it was disclosed that AngioJet failed to demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of heart attack patients, causing Possis' share price to plummet more than 38%. As a result, the Company lost almost 40% of its market capitalization after Possis shares traded down more than $11.75 per share, to $19.00 per share, as defendants lowered the Company's 2005 earnings and revenue guidance. For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. POSSIS MEDICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Possis Medical, Inc. ("Possis" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: POSS) between September 24, 2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The action, numbered 05cv1084, is pending before the Hon. James M. Rosenbaum in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against defendants Possis, Robert G. Dutcher (CEO and President) and Eapen Chacko (CFO). The complaint alleges that Possis's primary product was the AngioJet System, a non-surgical, minimally invasive catheter system designed to rapidly remove blood clots using a stream of water. The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, and contrary to defendants' representations: (1) the AngioJet System was not more effective than existing alternatives, including competing drug therapies, such as the leading product Urokinase, nor did AngioJet reduce significant procedural complications or significantly increase positive benefits such as improved blood flow or other similar effects; (2) AngioJet could not be expanded as a "technology platform" because AngioJet was not in the first instance effective for routine use in a broad range of heart attack patients to reduce the size of infracts; and (3) as a result of the foregoing problems, Possis could not maintain its projected revenue growth or achieve sustained revenue growth targets as high as 35%. The truth emerged on August 24, 2004. On that date, shares of Possis fell precipitously and the Company lost almost 40% of its market capitalization after it was disclosed that AngioJet failed to demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of heart attach patients. Shares of Possis traded down more than $11.75 per share, or 38%, to $19.00 per share, as defendants lowered 2005 earnings and revenue guidance. The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true safety and efficacy of AngioJet, and defendants' ability to expand and develop Prossis's AngioJet technology, because it enabled defendants to artificially inflate the price of Possis shares and then allowed defendants and other Company insiders to sell more than 361,730 shares of their privately held Possis stock to the unsuspecting public for proceeds in excess of $7.07 million while in possession of material adverse, non-public information about the Company. For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman or Andrei V. Rado, Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com. POSSIS MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Possis Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: POSS) ("Possis" or "the Company") between September 24, 2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Possis, Robert Dutcher, and Eapen Chacko violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that unknown to investors and contrary to defendants' representations, the Company's primary product, AngioJet System, a minimally invasive catheter system designed to remove blood clots using a stream of water: (1) was not more effective than competing drug therapies (such as Urokinase, the leading product on the market) or other existing alternatives, and it did not reduce significant procedural complications or significantly increase positive benefits; and (2) could not be expanded as a "technology platform" because it was not, in the first instance, effective for routine use in a broad range of heart attack patients to reduce the size of infracts. As a result of these problems, the Company could not achieve sustained revenue growth targets or maintain its projected revenue growth. The Complaint also alleges that defendants and other Company insiders sold during the Class Period, at inflated prices, more than 360,000 personally held shares in the Company, reaping over $7 million. On August 24, 2004 the truth emerged as defendants lowered 2005 earnings and revenue guidance, and they disclosed that AngioJet failed to demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of heart attack patients. On this news, Possis' share price fell more than $12.00 per share. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. ********* 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 Senorin, 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 * * *