/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050912.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 12, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 180
Headlines
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: IL Judge Recuses Self From Consumer Suit
AMERITRADE INC.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: DE Court Partially Dismisses Investor Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Vacate Stay of NY Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Shareholders Sue V. Dolan Family Proposal
COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls 6.2T Grills, Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated in NJ Court
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Employees Launch ERISA Fraud Suit in NJ Court
COVENTRY HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For FL RICO Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 3.8M Various Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
GLOBAL CROSSING: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
GLOBESPANVIRATA INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
INDYMAC BANCORP: SEC Files, Settles Action V. Ex-Vice President
iPASS INC.: CA Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
IVILLAGE INC.: Parties Submit Revised NY Stock Suit Settlement
JANUS CAPITAL: Pre-trial Conference in CO Lawsuit Set June 2006
LEXAR MEDIA: CA Court Dismisses Securities Law Violations Suit
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Directors Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
MANNATECH INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NM
MISSOURI: Suit Launched in Scott County Over Cemetery Problems
NEBRASKA: Judge Denies Certification For ADA Violations Lawsuit
NETFLIX INC.: CA Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud
NEW VALLEY: Summary Judgment OKed For Remaining DE Suit Claims
NEXGRILL INDUSTRIES: Recalls 86T Gas Grills Due to Fire Hazard
OSCEOLA FARMS: Ex-Sugar Cane Cutters Take Suit to Federal Court
PDI INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations
PMA CAPITAL: SEC Settles Insider Trading Suit V. David Johnson
POTTERY BARN: Recalls 7.6T Spindle Cribs Due to Injury Hazard
SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Suit in CA State Court
SKECHERS USA: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuits
SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Discovery Continues In CA Securities Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 977,839 Various Vehicles For Crash Hazard
TREX CO.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. VA
UNITED SERVICES: CO Class Members Object to Bemis Settlement
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. WA
WELLMAN INC.: Records $8M Pretax Charge For Fiber Settlement
New Securities Fraud Cases
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges PA Securities Fraud Suit
IMMUCOR INC.: Holzer & Holzer Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
IMMUCOR INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in GA
ISOLAGEN INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
MANNATECH INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NM
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
TXU CORPORATION: Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Suit in TX
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Suit in NY Over Dreyfus Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Stock Suit Over Eaton Vance Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Suit in NY Over Hartford Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Securities Suit Over Pioneer Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Securities Suit Over Scudder Funds
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
*********
AFFIRMATIVE INSURANCE: IL Judge Recuses Self From Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge George Moran recused himself from a
class action lawsuit whose plaintiff is Alton attorney Lanny
Darr, citing that he frequently appears before the court, The
Madison County record reports. In a recently signed recusal
order, Judge Moran stated, "He is a lawyer that has practiced in
front of here. I just didn't feel like I should take it."
According to court records, Mr. Darr, who represents a number of
clients in pending Madison County class action lawsuits, filed
suit against Affirmative Insurance Company 16 days after he was
the victim of a rear-end collision. In his suit, he claims that
the Company offered an "inappropriate" substitute vehicle while
his was being repaired. The Company sent Mr. Darr a $222.74
check to reimburse him for three days in a rented 2005 Jeep
Cherokee after the February 14 auto accident, but Mr. Darr did
not cash the check, instead he filed a class action lawsuit.
The Company told Mr. Darr it would pay $19 a day for a
substitute vehicle.
However, in a complaint for miscellaneous remedy, Mr. Darr
wrote, "It is not appropriate to get an appropriate substitute
vehicle for $19 per day." The complaint states that a car hit
the rear of Mr. Darr's 2003 Ford Explorer while he waited for a
traffic light at Broadway and Monument Street in Alton. He
stated that he took his vehicle to a garage and found out
repairs might take four days. He then asked the Company to rent
a vehicle, and Affirmative offered $19 a day. Mr. Darr did not
originally file the suit as a class action instead he sought
declaratory relief.
Through correspondence, Company attorney, Peter Morse of
Chicago, asked Mr. Darr how much he spent on a substitute
vehicle. Mr. Darr sent Morse a copy of a $222.74 bill. Mr. Morse
promptly sent him $222.74 check April 8, with a request to
dismiss. If Mr. Darr had cashed the check he would have released
the Company from all claims, but he did not cash it.
The Company thus moved to dismiss the suit on June 10 with Mr.
Morse arguing that if Mr. Darr had an insurance problem, he
should notify the Illinois insurance commissioner. In addition,
Mr. Morse wrote that Mr. Darr could sue the driver of the other
vehicle, Walter Price. In that case, he wrote, the Company would
indemnify Mr. Price.
On June 23, class action specialist T. Evan Schaeffer entered an
appearance for Mr. Darr. Later on July 11, Mr. Schaeffer filed
an amended complaint, alleging consumer fraud and moved to
certify Mr. Darr as representative of everyone that Affirmative
harmed with its $19 rate.
Chief Judge Edward Ferguson assigned the case to Circuit Judge
Phillip Kardis, however, one of the parties moved for
substitution and thus on July 20, Judge Ferguson gave Judge
Moran the case. Judge Moran's recent recusal though bounces the
case back to Judge Ferguson for reassignment. The Company, in
an August 17 answer to the amended complaint, argued that Mr.
Darr was not a consumer under the Illinois consumer fraud law.
AMERITRADE INC.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameritrade, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of common law and federal securities law. The suit,
styled "Gurfein etc. v. Ameritrade, Inc. et al," also names as
defendants the Company, various specialist firms, broker dealers
and the American Stock Exchange.
The suit alleges that the defendants, among other things,
failing to execute limit orders for options at quoted prices and
by executing market orders for options at prices less favorable
than the actual market price. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.
The suit is styled "Gurfein v. Ameritrade, Inc. et al., case no.
1:04-cv-09526-LLS," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Louis L.
Stanton. Representing the Company is Richard John Morvillo of
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP(DC), 1909 "K" Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20006-1101, Phone: (202) 263-3000 x3290, Fax:
(202) 263-3300, E-mail: rmorvillo@mayerbrownrowe.com.
Representing the Company are Frederick W. Gerkens, III, John
Halebian of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, 58th
Flr., New York, NY 10110, Phone: (212)608-1900, Fax:
(212)719-4677, E-mail: fgerkens@lshllp.com or
jhalebian@lshllp.com; and Daniel Robert Lapinski or Olimpio Lee
Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon LLP, 32 East 57th Street, 12th
Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 421-6492, Fax:
(212) 421-6553, E-mail: dan@sfclasslaw.com or
lee@sfclasslaw.com.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: DE Court Partially Dismisses Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court granted in part Cablevision Systems
Corporation's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
filed against it and each of its directors.
In August 2002, purported class actions were filed against the
defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duties and breach of
contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock. The suits
were filed on behalf of all holders of publicly traded shares of
Rainbow Media Group tracking stock. The actions sought to:
(1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock,
(2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
in the alternative, award rescissory damages,
(3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
rescissory damages,
(4) award compensatory damages, and
(5) award costs and disbursements
The actions were consolidated into one action on September 17,
2002, and on October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated action. The action was stayed by
agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related action
brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection of
certain books and records of the Company. On October 26,
2004, the parties entered into a stipulation dismissing the
related action, and providing for the Company's production of
certain documents.
On December 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On April 19, 2005, the court granted that motion in
part, dismissing the breach of contract claim but declining to
dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim on the pleadings.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Vacate Stay of NY Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court refused to grant the Teachers
Retirement System of Lousiana's (TRSL) motion to vacate the stay
of a class action filed against Cablevision Systems,
Corporation, its directors and officers and certain current and
former officers and employees of the Company's Rainbow Media
Holdings and American Movie Classics subsidiaries.
In August 2003, a purported class action was filed, relating to
the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking stock exchange.
The suit alleged, among other things, that the exchange ratio
was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock
that was artificially deflated as a result of the improper
recognition of certain expenses at the national services
division of Rainbow Media Holdings. The complaint alleges
breaches by the individual defendants of fiduciary duties. The
complaint also alleges breaches of contract and unjust
enrichment by the Company. The complaint seeks monetary damages
and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.
On October 31, 2003, the Company and other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending
in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. On June 10, 2004, the court stayed the action on
the basis of the previously filed action in Delaware. The
Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana has filed a motion to
vacate the stay in the New York action, and has simultaneously
filed a motion to intervene in the Delaware action and to stay
that action. The Company has opposed both motions. On April 19,
2005, the court in the Delaware action denied the motion to stay
the Delaware action and granted TRSL's motion to intervene in
that action. On June 22, 2005, the court in the New York action
denied TRSL's motion to vacate the stay in that action.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Shareholders Sue V. Dolan Family Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation faces several securities class
actions filed various courts relating to the Dolan Family Group
in the Delaware proposal to acquire the outstanding, publicly
held interests in the Company following a pro rata distribution
of Rainbow Media Holdings. Several suits were filed in June and
July 2005 in the Delaware Chancery Court, the New York Supreme
Court for Nassau County, and the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.
The complaints allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the
Company's directors for proposing and/or approving the
transactions contemplated by the Dolan Family Group proposal
letter dated June 19, 2005. The complaints request injunctive
relief to prevent consummation of the proposed transactions and
unspecified damages.
COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls 6.2T Grills, Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), The Coleman Company, Inc., of Wichita, Kansas and TPA
Metals and Machinery of China is voluntarily recalling about
124,600 units of Colemanr Gas Grills and 6,200 units of Colemanr
Patio Heaters.
According to the companies, the regulators on these products can
leak propane when the propane cylinder is turned on and the
product is not in use. This can pose a fire or explosion hazard.
Coleman has received 98 reports of these regulators leaking
propane. Coleman has received no reports of injuries or property
damage.
The recall includes Colemanr Gas Grills with model numbers 5100,
5300, 5400, 5600, 6000 and 7700, and Colemanr Patio Heater with
model number 5040. The model name and number can be found
directly on the front of the grills and on the inside cover of
the heaters.
Manufactured in China the grills and heaters were sold at Lowes,
Expo Design Centers and various pool and patio retailers
nationwide. The grills were sold from January 2004 through July
2005 for between $270 and $1,260. The patio heaters were sold
from June 2004 through July 2005 for between $500 and $600.
Consumers should stop using the grills and heaters immediately
and contact Coleman for a free replacement regulator assembly.
Once the regulator is replaced, the grill or heater may be used.
Consumer Contact: Call The Coleman Company, Inc. toll-free at
(866) 584-8587 anytime, or log on to the company's Web site:
http://www.coleman.com.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated in NJ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Conexant Systems,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, under the caption "Witriol v. Conexant,
et al."
In December 2004 and January 2005, several similar suits were
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common
stock during a specified class period. These suits were filed
in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey (New Jersey cases) and
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(California cases), alleging that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) by allegedly
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts.
The California cases have now been consolidated with the New
Jersey cases so that all of the class action suits are being
heard in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey by the same
judge.
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Employees Launch ERISA Fraud Suit in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conexant Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former
officers and the Company's Employee Benefits Plan Committee face
a class action filed in the United States District Court in New
Jersey, styled "Graden v. Conexant, et al."
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who were
participants in the Company's 401(k) Plan during a specified
class period. This suit alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), as amended, to the Plan and the
participants in the Plan.
COVENTRY HEALTH: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For FL RICO Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the managed care litigation filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division are seeking certification of sub-classes as to
Coventry Health Care, Inc.
The Company is a defendant in the provider track in the Managed
Care Litigation filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, Multi-District
Litigation (MDL), styled "In re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL
No. 1334." This lawsuit was filed by a group of physicians as a
class action against the Company and nine other companies in the
managed care industry. The plaintiffs have alleged violations
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and abetting a
scheme to violate RICO. In addition to these federal law claims,
the complaint includes state law claims for breach of contract,
violations of various state prompt payment laws and equitable
claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.
The trial court has dismissed several of the state law claims
and ordered that all physicians who have an arbitration
provision in their provider contracts must submit their direct
RICO claims and all of their remaining state law claims to
arbitration. As a consequence of this ruling, all the plaintiffs
who have arbitration provisions voluntarily dismissed all of
their claims that are subject to arbitration. The trial court
however has ordered that the plaintiffs' claims of conspiracy to
violate RICO and aiding and abetting violations of RICO are not
subject to arbitration. The defendants' appeal to the 11th
Circuit challenging the trial court's arbitration decision was
denied. The trial court has certified various subclasses of
physicians; however, the Company is not subject to the class
certification order because the motion to certify was filed
before it was joined as a defendant.
The plaintiffs have now filed a motion to certify various
subclasses as to the Company. The Company has filed its
opposition to that motion which remains pending before the trial
court. The defendants who were subject to the class
certification order filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals has overturned the class
certification order as to the plaintiffs' state law claims but
affirmed the certification with respect to the plaintiffs'
federal law claims. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the
defendants' petition to review the 11th Circuit's class
certification decision.
Two defendants have entered into settlement agreements with the
plaintiffs, which have received final approval from the trial
court. Four other defendants have recently settled with the
plaintiffs and the trial court has given its preliminary
approval of those settlements.
This MDL lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals. Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions. The court has entered an order which stays all
proceedings in the tag-along actions until all pre-trial
proceedings in the MDL action have been concluded.
The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno. The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs. Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 3.8M Various Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 3,800,000 units of 1994-
1996 Ford Bronco, 1997-2002 Ford Expedition, 1994-2002 Ford F-
150, 1994-99 Ford F250, 2002 Lincoln Blackwood and 1998-2002
Lincoln Navigator vehicles due to fire hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID
Number: 05V388000.
According to the ODI, on certain of the aforementioned vehicles,
which are equipped with speed control, the speed control
activation switch may overheat, smoke or burn. A fire at the
switch could occur.
As an interim remedy, owners will be instructed to return their
vehicles to their dealers to have the speed control deactivation
switch disconnected. As soon as replacement parts are available
(expected in mid-October 2005), owners will be instructed to
return to the dealers for installation of a fused wiring
harness. The interim owner notification will begin during the
week of September 12, 2005.
For more details, contact Ford, Phone: 1-800-392-3673 and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.
GLOBAL CROSSING: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Global Crossing Ltd. reached a settlement for the amended
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Following the Company's s April 27, 2004 announcement that the
Company expected to restate certain of its consolidated
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
2003, eight separate class action lawsuits all purporting to be
brought on behalf of Company shareholders were commenced against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Courts in New Jersey, New York and
California. The cases were consolidated and transferred by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to Judge Gerard Lynch
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York based on his past involvement in prior cases involving
the Company.
On February 18, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint against the Company and two
of its past and present officers. The consolidated amended
complaint alleges that the Company defrauded the public
securities markets by issuing false and misleading statements
that failed to disclose or indicate:
(1) that the Company had materially understated its accrued
cost of access liabilities by as much as $80 million,
(2) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to
prevent material misstatements,
(3) that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls to
properly record and report accrued cost of access
liabilities and operating expenses,
(4) that its financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles,
(5) that the Company did not, contrary to its
representations, consistently monitor the accuracy of
its systems that measured cost of access,
(6) that the Company's results were materially inflated,
and
(7) that the Company did not have a "clean" balance sheet.
The consolidated amended complaint, on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock
between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, asserts claims
under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs contend that the
Company's misstatement or omissions artificially inflated the
price of the Company's stock, which declined when the "true"
costs were disclosed. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as
well as other relief. If the case is not settled, defendants
anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. Counsel for the Company and the lead plaintiffs have
agreed in principle on behalf of their clients to settle the
litigation under the terms of a proposed settlement agreement.
The proposed settlement agreement contemplates the creation of a
settlement fund by the company, subject to reimbursement in full
(less a $0.5 deductible) by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurance carrier. The proposed settlement agreement
remains subject to final negotiation and court approval.
GLOBESPANVIRATA INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against GlobeSpan,
Inc., (GlobeSpan, Inc. later became GlobespanVirata, Inc., and
is now Conexant, Inc.'s subsidiary)
In November 2001, Collegeware Asset Management, LP, on behalf of
itself and a putative class of persons who purchased the common
stock of between June 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000, filed a
complaint, alleging violations of federal securities laws by the
underwriters of GlobeSpan, Inc.'s initial and secondary public
offerings as well as by certain GlobeSpan, Inc. officers and
directors.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing and selling GlobeSpan, Inc.'s common
stock in the initial and secondary offerings without disclosing
to investors that the underwriters had solicited and received
undisclosed and excessive commissions or other compensation and
entered into agreements requiring certain of their customers to
purchase the stock in the aftermarket at escalating prices. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages.
The complaint was consolidated with class actions against
approximately 300 other companies making similar allegations
regarding the public offerings of those companies during 1998
through 2000. In June 2003, Conexant, Inc. and the named
officers and directors entered into a memorandum or
understanding outlining a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs that will, among other things, result in the
dismissal with prejudice of all the claims against the former
GlobeSpan, Inc. officers and directors. The final settlement was
executed in June 2004.
On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, subject to modification of certain
bar orders contemplated by the settlement. The bar orders have
since been modified. The settlement remains subject to a number
of conditions and final approval.
