/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051019.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 19, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 207 Headlines ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part AUSTRALIA: Pedophile Victims Reject Church's Compensation Offer BAROODY IMPORTS: Recalls Dried Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites BURLINGTON COAT: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit CALIFORNIA: Pontiff Says Settlements Are Crucial For Recognition CALIFORNIA: Kurds Launch Suit V. Saddam Hussein, "Chemical Ali" CARGILL INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Water Pollution Lawsuit CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Passengers File Consumer Fraud Suit in FL CARNIVAL CORPORATION: FL Court Dismisses Overtime Wage Lawsuit DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Declares EIFS Lawsuit Settlement Final FLORIDA: Thousands Stake Claim to Cemetery Deal, Attorney Says GENCORP INC.: Continues To Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits HOME MADE BRANDS: Recalls Tuna Salads For Listeria Contamination LES ENTERPRISES: Recalls 221 Buses Due to FMVSS221 Noncompliance LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Expedited Proceedings Nixed in DE Lawsuit LOUISIANA: Local Charities Receive $50,000 From MEDCO Settlement MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit MORGAN STANLEY: Asks CA Court To Strike Portions of Wage Lawsuit MORGAN STANLEY: NJ, NY Employees Launch Wage, Hour Litigation MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal NATION OF ISLAM: Leader Comments on Katrina Response, Urges Suit PALM INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement PALM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suits V. Treo 600, 650 PDAs RBS GLOBAL: Named as Third-Party Defendant in Contamination Suit REFCO INC.: Prominent Attorney To Initiate Suit For Investor Fraud REWARDS NETWORK: Judge Grants Certification To Restaurants' Suit RMS TITANIC: FL Court Certifies Investors Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit SPECTRUM SETTLEMENT: Teams With Save the Children to Raise $7.5M TALARIAN CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement TASER INTERNATIONAL: Former IL Police Chief Disputes Suit Claims TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Settlement UNITED KINGDOM: U.S.-Style Legal Fees Could Spark More Lawsuits UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI: Agreement Reached in 1998 Tuition Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ANDRX CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NJ Fraud Suit IMMUCOR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA REFCO INC.: Roy Jacobs & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY TAG-IT PACIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA TAG-IT PACIFIC: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA WORLD HEALTH: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA ********* ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Dismisses Stock Suit in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court in Pennsylvania dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed against Adelphia Communications Corporation's former officers and directors, its former auditors, lawyers, and financial institutions who worked with the Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws. Beginning on April 2, 2002, various groups of plaintiffs filed more than 30 class action complaints, purportedly on behalf of certain of the Company's shareholders and bondholders or classes thereof in federal court in Pennsylvania. Several non-class action lawsuits were brought on behalf of individuals or small groups of security holders in federal courts in Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina and New Jersey, and in state courts in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Texas. Seven derivative suits were also filed in federal and state courts in Pennsylvania, and four derivative suits were filed in state court in Delaware. On May 6, 2002, a notice and proposed order of dismissal without prejudice was filed by the plaintiff in one of these four Delaware derivative actions. The remaining three Delaware derivative actions were consolidated on May 22, 2002. On February 10, 2004, the parties stipulated and agreed to the dismissal of these consolidated actions with prejudice. The complaints, which named as defendants the Company, certain former officers and directors of the Company and, in some cases, the Company's former auditors, lawyers, as well as financial institutions who worked with the Company, generally allege that, among other improper statements and omissions, defendants misled investors regarding the Company's liabilities and earnings in the Company's public filings. The majority of these actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. Certain bondholder actions assert claims for violation of Section 11 and/or Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Certain of the state court actions allege various state law claims. On July 23, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) issued an order transferring numerous civil actions to the District Court for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial proceedings (the "MDL Proceedings"). On September 15, 2003, proposed lead plaintiffs and proposed co-lead counsel in the consolidated class action were appointed in the MDL Proceedings. On December 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. Motions to dismiss have been filed by various defendants. On May 27, 2005 and August 16, 2005, the District Court granted in part and denied in part some of the pending motions and provided the plaintiffs limited ability to re-plead the dismissed claims. As a result of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and the protections of the automatic stay, the Company is not named as a defendant in the amended complaint, but is a non-party. The consolidated class action complaint seeks monetary damages of an unspecified amount, rescission and reasonable costs and expenses and such other and future relief as the court may deem just and proper. The individual actions against the Company also seek damages of an unspecified amount. AUSTRALIA: Pedophile Victims Reject Church's Compensation Offer --------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 37 victims of pedophile Adelaide church leader Robert Brandenburg formally rejected an offer of compensation from the Anglican Church, The ABC Regional Online reports. The victims filed a class action, which was later settled between $25,000 and $75,000 depending on their level of suffering. Now that victims have responded, attorney Peter Humphries told ABC Regional Online that talks will continue with the church and matters would be prepared for trial. He also told ABC Regional Online, "They (victims) have all rejected the suggested compensation scheme. Some of them have expressed quite severe disappointment, frustration and the like that in varying terms they've all been explicit that they're not attracted to the offer." BAROODY IMPORTS: Recalls Dried Apricots For Undeclared Sulfites --------------------------------------------------------------- Baroody Imports, Inc., 1500 B Main Ave., Clifton, NJ, 07011 is recalling Baroody Dried Apricots because it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Baroody Dried Apricots, 400 gr. clear plastic containers, un-coded, were sold in New York and New Jersey. The recall was initiated after routine sampling of the product by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors and subsequent analysis by Department food laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Baroody Dried Apricots in packages that did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving as been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Baroody Dried Apricots should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-973-340-4832. BURLINGTON COAT: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation reached a settlement for the class action filed against it in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, styled "Lewis v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation." The plaintiff, a former employee, filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and certain current and former management-level employees at the Company's California stores. The plaintiff alleges that the Company violated a California state law by classifying these employees as "exempt" managerial/executive employees for purposes of the payment of overtime compensation and failing to pay them the overtime premium required for non-exempt employees. The lawsuit also claims that the Company failed to provide employees with meal and rest periods required under California law. In his complaint, the plaintiff sought certification as a class, damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive and declaratory relief, and costs of litigation, including attorney fees. The Company filed an answer denying the claims and asserting various affirmative defenses on December 22, 2004. On July 22, 2005, the Company entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle this claim. The settlement is subject to court approval. CALIFORNIA: Pontiff Says Settlements Are Crucial For Recognition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two recent insurance settlements for descendants of Armenians killed 90 years ago by the Turkish Ottoman Empire are a first step toward international recognition that the carnage was an act of genocide, according to the Armenian pontiff Catholicos Aram I, The Associated Press reports. In a recent interview with The Associated Press, the Armenian pontiff, who is on a two-week visit to Southern California, home to the largest Armenian community outside the southwestern Asian country, said that the financial settlements could help prod Turkey and Turkish allies to declare the killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians in eastern Turkey as an act of genocide. He specifically pointed out, "The settlements will be helpful in raising awareness. If we are committed to preventing future genocide in the world, the world must recognize the genocide that has happened." Though Turkey acknowledges that large numbers of Armenians died between 1915 and 1923, the county maintains that the totals have been exaggerated and that the deaths occurred in the civil unrest during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Currently, as it seeks membership in the European Union, Turkey is facing increasing pressure to fully acknowledge the event. France, Russia and many other countries have declared the killings as an act of genocide, but Turkish allies including the United States and neighboring Azerbaijan have not. The settlement mentioned by Aram I includes a recent one by French life insurance company, AXA, wherein it agreed to pay $17 million to settle a class action lawsuit filed by descendants of