/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/990325.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 25, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 35 Headlines BESICORP GROUP: Trinko Firm Charges Proxy Statement is Misleading CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Massachusetts Suit CENDANT CORP.: CEO's Bonus Cut Nearly in Half Last Year CHS ELECTRONICS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in Florida CHS ELECTRONICS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in Florida CHS ELECTRONICS: Burt & Pucillo Files Complaint in Florida CHS ELECTRONICS: Shepherd & Geller File Complaint in Florida COMPAQ COMPUTER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complain in Texas EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS: Resolves Stock Warrant Class Action Suits GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Florida HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: French Banks To Return WWII Assets MOTOROLA, INC.: High Court Declines Cell Phone Radiation Appeal MUTUAL LIFE: MONY Group Unit Targeted in SEC Probe NORTH FACE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Colorado PARTY CITY: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New Jersey PARTY CITY: Stull Stull Files Complaint in [New Jersey] PARTY CITY: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New Jersey PARTY CITY: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in New Jersey PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Sues 17 High-Interest Lenders PSS WORLD: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Florida PSS WORLD: Burt & Pucillo File Complaint in Florida SAFESKIN CORP.: Berman DeValerio File Complaint in California SAFESKIN CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complaint in California SUBARU: Dealers Levy Racketeering & Extortion Charges TRIARC COMPANIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in New York ********* BESICORP GROUP: Trinko Firm Charges Proxy Statement is Misleading ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP announced that it filed Civil Action No. 99-1638, captioned James Lichtenberg and John Bansbach, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs --against-- Besicorp Group Inc., BGI Acquisition LLC, BGI Acquisition Corp., Michael F. Zinn, Melanie Norden, Michael J. Daley, Gerald A. Habib, Richard E. Rosen, Steven I. Eisenberg, and Martin E. Enowitz, Defendants Within the past 20 days, a putative class action was filed asserting: (1) claims under the federal securities laws, Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78(t), and Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9) in connection with the issuance of a materially misleading proxy statement in connection with the solicitation of the shareholders of Besicorp Group Inc. ("Besicorp") to vote to approve the Plan of Merger ("Merger Plan") by and among Besicorp, BGI Acquisition Corp., and BGI Acquisition LLC, dated March 2, 1999; as well as (2) common law violations arising from certain defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, and the aiding and abetting of such breach of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs allege that the Proxy disseminated by Besicorp and the Director Defendants is false and materially misleading because it fails to adequately disclose all available material information regarding the effect of the Merger Plan upon two pending derivative actions against defendants Zinn, Habib, Rosen and Daley, as well as against three former directors of the company, Harold Harris and defendants Steven Eisenberg and Martin Enowitz. While the Proxy disclosed that consummation of the Plan of Merger may result in the termination of the derivative actions, the Proxy fails to disclose, inter alia, that the transaction was intentionally structured to accomplish the improper and premature termination of these suits by depriving the derivative plaintiffs of standing to continue those actions. Further, the Proxy fails to disclose that successful resolution of these actions could result in the cancellation of 1.2 million shares of Besicorp common stock which certain defendants improperly issued to themselves and are the subject of one of the derivative suits. Thus, more than $44.5 million of the merger consideration, which would otherwise have been improperly paid to certain defendants in the derivative actions, would be available to be paid, instead, to the public shareholders (who hold 44 percent of the company's outstanding stock) if that action is successfully adjudicated. In addition, more than $1 million in legal fees and expenses are at issue in the other suit, which would be paid to a spin-off company, Besicorp Ltd., upon a successful adjudication. On March 18, 1999, United States District Judge William C. Conner issued a preliminary injunction directing that the company's interests in the derivative actions be assigned to Besicorp, Ltd., prior to the consummation of the Merger in order to maintain the status quo. In addition, the Court directed that the merger consideration to be received for the common stock at issue in the derivative action be maintained within the reach of the U.S. Courts so such proceeds would be available to satisfy any judgement which might be rendered in the derivative suit. CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Massachusetts Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock issued by Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: CATP) at artificially inflated prices during the period November 25, 1998 through March 18, 1999. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws (Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about Cambridge's results of operations, financial condition and the failure of its reorganization plan which resulted in continued slow sales in its first fiscal quarter. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and omissions, the price of Cambridge's stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. At the end of the Class Period, the Company announced that its reorganization plan was not having the impact on the Company's problems in its 1998 First Quarter that defendants had led the market to believe and that as a result its sales were still well down. Meanwhile defendants took advantage of the stock's artificially inflated price to sell significant amounts of their own holdings for proceeds of over $3,139,000. A substantial amount of defendants' insider selling took place only one month before defendants' announcement of March 18, 1999 regarding the failure of the Company's reorganization plan. CENDANT CORP.: CEO's Bonus Cut Nearly in Half Last Year ------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Henry Silverman, chairman and chief executive officer of Cendant Corp., was paid a bonus of $1.21 million for 1998, a little more than half of what he received the previous year, a regulatory filing showed. In a proxy filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last Friday, the franchising and marketing firm said it paid Silverman a salary of $1.61 million, up from $1.58 million a year ago. This year, Silverman's annual base salary will rise to $2.9 million reflecting his overall importance to the company and his assumption of the roles of chairman and CEO, it said. In 1997, Silverman received a bonus of $2.37 million, Cendant said, adding that Silverman recommended a 50 percent cut in his 1998 bonus. It did not elaborate. The company, which franchises brands such as Avis Rent-A-Car, Ramada and Howard Johnson Hotels, reported a net loss in the fourth quarter from continuing operations of $302 million compared with a loss of $181 million a year before. Cendent, formed from the December 1997 merger of CUC International Inc. and HFS Inc., said last April it had discovered potential accounting irregularities at CUC -- later found to be $700 million in widespread fraud and errors dating back to 1995. Parsippany, N.J.-based Cendant faced a string of lawsuits stemming from the accounting irregularities at CUC. At one time more than 70 shareholder suits were filed, but many of those were consolidated into at least one class action suit. The company last January filed a lawsuit against CUC's auditors Ernst & Young LLP. to recover damages arising from the class action suits. In the complaint Cendent accused the auditors of not detecting false statements. In 1998, Cendant granted Silverman stock options covering 17.2 million shares that will vest at 25 percent per year starting October 1999 through 2002, the company said. Of the total 17.2 million shares, 4,806,200 shares have a strike price of $9.8125 and expire on Jan 22, 2006. Another 3,798,260 shares have a strike price of $9.8125 and expire on April 30, 2007; 1,007,940 shares have a strike price of $20 and expire on April 30, 2007; and 7,596,520 shares have a strike price of $20 with an expiration of Dec. 17, 2007. In 1997, Cendant granted Silverman stock options covering 19.3 million shares. However, the options granted in 1996, 1997 and the first half of 1998 were canceled and reissued in 1998, the company said. Silverman has 8.5 million stock options, or 33 percent, revoked as part of a stock option restructuring plan announced last September. CHS ELECTRONICS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Complaint in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that, on March 23, 1999, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of CHS Electronics, Inc. (NYSE:HS), from June 19, 1998 through March 19, 1999, inclusive. The complaint charges CHS, and certain of its officers and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, CHS issued materially false and misleading financial statements which inflated the Company's financial results through the improper recognition of income in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. CHS ELECTRONICS: Lowey Dannenberg Files Complaint in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C., on March 24, 1999, filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf of purchasers of CHS Electronics, Inc. common stock (NYSE: HS) during the period June 19, 1998 through March 22, 1999, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants CHS Electronics, Inc., and its senior management, CEO Claudio Osorio and CFO Craig S. Toll, with issuing false and misleading financial statements in violation of the federal securities laws, which inflated the market price of CHS shares during the Class Period. On March 23, 1999, CHS announced that it was restating its financial results for the second and third quarters of 1998, and that previously disclosed preliminary results for fourth-quarter and year-end 1998 were materially overstated. Specifically, the restatement resulted from the overstatement of vendor rebates for the second, third and fourth quarters of 1998, which inflated reported earnings for those periods. The market price of CHS stock traded as high as $20 per share during the Class Period. Following the announcement of the downward restatement of financial results, CHS closed at under $4.00 per share. CHS ELECTRONICS: Burt & Pucillo Files Complaint in Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Burt & Pucillo, LLP announced yesterday that, on March 23, 1999, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, by a shareholder against CHS