/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050824.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 167 Headlines AVISTA CORPORATION: Asks Review of Refusal To Dismiss WA Lawsuit CHIQUITA BRANDS: Customers Launch Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL CORN PRODUCTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in IL CORN PRODUCTS: Faces Corn Syrup Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of GA TCPA Lawsuit Dismissal DECODE GENETICS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage, Hour Suits in CA Court EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits FREEMARKETS INC.: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Fraud Suit ISOLAGEN INC.: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit KADANT COMPOSITES: Recalls 11T Constructed Decks For Injury Risk LOUISIANA: Lawyers Say TX Ruling V. Merck Could Spur More Suits LOUISIANA: Protracted Drinking Water Case to go to Trial in 2006 MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Injury Lawsuits V. Zicam Cold Remedy MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Plaintiffs File AZ Amended Securities Suit MISSOURI: Homeowners Can Benefit on Suits Over Preparation Fees MORRISON MILLING: Recalls Muffin Mixes For Undeclared Whey, Eggs NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Inks Pact For Allied Policyholders' Suit NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: MO Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit NOVASTAR HOME: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Investor's Suit Alleges Futures Manipulation PDI INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Second Consolidated, Amended Suit PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit PFIZER INC.: IN Resident Launches Suit Over Viagra's Side Effect PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Rule in Royalty Owners Lawsuit PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces MA Consolidated Securities Suit SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Securities Suit STORK CRAFT: Recalls 3.3T Toy Boxes Due to Strangulation Hazard TUT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement TANYA IVELISSE: Recalls Cheese Due to Raw Milk, Improper Aging TASER INTERNATIONAL: Police Chief Sues, Alleging Severe Injury VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Suit WELLS REAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal GA Investor Lawsuit Dismissal Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges DC Securities Suit HOST AMERICA: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT ISOLAGEN INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX ********* AVISTA CORPORATION: Asks Review of Refusal To Dismiss WA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avista Corporation asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington to reconsider its ruling denying its motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company. The suit, styled "In re Avista Corp. Securities Litigation," alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs allege that the Company did not have adequate risk management processes, procedures and controls. The plaintiffs further allege that the Company engaged in unlawful energy trading practices and allegedly manipulated western power markets. The plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions regarding these matters were made in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other information made publicly available by the Company, including press releases. The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period between November 23, 1999 and August 13, 2002. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in October 2003 and the plaintiffs filed an answer to this motion in January 2004. Arguments before the Court on the motion were held on March 19, 2004. On April 15, 2004, the Court called for additional briefing on what effect, if any, the FERC proceedings have on this case. On July 30, 2004, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint, holding, among other things, that the FERC proceedings may ultimately have some evidentiary value relevant to the disclosure issues raised in this case, but they do not preclude the resolution of those issues by the Court. In November 2004, the Company filed its answer to the complaint, denying the plaintiffs' allegations. On June 13, 2005, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration of its earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part, on a recent United States Supreme Court decision with respect to the pleading requirements surrounding a sufficient showing of loss causation. In July 2005, the plaintiffs responded to the Company's motion for reconsideration and the matter is scheduled for arguments in September 2005 before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. CHIQUITA BRANDS: Customers Launch Antitrust Lawsuits in S.D. FL --------------------------------------------------------------- Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and three of its competitors face five class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of entities that purchased bananas in the United States directly from the defendants from May 2003 (in one case from July 2001) until the present. The complaints allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to artificially raise or maintain prices and control and restrict output of bananas in the United States. The plaintiffs seek treble damages for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints provide no specific information regarding the allegations. CORN PRODUCTS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in IL --------------------------------------------------------------- Corn Products International, Inc. and certain of its officers face several securities class actions filed between May 20, 2005 and June 27, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Specifically, the suits were filed by these plaintiffs, in each case individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, on the following dates: (1) Monty Blatt, May 20, 2005; (2) Dale Anderson, May 27, 2005; (3) Adam Shapiro, June 1, 2005; (4) Neil Hildebrand, June 24, 2005; and (5) Philip Brust, June 27, 2005 The complaints allege violations of certain federal securities laws and seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25, 2005 and April 4, 2005. The plaintiffs allege that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts based on its disclosure regarding earnings projections and operating margins, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by certain of the Company's officers of Section 20A of Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CORN PRODUCTS: Faces Corn Syrup Antitrust Suit in Canadian Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corn Products International, Inc. faces an antitrust class action filed on June 13, 2005 in the Supreme Court of British Colombia. The suit also names five other defendants. Although the Company has not been served, the complaint purportedly alleges fixing the price of high-fructose corn syrup sold in Canada during the period from 1988 to June 1995. COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of GA TCPA Lawsuit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the dismissal of a class action against Cox Radio, Inc., alleging violations of the Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). On June 13, 2001, the Company was named as defendant in a putative class action suit filed in an amended complaint in the state court in Fulton County, Georgia. The complaint seeks statutory damages in the amount of $1,500, plus attorneys' fees, on behalf of each person "throughout the State of Georgia" who received an unsolicited pre-recorded telephone message delivering an "unsolicited advertisement" from a Cox Radio radio station. The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying liability and asserting numerous defenses. Thereafter, proceedings in this case were stayed pending rulings by the Georgia Court of Appeals in a similar action pending against another radio broadcast company. On July 3, 2003, the FCC issued a Report and Order holding, among other things, that pre-recorded telephone messages by broadcasters made for the purpose of inviting consumers to listen to a free broadcast are not "unsolicited advertisements" prohibited by the TCPA. On October 24, 2003, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims on grounds that the calls in question were permissible under the TCPA and the FCC's implementing rules and, alternatively, that the application of the TCPA to the facts of this case would violate the Company's constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and due process. On February 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in support of their contention that the messages at issue were not exempted by the terms of the FCC Report and Order. On March 25, 2004, the court entered an order ruling that the calls at issue were not prohibited by the TCPA and its implementing regulations, granting the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from these rulings on April 21, 2004 but voluntarily dismissed their appeal on June 8, 2005. DECODE GENETICS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- deCODE Genetics, Inc., its chief executive officer and chief financial officer faces a consolidated class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws arising from certain of the Company's public statements. The complaints are brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from October 29, 2003 through August 26, 2004. The complaints also allege that the Company made misleading statements, misrepresentations and omissions regarding its financial performance, compliance with generally accepted accounting principles and its internal controls. The complaints all arise out of the same alleged statements, and have been consolidated before a single Judge. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On May 13, 2005, the court approved the Notice of Agreed Motion and Proposed Order of Voluntary Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs on May 4, 2005, thereby terminating the action. The lead case in the litigation is styled "Bassin v. deCode Genetics, Inc., et al., case no. 1:04-cv-07050-RJH," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Richard J. Holwell. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is David Avi Rosenfeld, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Email: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Two Employee Wage, Hour Suits in CA Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Domino's Pizza, Inc. faces several lawsuits related to employment practices and wage and hour claims filed in the Orange County, California Superior Court by certain of the Company's former employees. On June 10, 2003, a class action complaint was filed alleging that the Company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees. This case is in the discovery stage and no determination with respect to class certification has been made. On August 19, 2004, a former general manager filed a lawsuit, alleging that the Company misclassified the position of general manager as an exempt employee. This case involves the issue of whether employees and former employees in the general manager position who worked in the Company's 60 California stores during specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime pay. This case is in the earliest stages of discovery, and the status of the class action certification is yet to be determined. EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to consolidated the securities class actions filed against EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers, alleging federal securities law violations. On January 27, 2005, a securities class action was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between July 10, 2003 and January 14, 2005. