/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/991118.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 18, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 202 Headlines ABBOTT LAB: Berman Files Il. Suit Over Cancer Diagnostic Kit For Women ABBOTT LAB: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit In Illinois ALLIED PILOTS: Issues Statement Regarding Magistrate's Recommendations ALLIED PILOTS: Judge Oks Passengers' Suit Over Illegal Sickout AVONDALE INC: Defends & Appeals Ala. Suits Over Waste Contamination AVONDALE INC: Defends & Appeals Ala. Suits Over Waste Contamination COMPS COM: Will Vigorously Defend CA & Dela Suits Over Fiduciary Breach FORD MOTOR: CA Judge Won't Let Jury Quit Case Re Alleged Faulty Modules GUN MANUFACTURER: Sturm Ruger Reveals Suits In Multi States In SEC File HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Talks Drag On; Both Sides Come Closer To Numbers INFORMIX CORP: CA Ct Approves Settlements For Securities Litigation INMATES LITIGATION: Suit V. Suffolk Sheriff Alleges Of Reign Of Terror INTELECT COMMUNICATIONS: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit In TX MIRACLE SUPPLY: Co. Owner Claims Nothing To Do With Camera In Washroom NANTUCKET ISLAND: Contests Securities Fraud Suit Filed In MA In June 99 NANTUCKET ISLAND: Intends To Contest Delaware Suit Over Rights Offering NANTUCKET ISLAND: MA Ct Dismisses Partners Securities Suit Filed Oct 98 PLUMAS COUNTY: Sch officials immune; Dog Sniff Was Not Clearly A Search PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Judge Orders Probe Into Settlement For Churning RITE AID: Steven E. Cauley Files Securities Fraud Suit In Pennsylvania SEED MANUFACTURERS: Cohen, Milstein's Plans Trigger Global Alliance ST. LOUIS HOUSING: Sued Over Lead-Poisoning & Lack Of Proper Inspection TAMPA GENERAL: Poor, Pregnant Women Agree To Settle In Drug Study Case TOBACCO LITIGATION: CNN Coverage; Cancer Victim Takes Stand In Fla Case UGA: Savannah Judge Oks Class Against Admissions Based On Gender & Race VISX INC: Intends To Defend Vigorously Antitrust Suits; Resolves 1 Case WAR VICTIMS: American WWII Veterans & Heirs Sue Japanese Corporations WESTERN UNION: Settles Chicago Lawsuit Over Money Wiring To Mexico * SEC Oks Reimbursing Brokerage Houses For Mailings On Securities Suits ********* ABBOTT LAB: Berman Files Il. Suit Over Cancer Diagnostic Kit For Women ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT), a leading manufacturer of medical diagnostic test and pharmaceutical products, is the target of a class action lawsuit which claims that one of its most popular diagnostic testing kits provides flawed results, causing thousands of women to undergo unnecessary cancer treatments, including chemotherapy and hysterectomies. The Abbott hCG test kit is used across the country in hospitals and private laboratories and, according to the suit, could account for thousands of misdiagnoses. The suit claims that the company knew the test kits returned "false positive" results, but failed to inform medical professionals who, in the absence of other pregnancy indicators, relied on the false test results to misdiagnose women with a deadly form of cancer. The suit claims many women underwent unnecessary chemotherapy treatment, and received hysterectomies due to Abbott's defective pregnancy test results. According to Steve Berman, the Seattle attorney who filed the proposed class on behalf of the plaintiffs, Abbott Laboratories has long been aware of the defect, and failed to provide adequate warning to medical professionals about the potential for false readings. Berman also asserts that Abbott knew of an inexpensive chemical blocking agent that would have eliminated false positive readings. "Women were told their lives were threatened by cancer," Berman says. "Some of them received unnecessary chemotherapy because they thought it would save them. Some even underwent hysterectomies due to the defective readings. The price they paid because of Abbott's actions is unconscionable." The proposed class action was filed in the U.S. District Court in Northern Illinois where Abbott Laboratories' headquarters is located. The Abbott Test Kit and Pregnancy The Abbott B-hCG test kit, also known as the Abbott test, is an immunoassay test that medical professionals use to screen for a variety of medical conditions and diseases. Among other uses, it is commonly used to determine pregnancy in women. The Abbott test is used to determine pregnancy in women by measuring human chorionic gonadotropin, or hCG. Known as the "pregnancy hormone," elevated hCG is recognized throughout the medical community as a reliable way to determining pregnancy, including ectopic pregnancy. However elevated hCG levels in the absence of normal or ectopic pregnancy is routinely considered evidence of trophoblast disease, a deadly form of cancer. Trophoblast disease is considered so deadly that if elevated hCG levels persist without any sign of pregnancy, physicians often immediately order chemotherapy. If hCG levels still persist after chemotherapy, physicians often recommend hysterectomy to stem the spread of the cancer. "False Positive" Readings from the Abbott Test According to recent medical studies, the Abbott test is known to be highly susceptible to "false positive" hCG readings. False positive results occur when the Abbott test falsely detects high hCG levels, while other