INDYMAC BANCORP: SEC Files, Settles Action V. Ex-Vice President
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled
enforcement action in federal district court in Los Angeles,
California, charging Jameson L. Thottam of Houston, Texas, with
insider trading in the stock of IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. IndyMac's
primary operating subsidiary, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., is the
largest savings and loan in Los Angeles County and the tenth
largest nationwide. Mr. Thottam, age 33, was a vice president
in IndyMac's corporate strategic planning department until
September 2004.
The Commission's complaint alleges that by mid-July 2004, Mr.
Thottam became aware that the company's pro forma earnings for
the second quarter of 2004 were significantly above IndyMac's
projections. The complaint also alleges that on July 23, 2004,
Mr. Thottam purchased 200 call options on IndyMac common stock
while aware of IndyMac's nonpublic earnings information. The
call options were a bet that the price of IndyMac stock would
rise in that the options gave Mr. Thottam the right to purchase
20,000 IndyMac common shares at $30 per share by a specific date
in August 2004.
After IndyMac publicly announced record pro forma earnings for
the second quarter of 2004 on July 30, the price of IndyMac
common stock closed at $33.22 per share. On August 2, 2004, Mr.
Thottam realized an illegal profit of $40,258 by liquidating his
call options. By engaging in such trading, Mr. Thottam breached
his duty to IndyMac not to trade on the basis of confidential
corporate information.
To settle the Commission's charges, Mr. Thottam consented,
without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, to the entry of a final judgment permanently
enjoining him from future violations of the antifraud provisions
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. Mr. Thottam also agreed to pay $40,258 in
disgorgement of his illegal trading profits, plus prejudgment
interest of $940, and a civil penalty equal to his trading
profits of $40,258. The suit is styled, SEC v. Jameson L.
Thottam, Civil Action No. 05-6584 R, RCx, C.D. Cal. (LR-19364).
iPASS INC.: CA Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against iPass, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.
On January 14, 2005, a lawsuit entitled "Palumbo v. iPass, Inc.,
et al., Case No. C 05 228 MHP" was filed, purportedly on behalf
of a class of investors who purchased iPass stock between April
22, 2004 and June 30, 2004. The complaint alleges claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. Several similar lawsuits were subsequently filed in
the same court, and all of the suits have since been
consolidated into a single action.
On April 22, 2005, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and a
consolidated amended complaint was be filed by the lead
plaintiff on July 5, 2005. This matter is at an early stage; no
response to the complaint has been filed, no discovery has taken
place and no trial date has been set.
IVILLAGE INC.: Parties Submit Revised NY Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against iVillage, Inc., several of its present and former
executives and its underwriters in connection with its March
1999 initial public offering submitted revised settlement
documents to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The complaint generally asserts claims under the Securities Act,
the Exchange Act and rules and regulations of the SEC. The
complaint seeks class action certification, unspecified damages
in an amount to be determined at trial, and costs associated
with the litigation, including attorneys' fees.
In February 2003, the defendants' motion to dismiss certain of
the plaintiffs' claims was granted in part, but, for the most
part, denied. In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies. The proposed
settlement generally provides that the issuer defendants and
related individual defendants will be released from the
litigation without any liability other than certain expenses
incurred to date in connection with the litigation, the issuer
defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0 billion in recoveries
by plaintiff class members, the issuer defendants will assign
certain claims against the underwriter defendants to the
plaintiff class members, and the issuer defendants will have the
opportunity to recover certain litigation-related expenses if
the plaintiffs recover more than $5.0 billion from the
underwriter defendants. The boards of directors of the Company
approved the proposed settlement in July 2003.
On June 25, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the court, which was accompanied
by a brief filed by the issuer defendants in support of the
plaintiffs' motion. The court requested that any objections to
preliminary approval of the settlement be submitted by July 14,
2004, and certain underwriter defendants formally objected to
the settlement. The plaintiffs and issuer defendants separately
filed replies to the underwriter defendants' objections to the
settlement on August 4, 2004. On February 15, 2005, the court
issued an opinion and order granting preliminary approval to the
settlement and ordering the plaintiffs and issuer defendants to
submit to the court a revised settlement stipulation consistent
with the court's order. Pursuant to the court's instruction,
the parties to the settlement agreement submitted the revised
settlement stipulation on May 2, 2005. The Court has indicated
that assuming the revised settlement stipulation is acceptable
to the Court, notice to the class-members would be sent out in
the beginning of September 2005 and a final hearing to allow for
any plaintiff to object to the settlement will take place on
January 9, 2006.
The suit is styled "In re iVillage, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Sec. Litigation," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
JANUS CAPITAL: Pre-trial Conference in CO Lawsuit Set June 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial conference in the mutual fund fraud class action filed
against Janus Capital Group Inc. and related entities is set for
June 12,2006 in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.
The lawsuit, styled "Davis v. Bailey, et al., Case Number 05-MK-
42," relates to the submission of claims as class members under
numerous class actions. The suit was filed on behalf of fund
investors and alleges that the Company failed to make
appropriate filings to ensure that the Janus mutual funds
participated in various class action settlements and that the
Company and others thereby breached fiduciary duties owed to
mutual fund shareholders. The action asserts claims under
Sections 36(a) and (b), and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act
and for breach of fiduciary duty.
Discovery is expected to be completed in the first half of 2006,
and the pretrial conference is set for June 12, 2006.
LEXAR MEDIA: CA Court Dismisses Securities Law Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Lexar Media, Inc., its chief executive officer and
its chief financial officer.
On May 21, 2004, the Company, along with our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in
a federal class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. That action was brought
allegedly on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who purchased its
common stock, and asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, based principally on allegations that the Company
made misrepresentations regarding its business.
Six similar class actions have since been filed in the Northern
District of California. The Court has appointed a lead
plaintiff and ordered that those actions be consolidated. In
October 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
on behalf of those who purchased the Company's stock between
October 16, 2003 and April 16, 2004.
In January 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On July 5, 2005, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend within thirty
days. On August 4, 2005, plaintiffs determined that they would
not file an amended complaint. The Company expects that the
action will now be dismissed with prejudice.
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Directors Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corporation's board of directors approved the settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against the
Company, certain of its former officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Between January 11 and December 6, 2001, class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. These actions were filed against 310
issuers (including the Company), 55 underwriters and numerous
individuals including certain of the Company's former officers
and directors. The various complaints were filed purportedly on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during the time period between March 15 and December 6,
2000.
The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on
allegations that the Company's underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with the Company's initial public
offering and that the underwriters entered into undisclosed
arrangements with some investors that were designed to distort
and/or inflate the market price for the Company's common stock
in the aftermarket. These actions were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes. No specific amount of damages has been claimed.
The Company and the individual defendants have demanded to be
indemnified by underwriter defendants pursuant to the
underwriting agreement entered into at the time of the initial
public offering. Presently all claims against the former
officers have been withdrawn without prejudice. The Court
suggested that the parties select six test cases to determine
class-action eligibility. The Company is not a party to any of
the test cases.
In March 2005, a proposed settlement initially structured in
June 2003 among plaintiffs, issuer defendants, issuer officers
and directors named as defendants, and issuers' insurance
companies, was approved by the Court. This proposed settlement
provides, among other matters, that:
(1) issuer defendants and related individual defendants
will be released from the litigation without any
liability other than certain expenses incurred to date
in connection with the litigation;
(2) issuer defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0 billion
in recoveries by plaintiff class members;
(3) issuer defendants will assign certain claims against
underwriter defendants to the plaintiff class members;
and
(4) issuer defendants will have the opportunity to
recover certain litigation-related expenses if
plaintiffs recover more than $5.0 billion from
underwriter defendants.
The final settlement terms as approved by the Court differ from
the initial settlement proposal in that the settlement does not
bar the defendant underwriters from bringing contractual
indemnity claims against the issuer defendants, including the
Company. The Company's board of directors approved the proposed
settlement in August 2003 and approved the final settlement
terms in March 2005.
The suit is styled "IN RE LOUDEYE CORPORATION INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(iii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(iv) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(v) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(vi) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
MANNATECH INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in NM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mannatech, Inc. and its chief executive officer Samuel Caster
face a shareholder class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock of between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive, and
who were damaged thereby.
Mr. Jonathan Crowell filed the suit on August 1,2005, alleging
violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit alleges that
defendants artificially inflated the value of the Company's
stock by knowingly allowing independent contractors to
recklessly misrepresent the efficacy of the Company's products
during the purported class period. The Plaintiff is seeking an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest, and costs,
including legal and expert fees.
The suit is styled "Jonathan Crowell, et al. v. Mannatech, Inc.,
et al., case no. 05-CV-829," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico. The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:
(1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(2) 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
(3) 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
MISSOURI: Suit Launched in Scott County Over Cemetery Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was commenced over the alleged failures
in maintaining and repairing Sikeston Garden of Memories
Cemetery, Sikeston Memorial Park Cemetery and Forest Hills
Cemetery in Morley, The Standard Democrat reports.
Filed by the Sikeston law firm Blanton, Rice, Sidwell, Nickell,
Cozean and Collins, LLC, on August 25 in the Scott County
Circuit Court in Missouri. It was brought on behalf of Charles
Ulmer, Charles DeWitt and Genie Rice against the companies and
persons associated with ownership and operation of cemeteries,
according to Joseph C. Blanton Jr., one of the firm's attorneys.
The suit alleges the defendants have failed to maintain and
repair the individual plots and the cemetery as a whole as
obligated by representing itself to the public as a perpetual
care cemetery which maintains a minimum endowed care and
maintenance fund.
According to Mr. Blanton, who along with John E. Cozean is
serving as lead counsel for the lawsuit, a hearing is set for
Wednesday on the motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent
the diversion of funds and other assets of the cemeteries
pending the disposition of the case. He added, "We've already
obtained a temporary restraining order to prohibit the
defendants from transferring assets outside the ordinary course
of business."
The next step is to ask the judge to certify three classes, one
for each of the cemeteries, according to Mr. Blanton, "rather
than having thousands of separate lawsuits filed." He told The
Standard Democrat the request will be entered before the end of
this year. Potential members of the class include those who own
lots in the cemeteries along with those who have family members
buried there, "so the class size will be huge," according to Mr.
Blanton.
Mr. Blanton also told The Standard Democrat that once classes
are certified, they would ask the judge to set the case for
trial. According to him, "We will notify people who are
potential members of the class by putting a big ad in the
newspaper. We may also possibly do a mass mailing to those who
may have an interest in our lawsuit."
It is anticipated that money recovered from the defendants will
be placed in court-approved trust funds for cemetery
maintenance. Mr. Blanton reiterated, "Our whole goal in this is
to try to make sure these cemeteries are maintained in the
future."
He declined to estimate how much money could be awarded or how
long it might take for a ruling on the case saying, "We're just
getting started. The lawsuit has just been filed and hasn't even
been answered yet." However, Mr. Blanton stresses that efforts
will be made to expedite the case saying, "We intend to pursue
this case aggressively."
For more details, visit http://www.blantonlaw.com.
NEBRASKA: Judge Denies Certification For ADA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf gutted a lawsuit that claims
Nebraskans with developmental disabilities are in danger of
being institutionalized because the state isn't fully funding
programs for them, The Sioux City Journal reports.
The federal judge said that the lawsuit should not be deemed a
class action, thus he is limiting the case to the seven people
who filed the action. By denying class action status more than
1,400 other developmentally disabled people are precluded from
joining the case.
Judge Kopf's ruling was based on an earlier recommendation by
U.S. Magistrate David Piester, who said the highly case-specific
circumstances of each disabled person are so different that the
proposed class was too "amorphous and diverse." The judge
pointed out, "The imprecision in the class definition is based
in the lack of commonality of claims."
Filed in 2003 by Nebraska Advocacy Services, the suit alleges
that the state is failing to meet its programming obligations in
violation of federal Medicaid law and the Americans With
Disabilities Act. The plaintiffs are seeking home- and
community-based services available through the state's Home and
Community Based Waiver Program, whose services include in-home
care and community programs, such as vocational training,
workshops and group homes. According to the suit, waiver
programs are optional under federal law, but states that choose
to have them must operate them by Medicaid rules. They are
funded with state money and matching federal Medicaid dollars.
The suit also alleges that the state has "unlawfully restricted
funding" to the program, resulting in long waits for often
inadequate services. The suit further alleges that Nebraska has
not kept its funding obligations, resulting in a waiting list of
more than 800 people. That backlog puts some developmentally
disabled people at greater risk of being institutionalized
because their families can't care for them, according to the
suit.
NETFLIX INC.: CA Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against certain of Netflix, Inc.'s officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The officers named in the suit are:
(1) Reed Hastings,
(2) W. Barry McCarthy, Jr., and
(3) Leslie J. Kilgore
The consolidated complaint was filed on February 24, 2005,
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between October 1, 2003 and
October 14, 2004. The plaintiffs allege that the Company made
false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts
based on the Company's disclosure regarding churn and delivery
speed, 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 its officers of Section 20A of Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The suit is styled "In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation,
case no. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Fern
M. Smith. Representing the Company are Cynthia A. Dy and
Cameron Powers Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650
Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650/493-9300 Fax:
650-565-5100 E-mail: cdy@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Arthur L Shingler, III, David R. Scott, Neil R.
Rothstein, Scott + Scott, LLC 401 B Street Suite 401
San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-
233-0508 E-mail: Ashingler@scott-Scott.com,
Drscott@scott-Scott.com;
(2) Brian O O'Mara, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B Street, Suite
1700 San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619/ 231-1058 Fax:
(619) 231-7423 Email: Briano@lerachlaw.com or
Billl@lerachlaw.com
NEW VALLEY: Summary Judgment OKed For Remaining DE Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court granted New Valley Corporation's
motion for summary judgment on the three remaining claims in the
class action filed against it on behalf of its former Class B
preferred shareholders. The suit also names as defendants
Brooke Group Holding and certain of the Company's directors and
officers.
The complaint alleges that the recapitalization, approved by a
majority of each class of the Company's stockholders in May
1999, was fundamentally unfair to the Class B preferred
shareholders, the proxy statement relating to the
recapitalization was materially deficient and the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Class B preferred
shareholders in approving the transaction.
The Court dismissed six of the plaintiff's nine claims alleging
inadequate disclosure in the proxy statement. Brooke Group
Holding and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on
the remaining three claims, which was granted by the court in
May 2005. The plaintiffs did not appeal the decision.
NEXGRILL INDUSTRIES: Recalls 86T Gas Grills Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Nexgrill Industries Inc., of City of Industry,
California is voluntarily recalling about 86,000 units of
Charmglowr Gas Grills.
The hose connecting the propane tank with the manifold can run
up too close to the firebox. The heat from the firebox can
damage the hose, causing it to leak gas. The release of gas
creates a fire risk that could cause injury and property damage.
Nexgrill has received five reports of fires involving hoses
leaking gas and more than 45 additional reports of incidents
involving possible gas leaks.
The recalled Charmglowr Gas Grills have a model number of 720-
0036-HD-05, which can be found on the back of the grill. The
stainless steel grill is designed to be used with propane gas.
The name of the grill is located at the left corner of the
exterior of the main burner lid. A temperature gauge is located
at the center of the main burner lid.
Manufactured in China, the grills were sold at all Home Depot
stores nationwide from November 2004 through June 2005 for about
$350.
Consumers should stop using the gas grill and contact Nexgrill
Customer Service to receive a free, self-installation repair
kit.
Consumer Contact: Call Nexgrill toll-free at (888) 568-9888
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or log on to
the company's Web site: http://0036.serorder.com.
OSCEOLA FARMS: Ex-Sugar Cane Cutters Take Suit to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,000 former sugar cane cutters took a 16-year-old
battle against one of the nation's largest sugar producers to
federal court, suing Osceola Farms Co. to recover more than $5-
million they say is owed them in back wages, The Associated
Press reports.
The class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in West
Palm Beach came after a state judge ruled this summer that the
workers couldn't continue as a class in their lawsuit first
filed in 1989 in state court, which thus required them to file
separate claims.
Osceola Farms is a subsidiary of Flo-Sun Inc., one of the
nation's largest sugar producers, which is controlled by the
politically influential Fanjul family.
Lawyers for the cane cutters, who are mostly laborers from the
Caribbean that came to the United States as temporary workers,
brought their case to federal court under the recently passed
Class Action Fairness Act, which was designed to send the
majority of class action lawsuits to federal courts. Federal
courts are believed to be less likely than state courts to award
multimillion-dollar verdicts to people suing large companies.
Greg Schell, a lawyer with the Migrant Farmworker Justice
Project, who is one of three attorneys representing the cane
cutters, told The Associated Press, "This is a great irony. This
pro business statute is going to be used by a bunch of starving
cane cutters from the West Indies."
According to court documents, the cane cutters are claiming that
between 1987 and 1992, Osceola Farms paid less than what was
promised in the workers' contracts and falsified the number of
hours they worked in documents filed with the U.S. Department of
Labor. Those documents were required as part of the H2-A
program, which allows foreign laborers to come temporarily to
the United States if domestic workers can't be found to do a
particular job.