Armenians killed, splitting the money between about 5,000 people and charities. That settlement came after New York Life Insurance Co. and heirs of some 2,400 policyholders agreed last year to a $20 million settlement, believed to be the first in connection with the disputed event. Aram I's trip is his third to California since being elected in 1995 as head of the Great House of Cilicia, the Lebanon-based branch of the Armenian Apostolic Church. CALIFORNIA: Kurds Launch Suit V. Saddam Hussein, "Chemical Ali" --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed in a San Diego federal court is seeking compensation for Kurds that were subjected to genocidal attacks in Iraq in the 1980s, The North County Times reports. Hassen Ali Abdullah and Khalida Ali, identified in the lawsuit as San Diego County residents who were among the Kurds living in northern Iraq from 1987 to 1989, are asking the court to award an unspecified amount of money in damages from the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and one of his former senior general's known as "Chemical Ali," Al Hassan al-Majid. The suit states that some of the money would be used to establish a fund to pay the costs of treating the health effects from being exposed to chemical, radiological and biological weapons and to monitor the medical condition of affected Kurds in the future. Reached by phone at his El Cajon home recently, Hassen Ali Abdullah declined to be interviewed by The North County Times, saying that he does not speak English well and did not want any misunderstandings. His attorney, Debra Scheufler, who represents Khalida Ali as well, told The North County Times that she and other attorneys working on the case are not providing any more information beyond what is contained in eight-page lawsuit filed on October 14 in U.S. District Court in San Diego. The suit is styled, "Abdullah, et al v. Hassan, et al, Case No. 05-CV-1948," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, under Judge Roger T. Benitez with referral to Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. Representing Plaintiff/s is Debra Cyrene Scheufler of The Law Office of Debra C. Scheufler, 1901 First Ave., Suite 132, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 557-0434 or (619) 557-0439. CARGILL INC.: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Water Pollution Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cargill Inc. asked the Circuit Court Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida to dismiss the class action filed against it, arising out of the sudden release of phosphoric acid process wastewater from the Riverview, Florida Gypstack. The suit contains four counts, including statutory strict liability, common law strict liability, common law public nuisance, and negligence. The strict liability counts relate to the discharge of pollutants or hazardous substances. Plaintiffs seek class certification and an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of a class of unknown size comprising "all fishermen and those persons engaged in the commercial catch and sale of fish, bait, and related products in the Tampa Bay area who lost income and suffered damages because of the pollution, contamination and discharge of hazardous substances by the defendant." CARNIVAL CORPORATION: Passengers File Consumer Fraud Suit in FL --------------------------------------------------------------- Carnival Corporation faces a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a violation of The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The suit relates to profits made by Carnival Cruise Lines on shore excursions provided by third party shore excursion operators. The suit seeks certification as a class action on behalf of all Carnival Cruise Line passengers from May 5, 2001 to the present who have taken shore excursions, and seeks payment of damages and injunctive relief. CARNIVAL CORPORATION: FL Court Dismisses Overtime Wage Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami dismissed the lawsuit filed against Carnival Corporation on behalf of some current and former crewmembers alleging that Carnival Cruise Lines failed to pay the plaintiffs' overtime and minimum wages. The suit seeks as much as millions of dollars in back pay, penalty wages and interest for current and former crewmembers. The suit alleges that the crewmembers typically worked 12- and 14-hour days, but were not paid for work in excess of 10 hours a day or 70 hours per week. The six crew members from Nicaragua, Romania, Bulgaria and India work onboard four Carnival Cruise Lines ships as waiters, galley stewards and cabin attendants, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April 11,2005) reports. On August 5, 2005, the Court dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on August 18, 2005, which is currently pending. DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Declares EIFS Lawsuit Settlement Final --------------------------------------------------------------- The Jefferson County State Court in Tennessee dismissed all appeals related to the settlement of the class action filed against Dryvit Systems, Inc. over its exterior insulated finish systems (EIFS) products, making the settlement final. The Company was initially named in numerous EIFS-related lawsuits. As of February 28, 2005, the Company was a defendant or co-defendant in approximately 200 single family residential EIFS cases, the majority of which are pending in the southeastern region of the country. The Company is also defending EIFS lawsuits involving commercial structures, townhouses and condominiums. The vast majority of the Company's EIFS lawsuits seek monetary relief for water intrusion related property damages, although some claims in certain lawsuits allege personal injuries from exposure to mold. The Company is a defendant in an attempted state class action filed on November 14, 2000 in Jefferson County, Tennessee styled "Bobby R. Posey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc." (formerly styled "William J. Humphrey, et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.") (Case No. 17,715-IV). A preliminary approval order was entered on April 8, 2002 in the "Posey" case for a proposed nationwide class action settlement covering, "All Persons who, as of June 5, 2002, own a one- or two-family residential dwelling or townhouse in any State other than North Carolina clad, in whole or in part, with Dryvit EIFS installed after January 1, 1989, except persons who prior to June 5, 2002, have settled with the Company, providing a release of claims relating to Dryvit EIFS; or have not obtained a judgment against Settling Defendant for a Dryvit EIFS claim, or had a judgment entered against them on such a claim in Settling Defendants' favor; and any employees of Dryvit." Nationwide notice to all eligible class members began on or about June 13, 2002. Any person who wished to be excluded from the "Posey" settlement was provided an opportunity to individually "opt out" and thus not be bound by the final Posey order. A fairness hearing was held to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement was entered on January 14, 2003. Notices of appeal were filed by persons seeking to challenge certain provisions of the proposed settlement including challenging the trial court's denial of certain builders and one homeowner's right to appear at the fairness hearing and intervene in the underlying action. On March 22, 2004, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the homeowner's appeal but ruled that the builders should be allowed to intervene to determine their rights and obligations, if any, under the proposed national settlement. During the pendency of the foregoing issues, the court allowed claims to be processed under the proposed Posey settlement. In mid-September 2004 the court entered a stay order which effectively suspended any further processing of claims pending the outcome of the next court hearing. The stay was lifted on January 4, 2005 and claims processing has resumed. As of March 25, 2005, approximately 7,178 total claims have been filed as of the claim filing deadline. Of these 7,178 claims, approximately 4,306 claims have been rejected or closed for various reasons under the terms of the settlement. An additional 153 claims are under review for potential filing deficiencies. The approximately 2,719 remaining claims are at various stages of review and processing under the terms of the proposed settlement and it is possible that some of these claims will be rejected or closed without payment. As of February 28, 2005, approximately 433 homeowner claims have been paid a total of approximately $4.6 million. Additional payments have and will continue to be made in connection with the ongoing administration of the claims, inspection costs, third party warranties and class counsel attorneys' fees. After a series of appeals challenging various aspects of the proposed "Posey" settlement, on September 15, 2005, a final order was entered dismissing with prejudice all pending appeals. As of August 31, 2005, approximately 7,188 total claims had been filed as of the June 5, 2004 claim filing deadline. Of these 7,188 claims, approximately 4,399 claims have been rejected or closed for various reasons under the terms of the settlement. Approximately 2,001 of the remaining claims are at various stages of review and processing under the terms of the proposed settlement and it is possible that some of these claims will be rejected or closed without payment. As of August 31, 2005, a total of 788 claims have been paid for a total of approximately $7.76 million. Additional payments have and will continue to be made in connection with the ongoing administration of the claims, inspection costs, third party warranties and class counsel attorneys' fees under the terms of the settlement agreement. FLORIDA: Thousands Stake Claim to Cemetery Deal, Attorney Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 9,000 people are staking a claim to a $100 million settlement against two Menorah Gardens cemeteries accused of desecrating graves and mishandling burials, according to an attorney involved in the case, The Palm Beach Post reports. Ervin Gonzalez, a lawyer who sued Menorah Gardens, told The Palm Beach Post that families had until the end of September to make claims, and lawyers guessed that 5,000 to 30,000 families would do so. He also said that the claimants would share about $40 million, the amount remaining after payments to lawyers, whistle-blowers and about a dozen families who sued separately. Other attorneys though told The Palm Beach Post that claimants would receive a wide range of compensation based on their individual cases. He told The Palm Beach Post that an examiner assigned to the case as a result of the December 2003 settlement will inspect the sites at the two cemeteries, and eligible claims will be submitted to the court. Wrongdoing allegations against the Menorah Gardens cemeteries first surfaced in December 2001. The cemeteries in Broward and Palm Beach counties, owned by the world's largest funeral services company, had been accused of burying people in the wrong places, breaking open vaults to squeeze in other remains and, in some instances, tossing bones into the woods. The parent company, Houston-based Service Corporation International, maintains that local managers were to blame for mishandling burials and the company acted quickly in response to the allegations. A panel composed of local rabbis, cemetery specialists and engineers has been working with the examiner and the attorney general's office to make sure the affected plots were repaired. Mr. Gonzalez told The Palm Beach Post that a religious reconsecration of the two predominantly Jewish cemeteries is expected around mid-2006. Seventy-two families who filed a separate suit in April 2002 in Palm Beach County and opted out of the Broward County class action settled in October 2004. GENCORP INC.: Continues To Face Vinyl Chloride Toxic Tort Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Gencorp, Inc. continues to face toxic tort suits, involving alleged exposure to vinyl chloride (VC), which is now listed as a known carcinogen by several governmental agencies. Between the early 1950s and 1985, the Company produced polyvinyl chloride (PVC) resin at its former Ashtabula, Ohio facility. PVC is one of the most common forms of plastic currently on the market. VC is a building block compound of PVC. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has strictly regulated workplace exposure to VC since 1974. Since the mid-1990s, the Company has been named in 46 toxic tort cases involving alleged exposure to VC. With the exception of two cases brought by families of former Ashtabula employees, the Company is alleged to be a "supplier/manufacturer" of PVC and/or a civil co-conspirator with other VC and PVC manufacturers. Plaintiffs generally allege that the Company suppressed information about the carcinogenic risk of VC to industry workers, and placed VC or PVC into commerce without sufficient warnings. A few of these cases allege VC exposure through various aerosol consumer products, in that VC had been used as an aerosol propellant during the 1960s. Defendants in these "aerosol" cases include numerous consumer product manufacturers, as well as the more than 30 chemical manufacturers. The Company used VC internally, but never supplied VC for aerosol or any other use. Of the total 47 cases that have been filed, 23 have been settled or dismissed on terms favorable to the Company, including the cases where the Company was the employer. An additional eight cases have been dismissed but such cases may be re-filed in different jurisdictions. The 16 pending cases involve employees at VC or PVC facilities owned or operated by others, or allege aerosol exposure. One of the pending cases is a class action seeking a medical monitoring program for former employees at a PVC facility in New Jersey. The complaints in each of these cases assert that the Company's involvement in the alleged conspiracy stems from the Company's membership in trade associations. HOME MADE BRANDS: Recalls Tuna Salads For Listeria Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Home Made Brand Foods Inc., 2 Opportunity Way, Newburyport, MA 01950 is recalling Classic Tuna Salad, expiration date 10/16/05, due to Listeria contamination. Listeria is a common organism found in nature. It can cause serious complications for pregnant women, such as stillbirth. Other problems can manifest in people with compromised immune systems. Listeria can also cause serious flu-like symptoms in healthy individuals. The problem was discovered after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel found the product to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes. As a result of the above findings, Home Made Brand Foods Inc. is voluntarily recalling all tuna salad products with expiration dates of 10/16/05 - 11/07/05. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Classic Tuna Salad should not consume it, but should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at (978) 462-3663 Ext. 327. LES ENTERPRISES: Recalls 221 Buses Due to FMVSS221 Noncompliance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Les Enterprises M.CORBEIL in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 245 units of 2004 CORBEIL / MINIBUS school buses due to crash hazard. According to the company, certain of the buses manufactured between April 26 and May 21, 2004, an inadequate quantity of Magnolia Green/Epoxy Glue was used to seal the ceiling joints, which fails to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. In the event of a vehicle crash, the longitudinal roof joint could have less strength as required by FMVSS221, increasing the risk of injury. As a remedy, Corbeil will notify its customers and repair the buses by adding additional epoxy glue and screws to enforce the ceiling joints free of charge. For more details, contact Corbeil, Phone: 450-439-3577 OR the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Expedited Proceedings Nixed in DE Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings in the class action filed against Liberate Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Reverse/Forward Stock Split proposed by the Company. On September 19, 2005, Leslie J. Lee filed the suit on behalf of a putative class of all stockholders owning fewer than 250,000 shares of Company common stock. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Reverse/Forward Stock Split, declaratory relief, rescission of the Reverse/Forward Stock Split (if necessary), rescissory and/or compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and expenses. On September 19, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction. On September 27, 2005, the Company filed a letter in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings. On October 6, 2005, the court heard oral argument on the motion and, at the conclusion of the argument, denied plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings and declined to schedule a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. LOUISIANA: Local Charities Receive $50,000 From MEDCO Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- State Attorney General Charles Foti recently presented a $50,000 check to the Northwest Louisiana Interfaith Pharmacy that came from a settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against MEDCO Health Solutions, The Shreveport Times reports. In addition to the pharmacy, Mr. Foti will also be presenting a similar check to the Martin Luther King Health Center on Sprague Street in Shreveport. More than 20 states alleged that MEDCO, the world's largest pharmaceutical benefits company, encouraged prescribers to switch patients to different drugs, but did not pass the savings on to the patients or their health plans. Louisiana's share of the settlement was $526,765, which Mr. Foti is distributing to charities that help the poor, elderly and disabled access medication they could not otherwise afford. Mr. Foti said as he handed out the money, "In these times of adversity, the free clinics have risen to the occasion, and nowhere is that more spectacular than in Shreveport." At receiving the check, the pharmacy's Executive Director, Janet Martin, said, "It's overwhelming," adding, "I had no idea -- I wasn't expecting more than $10,000." Ms. Martin told The Shreveport Times that the money is particularly helpful now, since the two hurricanes hit Louisiana, the number of clients has almost doubled. According to her, for every dollar the pharmacy takes in they can provide $6 in medication to clients. "Louisiana is getting a bargain," she said. MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley reached an agreement in principle to resolve the class action filed against it and other financial services firms in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that certain present and former employees in California are entitled to overtime pay and other wages and that certain deductions from employees compensation are improper under state law. The suit, filed on July 12, 2004 and captioned "Garett v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., and Morgan Stanley DW Inc.," was filed in California Superior Court in San Diego. On September 14, 2004, defendants filed their answer, and on September 15, 2004, defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On July 18, 2005, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in that court. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and other relief on behalf of certain present and former employees in California. On September 20, 2005, the Company entered into an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, which agreement is, among other things, subject to court approval. MORGAN STANLEY: Asks CA Court To Strike Portions of Wage Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. asked the California Superior Court in Los Angeles to strike portions of the first amended class action filed against it, styled "Taylor v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co." The suit alleges that certain present and former employees in California and nationwide are entitled to reimbursement for expenses and payment of outstanding compensation. On May 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint that added Morgan Stanley DW Inc. as a defendant and modified the earlier allegations. On June 13, 2005, defendants filed a demurrer and request to strike portions of the first amended complaint. MORGAN STANLEY: NJ, NY Employees Launch Wage, Hour Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley faces wage and hour complaints in New Jersey and New York courts, filed on behalf of its current and former employees in the two states. On September 1, 2005, a purported class action, captioned "Steinberg v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.," was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and other relief on behalf of certain present and former employees in New Jersey. On September 9, 2005, a purported class action, captioned "Gasman v. Morgan Stanley," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks damages and other relief on behalf of certain present and former employees in New York. On September 23, 2005, a purported class action, captioned, "Roles v. Morgan Stanley et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint seeks damages and other relief on behalf of certain present and former employees in New York and nationwide. MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Reverses Antitrust Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the class action filed against Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse First Boston LLC (CSFB LLC), Donald Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation (DLJSC) and other brokerage firms, styled "In re Initial Public Offering Antitrust Litigation." Since November 1998, several lawsuits have been filed, alleging that the defendant broker-dealers conspired to fix the "fee" paid for underwriting certain IPO securities by setting the underwriters' fee or "spread" at 7%, in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The lawsuits purport to be class actions brought on behalf of classes of persons and entities that purchased and issued securities in those initial public offerings (IPOs). In February 1999, the district court consolidated the various cases in a single litigation, captioned "In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation." On April 29, 1999, the defendant underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law. Meanwhile, beginning in August 2000, several other complaints were filed on behalf of issuers of stock in IPOs containing the same allegations of an industry-wide conspiracy to fix IPO underwriting fees. By order, dated April 10, 2001, the district court consolidated the issuer complaints. On February 14, 2001, the district court dismissed the purchaser plaintiffs' claims on the ground that those plaintiffs lacked legal standing to assert antitrust claims. By order, dated December 13, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the action to the district court for consideration of the additional grounds for dismissal asserted in the motion to dismiss. On July 6, 2001, the issuer plaintiffs filed a consolidated issuer complaint, naming numerous defendants, including CSFB LLC and Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc., under the caption "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation." On September 28, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated issuer complaint. On September 25, 2002, the district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and defendants sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal of that decision. On January 17, 2003, the district court issued an order deferring a ruling on the defendants' motion until the district court reached a decision, upon remand, of the motion to dismiss the consolidated purchaser complaint. On March 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of implied immunity in both the consolidated issuer and consolidated purchaser cases. The district court denied that motion in an order, dated June 26, 2003. In September 2004, the plaintiffs in both the consolidated issuer and consolidated purchaser cases filed motions for class certification. In September 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). In November 2004, the Company asked the court to dismiss the suit. In March 2005, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. In June 2005 plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The purchaser litigation is styled "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, case no. 1:01-cv-02014-WHP," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William H. Pauley III. Representing the plaintiffs is Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600. NATION OF ISLAM: Leader Comments on Katrina Response, Urges Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a speech to mark the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March, the leader of Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan told followers gathered at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., that black people should unite and file a class action lawsuit for the "criminal neglect" perpetrated by the U.S. government during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, The NewsMax.com reports. Citing that the four hurricanes that struck Florida last year didn't result in anything like the 1,000-plus storm deaths in New Orleans, Mr. Farrakhan asked the crowd at his Millions More March: "What happened to the federal government's response to the suffering victims of Katrina?" The seventy-two year old black leader also told the gathered crowd, "I believe that we can charge the government with criminal neglect of the people of New Orleans." He added, "I believe that if we can't sue the federal government, we need to look into it - we can sue Homeland Security and FEMA for criminal neglect. I think we need to look into a class action suit on behalf of the citizens of New Orleans who have lost everything." In addition to commenting on the U.S. government's response during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, Mr. Farrakhan urged people of color in America to form their own quasi-governmental ministries to see that their needs are addressed, and reiterated his call for slavery reparations to make amends for the U.S.'s "wickedness." He told the crowd, "We want America to acknowledge her wickedness to the indigenous peoples of this hemisphere. Acknowledge the wickedness of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade. Acknowledge what you did in robbing our fathers of their names, their language, their culture, their religion, their God and turning them upside down and inside out." He also said that African-Americans shouldn't pay taxes unless they're treated more justly by the government, explaining: "If you're going to take our tax dollars then we demand of you the same justice that you give white people. We demand it, we deserve it - or we shut it down." PALM INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Palm, Inc., certain of the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and several of its officers, styled "In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 5613." The suit asserts that the prospectus from Palm's March 2, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering. The suit alleges claims against the Company and the officers under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The suit also alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Similar complaints were filed against Handspring in August and September 2001 in regard to Handspring's June 2000 initial public offering. Other actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other companies. All of these various consolidated cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92." An amended consolidated complaint was filed in April 2002. The claims against the individual defendants have been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. Special committees of both Palm's and Handspring's respective Boards of Directors recently approved a tentative settlement proposal from plaintiffs, which includes a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims against the issuers, including palmOne and Handspring, may have against the underwriters. There is no guarantee that the settlement will become final however, as it is subject to a number of conditions, including Court approval. The suit is styled "In re Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 5613," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com PALM INC.: CA Consumers File Fraud Suits V. Treo 600, 650 PDAs -------------------------------------------------------------- Palm, Inc. faces five consumer class actions filed in California state and federal courts, on behalf of all purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products In September 2005, four purported consumer class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, namely: (1) Moya v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (2) Berliner v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (3) Loew v. Palm, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (4) Palza v. Palm, filed in the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County All four complaints allege in substance that the Company made false or misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600 and 650 products in violation of various California laws and breached its warranty of these products. The complaints seek unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief. In September 2005, a purported consumer class action lawsuit entitled "Gans v. Palm" was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product. The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California laws, the Company made false or misleading statements regarding automatic email delivery to the Treo 650 product. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief. RBS GLOBAL: Named as Third-Party Defendant in Contamination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- RBS Global, Inc. was named as a third-party defendant in two separate class action suits for alleged groundwater contamination in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled "Teresa and Al LeClercq et al v. Lockformer et al v. Arrow Gear Company et al." and "Mejdrech et al v. Met-Coil Systems/The Lockformer Company v. Arrow Gear Company et al." The original defendant, Lockformer Company, has settled with the LeClercq plaintiffs for $10 million and with the Mejdrech plaintiffs for $12.5 million. Lockformer is now seeking contribution under various theories of alleged groundwater contamination in Lisle, Illinois from at least ten other companies, including the Company. The contribution claims for both suits have been combined into one suit. The outcome of this litigation cannot presently be determined; however, the Company believes it has not contributed to the groundwater contamination and have meritorious defenses to the suit, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. REFCO INC.: Prominent Attorney To Initiate Suit For Investor Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Underwriters of Refco Inc.'s initial public offering will be sued in the next few months as investors seek compensation for the meltdown of the futures and commodities brokerage, a prominent class action attorney said, Reuters reports. Just recently several class action lawsuits were filed against Refco on behalf of shareholders who watched their stock plummet more than 70 percent as chief executive Phillip Bennett was charged with securities fraud. However, Melvyn Weiss, senior partner at Milberg Weiss in New York, told Reuters in a telephone interview that the banks who underwrote Refco's IPO two moths ago, including Bank of America's Banc of America Securities, Credit Suisse Group's Credit Suisse First Boston, and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are liable for firm's collapse just months after its $583 million float. He also told Reuters, "They have certain defenses, but at least in this situation, I feel very confident that they have tremendous exposure. I've been following these cases for 40-some odd years, and I don't think I've ever seen a public offering unravel as quickly as this one." Milberg Weiss is one of at least a dozen firms that launched lawsuits against Refco after the broker revealed a week ago that Mr. Bennett owned a company owing Refco some $430 million and its financial statements could no longer be relied upon. The law firms are jockeying for the position of lead plaintiff, which will allow them to steer the case. Mr. Weiss reiterates that whether or not Milberg Weiss becomes the lead plaintiff, underwriters will be added to the lawsuit against Refco. He even told Reuters, "If no one does it, I will," adding that the