pregnancy indicators remain absent. According to the suit, persistent false positive results from the Abbott test have led doctors to diagnose patients with trophoblast disease, ordering immediate chemotherapy, and even hysterectomies. Dr. Laurence Cole, PhD in biochemistry from Yale University, and a specialist in the study of hCG, has determined in court documents that the Abbott test creates false positive results in an unacceptably high number of women. In a recent sampling, he compared 12 blood samples of patients who had received false positive Abbott results, and compared them with results from 10 different hCG tests. His findings revealed that the Abbott test results had a high percentage of false-positive result in comparison to other tests. Dr. Cole attributes the highly false positive results from the Abbott test to a phenomenon he terms as "phantom hCG." According to Dr. Cole, phantom hCG is the result of a defect in the Abbott test which he believes Abbott has long known about, but has failed to fix. He asserts that the Abbott test endangers women because it "does not conform to industry standards for these tests and has produced a product that presents unacceptable risks." "Abbott has known about this but stood silent while women put their lives at risk through chemotherapy and surgery," Berman says. "It is galling to think how their actions have injured these women," Berman adds. Women who may have been affected by this can find more information at http://www.falsepositive.orgor http://www.hagens-berman.com Contact: Hagens Berman Steve Berman, 206/623-7292 or Firmani & Associates, Inc. Mark Firmani, 206/443-9357 mark@firmani.com ABBOTT LAB: Weiss & Yourman File Securities Suit In Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The following is an announcement by the law firm of Weiss & Yourman on November 16, 1999: A class action lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT) and certain individuals associated with the Company was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Abbott shares. If you purchased Abbott shares between March 17, 1999 and November 2, 1999, please read this notice. The complaint charges Abbott and certain of its executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or omitted information regarding the Company and its business operations. The misrepresentation and/or omission of information caused the Company's stock price to plummet. Plaintiff is represented by Weiss & Yourman. If you purchased Abbott securities during the period of March 17, 1999 and November 2, 1999, you may move the court no later than December 19, 1999, to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class. In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery. If you wish to receive an investor package or if you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this matter, or if you have any information you wish to provide to us, please contact: David C. Katz, (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or via Internet electronic mail at wynyc@aol.com or by writing Weiss & Yourman, The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York City 10176. ALLIED PILOTS: Issues Statement Regarding Magistrate's Recommendations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Magistrate Kaplan's recommendations cover a wide range of issues, and the APA agrees with the lion's share of his conclusions, including his complete dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the Railway Labor Act, as well as his dismissal of all claims against individual members and officers of the APA," said Captain Rich LaVoy, APA President. "The APA does differ with the Magistrate on a limited number of issues and will pursue those issues with Judge Solis, as the Magistrate has directed. Because those issues are still pending, the APA believes that it would be inappropriate at this time to comment further on the recommendations or on the further proceedings before the Court." Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, APA serves as collective bargaining agent for the 9,800 pilots of American Airlines. The union was founded in 1963. ALLIED PILOTS: Judge Oks Passengers' Suit Over Illegal Sickout -------------------------------------------------------------- United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan released a ruling late Tuesday evening in the American Airlines passengers' class action lawsuit against the Allied Pilots Association. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages suffered by thousands of American Airlines' passengers because of the feigned sick-out staged by the Allied Pilots Association earlier this year. The passengers claim that the illegal sick-out violated a temporary restraining order issued by Federal District Judge Joe Kendall directing the pilots to resume their flight schedules. The pilots sought a complete dismissal of the case arguing that their actions were protected under the Railway Labor Act. Judge Kaplan held that those passengers affected by the continuation of the sick-out after Judge Kendall ordered the pilots back to work should be able to proceed with their claims. Judge Kaplan ruled that, "plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim against the Allied Pilots Association for tortious interference with contract and civil conspiracy based on violations of the Temporary Restraining Order." In rejecting the