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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. After this initial complaint was filed, other similar actions were filed against the Company and the same officers in the same court. One of these later-filed complaints purports to be brought on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 18, 2002 and January 14, 2005. Since these actions were filed, various plaintiffs have filed motions to consolidate the related actions, and to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. These motions are currently pending decision by the U.S. District Court. FREEMARKETS INC.: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A $3.4 million preliminary settlement was reached in a class action lawsuit filed against FreeMarkets Inc. in 2001, The PittsburghLIVE.com reports. Acquired by Sunnyvale, California-based Ariba Inc. in July 2004 for $500 million, FreeMarkets was accused of inflating revenue from one of its largest customers, the car-part manufacturer Visteon Corporation, between July 24, 2000, and April 23, 2001. FreeMarkets admitted no wrongdoing as part of an agreement to settle the suit, wherein investors claimed that Visteon payments should not have been counted as revenue as FreeMarkets issued Visteon discounted stock warrants in exchange for Visteon's purchase of software and services from FreeMarkets. Since April 27, 2001, securities fraud class action complaints have been filed against the Company and two executive officers in federal court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The complaints, all of which assert the same claims, stem from the Company's announcement on April 23, 2001 that, as a result of ongoing discussions with the staff of the SEC, the Company was considering amending its 2000 financial statements for the purpose of reclassifying fees earned by the Company under a service contract with Visteon. The Company and the individual defendants though believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are completely without merit and they intend to defend these claims vigorously, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 17, 2001) reports. ISOLAGEN INC.: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Isolagen, Inc. (Amex: ILE) and certain of its current and former officers and directors intend to ask the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated class action filed against them, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased publicly traded securities of Isolagen between March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005. The Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The company and the individual Defendants have engaged counsel and expect to file a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint under the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. KADANT COMPOSITES: Recalls 11T Constructed Decks For Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Kadant Composites Inc., of Bedford, Massachusetts is voluntarily recalling about 11,000 units of GeoDeckT Decking and Railing Materials/constructed decks. When the decking or railing material is exposed to hot temperatures and sunlight, it can prematurely degrade. The degraded material could break, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Kadant Composites has received about 370 reports of accelerated degradation of the decking material. No injuries have been reported. GeoDeckT is a composite decking product that looks similar to natural wood and is sold in three colors including: driftwood, cedar and mahogany. The decking materials were manufactured between April 2002 and October 2003. Each decking and railing component has a manufacturing date stamp (day/month/year) on the cut end, which may still be visible on uninstalled materials. Picture of the recalled materials: (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05247.jpg. Manufactured in the United States, GeoDeck was sold at all retail lumberyards nationwide from April 2002 through July 2005 for between about $2 and $2.50 per linear foot. Consumers should check their GeoDeckT decking materials for visible cracks on the surface and check to see if the surface can be easily scratched with a fingernail or the corner of a credit card. If the deck/rail is degrading, contact GeoDeckT customer service to receive replacement decking and/or railing materials. Consumer Contact: Contact GeoDeckT customer service at (800) 545-1710 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site: http://www.KadantCompositesRecall.com. LOUISIANA: Lawyers Say TX Ruling V. Merck Could Spur More Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- A Texas jury's recent $253 million verdict against the maker of painkiller Vioxx, Merck & Co. is likely to spur additional lawsuits by patients who took the once-popular drug, according to a Louisiana attorney who has filed a federal suit against the pharmaceutical giant, The Shreveport Times reports. Shreveport attorney Ron Miciotto, who recently fielded phone calls from 15 potential claimants after the decision was handed down last week told The Shreveport Times, "I think it's going to have a continued effect on filing more suits," adding, "I don't think it's the money. It's the idea that finally somebody has brought the drug company to task." The court verdict could lay the precedent for approximately 4,200 pending suits over the drug Vioxx, most of which were filed when Merck voluntarily pulled Vioxx off the market last September after studies raised concerns the drug increased the risk of heart attack or stroke. The next few days might be the most critical for Merck. The question that is especially disturbing to the company will be whether the Texas case will resonate in the class action cases that Merck is currently facing, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 23, 2005) reports. Twenty-two of those lawsuits were eventually filed in the Western District of Louisiana's Shreveport division, some within a month of Vioxx's removal from pharmacy shelves. All of them more or less make the same claim, that Vioxx caused heart problems, heart attacks, strokes, blood clots in arteries, congestive heart failure and other problems. The recent ruling will likely spur new cases. As of mid-August, there were 119 Vioxx-related class actions and approximately 20 more in state courts, each of which could have hundreds or thousands of claimants. Another Shreveport attorney Willie Singleton, who since the start of the Texas trial has spoken with 14 people about potential claims told The Shreveport Times, "People have gained more of an awareness that Vioxx may cause strokes or heart attacks and now they're more likely than not going to be seeking counsel to see if they have a viable claim." Mr. Singleton is one of seven lawyers selected nationwide to serve on the state liaison committee that will coordinate trial and deposition dates in the first federal class action lawsuit in New Orleans. Existing and new federal lawsuits nationwide will be transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana where U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon will oversee proceedings. It could be at least a year before the outcome of existing lawsuits is determined, according to individuals familiar with the matter. The Texas case involves Carol Ernst, who is seeking compensation for the death of her husband Robert, allegedly of arrhythmia, in 2001. Mr. Ernst, a produce manager at a Wal-Mart near Fort Worth who ran marathons and worked as a personal trainer, took Vioxx for eight months to alleviate pain in his hands until he died in his sleep, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports. Mrs. Ernst's lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co. knew of the dangers of using Vioxx years before it recalled the drug. However, the Company allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of aggressive marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports. Merck's lawyers though denied the charges, saying that the company studied whether Vioxx caused arrhythmias in nine clinical trials before the drug went on the market in May 1999 and found "no clinically meaningful differences" in patients who took the painkiller compared to those who took sugar pills or other anti-inflammatory pain relievers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 28,2005) reports. The lawyers further asserted that the Company acted responsibly, disclosed studies on Vioxx and believed it to be safe until results from the long-term study last year prompted pulling the drug. In addition, Merck's lawyers contends that a heart attack most likely killed Mr. Ernst, not arrhythmia, but he died too quickly for his heart to show damage. They have singled out Mr. Ernst's autopsy, which attributed his death to arrhythmia, or an irregular heartbeat, secondary to clogged arteries, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 23, 2005) reports. LOUISIANA: Protracted Drinking Water Case to go to Trial in 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A five-year-old Ferriday drinking water case is finally moving forward, The Natchez Democrat reports. After a recent court hearing, attorneys for both sides told The Natchez Democrat that the case, Gloria Martello v. the City of Ferriday and Owen and White, Inc., will go to trial in May 2006. The second phase, the liability trial, will be heard in court in October 2006. The suit stems from a 124-day long "boil water" notice the city issued in 1999 because of a breakdown in Ferriday's water treatment plant. Gloria Martello, the owner of Ferriday restaurant Brocato's, filed the suit, seeking damages against the city and the firm that built the plant, citing losses she suffered because she was forced to bring in water and ice during the notice. Later, it was expanded into a class action suit and has been winding its way through the courts with several trips to the Circuit Court of Appeals in Lake Charles ever since. Lawyers for all parties recently agreed on a schedule for the remaining hearings and trial dates, according to Stephen Wilson, attorney for Owen and White, and Lynda Harang, a lawyer for Ms. Martello and the plaintiffs. Mr. Wilson also told The Natchez Democrat that he is waiting to find out from the plaintiffs what the specific allegations of fraud in the case entail. Ms. Harang told The Natchez Democrat that she and her fellow lawyers, including Vidalia's Chuck Norris, are still taking depositions and getting discovery information at this point in preparation for the trial. The suit is styled, Gloria Martello v. the City of Ferriday and Owen and White, Inc. Linda Suzanna Harang of the Law Offices of Linda S. Harang, LLC, 5817 Citrus Blvd., Suite H, Jefferson, LA, 70123, Phone: (504) 734-2486 and Charles Shelby Norris, Jr., Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 400, Vidalia, LA, 71373, Phone: (318) 336-1999, are representing the Plaintiffs. Stephen R. Wilson of Keogh, Cox & Wilson, Ltd., 701 Main St., P.O. Box 1151, Baton Rouge, LA, 70821, Phone: (225) 383-37. For more details, visit: http://la3circuit.org/opinions/2004/11/110304/04-0090opi.pdf. MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Injury Lawsuits V. Zicam Cold Remedy --------------------------------------------------------------- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces approximately 368 claims in different lawsuits generally alleging that the Company's Zicam Cold Remedy product caused the permanent loss or diminishment of the sense of smell or smell and taste. Two of these lawsuits were filed as class action lawsuits covering named and unnamed plaintiffs, but one of the class action lawsuits has been dismissed, as have the claims of several individual plaintiffs. The current cases that have been filed against the Company are: (1) Abramsen, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed March 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-04415, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (2) Adams, et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008929, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (3) Adamson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 1, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-001880, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (4) Akers, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed August 20, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-016010, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (5) Alexander, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed June 30, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-051224; (6) Benkwith, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 3, 2004, in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Alabama, Case No. CV04-1180 CNP; removed to United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Case No. 2:04 CV-00623-F; (7) Bentley, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed January 23, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (8) Bourgeois, Deborah vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 22, 2005, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. CV-05-PT-0393-M; (9) Bryant vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2004, in the District Court, Boulder County, Colorado, Case No. 04CV808, removed to United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case No. 04-MK-2317 (BNB); (10) Cappy, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed November 17, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-021668, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (11) Cash, Katie and David vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed January 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of California (Fresno County, Central Division), Case No. 05 CE CG 00124; (12) Cheney, Sharon vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed April 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050458; (13) Connolly, Gay vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed October 22, 2004, in the State Court of Georgia (Cobb County), Case No. 2004A 9564-5; (14) Douillard, John R. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 6, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008950, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (15) Flores vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed on December 30, 2004, in the Superior Court of California (Santa Clara County), Case No. 1:04-CV033194; removed to United States District Court Northern District of California (San Jose Division), Case No. C05 01090 PVT; (16) Flynn, Richard vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 20, 2005, in the Superior Court of California (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06403; (17) Gillespie, Julie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed December 8, 2004, in the Superior Court of California (Orange County), Case No. 04CC11976; removed to United States District Court Central District of California (Southern Division), Case No. SACV 05-0047- DOC(ANx); (18) Goetz, Linda vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 18, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-050298; (19) Hans, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed September 13, 2004, in the United States District Court, Western District of Kentucky, Case No. 3:04CV540-R; (20) Hilton, Heather vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed June 17, 2004, in the State of Texas District Court, Tarrant County, Case No. 048-206162-04; removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division, Case No. 04CV- 519-Y; (21) Hood, Michael and Terri vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed April 14, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, General Jurisdiction Division, Case No. 04006193; (22) Horvat, Diane vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 28, 2005, in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division, Case No. 2005L02324; (23) Hudson, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 11, 2005, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2005-002569, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Case No. CV 2004-001338; (24) Hunter, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed June 4, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-010830, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (25) Hurst, Janet vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 13, 2005, in the Superior Court of the State of California (Orange County), Case No. 05CC06195; (26) Kalfian, Carol A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed April 20, 2004, in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, Case No. 04-119-ML; (27) Lusch, Barbara A. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed January 14, 2005, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, Case No. 0501-00588; removed to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. 3:05-CV-292-HA; (28) Lutche, Lucy B. vs. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 7, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008704, consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (29) Mayo, Derek vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed May 26, 2004, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division: Essex County, Docket No. ESX-L- 3551-04; removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:04-cv-3197; (30) Nelson vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed December 8, 2003, in the Superior Court of the Sate of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. YC048136; (31) Nelson, Tommy Ray and Sherry vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 28, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Roane County, Tennessee, Case No. 13328, removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Northern Division, Case No. 3:05-CV-193; (32) O'Hanlon, Dennis and Bonnie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed October 29, 2004, in the Superior Court of California (Los Angeles County), Case No. BC322039; removed to United States District Court Central District of California (Los Angeles), Case No. CV04-10391 AHM(JTLx); (33) Orlansky, Robin vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 9, 2005, in the Superior Court of California (San Diego County), Case No. GIC 842519; (34) Ringbauer, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 11, 2004, in the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-002822, removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. CIV04-0513-PHX-EHC; remanded to the Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), consolidated under In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Superior Court of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-001338; (35) Rostron, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed November 4, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-3136-M, originally involving plaintiffs Rostron and McCune, was severed, Rostron was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Order filed on March 15, 2005, Case No. 05-1547, and McCune continues in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, under Case No. CV-04-AR-3136-M; (36) Sutherland, Janie vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed December 18, 2003, in the Circuit Court of Etowah, Alabama, Case No. CV-2003-1635-WHR; removed to United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-0129-M; (37) Swanbeck, Steven vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed November 18, 2004, in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division: Morris County, Dock No. L-3096-04; (38) Wagner, Nicole vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed February 24, 2005, in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Case No. GIC 843335; (39) Williams, Rose Mary et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed December 29, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, Case No. 4:04cv-3548-UWC; and (40) Wyatt, Susan vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed June 15, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, Case No. CV-04-AR-1230-S. Generally, the cases filed in the Superior Court of Arizona have been or the company expects will be consolidated under "In Re Consolidated Zicam Product Liability Cases, Case No. CV 2004-001338." Various defendants in the lawsuits, including manufacturers and retailers, have sought indemnification or other recovery from the Company for damages related to the lawsuits. These cases are generally in the early stages and the Company expects the first trial to begin in August 2005, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Also, plaintiffs' law firms continue to solicit potential claimants through the Internet and other media. In its filing, the Company said it believes the allegations relating to Zicam Cold Remedy are unfounded. Zicam Cold Remedy has been studied in two independent, placebo-control studies. In those studies, there was no statistically significant difference in adverse events between the placebo and non-placebo group, and there was no indication in either group of impairment to the sense of smell. Further, the incidence of smell disorders is reported at 1% to 2% of the population on average, and is very common in those over age 50. Upper respiratory infections are among the most common causes of impairment to sense of smell. Therefore, any product such as Zicam Cold Remedy designed to treat upper respiratory illnesses may be mistakenly associated with distortion of sense of smell. The rate of reported complaints of distortion of sense of smell associated with Zicam Cold Remedy is well below these national incidence levels, the Company said in the filing. The Company also convened a two-day meeting of its Scientific Advisory Board in September 2004 to review the findings of studies initiated in the first quarter of fiscal 2004. The Scientific Advisory Board is comprised of medical doctors and researchers that are independent of the Company. The Company provided honorariums for members' attendance at meetings, travel expenses, and funded grants to design and perform research studies investigating the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc gluconate nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell. Members of the Scientific Advisory Board presented the results of their studies on the epidemiology, anatomy, and physiology of smell disorders. It was the unanimous opinion of the Scientific Advisory Board that the cumulative scientific evidence does not support the contention that Zicam Cold Remedy zinc gluconate nasal gel is associated with disorders of smell. The Scientific Advisory Board plans to do further testing of the zinc gluconate nasal gel on human volunteers and animal models. The Company said in the filing that it anticipates the Scientific Advisory Board will reconvene from time to time to review the findings