underwriters should have done a better job of completing their due diligence. Court records show that last August, Refco said in its offering prospectus that its auditors had found two significant deficiencies in the company's internal controls, including a lack of a formalized procedure for closing its books. Investors shrugged off these warnings, and Refco's shares rose 25 percent on their first day of trading after being priced at $22 each. The company's shares plummeted to $7.90 before trading of its shares was suspended recently. "Given that you had all of these red flags, it would seem to me that underwriters had a heightened duty to investigate," Mr. Weiss told Reuters. Currently, Refco's broker-dealer and prime brokerage business are no longer open for business, but the company is trying to sell its futures unit. REWARDS NETWORK: Judge Grants Certification To Restaurants' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by three California restaurants against Rewards Network Inc., which is accused of violating California's usury laws, The Crain's Chicago Business reports. Filed in 2004 at U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the suit alleges that the Chicago-based marketing firm runs a "loan-sharking operation" disguised as a dining loyalty program. The lawsuit challenges Rewards Network's "Cash Advance" program, in which the company buys credits for discounted meals from restaurants that participate in the program. Rewards Network members then cash in the credits when they dine at the restaurants. The lawsuit further alleges that the funds received by the restaurants are actually loans with annual interest rates exceeding 100% in some cases. California law prohibits non-licensed lenders from charging more than 10% a year. A lawyer for the restaurants estimated that the October 11 ruling to certify the case as a class action could add about 3,000 restaurants to the complaint and result in damages exceeding $100 million. Despite the ruling, Rewards Network, whose largest shareholder is billionaire financier Sam Zell, stated in a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it, "believes that the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. The ultimate cost to the Corporation from this action is not possible to predict and may not be determined for a number of years." The suit is styled, "Bistro Executive Inc et al v. Rewards Network Inc et al, Case No. 2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Daniel L. Brockett, Kenneth R. Chiate, James E. Doroshow, John S. Purcell, and Chandra L. Gooding of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543, Phone: 213-443-3000 or 213-624-7707, Fax: 213-443-3100 or 213-624-0643; and Anat Levy of Anat Levy and Associates, 8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Phone: 310-358-3138, E-mail: alevy96@aol.com. Representing the Defendant/s are: Daniel A. Rozansky and Julia B. Strickland of Stroock Stroock & Lavan, 2029 Century Park E, 18th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086, Phone: 310-556-5800, Fax: 310-556-5959, E-mail: lacalendar@stroock.com. RMS TITANIC: FL Court Certifies Investors Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted class certification to the lawsuit filed against RMS Titanic, Inc. (now known as Premier Exhibitions, Inc.), seeking to recover damages to the plaintiffs and to all minority shareholders allegedly caused by alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by some of the Company's directors and officers in connection with an alleged hostile takeover in November 1999. David Shuttle and Barbara Shuttle filed the suit on March 22, 2004. On March 1, 2005, the court issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion to certify this matter as a class action. The class is defined as all persons who owned shares of RMS Titanic, Inc. as of November 26, 1999 but who were not members of the group of shareholders who voted to remove previous officers and directors from their positions with the company. The suit is styled "Shuttle, et al v. Geller, et al, case no. 8:03-cv-02515-RAL," filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Richard A. Lazzara. Representing the Company are Victor Stephen Cohen and William J. Schifino, Jr. of Williams, Schifino, Mangione & Steady, P.A., One Tampa City Ctr., Suite 2600, 201 N. Franklin St., P.O. Box 380, Tampa, FL 33601, Phone: 813/221-2626, ext 237 Fax: 813/221-7335, E-mail: scohen@wsmslaw.com or wschifino@wsmslaw.com. Representing the plaintiffs are Richard M. Bales, Jr. of Bales & Sommers, PA, 601 Brickell Key Drive Suite 702, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305/372-1200, Fax: 305-372-9008, E-mail: rbalesjr@attglobal.net; and Steven G. Storch of Storch, Amini & Munves, P.C., 2 Grand Central Tower, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212/490-4100, E-mail: sstorch@samlegal.com. SPECTRUM SETTLEMENT: Teams With Save the Children to Raise $7.5M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Settlement Recovery, LLC, a San Francisco-based company that helps eligible class members recover their share of class action settlements, is teaming up with Save the Children with a goal of raising $7.5 million. Under the Spectrum program, businesses can donate their refunds from the $3 billion VISA/MasterCard class action settlement to Save the Children. The donations will assist Save the Children's overall global emergency relief response to tragedies such as the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast Region and the recent earthquake in South Asia, as well as their efforts to combat poverty in rural America. "The Gulf Coast hurricanes and the earthquake in Pakistan are just two examples of catastrophic disruptions that necessitate an extraordinary response from our organization and others," says Charlie MacCormack, President & CEO of Save the Children. "We are excited about working with Spectrum to provide businesses a new way to participate in our relief efforts globally, as well as provide core support to our US programs, which meet the pressing literacy & physical health needs of children in rural America." Save the Children is a not-for-profit charitable, tax-exempt organization dedicated to creating real and lasting change for children in need in the United States and around the world. Donations to Save the Children are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Motivating eligible class members to file claims in class-action settlements is always difficult. On average, only 10% to 20% of eligible claimants file, leaving billions of dollars on the table unclaimed or to be divided among those who do file claims. "We sincerely hope that many companies will file claims and donate their refunds in the VISA/MasterCard case to Save the Children, knowing that they are helping to alleviate suffering and hardship, in this country and around the world," says Howard Yellen, CEO of Spectrum. "This is an opportunity for businesses to do well by doing good." In addition to making a cash donation, Spectrum is reducing its processing fee for VISA/MasterCard settlement claims donated to Save the Children. The VISA/MasterCard settlement is the nation's largest commercial class action settlement to date. Over 5 million businesses are eligible for a refund. The entire $3 billion fund will be distributed among only those who file a claim. Businesses that accepted VISA or MasterCard credit and debit cards between October 1992 and June 2003 are eligible to a share of the settlement money. The settlement stems from a class action suit that alleged the charge card companies violated anti-trust laws and overcharged on transaction processing fees. In order to donate refunds to Save the Children under the program, eligible businesses must file a settlement claim through Spectrum. The first deadline for filing claims is November 28. For more details, contact Craig Wolfson of Spectrum Settlement Recovery, Phone: 415-392-5900 ext. 245, Web site: http://www.spectrumsettlement.comor Meredith McWade of Save the Children, Phone: 203-221-4251. TALARIAN CORPORATION: 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 Talarian Corporation, certain of its underwriters, and certain of its former directors and officers. The suit, styled "In re Talarian Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," claims that the purported improper underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration statement for the Company's IPO and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Company securities during the time period from July 20, 2000 to December 6, 2000. A proposal to settle the claims against all of the issuers and individual defendants in the coordinated litigation was conditionally accepted by the Company and given conditional preliminary Court approval. The completion of the settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including final Court approval. Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the action, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters. Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay an amount equal to $1.0 billion less any amounts ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all the cases. The suit is styled "IN RE TALARIAN 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: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com TASER INTERNATIONAL: Former IL Police Chief Disputes Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq: TASR) filed a declaration from Ronald Burge, former Police Chief of the Village of Dolton, Illinois, which disputes the claims made in a class action complaint filed by the Village of Dolton against the Company. The declaration of Ronald Burge, who was the chief of police during the period alleged in the complaint, confirms that: (1) He never received any complaints or negative comments from a Dolton police officer or a citizen of Dolton regarding the lack of safety, alleged danger, or alleged harm caused by the use of a TASER device by a police officer. (2) He never experienced or was ever made aware of any adverse or dangerous effects that were caused by the use of a TASER device. (3) During the period in which the Dolton Police Officers used TASER devices, no injuries or deaths were ever reported that were related to the use of a TASER device. (4) He found TASER devices to be effective and safe law enforcement tools that are beneficial to the efficacy and safety of law officers. (5) At no time did he ever order that the Dolton Police Department suspend its use of TASER devices, nor was he involved in any way with the decision to suspend the use of TASER devices on May 19, 2005 and no explanation was ever given. (6) Regarding the subject of the performance and utility of TASER devices, he has only ever expressed that he believed that TASER devices are effective law enforcement tools. The declaration of Chief Burge further confirms that many of the allegations made in the complaint are false. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Chief Burge ordered the suspension of TASER devices, but Chief Burge affirms in his declaration that he supports the use of TASER devices and did not suspend their use. Further, he states, "the allegation that TASER's representations that TASER devices were safe and non-lethal 'were false and misleading when made' is false in that, based on my personal knowledge and experience, the TASER devices used by the Dolton Police Department were safe and effective and did not cause any lethal injuries." He further confirms that the allegation that the TASER devices "cause serious physical injury and death" is false and affirms that the TASER devices used by the Dolton Police Department were safe and effective and did not cause any lethal injuries. "TASER International has moved the court for dismissal of this complaint and for sanctions for filing frivolous litigation based in part on the declaration of former Police Chief Ron Burge," said Douglas Klint, General Counsel for TASER International, Inc. "The Chief's declaration raises several serious questions as to the motivations of the mayor in filing this complaint, which blatantly lied about the involvement of the Chief and the police department, and was filed by the same law firm that filed a shareholder class-action suit against TASER International earlier this year," continued Mr. Klint. "It is important to note that this alleged 'class-action' complaint has only one plaintiff, and the leadership of its police department was never involved in the complaint and, in fact, disagreed with the complaint. The experience of the Village of Dolton police department as reported by Chief Burge is consistent with the experience of the vast majority of over 8,000 law enforcement agencies that have found the TASER device is among the safest and most effective use of force tools available to today," concluded Mr. Klint. Chief Burge's declaration is available at http://www.TASER.com/chiefburge.pdf. TIBCO SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA -------------------------------------------------------------- Tibco Software, Inc. and several of its officers face three purported securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs in such actions are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of our common stock from September 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005. The complaints generally allege that the Company made false or misleading statements concerning its operating results, its business and internal controls, and the integration of Staffware and seek unspecified monetary damages. The complaints charge the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled "Lance Siegall, et al. v. Tibco Software, Inc., et al., case no. 05-CV-02146," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 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) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com (5) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against TIBCO Software, Inc., certain of its directors and officers and certain investment bank underwriters. The suit, styled "In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," alleges violations of federal securities laws. This is one of a number of cases challenging underwriting practices in the initial public offerings (IPOs) of more than 300 companies, which have been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." Plaintiffs generally allege that the underwriters engaged in undisclosed and improper underwriting activities, namely the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in exchange for allocations of IPO shares. Plaintiffs also allege that various investment bank securities analysts issued false and misleading analyst reports. The complaint against the Company claims that the purported improper underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration statements for the Company's IPO and secondary public offering and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Company securities or sold put options during the time period from July 13, 1999 to December 6, 2000. A proposal to settle the claims against all of the issuers and individual defendants in the coordinated litigation was conditionally accepted by the Company and given conditional preliminary Court approval. The completion of the settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including final Court approval. Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the action, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters. Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay an amount equal to $1.0 billion less any amounts ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in all the cases. The suit is styled "IN RE TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC. 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: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs 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 TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., two of its current and former officers and directors, as well as the managing underwriters in its initial public offering. The lawsuit, which is part of a consolidated action that includes over 300 similar actions, is captioned "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Brian Levey vs. TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 01 CV 10976." The principal allegation in the lawsuit is that the defendants participated in a scheme to manipulate the initial public offering and subsequent market price of the Company's stock by knowingly assisting the underwriters' requirement that certain of their customers had to purchase stock in a specific initial public offering as a condition to being allocated shares in the initial public offerings of other companies. The purported plaintiff class for the lawsuit is comprised of all persons who purchased Company stock from March 17, 2000 through December 6, 2000. The suit seeks rescission of the purchase prices paid by purchasers of shares of Company common stock. On September 10, 2002, the Company's counsel and counsel for plaintiffs entered into an agreement pursuant to which the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, the Company's former and current officers and directors from the lawsuit. In May 2003, a memorandum of understanding was executed by counsel for plaintiffs, issuer-defendants and their insurers setting forth terms of a settlement that would result in the termination of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the issuer-defendants and individual defendants named in the lawsuit. In August 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved the settlement terms described in the memorandum of understanding. In May 2004, the Company signed a settlement agreement on behalf of itself and its current and former directors and officers with the plaintiffs. This settlement agreement formalizes the previously approved terms of the memorandum of understanding and, subject to certain conditions, provides for the complete dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims against the Company and its current and former directors and officers. Any direct financial impact of the settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. The settlement is subject to numerous conditions, including final approval by the court. There can be no assurance that such conditions will be met or that the court will approve the terms of the settlement agreement. If the court rejects the settlement agreement, in whole or in part, or the settlement does not occur for any other reason and the litigation against the Company continues, the Company intends to defend this action vigorously, and to the extent necessary, to seek indemnification and/or contribution from the underwriters in its initial public offering pursuant to its underwriting agreement with the underwriters. On August 31, 2005, the court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement terms. The settlement remains subject to numerous conditions, including final approval by the court. There can be no assurance that such conditions will be met. If the court rejects the settlement agreement, in whole or in part, or the settlement does not occur for any other reason and the litigation against the Company continues, it intends to defend this action vigorously, and to the extent necessary, to seek indemnification and/or contribution from the underwriters in its initial public offering pursuant to its underwriting agreement with the underwriters. However, there can be no assurance that indemnification or contribution will be available to the Company or enforceable against the underwriters. The suit is styled "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Brian Levey vs. TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 01 CV 10976," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com UNITED KINGDOM: U.S.-Style Legal Fees Could Spark More Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- British businesses could face a big rise in class action lawsuits if the Government adopts recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council in a report on improving access to justice, The Telegraph.co.uk reports. The council, which is chaired by Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, rules out an end to the "loser pays" principle on legal fees, but says that contingency fees, where lawyers can share the winnings as they do in the U.S., should be considered. The council stated in its report, "Consideration should be given to the introduction of contingency fees on a regulated basis, particularly to assist access to justice in group actions and other complex cases where no other method of funding is available." The council also recommended that third parties, such as insurance companies, should be allowed to pay for cases. Some attorneys though told Telegraph.co.uk that the Government is very likely to come under pressure to include the measures proposed by the council in its Compensation Bill, which is due to be debated next month. UNIVERISTY OF MISSOURI: Agreement Reached in 1998 Tuition Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The University of Missouri (UM) System recently reached an agreement in a case stemming from a class action lawsuit that accuses the university system of charging in-state students "fees" amounting to tuition, which violates an 1872 state law mandating free education for state's homegrown at any of the four campuses, The University News reports. Douglas A. Sharp, Sandra K. Lynn and Frederick J. Eccher III initiated the class action suit in January 1998, after the trio felt that the school system was violating state law by charging in-state tuition to undergraduate students for 15 years. The university though argued that its "fees" for in-state undergraduates were legal. However, in December 2002, St. Louis County Circuit Judge Kenneth Romines ruled that the university violated state law between 1986 and 2001, when the 1872 statute was overturned by charging what amounted to tuition for students ages 17 to 21. The 1872 