pilots' argument that the Railway Labor Act preempted the passengers' claims, Judge Kaplan stated that, "defendants ignore the fact that an entire sub-class of plaintiffs predicate their tortious interference claim on a violation of the temporary restraining order entered on February 10, 1999. The 'intentional and willful' interference at issue here is not the initial work stoppage, but the refusal to comply with the back-to-work order. Clearly, such a claim ... is not preempted by the Railway Labor Act." John Malesovas, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said that he was very pleased with Judge Kaplan's ruling. "The pilots argued that they were immune from liability despite the admission of APA leaders that the sickout was staged for the sole purpose of gaining an economic advantage in their labor negotiations with American Airlines. They knew that their illegal sickout was severely disrupting the lives of thousands of innocent passengers, and they brazenly ignored the orders of a federal district judge. Judge Kaplan wisely rejected the pilots' claims of complete immunity for their egregious conduct." Judge Kaplan did recommend dismissal of the claims for disrupted flights occurring before the back-to-work order was issued. The parties have ten days to object to Judge Kaplan's findings and recommendations. Contact: John Malesovas of Malesovas, Martin, & Tekell, L.L.P., 254-753-1777 AVONDALE INC: Defends & Appeals Ala. Suits Over Waste Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 3, 1993, a case was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama by Joe and Darnell Sullivan and Tommy and Stella Fay Gould and other parties against the Alabama Power Company, Russell Corporation, the Company and certain other parties. The complaint alleges that the Company and such other parties negligently or willfully discharged industrial wastewater containing hazardous materials, which allegedly damaged the plaintiffs' real properties and caused mental anguish to the plaintiffs. The complaint seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages. After two years and eleven months of litigation, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include class action claims and treatment. Although the Trial Court granted class certification, the Supreme Court of Alabama reversed the class certification order, and the case proceeded as to the individual claims of the five plaintiffs. On November 17, 1998, the court handed down a verdict of $155,200 in compensatory damages and $52,398,000 in punitive damages against the Alabama Power Company, Russell Corporation and the Company, on a joint and several basis, in favor of the plaintiffs. The Company believes that there are numerous grounds on which the verdict can be appealed and that the verdict was not supported by the evidence. An appeal of the verdict is in progress, and the Company intends to pursue such appeal vigorously. Although the Company believes that it should be successful in its appeal of the verdict, there can be no assurance regarding the outcome of the appeal. If the Company is not successful in its appeal of the verdict, the Company anticipates that its share of the liability incurred in connection with the verdict could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations for the fiscal quarter and year in which the liability is incurred; however, it does not believe the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition. On February 28, 1999, a case was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama by Chris and Regina Christian against Russell Corporation, Russell Lands, Inc., Alabama Power, the Company and certain other parties. The complaint alleges that the Company, among others, negligently and/or wantonly caused or permitted the discharge and disposal of sewage sludge and contaminants into the lake adjacent to the plaintiffs' property, which allegedly interfered with the plaintiffs' use of the property. As a result of these alleged actions, the plaintiffs claim that the value of their property has been diminished and that they suffered mental anguish, bodily injury and other pecuniary loss. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages in an undisclosed amount. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case and believes that it has a number of defenses available to it. While the outcome of this case cannot be predicted with certainty, based upon currently available information, the Company does not believe that it will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. Avondale Mills, along with Russell Corporation and the municipality of Alexander City, Alabama, was named during fiscal 1998 in two almost identical citizen suits. The first suit, filed on May 18, 1998, was brought pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA"). The second suit, filed on August 28, 1998, was brought pursuant to both the CWA and the RCRA. In both lawsuits, the plaintiff has alleged that Avondale Mills' permitted discharges of wastewater from its facility in Alexander City into the waste water treatment plant of Alexander City have indirectly caused the wastewater treatment plant to exceed the effluent limitation imposed upon the plant's discharges into a local body of water, thereby violating the CWA. The plaintiff repeated that claim in the second lawsuit, but also alleged that Avondale Mills also violated