of ongoing studies. MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Plaintiffs File AZ Amended Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., its President and Chief Executive Officer, Carl J. Johnson, and its Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Several suits were initially filed in April and May 2004. On January 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff. The amended complaint also includes our Vice President of Research and Development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed March 4, 2005. The consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.," in the United States District Court, District of Arizona, Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004, the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product, including failing to adequately disclose to the public the details of allegations that its products caused damage to the sense of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits. The suit is styled "Siracusano, et al v. Matrixx Initiatives, et al., case no. 2:04-cv-00886-MHM," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Mary H. Murguia. Representing the plaintiffs are Ramzi Abadou, Lukas F. Ohltz, Scott M. Saham, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B St, Ste 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)231-1058, E-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com, ScottS@Lerachlaw.com; and Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com, afriedman@bffb.com. Representing the Company are Maureen Beyers, and David Rosenbaum of Osborn Maledon P.A., 2929 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794, Phone: 602-640-9305, Fax: 602-664-2053, E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com and drosenbaum@omlaw.com; and Amy J. Longo, Molly J. Magnuson, David B. Rosenbaum and Michael Yoder of O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center Dr, 17th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949-823-7175, Fax: 949-823-6994, E-mail: alongo@omm.com, mmagnuson@omm.com, myoder@omm.com MISSOURI: Homeowners Can Benefit on Suits Over Preparation Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Tens of thousands of Missouri homeowners could benefit from lawsuits that take issue with the legality of document preparation fees, The Associated Press reports. The suits allege lending institutions cannot charge borrowers a legal fee for preparing mortgage documents if they don't use a lawyer. Last week, the Clayton firm of Green Schaaf and Jacobson, won a judgment of $1.2 million in St. Louis County Circuit Court. In addition, the law firm also got legal fees, plus costs, of nearly $408,000. The class action case was filed against Midwest Bankcentre. An attorney for the company told The Associated Press that he will appeal, pointing out that the Missouri statute on practicing law does not apply. Midwest was the first lending institution to go to trial. A partner in the firm told The Associated Press that a few smaller lenders have settled. MORRISON MILLING: Recalls Muffin Mixes For Undeclared Whey, Eggs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Morrison Milling Company of Denton, Texas is voluntarily recalling all lots of HyTopr Blueberry Muffin Mix because it contains undeclared whey and eggs. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk proteins or eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product. The product was sold to consumers at retail stores in Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana and is identified as follows: "HyTopr Blueberry Muffin Mix, Packaged in paper pouches. Net Wt 7 oz, UPC 50700 06006, All lot codes." The company has received information about a reported allergic reaction concerning this product. An investigation is ongoing. The recall was initiated after if was discovered that an incorrect ingredient statement was on the package. The packaging error was limited to two day's production, and no other Morrison Milling or HyTopr products are part of this recall. Consumers who have purchased this muffin mix and who are known to be allergic to milk proteins or eggs should contact The Morrison Milling Company at 800-866-5487 or 800-580-5487 for instructions for product disposal and a refund. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Inks Pact For Allied Policyholders' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nationwide Insurance will pay as much as $163 million to settle a class action lawsuit that predates its 1998 purchase of Des Moines-based Allied Insurance, The DesMoinesRegister.com reports. Court papers revealed that policyholders of Allied Mutual Insurance sued the Nationwide Insurance and certain directors in 1997, charging that the property and casualty insurer improperly transferred assets to a publicly held subsidiary company, Allied Group. In addition, the plaintiffs charged that those actions lowered the value of the mutual insurer and increased the value of the publicly held side of the company. Nationwide Mutual Insurance, of Columbus, Ohio, bought Allied Group in 1998 in what was one of the biggest business deals ever for an Iowa company. Nationwide Insurance specifically paid Allied Group stockholders $1.6 billion, while Allied Mutual policyholders received $110 million. Joe Case, Nationwide's spokesman told DesMoinesRegister.com that after seven years of legal wrangling, "We think it's in the best interest of everyone to move on." The insurer is in the process of notifying policyholders who could be eligible to participate in the settlement. To be eligible, they would have had to own a policy issued by Allied Mutual on February 18, 1993. The suit is styled, Rieff et al., v. Evans, et al., (No. CE35780) and is pending in the District Court for Polk County. Thomas D. Waterman of LANE & WATERMAN, LLP, 220 N. Main St., Suite 600, Davenport, IA, 52801-1987 is representing the Plaintiff/s. Harold N. Schneebeck of BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES, GROSS, BASKERVILLE & SCHOENEBAUM, P.L.C., 666 Grand Ave., Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA, 50309-2510 and Kent M. Forney of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., 801 Grand Ave., Suite 3700, Des Moines, IA 50309-2727, are representing the Defendant/s. For more details, on the settlement, call 1-800-589-7679 or visit http://www.alliedmutualsettlement.com. NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: MO Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against NovaStar Financial, Inc. and three of its executive officers. Since April 2004, a number of substantially similar class action lawsuits have been filed and consolidated into a single action. The suit alleges that the defendants made public statements that were misleading for failing to disclose certain regulatory and licensing matters. The plaintiffs purport to have brought this consolidated action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock (and sellers of put options on the Company's stock) during the period October 29, 2003 through April 8, 2004. On January 14, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, and on May 12, 2005, the court denied such motion. The suit is styled "In Re: Novastar Financial Securities Litigation, case no. 4:04-cv-00330-ODS," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri under Judge Ortrie D. Smith. Representing the Company is Erin Bansal of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-773-5700. Representing the plaintiffs are Bruce D. Bernstein, Michael B. Eisenkraft and Richard H. Weiss of Milberg, Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300; and James M. Evangelista of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: (404) 607-6871, fax: (404)876-4476, E-mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com. NOVASTAR HOME: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Home Mortgage, Inc. (NHMI) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. (NMI) reached a settlement for the class and collective action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by an NHMI employee. The suit was initially filed in July 2004 in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. Subsequently, NHMI and NMI removed the matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff brought this class and collective action on behalf of herself and all past and present employees of NHMI and NMI who were employed since May 1, 2000 in the capacity generally described as Loan Officer. The plaintiff alleged that NHMI and NMI failed to pay her and the members of the class she purported to represent overtime premium and minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California state laws for the period commencing May 1, 2000. In 2005, the plaintiff and NHMI agreed upon a nationwide settlement in the amount of $3.3 million on behalf of a class of all NHMI Loan Officers nationwide. The settlement, which is subject to court approval, covers all minimum wage and overtime claims going back to July 30, 2001, and includes the dismissal with prejudice of the claims against NMI. Since not all class members will elect to be part of the settlement, the Company estimated the probable obligation related to the settlement to be in a range of $1.5 million to $1.9 million. The suit is styled "Dawn Robertson v. Novastar Mortgage Inc et al., case no. 2:04-cv-08444-NM-CT," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Nora M. Manella. Representing the Company are Maria A. Audero, Paul Grossman and Stephen P. Sonnenberg, Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker, 515 South Flower Street, 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-683-6000, E-mail: mariaaudero@paulhastings.com, paulgrossman@paulhastings.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Michael S. Duberchin, Michael S Duberchin Law Offices, 4768 Park Granada, Suite 212, Calabasas, CA 91302-3349, Phone: 818-222-7484 (2) Andre E. Jardini, Knapp Petersen & Clarke, 500 N Brand Blvd, 20th Fl, Glendale, CA 91203-1094, Phone: 818-547- 5000, E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com (3) Dennis F. Moss, Spiro Moss Barness Harrison and Barge, 11377 West Olympic Blvd, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90064, Phone: 310-235-2468, E-mail: secretary@smbhblaw.com PACIFIC INVESTMENT: Investor's Suit Alleges Futures Manipulation ---------------------------------------------------------------- An investor initiated a lawsuit against Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO), manager of the world's biggest bond fund, alleging that the firm manipulated the price of June 10- year Treasury futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade, The Bloomberg News reports. In his suit, which was filed on August 16 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and seeks class action status, Raymond Chiu claims PIMCO violated the Commodity Exchange Act through "manipulative conduct" that created "artificially high prices" in the futures market to its benefit. Responding to the allegations in the suit, Mark Porterfield, a spokesman for Newport Beach-based PIMCO told The Bloomberg News, "We strongly believe the complaint is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves." The firm, whose chief investment officer is Bill Gross, manages more than $400 billion. Last week, Mr. Gross gave an "unequivocal" denial to financial news network CNBC that his firm was involved in a shortage, or "squeeze" of Treasuries related to the contract on which Mr. Chiu based his complaint. Mr. Chiu stated in his suit that PIMCO owned about $10 billion in contracts and "billions of dollars worth" of the most sought after notes that could be used to