The suit contends that though the workers were paid on a "piece
rate" basis, or by the amounts harvested, federal law requires
that agriculture employees earn a fixed rate per hour regardless
of how much cane is cut and says employers must make up any
shortfall between that rate and the worker's piece rate
earnings.
Mr. Schell told The Associated Press, "That costs money to make
up the difference. So they would make up the records and
underreport the hours."
The workers are seeking more than $5-million in back wages but
according to Mr. Schell, the amount owed could be more than $10-
million when interest is considered. He added that if the case
is allowed to proceed as a class action, it could encompass more
than 2,000 former cane cutters.
The lawsuit against Osceola Farms is the last of five cases
against sugar companies seeking back wages for workers. One case
was settled and workers in the three other cases lost in court.
PDI INC.: NJ Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against
PDI, Inc., its chief executive officer and its chief financial
officer alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The suit was filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 established thereunder, and is
styled "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-
0211." The complaint purports to state claims against the
Company on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
Common Stock between May 22, 2001 and August 12, 2002 and seeks
money damages in unspecified amounts and litigation expenses
including attorneys' and experts' fees.
The essence of the allegations in the Second Consolidated and
Amended Complaint is that the Company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning its financial condition and prospects with
respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection with the
October 2000 distribution agreement with GSK, its marketing of
Lotensin in connection with the May 2001 distribution agreement
with Novartis, as well as its marketing of Evista(R) in
connection with the October 2001 distribution agreement with Eli
Lilly and Company.
In February 2003, the Company 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. That motion
was fully submitted to the court for its decision.
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.
PMA CAPITAL: SEC Settles Insider Trading Suit V. David Johnson
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
David L. Johnson in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Mr. Johnson
committed insider trading by selling shares of PMA Capital
Corporation prior to the public announcement that PMA would be
discontinuing its payment of a common stock dividend and
increasing its carried loss reserves at its reinsurance
subsidiary.
Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
Mr. Johnson consented to the entry of a final judgment, subject
to the court's approval, in which he is permanently enjoined
from further violations of the antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws and agreed to pay disgorgement of his
and his son's trading profits, plus prejudgment interest and a
one time civil penalty totaling $786,449.
The Commission's complaint alleges that on October 31, 2003, the
then Chairman of PMA's Board of Directors informed Johnson that
PMA would be discontinuing its payment of a common stock
dividend and would be increasing carried loss reserves at its
reinsurance subsidiary, PMA Reinsurance. Following this
discussion and on the basis of the information he received,
Johnson sold 20,000 shares of PMA stock on October 31, 2003, and
20,000 shares of PMA stock on November 3, 2003. Further relying
on the information he received, Johnson also tipped his son, who
on November 2, 2003, sold 3,300 shares of PMA stock owned
jointly with his wife and 3,600 shares of PMA stock in his
capacity as custodian for his daughters. Mr. Johnson's and his
son's sales were in advance of PMA's November 4, 2003, public
announcement that PMA would be discontinuing its payment of a
common stock dividend and increasing its carried loss reserves
at its reinsurance subsidiary. As a result of these sales, Mr.
Johnson avoided $325,305 in losses and his son avoided $56,028
in losses.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Johnson's sale of PMA
stock prior to the November 4, 2003, public announcement
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The suit is styled, SEC v. David L. Johnson, Civil Action No.
05-CV-4789 USDC, E.D. PA (LR-19363).
POTTERY BARN: Recalls 7.6T Spindle Cribs Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Pottery Barn Kids, of San Francisco, California is
voluntarily recalling about 7,600 units of Spindle Cribs.
According to the company, the spindles on the crib's front rail
can loosen and detach from the rail. This can allow the child to
fall from the crib and poses a risk of entrapment. Pottery Barn
Kids has received six reports of incidents involving spindles
detaching from the crib. No injuries have been reported.
The recall involves the Spindle Crib, model number 4825402. The
product name and model number are printed on a label affixed to
the base of the crib. Sold in white, pink and blue, the cribs
are made of hardwood and measure 30.5 x 54.5 x 45" high.
Manufactured in Taiwan, the cribs were sold at Pottery Barn Kids
retail stores, the Pottery Barn Kids catalog and
PotteryBarnKids.com nationwide from January 2004 through July
2005 for between $300 and $500.
Consumers should immediately stop using these cribs and contact
Pottery Barn Kids to receive a free replacement front rail or a
full refund (including shipping).
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Pottery
Barn Kids at (800) 330-6905 between 7 a.m. and 12 a.m. ET daily
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.potterybarnkids.com.
Pottery Barn Kids Media Contact: Abigail Jacobs, Phone: (415)
616-8432.
SALEM COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Suit in CA State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Salem Communications Corporation faces a class action filed in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Ventura,
alleging shareholder fraud.
Pipefitters, Locals 522 & 633 Pension Trust Fund filed the suit
for violation of the federal securities laws on March 9,2005
against the Company, its directors, certain of its officers and
certain underwriters of the Company's April 2004 public offering
of Class A common stock. In the purported class action, the
plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the
Company's equity securities pursuant or traceable to that
offering. The complaint alleges that the offering documents
failed to disclose that the Company's s financial statements
overstated its fixed assets and that the Company's internal
controls were flawed with respect to its ability to value fixed
assets and that the offering documents contained misstatements
regarding the Company's fixed assets and internal controls. The
complaint seeks rescission or damages in excess of $5 million,
interest, attorney's fees and other costs, as well as equitable
and injunctive relief. The complaint was served on the Company
on March 15, 2005.
SKECHERS USA: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wage Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Californis Superior Court approved the settlement for the
overtime wage and labor class actions filed against Skechers
USA, Inc.
On December 2, 2002, a class action complaint entitled "OMAR
QUINONES v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case no. 02CC00353," was
filed in the Superior Court for the State of California for the
County of Orange. The complaint, as amended, alleges overtime
and related violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of
managers of Skechers' retail stores and seeks, inter alia,
damages and restitution, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief. On February 25, 2003, another related class action
complaint entitled "MYRNA CORTEZ v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al.,
case no. BC290932," was filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles, asserting
similar claims and seeking similar relief on behalf of assistant
managers. On July 7, 2004, a third class action complaint
entitled "MYRNA CORTEZ et al. v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case
no. BC318101," was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleges
wage violations of the California Labor Code and unfair business
practices relating to deductions for uniforms on behalf of
employees of Skechers' retail stores and seeks, inter alia,
damages and civil penalties, as well as injunctive relief.
On December 20, 2004, the parties agreed to a preliminary
settlement that fully resolves all claims brought by the
plaintiffs in each of the three lawsuits. Under the terms of the
preliminary settlement, which is still subject to court
approval, the Company will pay a potential maximum settlement
amount of $1.8 million, which was recorded to other expense in
the consolidated statement of operations during the fourth
quarter of 2004, to cover claims made by eligible class members,
plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs, and costs of a third-party
administrator. On July 18, 2005, the court approved the
preliminary settlement, and all claims from eligible class
members have been received. The aggregate amount of all claims
and other costs is not expected to exceed $1.6 million.
SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Skechers USA, Inc. asked
the and certain of its officers and directors.
On March 25, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "HARVEY SOLOMON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et
al., case no. 03-2094 DDP," was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors. On April 2, 2003, a
shareholder securities class action complaint captioned "CHARLES
ZIMMER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case no. 03-2296 PA" was
filed. On April 15, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "MARTIN H. SIEGEL v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et
al., case no. 03-2645 RMT" was filed. On May 6, 2003, a
shareholder securities class action complaint captioned "ADAM D.
SAPHIER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case no. 03-3011 FMC" was
served on the Company and certain of its officers and directors.
On May 9, 2003, a shareholders securities class action complaint
captioned "LARRY L. ERICKSON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., case
no. 03-3101 SJO," was filed.
Each of these class action complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 3, 2002
and December 9, 2002. In July 2003, the court in these federal
securities class actions, all pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, ordered
the cases consolidated and a consolidated complaint to be filed
and served. On September 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint entitled "In re SKECHERS USA, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-03-2094-PA."
The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain
officers and directors and alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of
persons who purchased publicly traded securities of the Company
between April 3, 2002 and December 9, 2002. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and injunctive
and equitable relief.
The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its
entirety. On May 10, 2004, the court granted the motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiffs to amend the complaint. On
August 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint for violations of the federal securities laws. The
allegations and relief sought were virtually identical to the
original consolidated complaint. The Company moved to dismiss
the first amended consolidated complaint and the motion was set
for hearing on December 6, 2004.
On March 21, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
first amended consolidated complaint with leave for plaintiffs
to amend one final time. On April 7, 2005, plaintiffs elected to
stand on the first amended consolidated complaint and requested
entry of judgment so that an appeal from the court's ruling
could be taken. On April 26, 2005, the court entered judgment
in favor of the Company and the individual defendants, and on
May 3, 2005, plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Discovery did not
commence in the underlying action.
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Discovery Continues In CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California as "In re
Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation."
The Court then appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended
complaint. In 2001, the Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new
complaint. In 2002, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss that complaint, which, like the earlier complaints,
alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements and
failing to disclose material information regarding the Company's
technology.
On February 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class
consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11,
2000. On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants' motion
to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the
definition of the plaintiff class. On September 10, 2003, the
Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties'
summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003, the Court
issued another order staying all discovery until further notice
and vacating the trial date, which had been November 4, 2003.
On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying
two of the lead plaintiffs. The order also states that
plaintiffs' counsel must provide certain information to the
Court about counsel's relationship with the disqualified lead
plaintiffs, and it provides that defendants may serve certain
additional discovery. On March 24, 2004, plaintiffs submitted
certain documents to the Court in response to its order, and, on
April 16, 2004, the Company responded to this submission. The
Company has also initiated discovery pursuant to the court's
February 23, 2004 order.
On October 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
the individual defendants (Zaki Rakib, Selim Rakib and Raymond
Fritz) in the California Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County.
This lawsuit is titled "Bertram v. Terayon Communications
Systems, Inc." The factual allegations in the Bertram complaint
were similar to those in the federal class action, but the
Bertram complaint sought remedies under state law. Defendants
removed the Bertram case to the United States District Court,
Central District of California, which dismissed the complaint
and transferred the case to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California. That Court eventually issued an
order dismissing the case. Plaintiffs have appealed this order,
and their appeal was heard on April 16, 2004. On June 9, 2004,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the order dismissing the Bertram case.
The suit is styled "Mohtadi et al v. Terayon Communications
Systems, Inc. et al, 3:01-cv-01721," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Marilyn H. Patel. Lawyers for the defendants are Jordan
David Eth, Dorothy Fernandez, Melvin R. Goldman and Christopher
A. Patz of Morrison & Foerster, 425 Market Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-2482, Phone: 415-268-7000, Fax:
415-268-7522, E-mail: jeth@mofo.com, dfernandez@mofo.com,
mgoldman@mofo.com or cpatz@mofo.com. Lawyers for the plaintiffs
are Gregory A. Hartlett and Jeffrey R. Krinsk of Finkelstein &
Krinsk, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101-3593,
Phone: (619) 238-1333
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 977,839 Various Vehicles For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about
977,839 units of 1989-95 4 Runner, 1989-95 Pickup and 1993-98
T100 vehicles due to crash hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number:
05V389000.
According to the ODI, on certain of the aforementioned vehicles,
if the steering wheel is repeatedly turned under certain
conditions where high steering effort and power assist required,
for instance, when fully turning the wheel while the vehicle is
stopped, a fatigue crack may develop in the steering relay rod.
If the vehicle is continued to be operated in this condition,
the relays rod may fracture, increasing the risk of a crash.
As a remedy, dealers will replace the steering relay rod. The
recall is expected to begin during late September 2005.
For more details, contact Toyota, Phone: 1-800-331-4331 and
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.
TREX CO.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Co. faces several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia. The suit also names as defendants Robert G. Matheny,
the President and a director of the Company, and Paul D.
Fletcher, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company.
The filed complaint principally alleges that the Company, Mr.
Matheny and Mr. Fletcher violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, making false and misleading public
statements concerning the Company's operating and financial
results and expectations. The complaint also alleges that
certain directors of the Company sold shares of the Company's
common stock at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs in
the filed complaint seek unspecified compensatory damages.
UNITED SERVICES: CO Class Members Object to Bemis Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys on opposing sides of the national class action suit
styled, Gerald Bemis V. United Services Automobile Association
(USAA) thought they had come to a settlement, however Colorado
class plaintiffs recently voiced out their opposition of the
proposed deal, The Madison County Record reports.
Two Colorado women who wanted no part of the settlement are now
asking Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to postpone
the proposed settlement's final approval, which the judge had
granted preliminary approval previously.
In objecting to the proposed settlement, Chicago attorney
Timothy Scott wrote to the court, "Class counsel in Bemis
ignored the request and entered into a settlement that provides
no extra compensation and no recognition of the marked
differences in remedies and protections for Colorado residents."
Mr. Scott represents Carol Rollin and Bethany Bonvillain, who
sued USAA in Boulder County, Colorado last year. Although they
are not named plaintiffs in the Bemis case, they are members of
the proposed class.
While drafting a reply on class certification, Mr. Scott wrote
that he learned of the settlement agreement in Madison County,
and it "surprised" him. He had advised attorneys for the
plaintiffs to treat Colorado differently, either excluding it
from the national class or certifying it as a subclass, Mr.
Scott wrote.
Jeffrey Millar of the Lakin Law Firm in Wood River filed the
complaint, wherein Mr. Bemis and co-plaintiff Brooke Walker
claimed that USAA paid less than the full medical bills of
persons injured in auto accidents.
In his motion for leave to file objections, Mr. Scott also wrote
that Colorado law offers enhanced penalties, remedies and
advantages. He pointed out that USAA sees the settlement as "a
sweetheart deal where they are only required to satisfy the
lowest common denominator among class members."
Judge Byron certified the suit as a national class action in
2003. He kept setting hearings last year and this year, but the
parties kept asking to continue them. Then on June 23, a
settlement was announced and USAA denied any wrongdoing.
On June 27, Judge Byron conditionally certified the class as
defined in the settlement. The definition covered all those
injured in accidents covered by USAA policies with "Medpay"
provisions, back to 1991.
Judge Byron also designated the Lakin firm and Freed and Weiss
of Chicago as class counsel. In addition, he designated Rust
Consulting of Faribault, Minnesota as settlement administrator.
Mr. Scott had asked Judge Byron, who set an October 21 hearing
on final approval of the settlement, to address his concerns
before distributing a settlement notice, writing that if a
notice goes out, he would move to intervene.
WATCHGUARD TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington ordered consolidated the securities class action
filed against WatchGuard Technologies, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers.
On April 8, 2005, a holder of the Company's common stock, on
behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of
Company stockholders, filed the suit, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws arising out of, among other things, its
announcement on March 15, 2005 that it was restating some of its
financial results for interim periods of 2004.
Subsequently, a number of other related purported class action
suits also alleging violations of the federal securities laws
were filed by holders of the Company's common stock. The various
actions have been consolidated by the Court, and are referred to
herein as the Action. The Court has not yet finally appointed a
lead plaintiff in the Action.
The first identified complaint in the suit is styled "Alan Pius,
et al. v. WatchGuard Technologies, Inc., et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com
(3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net
(4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com
(5) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
212.661.1100,
(6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com
(7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(8) 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
(9) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New
York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-
5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com
WELLMAN INC.: Records $8M Pretax Charge For Fiber Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Wellman, Inc. (NYSE:WLM) will record a pretax charge of $8.0
million in the third quarter of 2005 arising from the settlement
of the federal class action lawsuits of direct purchasers
alleging that the Company engaged in price fixing and customer
allocation relating to sales of polyester staple fiber.
Once the court approves the settlement of the class action
lawsuits being announced on September 8, 2005, given the earlier
settlements with more than 30 major polyester fiber purchasers,
Wellman will have settled substantially all of the federal
claims of the direct purchasers. The after-tax effect of the
charge will be $5.2 million or $0.16 per share in the third
quarter of 2005. When combined with the $24 million pre-tax
charge recorded in the second quarter of 2005, the total after-
tax effect is $20.8 million or $0.66 per share which represents
the Company's best estimate of its total costs including all
agreed upon settlements as well as the future costs to defend or
settle any remaining litigation including state claims by
indirect purchasers.
The Company denies any wrongdoing and has strong defenses to any
claims; however, it is settling the class action lawsuits to
minimize future expenses, risk and disruption of business that
occurs with any litigation.
Thomas M. Duff, Wellman's Chief Executive Officer, stated, "The
settlement of the class action lawsuits is prudent given the
high costs of litigation and the elimination of risk. The
settlement will permit our employees to focus on improving our
business. Our results for the third quarter will be reduced by
this charge as well as the effects from Hurricane Katrina.
Fortunately these two events do not affect the long term
profitability of our business."