RCRA by contributing to the disposal of a hazardous waste in such a manner as to endanger human health or the environment. In September 1998, the cases were consolidated, and the first case filed was designated the "lead case". In each of these cases, Avondale Mills filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment which it believed to be meritorious. However, prior to the court's ruling on Avondale's motions, the plaintiff moved the court to dismiss the suits. On September 30, 1999, pursuant to the plaintiff's motion, the court dismissed the lead case and terminated the remaining case. The dismissal of these cases was "without prejudice". Concurrent with this litigation, the United States Environmental Protection Agency had initiated an investigation of the possibility of CWA violations at Avondale Mills' facility, and this investigation is continuing at the present time. COMPS COM: Will Vigorously Defend CA & Dela Suits Over Fiduciary Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following has been incorporated in the report of Comps Com Inc. for the conformed period of November 3, 1999 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of November 10, 1999: on November 5, 1999, a purported class action suit was initiated in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County under the caption MORRIS V. AVIS, ET. AL (C.A. 17554). The suit alleges various breaches of fiduciary duties by certain members of the board of directors of COMPS.COM and by Summit Partners, its general partner. The Company believes the allegations in the case are without merit and will vigorously defend this action. Further, on November 8, 1999, a purported class action suit was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California of and for the County of San Diego captioned BERGHOFF V. COMPS.COM ET. AL. (Case No. GIC 738362). The allegations in that lawsuit are similar to the allegations in the Delaware action and the Company similarly believes the suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against such suit. FORD MOTOR: CA Judge Won't Let Jury Quit Case Re Alleged Faulty Modules ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A California judge on Tuesday asked a jury to keep deliberating in a multibillion dollar class-action suit against Ford Motor Co. after jurors said they were hopelessly deadlocked. An Alameda County Superior Court judge sent the jury back for more deliberations after the jury foreman told him the panel was deadlocked and wanted to be dismissed. The suit, one of the largest ever lodged against a U.S. automaker and representing about 3 million California plaintiffs, accuses Ford of putting faulty ignition modules in 1.7 million 1983-95 cars and trucks that could cause the vehicles to stall. If found guilty on all counts, Ford could be forced to pay estimated damages of between $3 billion and $4 billion. (The Orlando Sentinel, A Section, Pg. A16, Nov-17-1999) GUN MANUFACTURER: Sturm Ruger Reveals Suits In Multi States In SEC File ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Company has two reportable segments: firearms and investment castings. The firearms segment manufactures and sells rifles, pistols, revolvers, and shotguns principally to a select number of independent wholesale distributors primarily located in the United States. The investment castings segment consists of three operating divisions which manufacture and sell titanium, ferrous, and aluminum investment castings. The Company is a defendant in approximately 36 lawsuits involving its products and is aware of certain other such claims. These lawsuits and claims fall within two categories: those that claim damages from the Company related to allegedly defective product design which stem from a specific incident. These lawsuits and claims are based principally on the theory of "strict liability" but also may be based on negligence, breach of warranty, and other legal theories, and those brought by cities, municipalities, counties, and individuals (including certain putative class actions) against numerous firearms manufacturers, distributors and dealers seeking to recover damages allegedly arising out of the misuse of firearms by third parties in the commission of homicides, suicides and other shootings involving juveniles and adults. The complaints by municipalities seek damages, among other things, for the costs of medical care, police and emergency services, public health services, and the maintenance of courts, prisons, and other services. In certain instances, the plaintiffs seek to recover for decreases in property values and loss of business within the city due to criminal violence. In addition, nuisance abatement and/or injunctive relief is sought to change the design, manufacturing, marketing and distribution practices of the various defendants. These suits allege, among other claims, strict liability or negligence in the design of products, public nuisance, negligent entrustment, assault, negligent distribution, deceptive or fraudulent advertising, violation of consumer protection statutes and conspiracy or concert of action theories. None of these cases allege a specific injury to a specific individual as a result of the misuse or use of any of the Company's products. The only case against the Company alleging liability for criminal shootings by third parties to ever be permitted to go to a jury, Hamilton, et