law, the judge pointed out, stated that all Missourians at least 16 years old "shall be admitted to all the privileges and advantages of the various classes of all the departments of the University of the State of Missouri without payment of tuition," an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 20, 2005) reports. Bob Herman, the attorney behind the lawsuit, contended though that undergraduates for decades were charged a nominal flat fee, no matter the number of credit hours taken, however in 1986 it began charging an "educational fee" by the credit hour, a change that Judge Romines ultimately ruled a violation of the 1872 statute. Over time, Mr. Herman further contends, that per-credit fee went from $20 to more than $150, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 20, 2005) reports. At the time of Judge Romines' ruling, the UM System feared a settlement would cost them $450 million in reimbursement and possibly bankruptcy. A new agreement though that was reached earlier this May and approved by Judge Romines will set up a $10 million scholarship fund that is to be distributed through $500 scholarships over a 25-year period. Starting in the fall 2006 semester, 4,770 current and former students will receive these scholarships. Under that deal, the university system also tentatively agreed to pay $1 million to Mr. Herman, plus an additional $17,000 for out-of-pocket expenses. Meanwhile, the three plaintiffs will share $27,000, with the university agreeing to pay other unspecified administrative costs not to exceeding $100,000, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May 20, 2005) reports. Some 104,000 letters will be distributed to current and former students who meet the eligibility requirements agreed upon within the settlement. These qualifications apply to students who attended one of the four UM campuses (Columbia, St. Louis, Kansas City or Rolla) from January 1995 through August 2001 and were 16-21 at the time. Interestingly, there is a section in the agreement that says qualifying students' children and spouses can also apply for the scholarships, however, priority will be given to the students. UM System officials say that if more than 4,770 apply during the first year of distribution, a lottery will be used to determine who receives the scholarships. Throughout the subsequent years, a lottery will determine all of the recipients of the annual scholarships. Joe Moore of the University of Missouri Media Relations told University News that, "Since the judge made a final ruling two weeks ago, there will now be a 40-day waiting period before it becomes official. After that, UM [System] will begin another round of notifications to the eligible people alerting them of the available scholarships." Since this agreement almost bankrupted the UM System, Mr. Moore mentioned to University News that they were pleased with the agreement specifically saying, "We feel good about the settlement and feel that it will benefit students who attend the university. We want to begin working with people soon so they may take advantage of the scholarship opportunities." Asked for comment on the settlement, one of the three plaintiffs in the suit, Kelly Roberts, who previously attend the University of Missouri-Columbia in 2001 and now attends the Kansas City campus, told University News that she was relieved. She also said, "This scholarship is quite a relief, even though it's not a lot of money. I wish that it was more money to help pay off all of my education loans. However, I am grateful for it." According to university officials, before the year is out, students who meet the qualifications will begin receiving letters notifying them they can apply for the $500 scholarships. In addition the officials also said that after 25 years, any remaining money would be placed in the university's general scholarship fund. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- October 2005 ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM Mealey Publications London, England Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 2005 LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 19, 2005 LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION Mealey Publications The Carlyle Hotel Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 24-25, 2005 C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Rittenhouse Philadephia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26-27, 2005 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS American Conferences Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 October 27, 2005 HEART DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 27-28, 2005 RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 28, 2005 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS & LITIGATION American Conferences Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 October 28, 2005 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 3-4, 2005 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS ALI-ABA Washington DC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 3-4, 2005 MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY CONFERENCE: LEGAL PROTECTIONS CRUCIAL TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7, 2005 ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE Mealey Publications Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 7-8, 2005 FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2005 CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 9, 2005 C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS & LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 10-11, 2005 CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 14-15, 2005 SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 15-16, 2005 12TH ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES American Conferences Fontainebleau Resort, Miami, FL, United States Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 November 17-18, 2005 ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM Mealey Publications London, England Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17-18, 2005 Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Las Vegas, Nevada Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax) December 1-2, 2005 INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26-27, 2005 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS American Conferences Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 December 5-6, 2005 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 5-6, 2005 ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE AND CLAIMS American Conferences The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 December 6, 2005 ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 7, 2005 ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 12-14, 2005 10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conferences The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563 December 12-13, 2005 VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Caesars Palace, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 12-13, 2005 LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 23-24, 2005 ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 5-8, 2006 INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 16-17, 2006 ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY ALI-ABA Coral Gables, Miami, Florida Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 25-26, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION Practising Law Institute New York Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu September 28-30, 2006 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ October 01-31, 2005 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 01-31, 2005 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 25, 2005 ASBESTOS RELATED DISEASES TELECONFERENCE: LUNGS 101, UNDERSTANDING PULMONOLOGY AND ANALYSIS OF MESOTHELIOMA Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26, 2005 WORKPLACE MISCONDUCT LITIGATION Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 01, 2005 REAL WORLD APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL INSURED CLAIMS Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 02, 2005 VIOXX(R) THE ERNST JURORS SPEAK Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 16, 2005 HRT Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17, 2005 FOOD LIABILITY--ADVERTISING PRACTICES Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17, 2005 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY TUTORIAL Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 30, 2005 PESTICIDES Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 30, 2005 ASBESTOS SCREENINGS Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 6, 2005 WELDING RODS Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 7, 2005 PERCHLORATE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 8, 2005 SSRI's TELECONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 14, 2005 FINITE RISK REINSURANCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 14, 2005 CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEAT CERTIFICATION Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 15, 2005 D&O TELECONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 15, 2005 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUES Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3 CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org _______________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases ANDRX CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, before the Honorable William P. Dimitrouleas, on behalf of purchasers of Andrx Corporation (NasdaqNM: ADRX) common stock during the class period between March 9, 2005 and September 5, 2005 who have been damaged thereby. The Complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants were aware of and failed to disclose the fact that their manufacturing facilities did not comply with all applicable good manufacturing practices ("cGMP") regulations and that Andrx was facing serious regulatory sanctions as a result of its cGMP violations including a sanction that would preclude the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of Andrx's pending and future drug applications. On September 6, 2005, defendants shocked the market when they announced that the FDA had recently placed a halt on approving Andrx's drug applications. In response to this press release, Andrx stock dropped from a closing price of $17.94 on September 5, 2005 to $14.89 on September 6, 2005 on heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Barrier Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: BTRX) common stock during the period between April 29, 2004, and June 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Barrier and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Barrier is a biopharmaceutical company, engaged in the discovery, development, and commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the field of dermatology. The complaint alleges that Barrier made