fulfill the futures contract, which in essence are agreements to buy or sell securities at a set price and time. Under the Commodity Exchange Act, it is illegal to manipulate prices in the futures market by attempting to corner supply of a deliverable security. The suit is styled, Chiu v. Pacific Investment Management Company, LLC, 1:05-cv-04681, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois with the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman, presiding. The lead Plaintiff, Raymond Chiu is represented by the following: (1) Louis F. Burke of Louis F. Burke, P.C., 360 Lexington Ave., 14th Floor, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: (212) 682-1700, Fax: (212) 808-4280. (2) Anthony F. Fata of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30 North LaSalle St., Suite 3200, Chicago, IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail: afata@millerfaucher.com. (3) Gary Jacobson of Lovell, Stewart Halebian, LLC, 500 Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677. (4) Ryan Long of Lovell, Stewart Halebian, LLC, 500 Fifth, Ave., New York, NY, 10110, Phone: (212) 608-1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677. (5) Christopher Lovell of Lovell, Stewart Halebian, LLC, 500 Fifth Ave., New York, NY, 10110, Phone: (212) 608- 1900, Fax: (212) 719-4677. (6) Marvin Alan Miller of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30 North LaSalle St., Suite 3200, Chicago, IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail: mmiller@millerfaucher.com. (7) Jennifer Winter Sprengel of Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30 North LaSalle St., Suite 3200, Chicago, IL, 60602, Phone: (312) 782-4880, E-mail: jsprengel@millerfaucher.com. PDI INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Second Consolidated, Amended Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PDI, Inc. (Nasdaq: PDII) reports that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Second Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint in In re PDI Securities Litigation (Civil Action No.: 02-cv-0211-JLL) without prejudice to plaintiffs. The action was originally filed in January 2002 against PDI, its CEO and CFO. In February 2003, PDI filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. "We are extremely pleased with this ruling. We have said all along that this lawsuit was totally without merit," said Charles T. Saldarini, Vice Chairman and CEO of PDI. The suit is styled, GARY KESSEL v. PDI SECURITIES, et al. 2:02- cv-00211-JLL-RJH, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey with the Honorable Jose L. Linares presiding. The Lead Plaintiff, Gary Kessel is represented by Allyn Zissel Lite and Joseph J. Depalma of Lite, Depalma, Greenberg and Rivas, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ, 07102- 5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: alite@ldgrlaw.com or jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com. The Defendant, PDI, Inc. is represented by Alan S. Naar of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, Metro Corporate Campus One, P.O. Box 5600, Woodbridge, NJ, 07095-0988, Phone: (732) 549-5600, E-mail: anaar@greenbaumlaw.com. For more details, contact Stephen P. Cotugno, Executive Vice President-Corporate Development of PDI, Inc., Phone: +1-201-574-8617. PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Perot Systems Corporation asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action filed against Perot Systems Corporation, Ross Perot and Ross Perot, Jr., styled "Vincent Milano v. Perot Systems Corporation." Eight suits were initially filed in June, July and August 2002, alleging violations of Rule 10b-5, and, in some of the cases, common law fraud. These suits allege that the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission contained material misstatements or omissions of material facts with respect to its activities related to the California energy market. All of these eight cases were later consolidated. On October 19, 2004, the court dismissed the case with leave for plaintiffs to amend. In December 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. The suit is styled "Milano v. Perot Systems Corp, et al., case no. 3:02-cv-01269," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater. Representing the plaintiffs is William B. Federman, Federman & Sherwood - Oklahoma City, 120 N Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405/235-1560, Fax: 405/239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com. Representing the Company are Stephen G. Gleboff of Hughes & Luce, BankOne Center, 1717 Main St, Suite 2800, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214/939-5500, Fax: 214/939-6100, E-mail: steve.gleboff@hughesluce.com; and Stephen C. Rasch, Thompson & Knight, 1700 Pacific Ave, Suite 3300, Dallas, TX 75201-4693, Phone: 214/969-1700, Fax: 214/969-1751, E-mail: raschs@tklaw.com. PFIZER INC.: IN Resident Launches Suit Over Viagra's Side Effect ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Troutman, a Fort Wayne, Indiana resident launched a class action lawsuit against the country's largest pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Inc., alleging that the drug Viagra left him partially blind in one eye, The Journal Gazette reports. According to the suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Mr. Troutman, who received a Viagra sample package from his family doctor, took a pill August 27, 2003, and woke the next morning to find "dramatic reduction in vision in his left eye." Mr. Troutman alleges that Pfizer Inc. acted negligently in the promotion, production and distribution of the drug intended to aid men suffering from erectile dysfunction. He claims in the suit that he was hospitalized and underwent medical procedures to determine the cause of the partial blindness. Mr. Troutman, according to the suit, was not taking other medications that are warned against in the labeling of Viagra. In addition, Mr. Troutman contends that Pfizer misrepresented the results of studies during promotional efforts, therefore minimizing the risk of vision problems when marketing the drug to the public. Pfizer, according to the suit, had the duty to responsibly research and develop the drug but failed to do so and failed to effectively alert consumers to the risks. Thus, on behalf of men similarly situated, Mr. Troutman thru the suit is seeking an unspecified amount of damages for medical expenses incurred, loss of earnings, diminished earnings and future medical expenses, as well as punitive damages. In a May 2005 press release on the Pfizer Web site, Viagra has been used in 103 clinical trials with 13,000 patients, none of who reported having the specific eye injury that Mr. Troutman is suing over. However, the press release also says Pfizer was in the midst of trying to update the prescription labels to reflect the "rare ocular occurrences." Also, the release stated that Viagra is a safe drug that has helped more than 23 million men and continues to be the leading drug to help those with erectile dysfunction. So far, according to J. Michael Loomis, Mr. Troutman's attorney, he (Troutman) is the only person being represented in this class action lawsuit. He told The Journal Gazette that if other men come forward and wish to become part of the lawsuit, they could be added as a party. Mr. Loomis pointed out that other people who would be considered part of the class are individuals who live in Indiana, orally ingested Viagra at the advice of their doctor for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, and who suffered irreversible vision loss as a result. The suit is styled Robert Troutman v. Pfizer Inc., 1:05-cv- 00286-WCL-RBC, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana with the Honorable William C. Lee presiding. The Plaintiff, Robert Troutman is represented by J Michael Loomis and Trisha K. Walls of Loomis Law Office, Suite A, 1000 Airport North Office Park, Fort Wayne, IN, 46825, Phone: 260-490-6100, Fax: 260-489-7002, E-mail: loomislawoffice@verizon.net. PIONEER NATURAL: KS Court Yet To Rule in Royalty Owners Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to enter a judgment in the class action filed against Pioneer Natural Resources Company by two classes of royalty owners, one for each of its gathering systems connected to its Satanta gas plant. The case was relatively inactive for several years. In early 2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings and it now contains two material claims. First, the plaintiffs assert that they were improperly charged expenses (primarily field compression), which are a "cost of production," and for which the plaintiffs, as royalty owners, are not responsible. Second, the plaintiffs claim they are entitled to 100 percent of the value of the helium extracted at PNR's Satanta gas plant. If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in their entirety, it is possible that PNR's liability (both for periods covered by the lawsuit and from the last date covered by the lawsuit to the present because the deductions continue to be taken and the plaintiffs continue to be paid for a royalty share of the helium) could reach $67.0 million, plus prejudgment interest, the Company stated in a regulatory filing. However, PNR believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs' claims, has paid the plaintiffs properly under their respective oil and gas leases and other agreements, and intends to vigorously defend itself. The factual evidence in the case was presented to the 26th Judicial District Court without a jury in December 2001. Oral arguments were heard by the court in April 2002, and although the court has not yet entered a judgment or findings, it could do so at any time. PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces MA Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action against Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In December 2004 and January 2005, the Company, Chairman and (now former) Chief Executive Officer Malcolm Gefter, President and (now former) Chief Operating Officer Kevin F. McLaughlin, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer Edward C. English, and former President and Chief Operating Officer William K. Heiden, were named as defendants in three purported class action securities lawsuits. The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from November 25, 2003 through December 6, 2004. Each of the complaints purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that the Company and the individually named defendants made materially false and misleading public statements concerning the Company's business and financial results, particularly relating to statements regarding the commercialization of Plenaxis. On February 7, 2005, a motion was filed to consolidate the three actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On February 18, 2005, the Company and the individual defendants filed a brief response to that motion, reserving their rights to challenge the adequacy and typicality, among other things, of the proposed lead plaintiffs in connection with class certification proceedings, if any. On April 13, 2005, the Court entered an Order granting the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the three actions (as well as each case that relates to the same subject matter that may be subsequently filed in or transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts), appoint lead plaintiffs and approve such plaintiffs' selection of co-lead counsel. On August 1, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Those purported class actions are captioned: (i) Katz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12581-GAO (filed December 9, 2004), under Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. (ii) Schwartz v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin, Edward English and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 04-12704-REK (filed December 27, 2004) under Judge Robert E. Keeton and (iii) Bassin v. Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Malcolm L. Gefter, Ph.D., Kevin F. McLaughlin, Edward C. English and William K. Heiden, Civil Action No. 05-10134-GAO (filed January 21, 2005) under Judge George A. O'Toole, Jr. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (a) Charles J. Piven World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202 Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com (b) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com (c) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA) 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067 Phone: (310) 201-915, E-mail: (310) 201-916, info@glancylaw.com (d) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax: 212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com (e) Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com (f) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (g) Shapiro, Haber & Urmy LLP 75 State Street, Boston, MA, 02109, Phone: 617.439.3939, Fax: 617.439.0134, E-mail: info@shulaw.com SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Siebel Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders, filed the suit, alleging claims in connection with various public statements made by the Company and seeking damages together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses of litigation. This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004, with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being appointed to serve as lead plaintiff. In October 2004, the Company filed a motion for dismissal of this case, which was granted on January 28, 2005. Plaintiffs in this case filed a second amended complaint on February 28, 2005, and the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss as soon as practical. Another securities class action is pending against the Company and certain members of its board of directors in the Superior Court of California. On April 12, 2004, Pamela Plotkin, on behalf of herself and purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders, filed the suit, which alleges claims in connection with various public statements made by the Company and seeks damages together with interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses of litigation. The court dismissed the complaint on September 23, 2004, but gave Ms. Plotkin leave to file a new, amended complaint, which was subsequently filed by Ms. Plotkin. The court dismissed the amended complaint on December 28, 2004, but again gave Ms. Plotkin leave to file a new, amended complaint. Ms. Plotkin filed a new amended complaint on January 14, 2005. On February 2, 2005, the parties to this complaint agreed to stay (i.e., place on hold) the entire case until June 1, 2005. The suit is styled "In re Siebel Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 04-CV-00983," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (Main office, Philadelphia), 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215.963.0600, Fax: 215.963.0838, E-mail: info@barrack.com (2) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine (San Diego), 402 West Broadway, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.230.0800, Fax: 619.230.1874, E-mail: info@barrack.com (3) 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 (4) Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP (5) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax: 212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com (6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (San Francisco, CA), 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com (7) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax: 212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com (8) 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 (9) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com (10) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561- 3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, bmgross@bernardmgross.com (11) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax: 610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com STORK CRAFT: Recalls 3.3T Toy Boxes Due to Strangulation Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., of Richmond, British Columbia, Canada is voluntarily recalling about 3,300 units of Stork Craft Toy Boxes. The toy box's lid support can fail, allowing the lid to collapse suddenly. This poses a strangulation hazard to young children, and possible impact injuries to a child's head, neck, fingers or hands. CPSC and Stork Craft have received two reports of the lid collapsing. No injuries have been reported. Stork Craft has received 11 consumer requests for replacement lid supports. The recall includes toy boxes with manufacture date codes between November 2002 and July 2004 and the following model numbers and colors: 01520-331 - white, 01520-334 - cherry, 01520-33C - cognac, 01520-33L - oak, and 01520-33N - natural. The manufacture date codes, model numbers, and colors are located on a label underneath the toy boxes. The toy boxes measure 27-inches long by 18-inches wide and 17-inches high. The boxes are constructed of pine. Manufactured in China, the toy boxes were sold at Wal-Mart and J.C. Penney Web sites, and at furniture, baby and juvenile stores nationwide from December 2002 through April 2005 for about $90. Consumers should immediately stop young children from using these toy boxes and contact Stork Craft for information to determine if their toy box lid support needs to be replaced. If so, the firm will provide a free replacement lid support. Consumer Contact: Contact Stork Craft toll-free at (877) 274-0277 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or go to the firm's Web site: http://www.Storkcraft.com. TUT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves 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 Tut Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On October 30, 2001, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a suit styled "Whalen v. Tut Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV- 9563." An amended complaint was filed on December 5, 2001. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002. The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the prospectuses from the Company's January 29, 1999 initial public offering and its March 23, 2000 secondary offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offerings. The complaint alleges claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and alleges claims against certain of its current and former officers and directors under Sections 15 and 20(a) of the Securities Act. The complaint also names as defendants the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering. Similar suits were filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. Therefore, for pretrial purposes, the "Whalen" action is being coordinated with the approximately 300 other suits before United States District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York under the matter "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." "The individual defendants in the "Whalen" action, namely, Nelson Caldwell, Salvatore D'Auria and Matthew Taylor, were dismissed without prejudice by an October 9, 2002 Order of the Court, approving the parties' October 1, 2002 Stipulation of Dismissal. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer-defendants, including the Company, was submitted to the Court on June 14, 2004 in the "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, conditioned upon the parties' modification of a proposed bar order with respect to potential contribution claims. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, most of which are outside of the Company's control, including approval by the Court. The underwriters named as defendants in the "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation" (collectively, the "underwriter-defendants"), including the underwriters named in the "Whalen" suit, are not parties to the stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement provides that, in exchange for a release of claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the insurers of all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a surety undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery from the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter- defendants. The ultimate amount, if any, that may be paid on behalf of the Company will therefore depend on the final terms of the settlement, including the number of issuer-defendants that ultimately participate in the final settlement, and the amounts, if any, recovered by the plaintiffs from the underwriter-defendants and other non-settling defendants. In the event that all or substantially all of the issuer- defendants participate in the final settlement, the amount that may be paid to the plaintiffs on behalf of the Company could range from zero to approximately $7.0 million, depending on plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-defendants and from other non-settling parties and the amount of insurance available under the Company's applicable insurance policies. If the plaintiffs recover at least $1 billion from the underwriter- defendants, no settlement payments would be made on behalf of the Company under the proposed terms of the settlement. If the plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion, the Company believes that its insurance will likely cover some or all of its share of any payments towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1 billion recovery deficit. The suit is styled "In re Tut Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, case no. 01-CV-9563-SAS" 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: (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, Mail: 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 TANYA IVELISSE: Recalls Cheese Due to Raw Milk, Improper Aging -------------------------------------------------------------- State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers alerted consumers that Tanya Ivelisse Torres, DBA NY Dominican Cheese Factory, 693 Rhinelander Avenue, Bronx, NY 10462 is recalling certain packaged cheese products because the cheese was made from unpasteurized milk and not properly aged. Unpasteurized milk may contain pathogens which can cause severe illness and in certain cases death. The cheese is marketed under the brand name "Don Chepe" and two styles of cheese are involved in this recall: "Queso Blanco De Freir" and "Queso Amarillo De Freir." The processing plant code "36-8588" appears on the label and the products are packaged in shrink wrapped plastic. Both products, regardless of date code, are involved in the recall. The products are sold in the metropolitan New York area. The packaged cheese is being recalled because it has been made from unpasteurized or raw milk and has not been properly aged. Raw milk may contain pathogens and the consumption of raw milk products increases the risk of gastrointestinal illness due to the likelihood that it may contain infective doses of human pathogens. The cheese products were distributed to customers in the New York City Metro Area. No illnesses have been reported to the Department to date. The recall was initiated after sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Dairy Products Specialists and subsequent