al. v. Accu-tek, et al., resulted in a defense verdict in favor of the Company on February 11, 1999. In that case, numerous firearms manufacturers and distributors had been sued, alleging damages as a result of alleged negligent sales practices and "industry wide" liability. The Company and its marketing and distribution practices were exonerated from any claims of negligence in each of the seven cases decided by the jury. The Court upheld the verdict of the jury and dismissed each case as to the Company in its May 26, 1999 opinion. The three defendants found liable have filed a notice of appeal from the court's decision. On October 7, 1999 a lawsuit brought against the Company and numerous firearms manufacturers and distributors by the mayor of Cincinnati, City of Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., et. al., was dismissed. This was the first dismissal of one of the lawsuits which have been filed by certain cities, municipalities and counties. Motions to dismiss other such lawsuits are pending. Camden County Board of Freeholders v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., et. al. in the District Court of Camden County, New Jersey. The complaint, which was served on September 2, 1999, alleges that handgun manufacturers have created a public nuisance because of allegedly negligent marketing and distribution practices regarding their products. The complaint also alleges design defects in firearms because adolescents and children can obtain and misuse guns. Compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, are demanded. Christopher T. Martin v. Philip A. Toren, individually, et. al. in the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County, Florida. The complaint, which was served on September 14, 1999, alleges that on or about September 14, 1999, the plaintiff was injured while he was handling a loaded pistol handed to him by the owner of the pistol, resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. Damages in excess of $15,000.00 are demanded. City of Atlanta v. Smith & Wesson, et. al. in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. The complaint was made known to the Company on February 5, 1999, but was not served until August 11, 1999. The complaint alleges that all defendants' guns are unreasonably dangerous because they can be fired by unauthorized users, including children, criminals, and mentally unstable persons. Compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court are demanded. City of Camden v. Beretta U.S.A.Corp., et. al. in the Superior Court in Camden County, New Jersey. The complaint was made known to the Company on June 1, 1999, but was not served as a lawsuit until September 1, 1999. The complaint alleges that the defendants have created a public nuisance because of negligent marketing and distribution practices which allegedly allow guns to be purchased and used by criminals, juveniles, and other prohibited persons in the commissions of crimes. Complaint also alleges a design defect because unauthorized users, including children and adolescents can obtain and misuse guns. Compensatory, punitive, and special damages to be determined by the Court, as well as injunctive relief, are demanded. City of Gary, Indiana, by its Mayor, Scott L. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et. al. in Superior Court in Lake, Indiana. The complaint, which was served on September 7, 1999, alleges that the defendants have created a public nuisance due to their negligent marketing and distribution practices, which allegedly enables guns to be purchased by juveniles, criminals, and other prohibited persons. The complaint also alleges design defects in firearms due to allegedly inadequate warnings and lack of safety devices. Compensatory, punitive, general and special damages, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, are demanded. City of San Francisco, et. al. v. Arcadia Machine & Tool,, Inc. et. al. in the Superior Court of San Francisco, California. The complaint was made known to the Company on May 25, 1999, but was not served until July 28, 1999. The complaint alleges that firearms manufacturers, distributors, and trade associations have created a public nuisance and have contributed to minors, criminals, and other unauthorized users obtaining handguns. The complaint also alleges a violation of the California Business and Professions Code in that the defendants have allegedly failed to incorporate reasonable safety features which would allegedly prevent minors, criminals, or other unauthorized users from using the guns. Injunctive and declaratory relief is demanded. Mayor Sharpe James, and the City of Newark, New Jersey v. Arcadia Machine & Tools, et. al. in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Essex County, New Jersey. The complaint was made known to the Company on June 10, 1999, but was not served until July 23, 1999. The complaint alleges that firearms manufacturers and their agents have allegedly failed to implement safety features which would allegedly prevent unauthorized or unintended users from using the guns. The complaint also alleges that gun manufacturers and their agents have allegedly created a public nuisance by making it easy for juveniles, felons, and other unauthorized users to obtain guns through illegal markets. Punitive and exemplary damages to be determined by the Court are demanded. Melissa M. Halliday, et. al. v. Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc., et. al. in the Circuit Court in Baltimore, Maryland. The complaint, which was served on July 22, 1999, alleges that the plaintiff's decedent was playing with a loaded pistol which accidentally fired, resulting in fatal injuries to plaintiff's decedent. Compensatory damages in amount of $4,000,000.00 are demanded against defendants. $10,000,000.00 in punitive damages are demanded against the Company. People of the State of California ex. rel. the County of Los Angeles, et. al. v. Arcadia Machine Tool, et. al. in the Superior Court in Los Angeles, California. The complaint, which was served on July 29, 1999, alleges a violation of the California Business and Professions Code in that handgun manufacturers, distributors, retailers and trade associations have created a public nuisance and have contributed to the juveniles, criminals, and unauthorized users obtaining handguns. The complaint also alleges that handgun manufacturers have failed to incorporate reasonable safety features which allegedly would prevent felons, minors or other unauthorized users from using handguns. Preliminary damages to be determined by the Court are demanded, as well as permanent injunctive relief. People of the State of California, by and through attorneys for the cities of Los Angeles, Campton, Inglewood, and West Hollywood, et. al. v. Arcadia Machine & Tool, et. al. in the Superior Court of the State of California. The complaint was made known to the Company on May 25, 1999, but was not served until July 28, 1999. The complaint alleges that handgun manufacturers, distributors, retailers and trade association have allegedly created a public nuisance by allegedly contributing to juveniles and criminals obtaining handguns. The complaint also alleges a violation to the California Business and Professions Code in that handgun manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and trade associations have allegedly failed to implement safety features which would allegedly prevent unauthorized users from using guns. Injunctive and declaratory relief are demanded. During the three months ending September 30, 1999, no previously reported cases were settled. HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Talks Drag On; Both Sides Come Closer To Numbers ------------------------------------------------------------------- Talks to set up a compensation fund for Nazi-era forced and slave laborers ended Wednesday without agreement, but both sides said they had come significantly closer on the key question of money. Germany is willing to raise its 6 billion mark ($ 3.2 billion) offer to up to 10 billion marks ($ 5.3 billion), while lawyers representing the victims dropped their demands by about half, to between 10 billion and 15 billion marks ($ 5.3 and 7.9 billion), participants said. ''There's a possibility of finding a dignified solution within the lifetime of the survivors,'' said a member of the Israeli government delegation to the talks, Bobby Brown. One of the lawyers, Edward Fagan, said the sides were ''getting closer on the number.'' But he emphasized that still under negotiation was the question of how the money would be allocated among former slave laborers held in concentration camps and others forced to work in industry, agriculture and other areas. The sides planned to mull over the offers during the next three weeks, participants said. The spokesman for German companies contributing to the fund, Wolfgang Gibowski, said his side was still trying to get more German firms to sign on to the fund, which has so far only raised 2 billion marks ($ 1.1 billion). He said lawyers for the victims had to reduce their demand further. ''The other side has to move,'' he said. Envoys to the talks from the German and U.S. governments were to elaborate on the results at a news conference. The last offer stood at 6 billion marks ($ 3.2 billion) - two-thirds from industry, one-third from government. But lawyers had been demanding more than $ 12 billion for victims forced to work for Nazi Germany during World War II. The German government last week offered to raise its contribution by 50 percent if industry made a similar move, and envoy Otto Lambsdorff told German radio that the businesses were now ready to do so. ''But it will be made on the condition that the other side in other words the class-action lawyers also show movement,'' Lambsdorff said. ''They know that they have floated some in part totally absurd and unrealistic demands and numbers.'' Lambsdorff indicated the new offer would be less than 10 billion marks total. ''Ten is too high, six is too low,'' he said. ''We have to meet somewhere in the middle.'' Fagan, who had threatened to lead a walkout of lawyers Tuesday, welcomed the expected new offer as a sign of ''serious movement and flexibility from Germany.'' ''It will help establish a range in which we can continue to negotiate in good faith,'' he said. Earlier, Gideon Taylor, executive vice president of the Jewish Claims Conference, said time was running out for compensating the elderly survivors. ''We are hopeful we will reach an agreement by the end of the year,'' he said. ''All the parties realize that we have little time left.'' German companies proposed the compensation fund in February under pressure of class-action lawsuits in the United States. But as the negotiations, now in their