Electronics Corp. (NYSE:HS). The action is brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the common stock of the Company during the period from June 19, 1998 through March 19, 1999. The Complaint in this action alleges that purchasers of the Company's common stock during the Class Period were damaged by reason of the fact that the Company's revenue and earnings were materially overstated. Specifically, during the second, third and fourth quarters of 1998, the Company's vendor rebates were overstated. The complaint further alleges that preliminary fourth quarter earnings were overstated by 50%, when, in fact, the Company earned $13 million in the quarter rather than the $262 million previously reported. CHS ELECTRONICS: Shepherd & Geller File Complaint in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ Shepherd & Geller, LLC, yesterday announced that a class action has been filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on behalf of all purchasers of CHS Electronics Corp. (NYSE:HS) common stock during the period February 27, 1997 through March 10, 1999. The complaint charges that CHS Electronics and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by submitting false financial statements and false earnings. The complaint alleges that: a) defendants' financial statements were based, in large measure, upon forged documents and false customer orders; b) throughout the Class Period, defendants had inaccurately described the amount of its vendor rebates; c) throughout the Class Period, defendants had improperly kept certain assets (primarily accounts receivable) off its balance sheet; d) throughout the Class Period, as a result of the foregoing, CHS's assets and earnings were materially overstated; and e) as a result of the foregoing, CHS was performing far worse than publicly represented and its operating performance measures (particularly its accounts receivable/turnover ratio) were materially overstated. When certain of this information was disclosed on February 24, 1999, the price of CHS collapsed, and currently trades far below its Class Period highs. COMPAQ COMPUTER: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complain in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit was commenced by Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Compaq Computer Corporation (NYSE: CPQ), between January 27, 1999 and February 25,1999, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and names as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors. The complaint charges Compaq and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts throughout the Class Period in the Company's public filings and public statements. As a result of these misrepresentations and omissions, the price of Compaq's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS: Resolves Stock Warrant Class Action Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Employee Solutions, Inc., (Nasdaq: ESOL) announced today that the United States District Court, Southern District of New York recently granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed a claim filed by Ladenburg Thalmann & Company in May 1997. As discussed in the Company's 1997 10-K, the plaintiffs sought damages of at least $2.5 million alleging breach of contract under certain stock warrants. Ladenberg is a broker- dealer/investment bank with offices in New York City. The Company also recently received final court approval for the settlement of the securities class action lawsuit. Employee Solutions had announced in November 1998 that it had entered into an agreement -- subject to court approval -- providing that the claims against the Company and all other defendants would be dismissed with prejudice without presumption or admission of any liability or wrongdoing. The final settlement calls for payment to the plaintiffs of $13.8 million in cash and $1.2 million in Employee Solutions Common Stock. The Company's directors and officers' insurance carriers will pay a substantial majority of both the cash portion of the settlement and litigation-related expenses. "These results are indicative of our continued commitment to be very aggressive in resolving disputes in favor of the Company," said Quentin P. Smith, Jr., chairman, president and chief executive officer of Employee Solutions, Inc. GENCOR INDUSTRIES: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action complaint against Gencor Industries Inc. (Amex: GX) and certain of its officers and directors for issuing materially false and/or misleading statements about the Company's financial results on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period February 5, 1998 through January 28, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by causing Gencor to report inflated earnings for fiscal 1998. Indeed, the Company reported that its "fiscal 1998 earnings per share of $1.52 may be reduced by as much as $0.35 to $0.50 per share" due to "accounting irregularities and other improprieties." As a result of the issuance of these false results, the price of Gencor common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: French Banks To Return WWII Assets ----------------------------------------------------- >From Paris, the Associated Press reports that French banks unveiled measures Wednesday to make sure that bank accounts seized from Jews during World War II would be returned to their heirs or used to create a Holocaust education center. The measures marked the first major initiative from the French Banking Association, which has long been accused of benefiting from the unclaimed accounts. More than 100 French banks and financial institutions collaborated with the pro-Nazi Vichy