analysis by the Department's Food Laboratory personnel revealed that milk used to manufacture the cheese was not pasteurized. An investigation discovered that the cheese was not properly aged according to Department dairy product safety regulations. TASER INTERNATIONAL: Police Chief Sues, Alleging Severe Injury -------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob "Pete" Herring, chief of police in Hallsville, Missouri initiated a lawsuit against Taser International and two police equipment supply companies, claiming that he was severely injured when shocked with a Taser weapon during training, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The police chief's suit joins more than 30 others from around the country that claim Tasers caused or contributed to injuries or deaths. Hallsville, a town of about 1,000 people, is approximately 10 miles northeast of Columbia, Missouri. One of those suits was filed by a Florida attorney Paul Geller, which claimed that that the company used bogus safety claims to market its stun guns to police departments across the country, leaving officers with weapons that they can't use as intended without risking harm and liability. That suit was filed on behalf of the police department of Dolton, Illinois, a small agency that spent $8,572 on Tasers and accessories but stopped using the weapons after the village's mayor asked for a moratorium on Taser use, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 21, 2005) reports According to company numbers, more than 7,000 law enforcement agencies worldwide use the devices as a non-lethal alternative to firearms. Technically, the devices resemble pistols but fire tiny metal barbs up to 21 feet to carry a high-voltage electrical charge that causes quick but generally brief incapacitation. Many law enforcement departments across Missouri and Illinois armed at least some of their officers with the devices. The suit by the police chief states that he suffered at least two strokes, loss and impairment of his vision and hearing, neurological damage, a head injury and "significant cardiac damage" after being shocked by a Taser M26 during a class on April 20, 2004. He is seeking unspecified financial damages. In an e-mail responding to a reporter's questions though, Taser spokesman Steve Tuttle wrote to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "We are aware of this (lawsuit) filing and intend to aggressively fight any such claim." Police Chief Herring's suit, filed in St. Louis Circuit Court, states that Hallsville bought an M26 Taser in November 2003 from the Ed Roehr Auto Radio Company in St. Louis, which is named as a co-defendant. According to Spencer Eisenmenger, one of the police chief's lawyers, in April 2004, during a training session conducted by the Law Enforcement Equipment Co., another firm that was named as a co-defendant, the police chief agreed to be shot with the Taser after being assured that it was safe. The suit contends that the training staff didn't have adequate padded mats to protect him when he fell and weren't in the right position to catch him after he was shocked. Mr. Eisenmenger stated that the police chief had been attached to an electrocardiogram machine at the time he was shot, at his insistence. The suit also says that Taser did not conduct enough research on the effect on people with heart conditions and didn't warn users of the danger. It also said that the police chief bought the Taser and allowed it to be tested on him because of Taser International ads, informational packets and product manuals that promised that the Taser posed a minimal risk of injury. The suit thus states that the company either knew its safety claims were false or didn't know whether they were true or false. Taser's August 12 quarterly financial report reveals that the company has been sued 14 times since 2003 in state and federal court over allegations of injuries during training. That same report also stated that the company faces 12 wrongful death lawsuits and four lawsuits alleging injuries during arrest or detention. Three other wrongful death suits have been dismissed, while one is on hold. Additionally, Taser's financial report also revealed that lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain executives, alleging that executives made false and misleading statements about the safety of their products. Those suits were reported in previous editions of the Class Action Reporter. Countering the allegations of severe injuries from being shocked with the devices, the Taser Web page cites several police department studies that showed reductions in the need to use force and in reports of injuries to officers and arrestees, since Tasers were implemented. The studies also document attempted suicides thwarted through the use of Tasers. The Web site even cited a British study that found "very low" risk of life-threatening or serious injuries from the M26 Taser. In the e-mail response to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mr. Tuttle also wrote, "Studies ... have reaffirmed the overall general safety and effectiveness of the TASER life-saving technology. It is the safer use of force alternative available for law enforcement agencies to subdue violent individuals who could harm law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves." However, another study cited on the Web site, which was released this March, found that while Tasers are "generally effective" and not expected to cause heart trouble, there is not enough research to determine the consequences to people who may be vulnerable to the effects. Despite the new suit and others that are pending, Taser in a statement released this month after announcing the dismissal of an Arizona lawsuit maintains, "Our ongoing strategy is to never settle these baseless claims and we will continue to aggressively defend this type of frivolous litigation." VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its senior officers. Beginning on June 15, 2004, six shareholder securities class action complaints were filed, namely: (1) Perry Paragamian vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Case No. 04cv2627); (2) John H. Taylor vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Case No. 04cv2685); (3) Security Police-Fire Professionals of America vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Case No. 04cv2708); (4) Fred Zucker vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Case No. 04cv2745); (5) Brian B. Steketee vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Case No. 04cv3365); and (6) Brad Staton vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Case No. 04cv3422) On August 18, 2004, counsel for all parties involved in the Federal Class Actions stipulated to consolidation of the six actions. Under the stipulation, defendants are not required to respond to the six individual complaints. Rather, defendants will respond to an amended, consolidated class action complaint that will be filed by the court-appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff counsel, or the "Consolidated Complaint." The District Court approved the Consolidation Stipulation on August 23, 2004. The Court's order provides that: (i) the designated lead plaintiff will have 60 days to file the Consolidated Complaint once appointed by the District Court; (ii) defendants will file a responsive pleading within 60 days of service of the Consolidated Complaint; and (iii) in the event defendants' responsive pleading is a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' opposition papers will be due 60 days from the filing of the motion, and any reply papers by defendants will be due 30 days thereafter. Three motions were filed with the District Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) proposing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff counsel. On October 7, 2004, the Court entered an order appointing the group of institutional investors (Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund, Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund, and Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund) as lead plaintiffs, the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as lead plaintiffs counsel, and the law offices of Marc S. Henzel as liaison counsel. Based on the Court's order of August 23, 2004, plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Complaint on December 6, 2004. The Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, arising from the Company's May 24, 2004 press release announcing the issuance of an approvable letter by the FDA indicating that our proposed pharmaceutical, anidulafungin, does not currently support a labeling claim for initial treatment of esophageal candidiasis. The Consolidated Complaint alleges a putative class period from January 6, 2003 through May 24, 2004. The Sections 10(b) and 20(a) claims are based on the allegation that defendants artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during the class period by making allegedly false and misleading statements concerning anidulafungin, the prospects that the FDA would approve the drug for initial treatment of esophageal candidiasis, and the prospects for the drug's marketing success. The Section 11 claim is based on the allegation that the Company's July 2003 Registration Statement and Prospectus for a secondary public stock offering contained a false statement about anidulafungin's expected competitive advantages over existing therapies. The complaints seek compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and equitable relief. Pursuant to the District Court's first scheduling order entered on November 2, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on January 20, 2005. Lead plaintiffs filed an opposition on February 22, 2005. The Defendants' reply was filed on March 9, 2005. Defendants' motion to dismiss stayed all discovery, pending the District Court's resolution of the motion. On July 1, 2005, the Court issued an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. The lead case is styled "Paragamian v. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. case no. 2:04-cv-02627-HB," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Harvey Bartle III. Representing the plaintiffs are Leslie Weaver, Nicholas J. Licato of LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS 100 Pine St. Ste 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545 and Marc S. Henzel LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 273 Montgomery Avenue Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-660-8000 Email: mhenzel182@aol.com. Representing the Company is O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 S. Hope St., Los Angeles CA 90071 Email: asmith@omm.com. WELLS REAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal GA Investor Lawsuit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs seek opportunity to appeal the dismissal of a class action filed against Wells Real Estate Investment, Inc.'s president and director Leo. F. Wells III in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. A suit styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2," was initially filed. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to permit voluntary dismissal of this suit, and it was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. In November 2004, the same plaintiffs filed a second putative class action complaint against, among others, Mr. Wells, Wells Capital and Wells Management, styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6." On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to orders entered July 1, 2005, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all counts in the complaint. Thus, this action has now been dismissed, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a notice of appeal within the required time period. On August 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court to re-enter the orders to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- August 25-26, 2005 CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 AND OTHER EMERGING CLASS ACTION ISSUES ALI-ABA Chicago Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 September 8-9, 2005 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005 Practising Law Institute Chicago, IL Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu September 19-20, 2005 NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2005 CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION & CLASS ACTIONS American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.com September 26-27, 2005 REINSURANCE SUMMIT Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2005 WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Los Angeles Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2005 BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 27, 2005 INSURANCE FRAUD CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 27, 2005 REINSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 27, 2005 REINSURANCE ARBITRATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 27-28, 2005 PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE OF FINITE AND STRUCTURED RISK (RE)INSURANCE American Conferences New York Contact: http://www.americanconference.com September 29-30, 2005 RAA'S RE CLAIMS SEMINAR: REINSURANCE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT BY CLAIMS PROFESSIONALS FOR CLAIMS PROFESSIONALS Mealey Publications New York, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 2005 ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM Mealey Publications London, England Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 2005 LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 6-7, 2005 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA Chicago Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 October 7, 2005 REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2005: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT Practising Law Institute New York, NY Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu October 17-18, 2005 BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz Carlton, Phoenix Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 17-18, 2005 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS Mealey Publications The Ritz Carlton, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 19, 2005 LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION Mealey Publications The Carlyle Hotel Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 24-25, 2005 C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Rittenhouse Philadephia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26-27, 2005 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS American Conferences Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 October 27, 2005 HEART DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 27-28, 2005 RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 28, 2005 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS & LITIGATION American Conferences Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 October 28, 2005 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 3-4, 2005 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS ALI-ABA Washington DC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 3-4, 2005 MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY CONFERENCE: LEGAL PROTECTIONS CRUCIAL TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7, 2005 ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE Mealey Publications Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2005 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 10-11, 2005 CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 14-15, 2005 SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 15-16, 2005 12TH ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES American Conferences Fontainebleau Resort, Miami, FL, United States Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 November 17-18, 2005 ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM Mealey Publications London, England Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17-18, 2005 Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Las Vegas, Nevada Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax) December 1-2, 2005 REINSURANCE GENERAL COUNSEL'S CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 5-6, 2005 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 6, 2005 ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 12-14, 2005 10th Annual Drug & Medical Device Litigation 10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conferences The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 December 12-13, 2005 VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Caesars Palace, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 12-13, 2005 LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 16-17, 2006 ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY ALI-ABA Coral Gables, Miami, Florida Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 25-26, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION Practising Law Institute New York Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu September 28-30, 2006 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ August 01-31, 2005 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 01-31, 2005 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 01-31, 2005 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 01-31, 2005 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com August 01-31, 2005 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of ATI Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: ATYT) publicly traded securities during the period between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges ATI and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ATI is the world's second largest computer graphics chip maker. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, ATI's stock traded at inflated levels, allowing the Company's top officers and directors to sell or otherwise dispose of more than $54 million worth of their own shares at artificially inflated prices. The complaint alleges that the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (1) the Company was selling desktop and notebook products with lower and lower profit margins; (2) ATI's gross margins were being weakened by high sales of its IGP products, which have profit margins well below the corporate average; (3) the Company was earning lower-than-anticipated yields on certain products due to operational issues in its own packaging and test areas of its manufacturing process; (4) the Company was experiencing production/design/yield issues with its R520 chip; (5) the Company was losing market share to arch-rivals Nvidia Corp. and Intel Corp.; and (6) despite defendants' previous statements to the contrary, a fire at one of the Company's primary suppliers in Taiwan was preventing the Company from receiving necessary supplies. On June 6, 2005, ATI warned that its revenue for the third quarter 2005 would fall well below its previously announced forecast. Thereafter, when the Company issued its actual third quarter 2005 financial results on June 23, 2005, reporting a quarterly loss of $445,000 in the third quarter 2005 compared to a profit of $48.6 million in the third quarter 2004 and further reducing fourth quarter 2005 revenue expectations by $20-$50 million, the Company's stock price fell another 8% to its lowest point since July 2003 on extremely high volume. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of ATI Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATYT) between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 3005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendant ATI Technologies, Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges DC Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Cogent Communications Group, Inc. (AMEX: COI) between February 14, 2005 and June 7, 2005, inclusive. According to the complaint, defendants failed to publicly disclose that Cogent intended to sell shares of Cogent common stock in a secondary public offering at a materially reduced price from the stock's then-current market price. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the sale of Cogent common stock at a material discount to its trading price would cause a steep decline in the market price of its shares held by plaintiff and other class members. After Cogent announced that it would sell 10,000,000 shares of its stock at $6.00 a share, the stock price fell 29.4%. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. HOST AMERICA: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of Host America Corporation ("Host America") (Nasdaq: CAFE) publicly traded securities during the period of July 12, 2005 and July 22, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The firm reminds investors that they have until October 7, 2005 to move for lead plaintiff appointment in the case. The Complaint alleges Host America and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Host America operates employee cafeterias and executive restaurants at corporations and develops energy conservation software products and systems. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding a purported agreement the Company had reached with Wal-Mart stores for installation of its LightMaster Plus on the fluorescent lighting system of ten Wal-Mart stores (as a first-phase roll- out). These statements were materially false and misleading because defendants knew, but failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's relationship with Wal-Mart was limited to a test installation; (2) that Host America had no agreement for any subsequent installations in other Wal-Mart stores; and (3) as a result, defendants had no basis for stating that the test installation was a "first-phase roll-out" or that "the next phase will involve a significant number of stores." In fact, defendants lacked any basis for stating that the Wal- Mart test installation was a "major event for our company." Further, such test installations in the past had resulted in no future customer relationship and no actual purchases of the LightMasterPlus by the party solicited for the test demonstration. These false statements caused Host America stock to skyrocket from a close of $3.12 per share on July 11, 2005, to an intra- day high of $16.88 per share on July 19, 2005, only one week later. Then, on July 22, 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") halted trading in the Company's shares amid concerns that the Company's July 12 press release had been "misleading." Prior to the halt in trading, Host America insiders sold millions of dollars worth of their personally-held Host America shares at artificially inflated prices. For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: 1-800-332-2259, +1-619-251-0887 or 1-800-332-2259, ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or asaba@scott-scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com. ISOLAGEN INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Isolagen, Inc. (AMEX: ILE) between March 3, 2004 and August 1, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against defendant Isolagen, Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 2005. 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 * * *