Wellman, Inc. manufactures and markets high-quality
PermaClear(R) brand PET (polyethylene terephthalate) packaging
resin and Fortrel(R) brand polyester staple fibers. We believe
we are one of the world's largest PET plastic recyclers,
utilizing a significant amount of recycled raw materials in its
manufacturing operations.
For more details, contact Michael Bermish of Wellman, Inc.,
Phone: 732-212-3321.
New Securities Fraud Cases
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges PA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of ATI Technologies Inc.
("ATI" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: ATYT), between October 7,
2004 and June 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The action, case no. 05-CV-4816, is pending before the Honorable
Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr. in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendants ATI,
Kwok Yuen Ho (Chairman), David E. Orton (President and CEO), and
Patrick G. Crowley (CFO). According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.
The complaint alleges that ATI designs and manufactures graphics
processing products and technology for desktop and notebook
personal computers ("PCs"), and for consumer electronic devices.
Throughout the Class Period, ATI reported strong financial
results in publicly disseminated press releases and in filings
with the SEC. In addition, defendants repeatedly issued positive
guidance, claiming that ATI's purported leadership in graphics
and multimedia technologies in the consumer electronics and PC
markets would "continue driving growth for ATI in fiscal 2005."
As a result of these statements, the price of ATI stock became
artificially inflated during the Class Period. Certain Company
insiders, including defendants Kwok Yuen Ho and David E. Orton
took advantage of the artificial inflation in the price of the
Company's stock, and during the Class Period, each sold
approximately 40% of their personally-held ATI stock for total
proceeds of over $54 million. Ho and his wife had allegedly
engaged in a similar pattern of insider trading in 2000, and
reaped $7 million in proceeds therefrom.
The truth began to emerge on June 6, 2005. On that day, ATI
warned that its revenues for the third quarter 2005 would be
$530 million, 5% below the Company's guidance. The Company
stated that a shift in its product mix towards the lower end of
the desktop and notebook market contributed to a decline in
gross margin for the quarter. In addition, ATI claimed that the
production of integrated graphics processor products, which had
margins well below the corporate average, contributed to lower
profit margins, and stated that it was experiencing lower than
anticipated yields on certain products due to operational
issues. As a result, the Company lowered its guidance for its
third and fourth quarter of 2005. In reaction to this news, the
price of ATI stock fell $1.58, or 10.3%, from its previous
trading day's closing price of $15.26 per share, to close at
$13.68 on June 7, 2005. On June 23, 2005, the Company revealed
in a press release that it had experienced a net loss of
$400,000 in the third quarter 2005, compared to a $49 million
profit in the same period in 2004. In addition, defendants
slashed their guidance for the fourth quarter, projecting
revenues to be approximately $550-580 million, 10% lower than
previously projected, and that gross margins to be 29-30%,
approximately 5% lower than defendants' previous guidance of
34%. In reaction to this news, the price of ATI stock declined
even further, falling $0.98, or 7.6%, to close at $11.80 on June
23, 2005. On the same day, Smartmoney.com published an article
stating that ATI's disappointing results and lower guidance was
due, in part, to the Company's "difficulty in rolling out its
new graphics processor, while supercharged competitor Nvidia
(NVDA) is already in full production with its new high-end
GeForce 7800 GTX processor. And as the topper, ATI's sitting on
a fat pile of inventory, some $456 million worth -- much more
than the $255 million it had at the end of fiscal 2004."
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
(800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.
IMMUCOR INC.: Holzer & Holzer Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Holzer & Holzer, LLC, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, on behalf of purchasers of Immucor, Inc.
(Nasdaq: BLUDE) ("Immucor" or the "company") publicly traded
securities during the period between January 7, 2005 and August
29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against defendants
Immucor and certain of its current and former officers and
directors. The class action lawsuit was assigned civil action
number 1:05-CV-2295.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") by misrepresenting that Immucor's financial statements and
disclosures fairly and accurately reflected the Company's
results of operations as required by Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the Exchange Act. The
Complaint also charges that Defendants' Sarbanes-Oxley
certifications during the Class Period were false and
misleading, as the Company, knowingly or with severe
recklessness, lacked adequate internal controls and failed to
keep proper books and records in violation of their well-
publicized Code of Corporate Conduct.
On August 26, 2005 the Company announced that the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") had launched a formal
investigation into payments made by its Italian unit and its
president, Defendant De Chirico, in October 2003 to a physician
connected with a hospital with which the Company was doing
business. After the market closed on August 29, 2005, the
Company revealed further that its chief financial officer had
resigned, that it would be revising its previously issued
results for at least two quarters in order to account for a
previously unrecorded accrued bonus, and that its Form 10-K for
fiscal year 2005 would be further delayed due to additional
accounting and auditing procedures the Company claimed was
necessary to properly reflect the accrued bonus and to render
the internal controls report required by Section 404 of
Sarbanes-Oxley.
As a result of the alleged fraud, the price of Immucor common
stock dropped from a closing price of $28.61 on August 25, 2005
before the market learned of the SEC's formal investigation to
close at $24.00 per share on August 30, 2005.
For more details, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. of Holzer
& Holzer, LLC, Phone: (770) 392-0090 or 1-888-508-6832, Fax:
(770) 392-0029, E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.holzerlaw.com.
IMMUCOR INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: BLUDE) between January 7, 2005 and August 29, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period") against Immucor, Inc., Edward L.
Gallup, Gioacchino De Chirico, and Steven C. Ramsey.
The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
(2) that the issues related to payments made by the
Company's Italian subsidiary to individuals associated
with government medical facilities were not resolved,
were not merely limited to $730,000 in payments for
services rendered to one doctor, and were not isolated
to this one event;
(3) that the Company failed to properly account for accrued
employee bonuses;
(4) that the Company's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times; and
(5) that the Company's financial results were in violation
of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
On August 26, 2005, Immucor announced that the SEC issued a
Formal Order in the previously reported investigation into
issues related to payments made by the Company's Italian
subsidiary to individuals associated with government medical
facilities. On this news, shares of Immucor fell $1.00 per
share, or 3.5 percent, to close at $27.61 per share. Thereafter
on August 29, 2005, Immucor announced that it would revise its
Fiscal 2005 earnings to account for employee bonus accrual. The
Company also reported that it had accepted the resignation of
defendant Steven C. Ramsey as Chief Financial Officer of the
Company. On this news, shares of Immucor fell $3.54 per share,
or 12.85 percent, to close, on August 30, 2005, at $24.00 per
share.
For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
ISOLAGEN INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Isolagen,
Inc. (AMEX: ILE) securities 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 the company and certain key
officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.
For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq., 261 Old York
Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046, Phone: (215) 886-1900, E-
mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.
MANNATECH INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NM
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Mannatech, Inc. ("Mannatech" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: MTEX) between August 10, 2004 and May 9,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Mannatech and certain officers and directors
("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and prospects by concealing
improprieties by sale associates that were allowed and
encouraged by the Company.
On May 9, 2005, Barron's published a story on the Company,
detailing the CEO's history and questioning the Company's sales
associates methods. The story also discussed a civil suit filed
in Los Angeles County against Mannatech for negligent
misrepresentation and conspiracy to commit fraud. In reaction to
this news, Mannatech's shares traded as low as $11.64 per share,
on May 10, 2005.
For more details, contact The Law Firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd.
Leigh Lasky, Esq., Phone: 800-495-1868, E-mail:
investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Goldman Scarlato Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Symbol
Technologies ("Symbol" or the "Company") (NYSE: SBL) between May
10, 2004 and August 1, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit was filed against Symbol and certain officers and
directors ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, the Company issued a series of false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's performance
and future prospects. These statements were false and misleading
because Defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented that the
Company's financial results for the first three quarters of 2004
were overstated, that its internal financial controls were
ineffective, and that demand for its products was declining.
These alleged false and misleading statements caused the
Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during
the Class Period. As the market learned the true information
about Symbol, the inflation caused by the Defendants
misrepresentations was removed and the price of Symbol common
stock fell by nearly 50% from its Class Period high.
For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.
TXU CORPORATION: Law Firms Commence Securities Fraud Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C.,
along with Shockman Law Offices, P.C. and Dodge & Gillman, P.C.,
commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of a class
(the "Class") of all persons who sold certain securities of TXU
Corporation (NYSE: TXU) ("TXU" or the "Company") in the TXU
Tender Offer between September 15, 2004 and October 13, 2004
("the Tender Offer").
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b),
14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and common law fiduciary duties,
by purchasing certain Corporate Units (NYSE: TXU PrC) and PRIDES
(NYSE: TXU PrD) (collectively, "the Convertible Securities")
without disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the
dividend payout on TXU common stock upon completion of the
Tender Offer. The complaint alleges that TXU in September 2004
made a self-tender offer to purchase the Convertible Securities
at a price linked to the value of its common stock, without
disclosing its plan to dramatically increase the common stock's
dividend payout immediately following completion of the Tender
Offer. Nine short days after the Tender Offer expired, TXU
adopted a 350% increase in its common stock dividend, resulting
in a 20% increase in the common stock price. To keep the common
stock price low during the Tender Offer pricing period, however,
TXU injected a false air of uncertainty into the market
concerning its plan to increase the dividend, which enabled it
to purchase the Convertible Securities from Plaintiffs and other
Class members at a substantial and artificial discount.
For more details, contact Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. or
Francis J. Balint Jr., Esq. of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman &
Balint, P.C., 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000, Phoenix, AZ
85012, Phone: 602-274-1100 or 800-847-9094, E-mail:
afriedman@bffb.com; Rosemary J. Shockman, Esq. of Shockman Law
Offices, P.C., 8170 N. 86th Place, Suite 102, Scottsdale, AZ
85258-4308, Phone: 480-596-1986, E-mail: rshock@aol.com; and
Michael C. Dodge, Esq. or David W. Dodge, Esq. of Dodge &
Gillman, P.C., One Lincoln Centre, Suite 910, Dallas, TX 75240,
Phone: 972-960-3248, E-mail: davidd@texasatty.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Suit in NY Over Dreyfus Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Dreyfus
Funds from UBS-AG (NYSE:UBS), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Dreyfus Funds
named below, are as follows:
Dreyfus Nasdaq:DREVX
Dreyfus A Bonds Plus Nasdaq:DRBDX
Dreyfus Appreciation Nasdaq:DGAGX
DREYFUS BALANCED FUND, INC. Nasdaq:DRBAX
Dreyfus Basic S&P 500 Stock Index Nasdaq:DSPIX
Dreyfus Basic US Mortgage Securities Nasdaq:DIGFX
Dreyfus Bond Market Index Basic Nasdaq:DBIRX
Dreyfus Bond Market Index Inv Nasdaq:DBMIX
Dreyfus CA Intermediate Muni Bond Nasdaq:DCIMX
Dreyfus California Municipal Income Inc. Nasdaq:XDCGX
Dreyfus CT Intermediate Muni Bond Nasdaq:DCTIX
Dreyfus Disciplined Stock Nasdaq:DDSTX
Dreyfus Emerging Leaders Nasdaq:DRELX
Dreyfus FL Intermediate Muni Bond Nasdaq:DFLIX
Dreyfus Founders Balanced A Nasdaq:FRIDX
Dreyfus Founders Balanced B Nasdaq:FRIBX
Dreyfus Founders Balanced C Nasdaq:FRICX
Dreyfus Founders Balanced F Nasdaq:FRINX
Dreyfus Founders Balanced R Nasdaq:FRIRX
Dreyfus Founders Balanced T Nasdaq:FRIUX
Dreyfus Founders Discovery A Nasdaq:FDIDX
Dreyfus Founders Discovery B Nasdaq:FDIEX
Dreyfus Founders Discovery C Nasdaq:FDICX
Dreyfus Founders Discovery F Nasdaq:FDISX
Dreyfus Founders Discovery R Nasdaq:FDIRX
Dreyfus Founders Discovery T Nasdaq:FDITX
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth A Nasdaq:FRMAX
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth B Nasdaq:FRMEX
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth C Nasdaq:FRMDX
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth F Nasdaq:FRMUX
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth R Nasdaq:FRMRX
Dreyfus Founders Equity Growth T Nasdaq:FRMVX
Dreyfus Founders Government Secs F Nasdaq:FGVSX
Dreyfus Founders Growth A Nasdaq:FRGDX
Dreyfus Founders Growth B Nasdaq:FRGEX
Dreyfus Founders Growth C Nasdaq:FRGFX
Dreyfus Founders Growth F Nasdaq:FRGRX
Dreyfus Founders Growth R Nasdaq:FRGYX
Dreyfus Founders Growth T Nasdaq:FRGZX
Dreyfus Founders International Eq A Nasdaq:FOIAX
Dreyfus Founders International Eq B Nasdaq:FOIDX
Dreyfus Founders International Eq C Nasdaq:FOICX
Dreyfus Founders International Eq F Nasdaq:FOIEX
Dreyfus Founders International Eq R Nasdaq:FOIRX
Dreyfus Founders International Eq T Nasdaq:FOIUX
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth A Nasdaq:FRSDX
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth B Nasdaq:FRSFX
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth C Nasdaq:FRSCX
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth F Nasdaq:FRSPX
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth R Nasdaq:FRSRX
Dreyfus Founders Mid-Cap Growth T Nasdaq:FRSVX
Dreyfus Founders Passport A Nasdaq:FPSAX
Dreyfus Founders Passport B Nasdaq:FPSBX
Dreyfus Founders Passport C Nasdaq:FPSCX
Dreyfus Founders Passport F Nasdaq:FPSSX
Dreyfus Founders Passport R Nasdaq:FPSRX
Dreyfus Founders Passport T Nasdaq:FPSTX
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth A Nasdaq:FWWAX
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth B Nasdaq:FWWBX
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth C Nasdaq:FWWCX
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth F Nasdaq:FWWGX
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth R Nasdaq:FWWRX
Dreyfus Founders Worldwide Growth T Nasdaq:FWWTX
DREYFUS GENERAL CALIFORNIA MUNI Nasdaq:GCABX
DREYFUS GENERAL MUNICIPAL BOND Nasdaq:GMBDX
Dreyfus GNMA Nasdaq:DRGMX
Dreyfus Growth & Income Nasdaq:DGRIX
Dreyfus Growth Opportunity Nasdaq:DREQX
Dreyfus High Yield Strategies Fund Nasdaq:XDHFX
Dreyfus Inflation-Adjusted Sec Instl Nasdaq:DIASX
Dreyfus Inflation-Adjusted Sec Inv Nasdaq:DIAVX
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inst Nasdaq:DIYAX
Dreyfus Instl Yield Advantage Inv Nasdaq:DYAIX
Dreyfus Insured Municipal Bond Nasdaq:DTBDX
Dreyfus Intermediate Municipal Bond Nasdaq:DITEX
Dreyfus Intermediate-Term Inc Instl Nasdaq:DITIX
Dreyfus Intermediate-Term Inc Inv Nasdaq:DRITX
Dreyfus Intl Stock Index Nasdaq:DIISX
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth & Income Inv Nasdaq:DGIIX
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth & Income R Nasdaq:DGIRX
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth Inv Nasdaq:DLGIX