regime, which governed France from 1940-44. The regime passed a series of laws banning Jews from many professions and from owning businesses and property. "The banks . . . were among the cogs in the terrible machine of confiscation of Jewish assets in France," the banking association said in a statement, Reuters reports. "They therefore bear the duty of reparation towards the victims of these (anti-Jewish) laws." French banks have been under growing pressure after being sued last year by a group of Holocaust survivors living in the United States, seeking to recover their families' assets. The banks named in the class action suit are: Credit Lyonnais, Banque Paribas; the French subsidiary of Barclay's Bank; Societe Generale; Banque National de Paris; Credit Commerical de France; Credit Agricole; Banque Francaise du Commerce Exterieur, and Banque Worms Capital Corp. In December, Barclay's Bank created a fund for the repayment of assets that were held in its French subsidiary during World War II and not recovered by the rightful owners after the war. The announcement also came amid growing concern among many French Jews that the state-appointed panel of experts studying the systematic looting of Jewish property during the war isn't moving fast enough. In the statement, the banks said $55.5 million in assets was confiscated and frozen by French banks, but that most was returned after the war. The banks said they would turn over the remaining assets, including cash and stock certificates, to rightful owners or heirs. The French banks did not specify how much they still held. If there are no heirs, the money will be put into a special fund to create a Holocaust education center in Paris. The banks said they also would publish a complete list of wartime account holders who were regarded as Jews under the Vichy laws. MOTOROLA, INC.: High Court Declines Cell Phone Radiation Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Times reports that, without comment or explanation, the United States Supreme Court freed Motorola Inc. from having to defend against a class-action lawsuit charging that the second-largest U.S. maker of cellular phones deceived customers about radiation exposure. The High Court's rejection of an appeal by cell phone user Frank J. Schiffner of Illinois left standing a decision that shelters wireless phone companies from traditional state law claims. MUTUAL LIFE: MONY Group Unit Targeted in SEC Probe -------------------------------------------------- Accountant UK relates in this week's edition that The Mutual Life Insurance Co of New York, a unit of MONY Group, has been added to the growing list of companies facing an accounting probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the insurance industry, a high cash surplus demonstrates that an insurer is strong financially. Besides assuring greater compensation for executives, it can secure a high financial rating from Wall Street, which can be used to lure new policyholders. The SEC wants to know if Mutual Life allegedly manipulated its surplus to help its financial position. The SEC investigation was prompted by a former MONY manager, who alerted the SEC in 1998 to allegations contained in a 1995 policyholder class-action lawsuit. The suit, dismissed in 1997, related to the marketing of 'vanishing- premium' policies. Purchasers of the policies alleged in their suit that they were misled by MONY salesmen who said that their premiums could be eliminated because of interest accumulated on the cash value of the policies. In its probe, AUK relates, the SEC is examining Mutual Life's past financial statements as well as registration statements filed as part of MONY's initial public offering. Before it began trading on the New York Stock Exchange last November, MONY filed financial reports with the SEC covering offerings of annuities and other products, as well as its money-management activities as a financial adviser. The SEC is also using information contained in the class-action lawsuit as well as information from state insurance-department audits of MONY. A routine New York state audit in the mid-1990s found some regulatory violations. The state ordered $87 million in write-downs of foreclosed properties and a $55 million reversal of sales commissions. The latest state audit found no problems. A MONY spokesman, Charles Wasilewski, said the concerns under investigation by the SEC are "without merit" and pointed out that they "were included in a class-action lawsuit that was dismissed". NORTH FACE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in Colorado -------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of investors who bought The North Face, Inc. (Nasdaq: TNFI) stock between April 25, 1997 and March 4, 1999. The lawsuit charges North Face and several of its top officers with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants falsely reported the Company's financial results and overstated its sales growth causing the Company's stock price to trade at an artificially high price of $29. On March 5, 1999 the Company announced that its audited 1998 results would be delayed and that its 1997 results might need to be restated. On the release of this news the Company's stock price dropped to as low as $10. PARTY CITY: Wolf Popper Files Complaint in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Party City Corporation (Nasdaq: PCTY) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit was filed by the law firm Wolf Popper LLP on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Party City securities in the open market during the period February 26, 1998 through March 18, 1999. The Complaint charges that defendants violated the