a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and products under development. In particular, the Complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts: (1) that the Company had failed to perform its clinical trials in conformity with FDA guidelines as they had failed to disclose that they had secretly substituted the petroleum base within Zimycan, the effect of which was to substantially lessen the likelihood that the drug could achieve FDA approval; (2) that Hyphanox did not have a better safety or efficacy profile than fluconazole/Diflucan and, in fact, as investors ultimately learned, Hyphanox was significantly less effective than fluconazole/Diflucan; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any reasonable basis for their positive statements about Barrier. On June 29, 2005, Barrier shocked the market when it announced, among other adverse facts, that the Company's drug trials failed to demonstrate that Hyphanox worked as well as fluconazole. In response to this announcement, the price of Barrier stock plummeted over $6.75 per share - - a decline of over 45% - - to below $8.00 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NJ Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of Barrier Therapeutics (Nasdaq: BTRX) ("Barrier" or the "Company") between April 29, 2004 and June 29, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Barrier, Geert Cauwenbergh, Anne M. Vanlent and Charles T. Nomides 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 a single dose of Hyphanox was, in fact, inferior to a single dose of fluconazole/Diflucan; (2) that the Company's application to the FDA for approval of Zimycan was inherently insufficient because the Company used a different grade of petrolatum in the product it submitted to the FDA, than the grade it used in the pivotal clinical studies of Zimycan; and (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants' optimistic statements about Barrier's clinical-stage product advancements and the continued building of a commercial infrastructure lacked in any reasonable basis. On May 25, 2005, Barrier announced that it received a Not Approvable Letter From the FDA for Zimycan. On this news, shares of Barrier fell $1.63 per share, or 9.57 percent, on May 26, 2005, to close at $15.40 per share. On June 29, 2005, Barrier announced that its oral antifungal product candidate, Hyphanox failed to reach the primary endpoint of therapeutic cure in its Phase 3 trial. On this news, shares of Barrier fell $6.75 per share, or 45 percent, on June 30, 2005, to close at $7.93 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, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. IMMUCOR INC.: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.D. GA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., initiated a securities fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Immucor, Inc. ("Immucor" or the "Company"), Dr. Gioacchino De Chirico, Steven C. Ramsey, and Edward L. Gallup (the "Defendants") on behalf of persons who purchased Immucor common stock (Nasdaq:BLUD) between January 7, 2005 and August 29, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint filed alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 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. Defendants' fraud began to come to light on August 26, 2005, when 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, to a physician connected with a hospital with which the Company was doing business in October 2003. 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 were necessary to properly reflect the accrued bonus and to render the internal controls report required by Section 404 of Sarbanes Oxley. In response to this news, 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 a closing price of $24.00 per share on August 30, 2005. 6 million shares of Immucor common stock were traded on August 30, 2005 alone -- nearly ten times the average daily volume. During the first six months of 2005, Immucor insiders sold approximately 186,000 shares of stock for proceeds of approximately $4,970,000. During this time, Defendants led the market to believe that the internal control issue involving the Italian subsidiary was "an isolated event" that was not expected to lead to more than a $350,000 fine and increased investigation expenses that had already been factored into the Company's bottom line. In fact, however, the opposite was true -- Immucor's internal control problems, as the market later learned, were not confined to its Italian subsidiary and were not confined to this allegedly "isolated event." For more details, contact Karen H. Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com, Web site: http://www.locklaw.com. REFCO INC.: Roy Jacobs & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates, initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Refco, Inc. ("Refco" or the "Company") (NYSE:RFX), certain individual defendants, and the lead underwriters of Refco's August 2005 initial public offering. Plaintiff intends to amend the Complaint to expand the Class Period from August 11, 2005 through October 13, 2005. Refco went public via an initial public offering on August 11, 2005. Just nine weeks later, on October 10, 2005, Refco revealed that defendant Phillip R. Bennett, its CEO and Chairman and controlling shareholder, was being placed on a leave of absence and that the company had made a related-party loan of $430 million to an entity controlled by Bennett. Refco disclosed that the "receivable was the result of the assumption by an entity controlled by Mr. Bennett of certain historical obligations owed by unrelated third parties to the Company, which may have been uncollectible." The Company also acknowledged that based on the undisclosed related party transaction, its prior financial statements for the fiscal years ending 2002 through 2005 and the quarter ended May 31, 2005 should not be relied upon. Trading in Refco shares was halted on October 13, 2005, after they had fallen to a price of $7.90 per share. For more details, contact Roy Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com. TAG-IT PACIFIC: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Tag-It Pacific, Inc. (AMEX:TAG) ("Tag-It") between November 14, 2003 and August 12, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Tag-It violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading public statements. On August 15, 2005, Tag-It informed investors that it was going to report a "significant operating loss" due to an increase in reserves for accounts receivable and inventory. On August 22, 2005, Tag-It disclosed its reserve for doubtful accounts would increase by $6.4 million and its reserves for inventory obsolescence would increase by $1.55 million. On this news, Tag-It stock fell from a close of $2.32 per share on August 12, 2005, to close at $1.37 per share on August 13, 2005. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. TAG-IT PCAFIC: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, initiated a securities fraud lawsuit against Tag-It Pacific, Inc. ("Tag-It") (Amex: TAG) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons who purchased Tag-It securities on the open market during the period November 14, 2003 through August 12, 2005. The action was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Civil Action No: 05-7352. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Tag-It to issue numerous press releases and file quarterly and annual reports with the SEC, materially misstating its financial condition, accounts receivable and inventory, and falsely stating that the Company, notwithstanding the loss of its largest customers, was expanding its customer base, continuing sales growth, and improving gross margins. Unbeknownst to investors, as a result of the loss of its largest customers in 2003, millions of dollars in inventory became obsolete and millions of dollars in accounts receivable became uncollectible. On August 15, 2005, Tag-It stunned the market when it revealed its true financial condition, informing investors that the Company was going to report a "significant operating loss" due to an increase in reserves for accounts receivable and inventory. On this news, Tag-It's share price plummeted 41.38% to $1.36 from the prior days closing of $2.32. On August 22, 2005, the Company further disclosed that it was required to increase its reserve for doubtful accounts by $6.4 million and increase its reserve for inventory obsolescence by $1.55 million. For more details, contact James Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq. or Emily DeMuro, Investor Relations of Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600, 877-370-7703 or 1-212-451-9610, Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704, E-mail: Jkelly@wolfpopper.com or edemuro@wolfpopper.com, Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com. WORLD HEALTH: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, initiated a securities fraud class action suit on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of World Health Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health Alternatives" or the "Company") (Pink Sheets:WHAI), acquiring the stock between June 26, 2003 and August 18, 2005, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action entitled, Hertel v. World Health Alternatives, Inc., et al., Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and names as defendants, the Company, certain of its senior officers and directors, as well as its independent auditor, Daszkal Bolton LLP. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 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 defendants misstated the amount of the Company's outstanding shares; (2) that the defendants failed to properly account for convertible debt and warrant agreements; (3) that defendants underpaid tax liabilities in the amount of $4 million; and (4) that defendants' misstatements to the World Health Alternatives' lenders resulted in $6.5 million in excess funding under the loan agreements. As a result of this activity, the Company had terminated its outside auditor, Daszkal Bolton, and Defendant McDonald had resigned as CEO. The Company retained outside counsel and the Board of Directors had retained special counsel to assist it with its investigation. The Company would be restating its prior financial statements due to the material misstatements outlined above and has warned investors not to rely on the information contained therein. The Company's restatement announcement shocked the market and the price of its common stock plummeted an astonishing 86% on August 19, 2005, trading as low as $0.25 per share after closing on August 18, 2005 at $1.85 per share. Trading on a volume 15 times greater than its average, on August 19, 2005, 32 million shares changed hands. For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022, Phone: (877) 935-7400, E-mail: jmn@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.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 * * *