Dreyfus LifeTime Growth R Nasdaq:DLGRX
Dreyfus LifeTime Income Inv Nasdaq:DLIIX
Dreyfus LifeTime Income R Nasdaq:DLIRX
Dreyfus MA Intermediate Muni Bond Nasdaq:DMAIX
DREYFUS MASSACHUSETTS TAX EXEMP Nasdaq:DMEBX
Dreyfus MidCap Index Nasdaq:PESPX
Dreyfus Midcap Value Nasdaq:DMCVX
Dreyfus Municipal Bond Nasdaq:DRTAX
Dreyfus Municipal Income Inc. Nasdaq:XDMFX
Dreyfus New York Municipal Income Inc. Nasdaq:XDNMX
Dreyfus NJ Intermediate Muni Bond Nasdaq:DNJIX
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Bond Nasdaq:DRNYX
Dreyfus NY Tax-Exempt Interm Bond Nasdaq:DRNIX
Dreyfus PA Intermediate Muni Bond Nasdaq:DPABX
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth A Nasdaq:DPWAX
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth B Nasdaq:BSFBX
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth C Nasdaq:BSFCX
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth R Nasdaq:DPARX
Dreyfus Premier Alpha Growth T Nasdaq:BSFAX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced A Nasdaq:PRBAX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced B Nasdaq:PRBBX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced C Nasdaq:DPBCX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity A Nasdaq:DBOAX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity B Nasdaq:DBOBX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity C Nasdaq:DBOCX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity J Nasdaq:THPBX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity R Nasdaq:DBORX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity T Nasdaq:DBOTX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced Opportunity Z Nasdaq:DBOZX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced R Nasdaq:PDBLX
Dreyfus Premier Balanced T Nasdaq:DBFTX
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip A Nasdaq:DBCAX
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip B Nasdaq:DBCBX
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip C Nasdaq:DBUCX
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip J Nasdaq:TPBCX
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip R Nasdaq:DBCRX
Dreyfus Premier Blue Chip T Nasdaq:DBCTX
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond A Nasdaq:DCAAX
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond B Nasdaq:DCABX
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond C Nasdaq:DCACX
Dreyfus Premier CA Tax Exempt Bond Z Nasdaq:DRCAX
DREYFUS PREMIER CALIFORNIA MUNI Nasdaq:DPACX
DREYFUS PREMIER CALIFORNIA MUNI Nasdaq:PRCAX
DREYFUS PREMIER CALIFORNIA MUNI Nasdaq:PRCBX
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond A Nasdaq:DSINX
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond B Nasdaq:DRCBX
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond C Nasdaq:DRCCX
Dreyfus Premier Core Bond R Nasdaq:DRCRX
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity A Nasdaq:DLTSX
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity B Nasdaq:DPEBX
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity C Nasdaq:DPECX
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity R Nasdaq:DPERX
Dreyfus Premier Core Equity T Nasdaq:DCETX
Dreyfus Premier Core Value A Nasdaq:DCVIX
Dreyfus Premier Core Value B Nasdaq:DBCVX
Dreyfus Premier Core Value C Nasdaq:DCVCX
Dreyfus Premier Core Value Instl Nasdaq:DCVFX
Dreyfus Premier Core Value R Nasdaq:DTCRX
Dreyfus Premier Core Value T Nasdaq:DCVTX
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond A Nasdaq:DCBAX
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond B Nasdaq:DCBBX
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond C Nasdaq:DCBCX
Dreyfus Premier Corporate Bond R Nasdaq:DCBRX
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets A Nasdaq:DRFMX
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets B Nasdaq:DBPEX
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets C Nasdaq:DCPEX
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets R Nasdaq:DRPEX
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets T Nasdaq:DTPEX
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise A Nasdaq:DPMGX
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise B Nasdaq:DMCGX
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise C Nasdaq:DMCCX
Dreyfus Premier Enterprise T Nasdaq:DMCTX
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services A Nasdaq:DFSFX
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services B Nasdaq:DFSBX
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services C Nasdaq:DFVCX
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services R Nasdaq:DFVRX
Dreyfus Premier Financial Services T Nasdaq:DFVTX
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders A Nasdaq:DFLAX
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders B Nasdaq:DFLBX
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders C Nasdaq:DPFCX
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders R Nasdaq:DFLRX
Dreyfus Premier Future Leaders T Nasdaq:DFLTX
Dreyfus Premier GNMA A Nasdaq:PSGNX
Dreyfus Premier GNMA B Nasdaq:PGMBX
Dreyfus Premier GNMA C Nasdaq:DPGCX
Dreyfus Premier Greater China A Nasdaq:DPCAX
Dreyfus Premier Greater China B Nasdaq:DPCBX
Dreyfus Premier Greater China C Nasdaq:DPCCX
Dreyfus Premier Greater China R Nasdaq:DPCRX
Dreyfus Premier Greater China T Nasdaq:DPCTX
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income A Nasdaq:PEGAX
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income B Nasdaq:PEGBX
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income C Nasdaq:DGICX
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income R Nasdaq:DRERX
Dreyfus Premier Growth & Income T Nasdaq:DGITX
Dreyfus Premier Health Care A Nasdaq:DHCAX
Dreyfus Premier Health Care B Nasdaq:DHCBX
Dreyfus Premier Health Care C Nasdaq:DHCCX
Dreyfus Premier Health Care R Nasdaq:DHCRX
Dreyfus Premier Health Care T Nasdaq:DHCTX
Dreyfus Premier High Income A Nasdaq:DIMAX
Dreyfus Premier High Income B Nasdaq:DIMBX
Dreyfus Premier High Income C Nasdaq:DIMCX
Dreyfus Premier High Income R Nasdaq:DIMRX
Dreyfus Premier International Eq A Nasdaq:DIEAX
Dreyfus Premier International Eq B Nasdaq:DIEBX
Dreyfus Premier International Eq C Nasdaq:DIECX
Dreyfus Premier International Eq R Nasdaq:DIERX
Dreyfus Premier International Eq T Nasdaq:DIETX
Dreyfus Premier International Gr A Nasdaq:DRGLX
Dreyfus Premier International Gr B Nasdaq:DGLBX
Dreyfus Premier International Gr C Nasdaq:DIGCX
Dreyfus Premier International Gr R Nasdaq:DIGRX
Dreyfus Premier International Gr T Nasdaq:DPITX
Dreyfus Premier International Opp A Nasdaq:DPAVX
Dreyfus Premier International Opp B Nasdaq:DPBVX
Dreyfus Premier International Opp C Nasdaq:DPCVX
Dreyfus Premier International Opp R Nasdaq:DPRVX
Dreyfus Premier International Opp T Nasdaq:DPVTX
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp A Nasdaq:DSMAX
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp B Nasdaq:DSMBX
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp C Nasdaq:DSMCX
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp R Nasdaq:DSMRX
Dreyfus Premier International Sm-Cp T Nasdaq:DSMTX
Dreyfus Premier International Value A Nasdaq:DVLAX
Dreyfus Premier International Value B Nasdaq:DIBVX
Dreyfus Premier International Value C Nasdaq:DICVX
Dreyfus Premier International Value R Nasdaq:DIRVX
Dreyfus Premier International Value T Nasdaq:DITVX
Dreyfus Premier Intl Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class A Nasdaq:DPJAX
Dreyfus Premier Intl Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class B Nasdaq:DPJBX
Dreyfus Premier Intl Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class C Nasdaq:DPJCX
Dreyfus Premier Intl Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class R Nasdaq:DPJRX
Dreyfus Premier Intl Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Japan Fund Class T Nasdaq:DPJTX
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value A Nasdaq:DPVAX
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value B Nasdaq:BLCBX
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value C Nasdaq:BLCCX
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value R Nasdaq:BSLYX
Dreyfus Premier Intrinsic Value T Nasdaq:BLCAX
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock A Nasdaq:DRDEX
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock B Nasdaq:DRLBX
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock C Nasdaq:DLCCX
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock R Nasdaq:DEIRX
Dreyfus Premier Large Company Stock T Nasdaq:DLSTX
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income A Nasdaq:DPIAX
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income B Nasdaq:DPIBX
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income C Nasdaq:DPICX
Dreyfus Premier Limited-Term Income R Nasdaq:PLTIX
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld A Nasdaq:DPLTX
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld B Nasdaq:DLTBX
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld C Nasdaq:PTHIX
Dreyfus Premier Ltd-Term High Yld R Nasdaq:DLHRX
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income A Nasdaq:PMNIX
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income B Nasdaq:DTMBX
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income C Nasdaq:DTMCX
Dreyfus Premier Managed Income R Nasdaq:DTMRX
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock A Nasdaq:DPMAX
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock B Nasdaq:DMSBX
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock C Nasdaq:DMSCX
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock R Nasdaq:DDMRX
Dreyfus Premier Midcap Stock T Nasdaq:DMSTX
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value A Nasdaq:DMVPX
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value B Nasdaq:DMVBX
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value C Nasdaq:DMVCX
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value R Nasdaq:DMVRX
Dreyfus Premier MidCap Value T Nasdaq:DMVTX
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond A Nasdaq:PTEBX
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond B Nasdaq:PMUBX
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond C Nasdaq:DMBCX
Dreyfus Premier Municipal Bond Z Nasdaq:DMBZX
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders A Nasdaq:DNLAX
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders B Nasdaq:DLDBX
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders C Nasdaq:DLDCX
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders R Nasdaq:DLDRX
Dreyfus Premier Natural Leaders T Nasdaq:DLDTX
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders A Nasdaq:DNLDX
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders B Nasdaq:DNLBX
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders C Nasdaq:DNLCX
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders R Nasdaq:DNLRX
Dreyfus Premier New Leaders T Nasdaq:DNLTX
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond A Nasdaq:DRNJX
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond B Nasdaq:DBNJX
Dreyfus Premier NJ Municipal Bond C Nasdaq:DCNJX
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond A Nasdaq:PSNYX
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond B Nasdaq:PRNBX
Dreyfus Premier NY Municipal Bond C Nasdaq:PNYCX
Dreyfus Premier Opportunity Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl A Nasdaq:DCOAX
Dreyfus Premier Opportunity Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl B Nasdaq:DCOBX
Dreyfus Premier Opportunity Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl C Nasdaq:DCOCX
Dreyfus Premier Opportunity Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl R Nasdaq:DCORX
Dreyfus Premier Opportunity Fds,
Dreyfus Premier Consumer Fd Cl T Nasdaq:DCOTX
Dreyfus Premier Oppty Fds,
Dreyfus Prem NexTech Fd Cl T Nasdaq:DPNTX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars A Nasdaq:DPPAX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars B Nasdaq:BSPBX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars C Nasdaq:BSPCX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp A Nasdaq:DPOAX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp B Nasdaq:BSOBX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp C Nasdaq:BSOCX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp R Nasdaq:DSORX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars Opp T Nasdaq:BSOAX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars R Nasdaq:BSSPX
Dreyfus Premier S&P Stars T Nasdaq:BSPAX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond A Nasdaq:DPASX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond B Nasdaq:DPBSX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond C Nasdaq:DPCSX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Intm Muni Bond Z Nasdaq:DBIMX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth A Nasdaq:DASMX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth B Nasdaq:DBSMX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth C Nasdaq:DCSMX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth R Nasdaq:DRSMX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Mid-Cap Growth T Nasdaq:DMGTX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond A Nasdaq:DMUAX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond B Nasdaq:DMUBX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond C Nasdaq:DMUCX
Dreyfus Premier Sel Municipal Bond Z Nasdaq:DRMBX
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class A Nasdaq:DASGX
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class B Nasdaq:DBSGX
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class C Nasdaq:DCSGX
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class R Nasdaq:DRSGX
Dreyfus Premier Select Growth Fund - Class T Nasdaq:DGRTX
Dreyfus Premier Select A Nasdaq:DSLAX
Dreyfus Premier Select B Nasdaq:DSLBX
Dreyfus Premier Select C Nasdaq:DSLCX
Dreyfus Premier Select J Nasdaq:THPSX
Dreyfus Premier Select R Nasdaq:DSLRX
Dreyfus Premier Select T Nasdaq:DSLTX
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income A Nasdaq:DSHAX
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income B Nasdaq:DSHBX
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income D Nasdaq:DSTIX
Dreyfus Premier Short Term Income P Nasdaq:DSHPX
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond A Nasdaq:DSBAX
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond B Nasdaq:DSBBX
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond D Nasdaq:DSIBX
Dreyfus Premier Sht-Intm Muni Bond P Nasdaq:DSBPX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity A Nasdaq:DSEAX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity B Nasdaq:DSEBX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity C Nasdaq:DSECX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity R Nasdaq:DSERX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Equity T Nasdaq:DSETX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value A Nasdaq:DSVAX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value B Nasdaq:DSVBX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value C Nasdaq:DSVCX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value R Nasdaq:DSVRX
Dreyfus Premier Small Cap Value T Nasdaq:DSVTX
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr A Nasdaq:DSGAX
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr B Nasdaq:DSGBX
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr C Nasdaq:DSGCX
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr R Nasdaq:DSGRX
Dreyfus Premier Small Company Gr T Nasdaq:DSGTX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT A Nasdaq:PSCTX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT B Nasdaq:PMCBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond CT C Nasdaq:PMCCX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL A Nasdaq:PSFLX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL B Nasdaq:PSFBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond FL C Nasdaq:PSFCX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA A Nasdaq:PSMAX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA B Nasdaq:PBMAX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA C Nasdaq:PCMAX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MA Z Nasdaq:PMAZX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD A Nasdaq:PSMDX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD B Nasdaq:PMDBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MD C Nasdaq:PMDCX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI A Nasdaq:PSMIX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI B Nasdaq:PMIBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MI C Nasdaq:PCMIX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN A Nasdaq:PSMNX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN B Nasdaq:PMMNX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond MN C Nasdaq:PMNCX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC A Nasdaq:PSNOX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC B Nasdaq:PMNBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond NC C Nasdaq:PNCCX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH A Nasdaq:PSOHX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH B Nasdaq:POHBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond OH C Nasdaq:POHCX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA A Nasdaq:PTPAX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA B Nasdaq:PPABX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond PA C Nasdaq:PPACX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX A Nasdaq:PTXBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX B Nasdaq:PSTBX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond TX C Nasdaq:PTXCX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA A Nasdaq:PSVAX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA B Nasdaq:PVABX