U.S. securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and by omitting material facts required to be disclosed so as to make the statements issued not materially false and misleading throughout the Class Period. PARTY CITY: Stull Stull Files Complaint in [New Jersey] ------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Party City Corporation (NASDAQ:PCTY) securities between October 22, 1998 to March 19, 1999 for violations of federal securities laws. Defendants include Party City and certain of its officers and directors. The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10- b(5) by, among other things: issuing false and misleading statements regarding Party City's financial and business conditions. PARTY CITY: Berman DeValerio Files Complaint in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- Party City Corporation (Nasdaq: PCTY) was charged with violating the federal securities laws in a class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 23, 1999, by Berman, DeValerio & Pease LLP. The case was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of PCTY during the period February 26, 1998 through and including March 18, 1999 (the "Class Period") and who suffered losses on their investments. The action charges that PCTY and certain of its officers issued materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. In particular, it is charged that PCTY materially misrepresented its financial condition and compliance with its loan covenants. During the class period, it is alleged that certain of the defendants sold their PCTY common stock with inside information for proceeds of more than $1.5 million. On March 18, 1999 PCTY announced that its year-end 1998 audit would be delayed due and that the company was "in default of certain reporting covenants" on its secured credit facility. Upon the revelation of this news, PCTY's stock plummeted 45% in a single day, falling from $7 5/16 per share to $4 per share on March 19, 1999. PARTY CITY: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit against PARTY CITY CORPORATION (Nasdaq: PCTY) and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Party City between July 9, 1998 and March 18, 1999, inclusive. The complaint charges Party City and certain officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false statements and failed to disclose material facts throughout the Class Period concerning, among others, the Company's financial condition and compliance with certain loan covenants. Because of the issuance of a series of false and misleading statements, the price of Party City common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts, certain insiders and directors sold 98,000 shares of Party City common stock to the unsuspecting investing public at artificially inflated prices, over $1.5 million in proceeds was realized as a result of these sales. PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Sues 17 High-Interest Lenders ----------------------------------------------------------- The Chicago law firm of Edelman & Combs, which concentrates in representation of consumers against lenders, car dealers, debt collectors, and other businesses, has filed more class action lawsuits in the federal district court in Chicago against high- interest "payday loan," "title loan," and similar establishments. The total number sued is now 17. The list of high-interest lenders sued, and the annual percentage rates charged by each, are: * American Loan Company 521% * Americash 365% * Campus Cash Systems 469% * Cash Store 521% * Chartwell Financial 427% * Check Into Cash 573% * Fast Cash Advance 365%-456% * GFG Loan Company 365% * Illinois Title Lenders 216% * Instant Cash Advance (One Iron Ventures) 486%-912% * Nationwide Budget Finance 521% * Paycheck Advance Express, Inc. 456%-521% * Payday Check Advance, Inc., d/b/a Payday Express 521% * Payday Loan Corp. of Illinois 101% * Payday Loan Store of Illinois, Inc. 695% * Payday Today Loans LLC 521% * Short Term Loans 260%-342% "Payday loans" are short term, very high interest rate loans. The loans are typically two weeks in duration and carry annual percentage rates of 200% to over 1800%. At the end of the two week term, the customer has the option of continuing the loan for an additional period by paying the interest. The loans are typically "rolled over" on multiple occasions. Generally, companies which make "payday loans" do not advertise the annual percentage rates. Instead, they advertise that the loans cost $x per $100. The consumer does not see the annual percentage rate until he or she is presented with the check. "Payday loans" are generally made to consumers facing financial emergencies. Once a consumer obtains a "payday loan," he or she will often be unable to pay it off except from the proceeds of additional "payday loans." Often, the "payday loan" store is the last stop prior to bankruptcy court. The lawsuits generally allege violation of the Truth in Lending Act or Electronic Funds Transfer Act. In some cases, they allege that the interest rates are so exorbitant that the loans are unconscionable and violation of laws regulating wage assignments and collection practices. Some of the lawsuits name individual owners of the payday loan establishments and lawyers who try to enforce the loans. Payday Today Loans and Short Term Loans have already agreed to settlements. PSS WORLD: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Complaint in Florida ------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a Class Action against PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSSI) and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of PSS between June 16, 1998 and March 10, 1999, inclusive. The complaint charges PSS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1924. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the defendants improperly accounted for certain merger acquisitions and that it would probably be required to retroactively restate its financial statements to reflect the pre acquisition Operating results of these merger transactions, in particular, the $645 million stock acquisition of Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc., as a result of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The Complaint further alleges that the price of PSS stock was artificially inflated as a result of defendants' conduct, which included but was not limited to, engaging in aggressive and improper accounting practices which artificially inflated earnings. During the Class Period, PSS shares traded as high as $23.25 per share. On March 10, 1999, after the Company's announcement that it was being investigated by the SEC, the price of PSS shares plunged as much as 19% on exceptionally heavy volume, and closed at $9.75 per share on that day. PSS WORLD: Burt & Pucillo File Complaint in Florida --------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Burt & Pucillo, LLP announced that, on March 22, 1999, a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, by a shareholder against PSS World Medical Inc., Patrick C. Kelly and David A. Smith, Case No. 99-268. The action is brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the common stock of PSSI during the period from June 16, 1998 through March 10, 1999 . The Complaint in this action alleges that purchasers of PSSI common stock during the Class Period were damaged by reason of the defendants' conduct in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company, under the direction of the individual defendants, issued financial statements that overstated revenues from acquired entities by improperly using the pooling of interest method of accounting. The complaint further alleges that this resulted in overstated earnings throughout the Class Period. SAFESKIN CORP.: Berman DeValerio File Complaint in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Safeskin Corp. (Nasdaq: SFSK) was charged with violating the federal securities laws in a class action filed in the Southern District of California on March 18, 1999. The case was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock or call options, or sold put options, during the period October 28, 1998 through and including March 11, 1999, by Berman DeValerio & Pease LLP. The action charges that Safeskin and two of its senior officers issued materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period. In particular, it is charged that Safeskin "stuffed" its product distribution channels in order to make its reported sales and earnings appear better than they really were. On March 11, 1999 it is alleged that Safeskin revealed that it had previously sent more products into its distribution channels than its customers actually needed which resulted in distorted revenue and earnings figures during the Class Period. Upon the revelation of this news, Safeskin's stock plummeted 41% in a single day, falling from $15.25 per share to $6.28 per share. SAFESKIN CORP.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Complaint in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Safeskin Corporation (Nasdaq: SFSK), between February 18, 1998 and March 11, 1999, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, by Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and names as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors. The complaint charges Safeskin and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts throughout the Class Period in the Company's public filings and public statements. As a result of these misrepresentations and omissions, the price of Safeskin's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. SUBARU: Dealers Levy Racketeering & Extortion Charges ----------------------------------------------------- The Patriot Ledger reports that, in Concord, New Hamphshire, seven Subaru dealers have accused Subaru of New England and its president, Ernie Boch, of racketeering and extortion, claiming he pads cars with unwanted options to boost his profits at their expense. The seven dealers sued Boch on March 5 in U.S. District Court in Concord, N.H., asking a federal judge to declare the suit a class- action case to represent all current and former Subaru dealerships in New England. They charge that Boch packs the most popular models with options and shuts off the dealers' supply if they refuse to take the cars. A company official disputed the accusations. TRIARC COMPANIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Complaint in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP: Notice is hereby given that on March 23, 1999, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Triarc Companies, Inc. and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who owned Triarc common stock on March 10, 1999. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws (Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material information about the valuation of Triarc that demonstrated that the recently announced dutch-auction tender offer for $16.25 to $18.25 per share was inadequate consideration and not in the best interests of Triarc shareholders. ********* 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., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Peter A. Chapman, Editor. Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. ISSN XXXX-XXXX. 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 301/951-6400. * * * End of Transmission * * *