Dreyfus Premier State Muni Bond VA C Nasdaq:PVACX
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value A Nasdaq:DAGVX
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value B Nasdaq:DBGVX
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value C Nasdaq:DCGVX
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value R Nasdaq:DRGVX
Dreyfus Premier Strategic Value T Nasdaq:DTGVX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val A Nasdaq:DLVAX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val B Nasdaq:DLVBX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val C Nasdaq:DLVCX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val R Nasdaq:DLVRX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Lg Cp Val T Nasdaq:DLVTX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap A Nasdaq:DPSAX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap B Nasdaq:DPSBX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap C Nasdaq:DPSCX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap R Nasdaq:DPSRX
Dreyfus Premier Structured Midcap T Nasdaq:DPSTX
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth A Nasdaq:DTMGX
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth B Nasdaq:DPTMX
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth C Nasdaq:DPTAX
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth R Nasdaq:DPTRX
Dreyfus Premier Tax-Managed Growth T Nasdaq:DPMTX
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth A Nasdaq:DTGRX
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth B Nasdaq:DTGBX
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth C Nasdaq:DTGCX
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth R Nasdaq:DGVRX
Dreyfus Premier Technology Growth T Nasdaq:DPTGX
Dreyfus Premier Third Century A Nasdaq:DTCAX
Dreyfus Premier Third Century B Nasdaq:DTCBX
Dreyfus Premier Third Century C Nasdaq:DTCCX
Dreyfus Premier Third Century R Nasdaq:DRTCX
Dreyfus Premier Third Century T Nasdaq:DTCTX
Dreyfus Premier Third Century Z Nasdaq:DRTHX
Dreyfus Premier Value A Nasdaq:DRSIX
Dreyfus Premier Value B Nasdaq:DSTBX
Dreyfus Premier Value C Nasdaq:DPVCX
Dreyfus Premier Value R Nasdaq:DPVRX
Dreyfus Premier Value T Nasdaq:DTPVX
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth A Nasdaq:PGROX
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth B Nasdaq:PGWBX
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth C Nasdaq:PGRCX
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth R Nasdaq:DPWRX
Dreyfus Premier Worldwide Growth T Nasdaq:DPWTX
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage A Nasdaq:DPYAX
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage B Nasdaq:DPYBX
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage D Nasdaq:DYADX
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage P Nasdaq:DPYPX
Dreyfus Premier Yield Advantage S Nasdaq:DPYSX
Dreyfus S&P 500 Index Nasdaq:PEOPX
Dreyfus Short-Intermediate Government Nasdaq:DSIGX
Dreyfus Small Cap Stock Index Nasdaq:DISSX
Dreyfus Small Company Value Nasdaq:DSCVX
Dreyfus Strategic Municipal Bond Fund Inc. Nasdaq:XDSMX
Dreyfus Strategic Municipals Inc. Nasdaq:XLEOX
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Intrm-Term Nasdaq:DRGIX
Dreyfus U.S. Treasury Long-Term Nasdaq:DRGBX
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Dreyfus Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Stock Suit Over Eaton Vance Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Eaton
Vance Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April
30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Eaton Vance Funds
named below, are as follows:
ETALX Eaton Vance AL Municipals A
EVALX Eaton Vance AL Municipals B
ETARX Eaton Vance AR Municipals A
EVARX Eaton Vance AR Municipals B
EVASX Eaton Vance Asian Small Companies A
EBASX Eaton Vance Asian Small Companies B
ETAZX Eaton Vance AZ Municipals A
EVAZX Eaton Vance AZ Municipals B
EVIFX Eaton Vance Balanced A
EMIFX Eaton Vance Balanced B
ECIFX Eaton Vance Balanced C
EXCAX Eaton Vance CA Ltd Maturity Munis A
ELCAX Eaton Vance CA Ltd Maturity Munis B
EACAX Eaton Vance CA Municipals A
EVCAX Eaton Vance CA Municipals B
ECCAX Eaton Vance CA Municipals C
XCEVX Eaton Vance California Municipal Income Trust
ETCOX Eaton Vance CO Municipals A
EVCLX Eaton Vance CO Municipals B
ETCTX Eaton Vance CT Municipals A
EVCTX Eaton Vance CT Municipals B
EADDX Eaton Vance Diversified Income A
EBDDX Eaton Vance Diversified Income B
ECDDX Eaton Vance Diversified Income Fund Class C
ETEMX Eaton Vance Emerging Markets A
EMEMX Eaton Vance Emerging Markets B
XEOIX Eaton Vance Enhanced Equity Income Fund
XEOSX Eaton Vance Enhanced Equity Income Fund II
EAERX Eaton Vance Equity Research A
EAFIX Eaton Vance FL Insured Municipals A
EBFIX Eaton Vance FL Insured Municipals B
EXFLX Eaton Vance FL Ltd Maturity Munis A
ELFLX Eaton Vance FL Ltd Maturity Munis B
EZFLX Eaton Vance FL Ltd Maturity Munis C
ETFLX Eaton Vance FL Municipals A
EVFLX Eaton Vance FL Municipals B
EVBLX Eaton Vance Floating Rate A
EABLX Eaton Vance Floating Rate Adv
EBBLX Eaton Vance Floating Rate B
ECBLX Eaton Vance Floating Rate C
EIBLX Eaton Vance Floating Rate I
EVFHX Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc A
EAFHX Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc Adv
EBFHX Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc B
ECFHX Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc C
EIFHX Eaton Vance Floating-Rate & Hi Inc Inst
XEFTX Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust
XFEVX Eaton Vance Florida Municipal Income Trust
ETGAX Eaton Vance GA Municipals A
EVGAX Eaton Vance GA Municipals B
ETIAX Eaton Vance Global Growth A
EMIAX Eaton Vance Global Growth B
ECIAX Eaton Vance Global Growth C
EDIAX EATON VANCE GLOBAL GROWTH FUND
EVGOX Eaton Vance Government Obligations A
EMGOX Eaton Vance Government Obligations B
ECGOX Eaton Vance Government Obligations C
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth A
EMCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth B
ECCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth C
ETGIX Eaton Vance Greater India A
EMGIX Eaton Vance Greater India B
EVGFX Eaton Vance Growth A
EMGFX Eaton Vance Growth B
ECGFX Eaton Vance Growth C
ETHWX Eaton Vance HI Municipals A
EVHWX Eaton Vance HI Municipals B
ETHIX Eaton Vance High-Income A
EVHIX Eaton Vance High-Income B
ECHIX Eaton Vance High-Income C
ETHYX Eaton Vance High-Yield Municipals A
EVHYX Eaton Vance High-Yield Municipals B
ECHYX Eaton Vance High-Yield Municipals C
EVIBX Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston A
EBIBX Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston B
ECIBX Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston C
EIBIX Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston I
ERIBX Eaton Vance Income Fund of Boston R
EISIX Eaton Vance Institutional Short Term Income
Fund
EVTIX Eaton Vance Institutional Short Term Treasury
Fund
XEVMX Eaton Vance Insured California Municipal Bond
Fund
XEIAX Eaton Vance Insured California Municipal Bond
Fund II
XEIFX Eaton Vance Insured Florida Municipal Bond
Fund
XMABX Eaton Vance Insured Massachusetts Municipal
Bond Fund
XMIWX Eaton Vance Insured Michigan Municipal Bond
Fund
XEIMX Eaton Vance Insured Municipal Bond Fund
XEIVX Eaton Vance Insured Municipal Bond Fund II
XEMJX Eaton Vance Insured New Jersey Municipal Bond
Fund
XENWX Eaton Vance Insured New York Municipal Bond
Fund
XNYHX Eaton Vance Insured New York Municipal Bond
Fund II
XEIOX Eaton Vance Insured Ohio Municipal Bond Fund
XEIPX Eaton Vance Insured Pennsylvania Municipal
Bond Fund
ETKSX Eaton Vance KS Municipals A
EVKSX Eaton Vance KS Municipals B
ETKYX Eaton Vance KY Municipals A
EVKYX Eaton Vance KY Municipals B
ETLAX Eaton Vance LA Municipals A
EVLAX Eaton Vance LA Municipals B
EALCX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core A
EBLCX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core B
ECLCX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Core C
EHSTX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value A
EMSTX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value B
ECSTX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value C
EILVX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value I
ERSTX Eaton Vance Large-Cap Value R
XEVVX Eaton Vance Limited Duration Income Fund
EALDX Eaton Vance Low Duration A
EBLDX Eaton Vance Low Duration B
ECLDX Eaton Vance Low Duration C
EXMAX Eaton Vance MA Ltd Maturity Munis A
ELMAX Eaton Vance MA Ltd Maturity Munis B
EZMAX Eaton Vance MA Ltd Maturity Munis C
ETMAX Eaton Vance MA Municipals A
EVMAX Eaton Vance MA Municipals B
XMMVX Eaton Vance Massachusetts Municipal Income
Trust
ETMDX Eaton Vance MD Municipals A
EVMYX Eaton Vance MD Municipals B
ETMIX Eaton Vance MI Municipals A
EVMIX Eaton Vance MI Municipals B
XEMIX Eaton Vance Michigan Municipal Income Trust
ETMNX Eaton Vance MN Municipals A
EVMNX Eaton Vance MN Municipals B
ETMOX Eaton Vance MO Municipals A
EVMOX Eaton Vance MO Municipals B
ETMSX Eaton Vance MS Municipals A
EVMSX Eaton Vance MS Municipals B
ETMBX Eaton Vance Municipal Bond A
EBMBX Eaton Vance Municipal Bond B
EVMBX Eaton Vance Municipal Bond I
XEVNX Eaton Vance Municipal Income Trust
EXNAX Eaton Vance National Ltd Mat Munis A
ELNAX Eaton Vance National Ltd Mat Munis B
EZNAX Eaton Vance National Ltd Mat Munis C
EANAX Eaton Vance National Municipals A
EVHMX Eaton Vance National Municipals B
ECHMX Eaton Vance National Municipals C
EIHMX Eaton Vance National Municipals I
ETNCX Eaton Vance NC Municipals A
EVNCX Eaton Vance NC Municipals B
XEVJX Eaton Vance New Jersey Municipal Income Trust
XEVYX Eaton Vance New York Municipal Income Trust
EXNJX Eaton Vance NJ Ltd Maturity Munis A
ELNJX Eaton Vance NJ Ltd Maturity Munis B
ETNJX Eaton Vance NJ Municipals A
EVNJX Eaton Vance NJ Municipals B
EXNYX Eaton Vance NY Ltd Maturity Munis A
ELNYX Eaton Vance NY Ltd Maturity Munis B
EZNYX Eaton Vance NY Ltd Maturity Munis C
ETNYX Eaton Vance NY Municipals A
EVNYX Eaton Vance NY Municipals B
ECNYX Eaton Vance NY Municipals C
EXOHX Eaton Vance OH Ltd Maturity Munis A
ELOHX Eaton Vance OH Ltd Maturity Munis B
ETOHX Eaton Vance OH Municipals A
EVOHX Eaton Vance OH Municipals B
XEVOX Eaton Vance Ohio Municipal Income Trust
ETORX Eaton Vance OR Municipals A
EVORX Eaton Vance OR Municipals B
EXPNX Eaton Vance PA Ltd Maturity Munis A
ELPNX Eaton Vance PA Ltd Maturity Munis B
EZPNX Eaton Vance PA Ltd Maturity Munis C
ETPAX Eaton Vance PA Municipals A
EVPAX Eaton Vance PA Municipals B
XEVPX Eaton Vance Pennsylvania Municipal Income
Trust
ETRIX Eaton Vance RI Municipals A
EVRIX Eaton Vance RI Municipals B
EASCX Eaton Vance SC Municipals A
EVSCX Eaton Vance SC Municipals B
XEFRX Eaton Vance Senior Floating Rate Trust
XEVFX Eaton Vance Senior Income Trust
XEVGX Eaton Vance Short Duration Diversified Income
ETEGX Eaton Vance Small-Cap Growth A
EBSMX Eaton Vance Small-Cap Growth B
ECSMX Eaton Vance Small-Cap Growth C
EAVSX Eaton Vance Small-Cap Value A
EBVSX Eaton Vance Small-Cap Value B
ECVSX Eaton Vance Small-Cap Value C
EVSEX Eaton Vance Special Equities A
EMSEX Eaton Vance Special Equities B
ECSEX Eaton Vance Special Equities C
ETSIX Eaton Vance Strategic Income A
EVSGX Eaton Vance Strategic Income B
ECSIX Eaton Vance Strategic Income C
EDTGX EATON VANCE TAX MANAGED GROWTH
EDIGX EATON VANCE TAX MANAGED INTERNA
EDTVX EATON VANCE TAX MANAGED VALUE F
XEVTX Eaton Vance Tax-Advantaged Dividend Income
Fund
XETGX Eaton Vance Tax-Advantaged Global Dividend
Income Fund
XETOX Eaton Vance Tax-Advantaged Global Dividend
Opportunities Fund
XETBX Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Buy-Write Income Fund
XETVX Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Buy-Write Opportnities
Fund
EADIX Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Dividend Inc A
EBDIX Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Dividend Inc B
ECDIX Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Dividend Inc C
EITEX Eaton Vance Tax-Managed Emg Mkts I
EAEAX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Eq Asset Alloc A
EBEAX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Eq Asset Alloc B
ECEAX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Eq Asset Alloc C
CAPEX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.0
ETTGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 A
EMTGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 B
ECTGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 C
EITMX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.1 I
EXTGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 A
EYTGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 B
EZTGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 C
EITGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Growth 1.2 I
ETIGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Intl Equity A
EMIGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Intl Equity B
ECIGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Intl Equity C
EXMCX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Mid-Cap Core A
EBMCX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Mid-Cap Core B
ECMCX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Mid-Cap Core C
EACPX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Multi-Cap Opp A
EBCPX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Multi-Cap Opp B
ECCPX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Multi-Cap Opp C
ETMGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.1 A
EMMGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.1 B
ECMGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.1 C
EXMGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.2 A
EYMGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.2 B
EZMGX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Sm-Cap Gr 1.2 C
ESVAX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Small-Cap Value A
ESVBX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Small-Cap Value B
ESVCX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Small-Cap Value C
EATVX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Value A
EBTVX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Value B
ECTVX Eaton Vance Tax-Mgd Value C
ETTNX Eaton Vance TN Municipals A
EVTNX Eaton Vance TN Municipals B
EVTMX Eaton Vance Utilities A
EMTMX Eaton Vance Utilities B
ECTMX Eaton Vance Utilities C
EIUTX Eaton Vance Utilities Fund Class I
ETVAX Eaton Vance VA Municipals A
EVVAX Eaton Vance VA Municipals B
EDHSX EATON VANCE WORLDWIDE HEALTH SC
ETHSX Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci A
EMHSX Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci B
ECHSX Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci C
ERHSX Eaton Vance Worldwide Health Sci R
ETWVX Eaton Vance WV Municipals A
EVWVX Eaton Vance WV Municipals B
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Eaton Vance Funds, that provided financial incentives
and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The
complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices
created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing
substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to
their clients, even though such investments were not in the
clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives
constituted violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Suit in NY Over Hartford Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Hartford
Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Hartford Funds
named below, are as follows:
ITTAX Hartford Advisers A
IHABX Hartford Advisers B
HAFCX Hartford Advisers C
HADAX Hartford Advisers HLS IA
HAIBX Hartford Advisers HLS IB
IHAYX Hartford Advisers Y
HAAAX Hartford Aggressive Growth Allocation A
HAABX Hartford Aggressive Growth Allocation B
HAACX Hartford Aggressive Growth Allocation C
HBAAX Hartford Balanced Allocation A
HBABX Hartford Balanced Allocation B
HBACX Hartford Balanced Allocation C
HBCIX Hartford Blue Chip HLS IA
ITHAX Hartford Capital Appreciation A
IHCAX Hartford Capital Appreciation B
HCACX Hartford Capital Appreciation C
HIACX Hartford Capital Appreciation HLS IA
HIBCX Hartford Capital Appreciation HLS IB
HCTAX Hartford Capital Appreciation II Fund Class A
HCTBX Hartford Capital Appreciation II Fund Class B
HFCCX Hartford Capital Appreciation II Fund Class C
HCTYX Hartford Capital Appreciation II Fund Class Y
HCAYX Hartford Capital Appreciation Y
HCOIX Hartford Capital Opportunities HLS IA
HCVAX Hartford Conservative Allocation A
HCVBX Hartford Conservative Allocation B
HCVCX Hartford Conservative Allocation C
HAIAX Hartford Disciplined Equity A
HGIBX Hartford Disciplined Equity B
HGICX Hartford Disciplined Equity C
HIAGX Hartford Disciplined Equity HLS IA
HBGIX Hartford Disciplined Equity HLS IB
HGIYX Hartford Disciplined Equity Y
IHGIX Hartford Dividend & Growth A
ITDGX Hartford Dividend & Growth B
HDGCX Hartford Dividend & Growth C
HIADX Hartford Dividend & Growth HLS IA
HDGBX Hartford Dividend & Growth HLS IB
HDGYX Hartford Dividend & Growth Y
HQIAX Hartford Equity Income A
HQIBX Hartford Equity Income B
HQICX Hartford Equity Income C
HIAEX Hartford Equity Income HLS IA
HIBEX Hartford Equity Income HLS IB
HQIYX Hartford Equity Income Y
HFLAX Hartford Floating Rate Fund Class A
HFLBX Hartford Floating Rate Fund Class B
HFLCX Hartford Floating Rate Fund Class C
HFLYX Hartford Floating Rate Fund Class Y
HFFAX Hartford Focus A
HFFBX Hartford Focus B
HFFCX Hartford Focus C
HIAFX Hartford Focus HLS IA
HFCBX Hartford Focus HLS IB
HFFYX Hartford Focus Y
HGAAX Hartford Global Advisers HLS IA
HGABX Hartford Global Advisers HLS IB
HGCIX Hartford Global Comm HLS IA
HBGCX Hartford Global Comm HLS IB
HGCAX Hartford Global Communications A
HGCBX Hartford Global Communications B
HGCCX Hartford Global Communications C
HGCYX Hartford Global Communications Y
HGFAX Hartford Global Financial Svcs A
HGFBX Hartford Global Financial Svcs B
HGFCX Hartford Global Financial Svcs C
HFIAX Hartford Global Financial Svcs HLS IA
HBGFX Hartford Global Financial Svcs HLS IB
HGFYX Hartford Global Financial Svcs Y
HGHAX Hartford Global Health A
HGHBX Hartford Global Health B
HGHCX Hartford Global Health C
HIAHX Hartford Global Health HLS IA
HBGHX Hartford Global Health HLS IB
HGHYX Hartford Global Health Y
HALAX Hartford Global Leaders A
HGLBX Hartford Global Leaders B
HGLCX Hartford Global Leaders C
HIALX Hartford Global Leaders HLS IA
HBGLX Hartford Global Leaders HLS IB
HGLYX Hartford Global Leaders Y
HGTAX Hartford Global Technology A
HGTBX Hartford Global Technology B
HGTCX Hartford Global Technology C
HIATX Hartford Global Technology HLS IA
HBGTX Hartford Global Technology HLS IB
HGTYX Hartford Global Technology Y
HGWAX Hartford Growth A
HRAAX Hartford Growth Allocation A
HRABX Hartford Growth Allocation B
HRACX Hartford Growth Allocation C
HGWBX Hartford Growth B
HGWCX Hartford Growth C
FECHX Hartford Growth H
HGIAX Hartford Growth HLS IA
HBGRX Hartford Growth HLS IB
FECLX Hartford Growth L
FECBX Hartford Growth M
FECCX Hartford Growth N
HGOAX Hartford Growth Opportunities A
HGOBX Hartford Growth Opportunities B
HGOCX Hartford Growth Opportunities C
FGRHX Hartford Growth Opportunities H
HAGOX Hartford Growth Opportunities HLS IA
HBGOX Hartford Growth Opportunities HLS IB
FGRWX Hartford Growth Opportunities L
FGRBX Hartford Growth Opportunities M
FGRCX Hartford Growth Opportunities N
HGOYX Hartford Growth Opportunities Y
FGRZX Hartford Growth Opportunities Z
HGWYX Hartford Growth Y
HAHAX Hartford High Yield A
HAHBX Hartford High Yield B
HAHCX Hartford High Yield C
HIAYX Hartford High Yield HLS IA
HBHYX Hartford High Yield HLS IB
HAHYX Hartford High Yield Y
HTIAX Hartford Income A
HINAX Hartford Income Allocation A
HINBX Hartford Income Allocation B
HINCX Hartford Income Allocation C
HTIBX Hartford Income B
HTICX Hartford Income C
HTIYX Hartford Income Y
HIAIX Hartford Index HLS IA
HBIDX Hartford Index HLS IB
HIPAX Hartford Inflation Plus A
HIPBX Hartford Inflation Plus B
HIPCX Hartford Inflation Plus C
HIPYX Hartford Inflation Plus Y
HIAOX Hartford International Opp HLS IA
HBIOX Hartford International Opp HLS IB
HAISX Hartford International Stock HLS IA
HNCIX Hartford Intl Cap App HLS IA
HBICX Hartford Intl Cap App HLS IB
HNCAX Hartford Intl Capital Appr A
HNCBX Hartford Intl Capital Appr B
HNCCX Hartford Intl Capital Appr C
HNCYX Hartford Intl Capital Appr Y
IHOAX Hartford Intl Opportunities A
HIOBX Hartford Intl Opportunities B
HIOCX Hartford Intl Opportunities C
HAOYX Hartford Intl Opportunities Y
HNSAX Hartford Intl Small Company A
HNSBX Hartford Intl Small Company B
HNSCX Hartford Intl Small Company C
HNSIX Hartford Intl Small Company HLS IA
HBISX Hartford Intl Small Company HLS IB
HNSYX Hartford Intl Small Company Y
HLGCX Hartford Large Cap Growth HLS IA
HMVAX Hartford Mid Cap Value A
HMVBX Hartford Mid Cap Value B
HMVCX Hartford Mid Cap Value C
HMVYX Hartford Mid Cap Value Y
HFMCX Hartford Midcap A
HAMBX Hartford Midcap B
HMDCX Hartford Midcap C
HIMCX Hartford MidCap HLS IA
HBMCX Hartford MidCap HLS IB
HMCSX Hartford MidCap Stock HLS IA
HMVIX Hartford MidCap Value HLS IA
HBMVX Hartford MidCap Value HLS IB
HMDYX Hartford Midcap Y
HMSIX Hartford Mortgage Securities HLS IA
HBMGX Hartford Mortgage Securities HLS IB
HSMAX Hartford Select MidCap Growth A
HSMBX Hartford Select MidCap Growth B
HTSCX Hartford Select MidCap Growth C
HSMYX Hartford Select MidCap Growth Y
HFVAX Hartford Select MidCap Value Fund Class A
HSVBX Hartford Select MidCap Value Fund Class B
HFVCX Hartford Select MidCap Value Fund Class C
HSVYX Hartford Select MidCap Value Fund Class Y
HSDAX Hartford Short Duration A
HSDBX Hartford Short Duration B
HSDCX Hartford Short Duration C
HSDYX Hartford Short Duration Y
HSLAX Hartford Small Cap Growth A
HSLBX Hartford Small Cap Growth B
HSLCX Hartford Small Cap Growth C
FACHX Hartford Small Cap Growth H
FACAX Hartford Small Cap Growth L
FACBX Hartford Small Cap Growth M
FACCX Hartford Small Cap Growth N
HSLYX Hartford Small Cap Growth Y
HSCGX Hartford Small Cap Value HLS IA
HBSCX Hartford Small Cap Value HLS IB
IHSAX Hartford Small Company A
HSCBX Hartford Small Company B
HSMCX Hartford Small Company C
HIASX Hartford Small Company HLS IA
HDMBX Hartford Small Company HLS IB
HSCYX Hartford Small Company Y
HISCX Hartford SmallCap Growth HLS IA
HBSGX Hartford SmallCap Growth HLS IB
IHSTX Hartford Stock A
ITSBX Hartford Stock B
HSFCX Hartford Stock C
HSTAX Hartford Stock HLS IA
HIBSX Hartford Stock HLS IB
HASYX Hartford Stock Y
HTFAX Hartford Tax-Free CA A
HTFBX Hartford Tax-Free CA B
HTFCX Hartford Tax-Free CA C
HTMAX Hartford Tax-Free MN A
HTMBX Hartford Tax-Free MN B
HTMCX Hartford Tax-Free MN C
FTMNX Hartford Tax-Free MN E
FTMHX Hartford Tax-Free MN H
FTMAX Hartford Tax-Free MN L
FTMBX Hartford Tax-Free MN M
FTMCX Hartford Tax-Free MN N
HTMYX Hartford Tax-Free MN Y
HTNAX Hartford Tax-Free National A
HTNBX Hartford Tax-Free National B
HTNCX Hartford Tax-Free National C
FTNLX Hartford Tax-Free National E
FTNHX Hartford Tax-Free National H
FTNAX Hartford Tax-Free National L
FTNBX Hartford Tax-Free National M
FTNKX Hartford Tax-Free National N
HTNYX Hartford Tax-Free National Y
HTYAX Hartford Tax-Free NY A
HTYBX Hartford Tax-Free NY B
HTYCX Hartford Tax-Free NY C
ITBAX Hartford Total Return Bond A
ITBBX Hartford Total Return Bond B
HABCX Hartford Total Return Bond C
HIABX Hartford Total Return Bond HLS IA
HBNBX Hartford Total Return Bond HLS IB
HABYX Hartford Total Return Bond Y
HAUSX Hartford U.S. Government Secs HLS IA
HBUSX Hartford U.S. Government Secs HLS IB
HUSAX Hartford U.S. Government Securities A
HUSBX Hartford U.S. Government Securities B
HUSCX Hartford U.S. Government Securities C
FIUGX Hartford U.S. Government Securities E
FIUHX Hartford U.S. Government Securities H
FIUAX Hartford U.S. Government Securities L
FIPBX Hartford U.S. Government Securities M
FIUCX Hartford U.S. Government Securities N
HUSYX Hartford U.S. Government Securities Y
HVFAX Hartford Value A
HVFBX Hartford Value B
HVFCX Hartford Value C
HIAVX Hartford Value HLS IA
HBVLX Hartford Value HLS IB
HVOAX Hartford Value Opportunities A
HVOBX Hartford Value Opportunities B
HVOCX Hartford Value Opportunities C
FVAHX Hartford Value Opportunities H
HAVOX Hartford Value Opportunities HLS IA
HBVOX Hartford Value Opportunities HLS IB
FVAAX Hartford Value Opportunities L
FVABX Hartford Value Opportunities M
FRVCX Hartford Value Opportunities N
HVOYX Hartford Value Opportunities Y
HVFYX Hartford Value Y
XHSFX The Hartford Income Shares Fund, Inc.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Hartford Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Securities Suit Over Pioneer Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Pioneer
Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Pioneer Funds
named below, are as follows:
PIODX Pioneer A
PUSGX Pioneer America Income Trust A
PBUSX Pioneer America Income Trust B
PCUSX Pioneer America Income Trust C
PCURX Pioneer America Income Trust Fund Class R
PUSIX Pioneer America Income Trust Inv
PAPRX Pioneer AmPac Growth A
PRABX Pioneer AmPac Growth B
PRRCX Pioneer AmPac Growth C
PRFRX Pioneer AmPac Growth R
PBODX Pioneer B
MOMIX Pioneer Balanced A
PBMIX Pioneer Balanced B
PCMPX Pioneer Balanced C
MOIIX Pioneer Balanced Inv
PIOBX Pioneer Bond A
PBOBX Pioneer Bond B
PCYBX Pioneer Bond C
BFIOX Pioneer Bond Inv
PBFRX Pioneer Bond R
PICYX Pioneer Bond Y
PCODX Pioneer C
CATAX Pioneer CA Tax Free Income A
CATBX Pioneer CA Tax Free Income B
CATCX Pioneer CA Tax Free Income C
CATIX Pioneer CA Tax Free Income Inv
PIMIX PIONEER CASH RESERVE FD INVESTO
CVFCX Pioneer Cullen Value A
CVFBX Pioneer Cullen Value B
CVCFX Pioneer Cullen Value C
CVFYX Pioneer Cullen Value Y
PEMFX Pioneer Emerging Markets A
PBEFX Pioneer Emerging Markets B
PCEFX Pioneer Emerging Markets C
PEMRX Pioneer Emerging Markets Fund Class R
PYEFX Pioneer Emerging Markets Y
PEOFX Pioneer Equity Opportunity A
PEOBX Pioneer Equity Opportunity B
PEOCX Pioneer Equity Opportunity C
PEQIX Pioneer Equity-Income A
PBEQX Pioneer Equity-Income B
PCEQX Pioneer Equity-Income C
PQIRX Pioneer Equity-Income R
PYEQX Pioneer Equity-Income Y
PBEUX Pioneer Europe Fund Class B
PERAX Pioneer Europe Select Equity A
PERBX Pioneer Europe Select Equity B
PERCX Pioneer Europe Select Equity C
PESRX Pioneer Europe Select Equity Fund Class R
PEYSX Pioneer Europe Select Equity Fund Class Y
XPHDX Pioneer Floating Rate Trust
PGHYX Pioneer Global High Yield A
PGHBX Pioneer Global High Yield B
PGYCX Pioneer Global High Yield C
MOMGX Pioneer Growth A
PBMGX Pioneer Growth B
PCMGX Pioneer Growth C
MOIGX Pioneer Growth Inv
LRPSX Pioneer Growth Leaders A
LRPBX Pioneer Growth Leaders B
LRPCX Pioneer Growth Leaders C
LRPRX Pioneer Growth Leaders R
PGOFX Pioneer Growth Opportunities A
GOFBX Pioneer Growth Opportunities B
GOFCX Pioneer Growth Opportunities C
PGIFX Pioneer Growth Opportunities Inv
PGRRX Pioneer Growth R
PYMGX Pioneer Growth Y
XPHHX PIONEER HIGH INCOME TRUST
XPHTX Pioneer High Income Trust
TAHYX Pioneer High Yield A
TBHYX Pioneer High Yield B
PYICX Pioneer High Yield C
TAHIX Pioneer High Yield Inv
TYHRX Pioneer High Yield R
TYHYX Pioneer High Yield Y
PIAAX Pioneer Ibbotson Aggressive Allocation A
IALBX Pioneer Ibbotson Aggressive Allocation B
IALCX Pioneer Ibbotson Aggressive Allocation C
PIAVX Pioneer Ibbotson Conservative Alloc A
PIBVX Pioneer Ibbotson Conservative Alloc B
PICVX Pioneer Ibbotson Conservative Alloc C
GRAAX Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation A
GRABX Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation B
GRACX Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation C
PIALX Pioneer Ibbotson Moderate Allocation A
PIBLX Pioneer Ibbotson Moderate Allocation B
PIDCX Pioneer Ibbotson Moderate Allocation C
PINDX Pioneer Independence
PIWEX Pioneer International Equity A
PBWEX Pioneer International Equity B
PCWEX Pioneer International Equity C
IEIPX Pioneer International Equity Inv
PIEYX Pioneer International Equity Y
PIIFX Pioneer International Value A
PBIFX Pioneer International Value B
PCITX Pioneer International Value C
MIVRX Pioneer International Value Fund Class R
PFIOX Pioneer Inv
PITHX Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth A
PBMDX Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth B
PCMCX Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth C
PMCYX Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth Y
PCGRX Pioneer Mid-Cap Value A
PBCGX Pioneer Mid-Cap Value B
PCCGX Pioneer Mid-Cap Value C
PGCIX Pioneer Mid-Cap Value Inv
PCMRX Pioneer Mid-Cap Value R
PYCGX Pioneer Mid-Cap Value Y
PBMFX Pioneer Municipal Bond A
PBMUX Pioneer Municipal Bond B
MNBCX Pioneer Municipal Bond C
PBIMX Pioneer Municipal Bond Inv
XPMAX Pioneer Municipal High Income Advantage Trust
XMHIX Pioneer Municipal High Income Trust
ORILX Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth A
ORLBX Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth B
ORLCX Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth C
ORLRX Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth R
PORYX Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth Y
ORIGX Pioneer Oak Ridge Small Cap Growth A
ORIBX Pioneer Oak Ridge Small Cap Growth B
ORICX Pioneer Oak Ridge Small Cap Growth C
PPPAX Pioneer Protected Principal Plus A
PPPBX Pioneer Protected Principal Plus B
PPPCX Pioneer Protected Principal Plus C
PPFAX Pioneer Protected Principal Plus II A
PPFBX Pioneer Protected Principal Plus II B
PPFCX Pioneer Protected Principal Plus II C
PIORX Pioneer R
PWREX Pioneer Real Estate A
PBREX Pioneer Real Estate B
PCREX Pioneer Real Estate C
PYREX Pioneer Real Estate Y
PATMX Pioneer Research A
PBTMX Pioneer Research B
PCTMX Pioneer Research C
PRFYX Pioneer Research Y
PSEFX Pioneer Select Equity Fund Class A
PSEAX Pioneer Select Value Fund Class A
STABX Pioneer Short Term Income A
STBBX Pioneer Short Term Income B
PSHCX Pioneer Short Term Income C
PSHYX Pioneer Short Term Income Y
PAPPX Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth A
MCSBX Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth B
CGCPX Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth C
CGCRX Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth R
PIMCX Pioneer Small Cap Value A
PBMOX Pioneer Small Cap Value B
PSVCX Pioneer Small Cap Value C
CALLX Pioneer Small Cap Value Inv
PSVRX Pioneer Small Cap Value R
PCAYX Pioneer Small Cap Value Y
PSCFX Pioneer Small Company A
PBSCX Pioneer Small Company B
PCSCX Pioneer Small Company C
PSCRX Pioneer Small Company Fund Class R
PAAFX Pioneer Strategic Growth A
PIABX Pioneer Strategic Growth B
PAGCX Pioneer Strategic Growth C
PIPRX Pioneer Strategic Growth Fund Cl R
PSRAX Pioneer Strategic Income A
PSRBX Pioneer Strategic Income B
PSRCX Pioneer Strategic Income C
STIRX Pioneer Strategic Income R
STRYX Pioneer Strategic Income Y
XPBFX Pioneer Tax Advantaged Balanced Trust
MOMTX Pioneer Tax Free Income A
PBMTX Pioneer Tax Free Income B
PCMTX Pioneer Tax Free Income C
MOITX Pioneer Tax Free Income Inv
PIOTX Pioneer Value A
PBOTX Pioneer Value B
PCOTX Pioneer Value C
PIOIX Pioneer Value Inv
PVFRX Pioneer Value R
PVFYX Pioneer Value Y
PYODX Pioneer Y
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Pioneer Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files NY Securities Suit Over Scudder Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Scudder
Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Scudder Funds
named below, are as follows:
XKTFX Scudder Municipal Income Trust
XKSMX Scudder Strategic Municipal Income Trust
SCNIX SCUDDER 21ST CENTURY GROWTH FD
SXXIX SCUDDER 21ST CENTURY GROWTH FD
SCNAX SCUDDER 21ST CENTURY GROWTH FUN
SCNBX SCUDDER 21ST CENTURY GROWTH FUN
SCNCX SCUDDER 21ST CENTURY GROWTH FUN
SCTGX SCUDDER 21ST CENTURY GROWTH FUN
KGGAX Scudder Aggressive Growth A
KGGBX Scudder Aggressive Growth B
KGGCX Scudder Aggressive Growth C
KGGIX Scudder Aggressive Growth Instl
KBCAX Scudder Blue Chip A
KBCBX Scudder Blue Chip B
KBCCX Scudder Blue Chip C
KBCIX Scudder Blue Chip Instl
KBCSX Scudder Blue Chip Svc
SDGAX Scudder Capital Growth A
ACGFX Scudder Capital Growth AARP
SDGBX Scudder Capital Growth B
SDGCX Scudder Capital Growth C
SDGTX Scudder Capital Growth Instl
SDGRX Scudder Capital Growth R
SCGSX Scudder Capital Growth S
SKNRX Scudder Commodity Securities A
SKBRX Scudder Commodity Securities B
SKCRX Scudder Commodity Securities C
SKIRX Scudder Commodity Securities Inst
SKSRX Scudder Commodity Securities S
SDVLX Scudder Development AARP
SCDVX Scudder Development S
LOPEX Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value A
LOPBX Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value B
LOPCX Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value C
LOPIX Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value I
KDFAX Scudder Dreman Financial Services A
KDFBX Scudder Dreman Financial Services B
KDFCX Scudder Dreman Financial Services C
KDHAX Scudder Dreman High Return Eq A
KDHBX Scudder Dreman High Return Eq B
KDHCX Scudder Dreman High Return Eq C
KDHIX Scudder Dreman High Return Eq Instl
KDHRX Scudder Dreman High Return Equity R
KDHSX Scudder Dreman High Return Equity S
KDSAX Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value A
KDSBX Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value B
KDSCX Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value C
KDSSX Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value Fund Class S
KDSIX Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value Instl
KDSRX Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value R
KSCAX SCUDDER DYNAMIC GROWTH FUND CLA
KSCBX SCUDDER DYNAMIC GROWTH FUND CLA
KSCCX SCUDDER DYNAMIC GROWTH FUND CLA
KSCIX SCUDDER DYNAMIC GROWTH FUND INS
BTAEX Scudder EAFE Equity Index Instl
SEKAX Scudder Emerging Markets A
SEMMX Scudder Emerging Markets AARP
SEKBX Scudder Emerging Markets B
SEKCX Scudder Emerging Markets C
SZEAX Scudder Emerging Markets Income A
SEMKX Scudder Emerging Markets Income AARP
SZEBX Scudder Emerging Markets Income B
SZECX Scudder Emerging Markets Income C
SCEMX Scudder Emerging Markets Income S
SEMGX Scudder Emerging Markets S
BTIIX Scudder Equity 500 Index Instl
BTIEX Scudder Equity 500 Index Invm
SFXAX Scudder Fixed Income A
SFXBX Scudder Fixed Income B
SFXCX Scudder Fixed Income C
MFINX Scudder Fixed Income Instl
MFISX Scudder Fixed Income Invm
SFXRX Scudder Fixed Income R
SFXSX Scudder Fixed Income Svc
TISHX Scudder Flag Communications A
FTEBX Scudder Flag Communications B
FTICX Scudder Flag Communications C
FLICX Scudder Flag Communications Instl
FLEPX Scudder Flag Equity Partners A
FEPBX Scudder Flag Equity Partners B
FEPCX Scudder Flag Equity Partners C
FLIPX Scudder Flag Equity Partners Instl
FLVBX Scudder Flag Value Builder A
FVBBX Scudder Flag Value Builder B
FVBCX Scudder Flag Value Builder C
FLIVX Scudder Flag Value Builder Instl
SGQAX Scudder Global A
ACOBX Scudder Global AARP
SGQBX Scudder Global B
SZGAX Scudder Global Bond A
SGBDX Scudder Global Bond AARP
SZGBX Scudder Global Bond B
SZGCX Scudder Global Bond C
SSTGX Scudder Global Bond S
SGQCX Scudder Global C
XGCSX Scudder Global Commodities Stock Fund, Inc.
KGDAX Scudder Global Discovery A
SGDPX Scudder Global Discovery AARP
KGDBX Scudder Global Discovery B
KGDCX Scudder Global Discovery C
SGSCX Scudder Global Discovery S
XLBFX Scudder Global High Income Fund Inc.
SGQRX Scudder Global R
SCOBX Scudder Global S
AGNMX Scudder GNMA AARP
SGINX Scudder GNMA S
SGDAX Scudder Gold & Precious Metals A
SGLDX Scudder Gold & Precious Metals AARP
SGDBX Scudder Gold & Precious Metals B
SGDCX Scudder Gold & Precious Metals C
SCGDX Scudder Gold & Precious Metals S
SERAX Scudder Greater Europe A
SGEGX Scudder Greater Europe AARP
SERBX Scudder Greater Europe B
SERCX Scudder Greater Europe C
SERNX Scudder Greater Europe Inst
SCGEX Scudder Greater Europe S
SUWAX Scudder Growth & Income A
ACDGX Scudder Growth & Income AARP
SUWBX Scudder Growth & Income B
SUWCX Scudder Growth & Income C
SUWIX Scudder Growth & Income Instl
SUWRX Scudder Growth & Income R
SCDGX Scudder Growth & Income S
SUHAX Scudder Health Care A
SHCAX Scudder Health Care AARP
SUHBX Scudder Health Care B
SUHCX Scudder Health Care C
SUHIX Scudder Health Care Instl
SCHLX Scudder Health Care S
KHYAX Scudder High Income A
KHYBX Scudder High Income B
KHYCX Scudder High Income C
KHYIX Scudder High Income Instl
SGHAX Scudder High Income Plus A
SGHTX Scudder High Income Plus AARP
SGHBX Scudder High Income Plus B
SGHCX Scudder High Income Plus C
MGHYX Scudder High Income Plus Instl
MGHVX Scudder High Income Plus Invm
MGHPX Scudder High Income Plus Prem
SGHSX Scudder High Income Plus S
XKHIX Scudder High Income Trust
NOTAX Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free A
SHYFX Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free AARP
NOTBX Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free B
NOTCX Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free C
NOTIX Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free Instl
SHYTX Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free S
SZIAX Scudder Income A
AINCX Scudder Income AARP
SZIBX Scudder Income B
SZICX Scudder Income C
SZIIX Scudder Income Instl
SCSBX Scudder Income S
TIPAX Scudder Inflation Protected Plus A
TIPTX Scudder Inflation Protected Plus B
TIPCX Scudder Inflation Protected Plus C
TIPIX Scudder Inflation Protected Plus Instl
TIPSX Scudder Inflation Protected Plus S
SZMAX Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free A
SMTTX Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free AARP
SZMBX Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free B
SZMCX Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free C
SZMIX Scudder Intermediate Tax/AMT Free Instl
SZMVX Scudder Intermediate Tax/AMT Free Inv
SCMTX Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free S
SUIAX Scudder International A
AINTX Scudder International AARP
SUIBX Scudder International B
SUICX Scudder International C
DBAIX Scudder International Equity A
DBBIX Scudder International Equity B
DBCIX Scudder International Equity C
BEIIX Scudder International Equity Instl
BTEQX Scudder International Equity Invm
SUIIX Scudder International Instl
SCINX Scudder International S
DBISX Scudder International Sel Eq A
DBIBX Scudder International Sel Eq B
DBICX Scudder International Sel Eq C
MGINX Scudder International Sel Eq Instl
MGIVX Scudder International Sel Eq Invm
MGIPX Scudder International Sel Eq Prem
DBITX Scudder International Sel Eq R
DBIVX Scudder International Sel Eq S
FJEAX Scudder Japanese Equity A
FJEBX Scudder Japanese Equity B
FJECX Scudder Japanese Equity C
FJESX Scudder Japanese Equity S
KDCAX Scudder Large Cap Value A
KDCPX Scudder Large Cap Value AARP
KDCBX Scudder Large Cap Value B
KDCCX Scudder Large Cap Value C
KDCIX Scudder Large Cap Value Inst
KDCRX Scudder Large Cap Value R
KDCSX Scudder Large Cap Value S
SGGAX Scudder Large Company Growth A
SLGRX Scudder Large Company Growth AARP
SGGBX Scudder Large Company Growth B
SGGCX Scudder Large Company Growth C
SGGIX Scudder Large Company Growth Instl
SCQRX Scudder Large Company Growth R
SCQGX Scudder Large Company Growth S
SDVNX SCUDDER LARGE COMPANY VALUE FD
SLCOX SCUDDER LARGE COMPANY VALUE FD
SCDUX SCUDDER LARGE COMPANY VALUE FUN
SDVAX SCUDDER LARGE COMPANY VALUE FUN
SDVBX SCUDDER LARGE COMPANY VALUE FUN
SDVCX SCUDDER LARGE COMPANY VALUE FUN
SLANX Scudder Latin America A
SLAMX Scudder Latin America AARP
SLAOX Scudder Latin America B
SLAPX Scudder Latin America C
SLALX Scudder Latin America Fund Class M
SLAFX Scudder Latin America S
BTAMX Scudder Lifecycle Long Range Instl
BTILX Scudder Lifecycle Long Range Invm
BTLRX Scudder Lifecycle Mid Range Invm
BTSRX Scudder Lifecycle Short Range Invm
PPIAX Scudder Limited-Duration Plus A
PPLCX Scudder Limited-Duration Plus C
DBPIX Scudder Limited-Duration Plus Inv
SQMAX Scudder MA Tax-Free A
SMAFX Scudder MA Tax-Free AARP
SQMBX Scudder MA Tax-Free B
SQMCX Scudder MA Tax-Free C
SCMAX Scudder MA Tax-Free S
SMLAX Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds A
AMUBX Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds AARP
SMLBX Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds B
SMLCX Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds C
SMLIX Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds Instl
SCMBX Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds S
MGMBX SCUDDER MG INVT TRUST MUNI BOND
MMBSX SCUDDER MG INVT TRUST MUNI BOND
SMFAX Scudder Micro Cap A
SMFBX Scudder Micro Cap B
SMFCX Scudder Micro Cap C
MGMCX Scudder Micro Cap Instl
MMFSX Scudder Micro Cap Invm
SMFSX Scudder Micro Cap Svc
SMCAX Scudder Mid Cap Growth A
SMCBX Scudder Mid Cap Growth B
SMCCX Scudder Mid Cap Growth C
BTEAX Scudder Mid Cap Growth Instl
BTCAX Scudder Mid Cap Growth Invm
SMCRX Scudder Mid Cap Growth R
SMCSX Scudder Mid Cap Growth Svc
XKMMX Scudder Multi Market Income Trust
XSAFX Scudder New Asia Fund, Inc.
SPAOX Scudder Pacific Opportunities A
SPOPX Scudder Pacific Opportunities AARP
SBPOX Scudder Pacific Opportunities B
SPCCX Scudder Pacific Opportunities C
SCOPX Scudder Pacific Opportunities S
SUCAX Scudder Pathway Conservative A
APWCX Scudder Pathway Conservative AARP
SUCBX Scudder Pathway Conservative B
SUCCX Scudder Pathway Conservative C
SCPCX Scudder Pathway Conservative S
SUPAX Scudder Pathway Growth A
APWGX Scudder Pathway Growth AARP
SUPBX Scudder Pathway Growth B
SUPCX Scudder Pathway Growth C
PLUSX Scudder Pathway Growth Plus A
PLSBX Scudder Pathway Growth Plus B
PLSCX Scudder Pathway Growth Plus C
PPLSX Scudder Pathway Growth Plus S
SPGRX Scudder Pathway Growth S
SPDAX Scudder Pathway Moderate A
SPWBX Scudder Pathway Moderate AARP
SPDBX Scudder Pathway Moderate B
SPDCX Scudder Pathway Moderate C
SPBAX Scudder Pathway Moderate S
KRFFX Scudder Retirement VI
KRFGX Scudder Retirement VII
XSROX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc.
XSRQX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Fund Inc
RRRRX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Sec Instl
RRRAX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs A
RRRBX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs B
RRRCX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs C
RRRSX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs R
RRREX Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs S
ASPIX Scudder S&P 500 Index AARP
SXPAX Scudder S&P 500 Index Fund Class A
SXPBX Scudder S&P 500 Index Fund Class B
SXPCX Scudder S&P 500 Index Fund Class C
SCPIX Scudder S&P 500 Index S
OUTDX Scudder Select 500 A
SSLFX Scudder Select 500 AARP
OUTBX Scudder Select 500 B
OUTCX Scudder Select 500 C
OUTRX Scudder Select 500 R
SSFFX Scudder Select 500 S
SDUAX Scudder Short Duration A
SDUBX Scudder Short Duration B
SDUCX Scudder Short Duration C
MGSFX Scudder Short Duration Instl
SDUSX Scudder Short Duration Svc
SRMSX Scudder Short Term Municipal Bond S
SZBAX Scudder Short-Term Bond A
ASHTX Scudder Short-Term Bond AARP
SZBBX Scudder Short-Term Bond B
SZBCX Scudder Short-Term Bond C
SCSTX Scudder Short-Term Bond S
SRMAX Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd A
SRMBX Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd B
SRMCX Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd C
MGSMX Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd Instl
MSMSX Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd Invm
SSDAX Scudder Small Cap Growth A
SSDPX Scudder Small Cap Growth AARP
SSDBX Scudder Small Cap Growth B
SSDCX Scudder Small Cap Growth C
SSDIX Scudder Small Cap Growth Instl
BTSCX Scudder Small Cap Growth Invmt
SSDRX Scudder Small Cap Growth R
SSDSX Scudder Small Cap Growth S
SZCAX Scudder Small Company Stock A
ASCSX Scudder Small Company Stock AARP
SZCBX Scudder Small Company Stock B
SZCCX Scudder Small Company Stock C
SSLCX Scudder Small Company Stock S
SAAUX Scudder Small Company Value A
SABUX Scudder Small Company Value B
SACUX Scudder Small Company Value C
SCSUX Scudder Small Company Value S
KCTAX Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA A
KCTBX Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA B
KCTCX Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA C
SDCSX Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA S
KNTAX Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY A
KNTBX Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY B
KNTCX Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY C
SNWYX Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY S
KSTAX Scudder Strategic Income A
KSTBX Scudder Strategic Income B
KSTCX Scudder Strategic Income C
KSTSX Scudder Strategic Income Svc
XKSTX Scudder Strategic Income Trust
KRFAX Scudder Target 2010
KRFBX Scudder Target 2011
KRFCX Scudder Target 2012
KRFDX Scudder Target 2013
KRFEX Scudder Target 2014
SDDAX Scudder Tax Adv Dividend A
SDDBX Scudder Tax Adv Dividend B
SDDCX Scudder Tax Adv Dividend C
SDDGX Scudder Tax Adv Dividend Inst
SDDSX Scudder Tax Advantaged Dividend Fund Class S
KTCAX Scudder Technology A
KTCPX Scudder Technology AARP
KTCBX Scudder Technology B
KTCCX Scudder Technology C
STCHX SCUDDER TECHNOLOGY FD CLASS AAR
SCUTX SCUDDER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION F
SRIAX SCUDDER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION F
SRIBX SCUDDER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION F
SRICX SCUDDER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION F
KTCIX Scudder Technology Instl
KTCSX Scudder Technology S
KTRAX Scudder Total Return A
KTRPX Scudder Total Return AARP
KTRBX Scudder Total Return B
KTRCX Scudder Total Return C
KTRIX Scudder Total Return Instl
KTRRX Scudder Total Return R
KTRSX Scudder Total Return S
KUSAX Scudder U.S. Government Securities A
KUSBX Scudder U.S. Government Securities B
KUSCX Scudder U.S. Government Securities C
KUSMX Scudder U.S. Government Securities Fund Class M
KUSIX Scudder U.S. Government Securities Instl
BTUSX Scudder US Bond Index Instl
MIDIX Scudder-Dreman Mid Cao Value Fund institutional Cl
MIDVX Scudder-Dreman Mid Cap Value Fund Class A
MIDYX Scudder-Dreman Mid Cap Value Fund Class B
MIDZX Scudder-Dreman Mid Cap Value Fund Class C
MIDTX Scudder-Dreman Mid Cap Value Fund Class S
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Scudder Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management, created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to, UBS
Personalized Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne
accounts, and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: ABALX) (NASDAQ: CAIBX) (NASDAQ: AEPGX) (NASDAQ: AGTHX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: AHITX) (NASDAQ: AMECX) (NASDAQ: AIBAX) (NASDAQ: AMRMX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: ANWPX) (NASDAQ: SMCWX) (NASDAQ: AFTEX) (NASDAQ: AWSHX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to
(NASDAQ: BNGLX) (NASDAQ: ACSTX) (NASDAQ: ACEIX) (NASDAQ: ACTHX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: CABDX) (NASDAQ: CBBRX) (NASDAQ: CAFAX) (NASDAQ: AMCPX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: CWGIX) (NASDAQ: LACAX) (NASDAQ: NYVTX) (NASDAQ: DGAGX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: FAGAX) (NASDAQ: FMCDX) (NASDAQ: FSCDX) (NASDAQ: FSTAX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf on behalf of shareholders who purchased
from UBS Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS
PaineWebber, Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds
("UBS Funds") or non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS
Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but
not limited to, (NASDAQ: FDVAX) (NASDAQ: FADAX) (NASDAQ: EPGAX)
(NASDAQ: FEIAX) between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: FEDEX) (NASDAQ: KAUAX) (NASDAQ: TEQIX) (NASDAQ: ANCFX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: FRBSX) (NASDAQ: FKINX) (NASDAQ: TEBIX) (NASDAQ: TEDIX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to
(NASDAQ: FRSGX) (NASDAQ: LAVLX) (NASDAQ: SUWAX) (NASDAQ: PIODX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: GTVLX) (NASDAQ: CSTGX) (NASDAQ: GTAGX) (NASDAQ: AVLFX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to
(NASDAQ: ITHAX) (NASDAQ: PZFVX) (NASDAQ: LAFFX) (NASDAQ: NEWFX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: MSFRX) (NASDAQ: MEIAX) (NASDAQ: OPPAX) (NASDAQ: OPSIX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to,
(NASDAQ: MFEGX) (NASDAQ: MIGFX) (NASDAQ: MITTX) (NASDAQ: MFRFX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to
(NASDAQ: PDINX) (NASDAQ: PEYAX) (NASDAQ: PGRWX) (NASDAQ: POVSX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
UBS FINANCIAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased from UBS
Financial Services, Inc., formerly known as UBS PaineWebber,
Inc., one or more of the UBS proprietary funds ("UBS Funds") or
non-proprietary funds participating in the UBS Revenue Sharing
Program (the "UBS Tier I Fund,") including, but not limited to
(NASDAQ: PINVX) (NASDAQ: PDDXX) (NASDAQ: PNOPX) (NASDAQ: PVOYX)
between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its
affiliated entities. The "UBS Tier I Funds" includes mutual
funds in the following mutual fund families:
(1) AIM
(2) Alliance
(3) American Funds
(4) Columbia
(5) Davis Funds
(6) Dreyfus
(7) Eaton Vance
(8) Federated
(9) Fidelity
(10) Franklin Templeton
(11) John Hancock
(12) Hartford
(13) Lord Abbett
(14) MFS
(15) Oppenheimer
(16) PIMCO
(17) Pioneer
(18) Putnam
(19) Scudder
(20) UBS Global Asset Management
(21) Van Kampen
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. The complaint
also alleges that unbeknownst to investors, defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that they had
engaged in a scheme to aggressively push UBS sales personnel to
steer clients into purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I
Funds (collectively, "Shelf Space Funds") that provided
financial incentives and rewards to UBS and its personnel based
on sales. The complaint also alleges that Defendants'
undisclosed sales practices created an insurmountable conflict
of interest by providing substantial monetary incentives to sell
Shelf-Space Funds to their clients, even though such investments
were not in the clients' best interest. The complaint also
alleges that UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of people who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The complaint also alleges that the investment
advisors financed these arrangements by illegally charging
excessive and improper fees to the fund that should have been
invested in the underlying portfolio and that in doing so, they
breached their fiduciary duties to investors under the
Investment Company Act and state law and decreased shareholders'
investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or resource management accounts. 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 St.,
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 * * *