sixth round, dragged on, lawyers have suggested it might be better to fight the cases in court. Hans Peter Stihl, head of the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said Wednesday a collapse of the talks would be ''disastrous'' and have ''considerable drawbacks'' for German businesses. About 50 firms have signed on to contribute to the fund, which aims to compensate about 1.5 million to 2.3 million survivors. They include about 235,000 slave laborers, or people who were expected to be worked to death in concentration camps, and hundreds of thousands of other forced laborers, mostly non-Jews from Eastern Europe. Although Germany has already made about $ 60 billion in payments, pensions and other programs for war crimes, there has never been compensation for the estimated 12 million people put to work to help Nazi Germany's war effort. Participants in the talks include the German and U.S. governments, class-action lawyers, German industry, Jewish groups, Israel, Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Belarus and the Czech Republic. (AP Worldstream Nov-17-1999) The Detroit News reported that lawyers representing Nazi-era workers held fast to their demand Tuesday for $ 12 billion in compensation for the forced labor victims -- four times the amount Germany has offered so far in negotiations. And participating companies faced new pressure to raise their contributions. A German envoy said this sixth round of talks could collapse, though earlier they were seen as a possible turning point in determining how much should be given to those whose work was used to fuel Adolf Hitler's war machine. "The majority of the lawyers is ready to walk out of the talks," said Edward Fagan, one of the 12 lawyers representing the victims. Germany has offered $ 3.2 billion for the fund -- two-thirds would come from companies and one-third from the government. Later, the government offered to increase its share by $ 530 million if industry made a similar move. (The Detroit News, Nov-17-1999) INFORMIX CORP: CA Ct Approves Settlements For Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Informix(R) Corporation (Nasdaq:IFMX), announced November 16 final court approvals of the settlements of the private securities litigation in which the Company and others were defendants. The litigation arose from the events that led to the restatement of the Company's financial statements that was announced publicly in November, 1997. On October 29, 1999 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California gave final approval to the settlement of the federal securities class action litigation, which also covers the related State court securities class action litigation. On November 12, 1999 the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, gave final approval to the settlement of the related stockholder derivative litigation. The final court approvals resolve all of the major securities litigation that was pending. The Company hopes to resolve the very few remaining smaller securities cases not covered by the settlement as soon as possible. INMATES LITIGATION: Suit V. Suffolk Sheriff Alleges Of Reign Of Terror ---------------------------------------------------------------------- When Anthony Bova showed up in court in September, the judge was so horrified by the bruises he saw that he told a court officer to photograph Bova and ordered that he not be sent back to the Suffolk County House of Correction, where he had allegedly been beaten by correction officers. Bova and 27 other inmates at the county prison filed a civil rights class-action lawsuit against Sheriff Richard J. Rouse, alleging they were victims of a "reign of terror" in which they were routinely subjected to racial epithets, beaten, denied medical care, and kept from their families. The lawsuit follows allegations made in August that correction officers engaged in sexual misconduct with female prisoners. Rouse has fired five male officers and the FBI is interviewing inmates and reviewing department records as part of an ongoing federal civil rights probe of the facility. In the lawsuit filed November 15, inmate Kenneth Montgomery claimed he was beaten by correction officers who placed a plastic bag over his head in an attempt to suffocate him. Montgomery needed stitches to his eyes after one beating, according to court papers. Another inmate, Jerry Tolbert, claimed he's been in solitary confinement for two years, allowed out of his cell for just one hour a day while in restraints. Tolbert says he has received sporadic medical care for glaucoma and a back injury and claims he was nearly blinded by correction officers who punched him in the face. The lawsuit identifies 64 correction officers and their superiors and names Rouse and two of his top superintendents. There are approximately 500 correction officers, sergeants, and lieutenants, and 12 captains working at the prison. Gerard Lydon, a spokesman for Rouse, said that the sheriff had not yet seen the complaint but said Rouse will not ignore allegations of wrongdoing. "We do take these matters seriously," Lydon said. "We are already cooperating fully with the FBI. . . . Without having been served with a copy of the complaint, further comment would be inappropriate at this time." Bova's court appearance triggered the lawsuit, according to the Natick attorneys who filed it in Suffolk Superior Court. Joseph M. Mahaney, who had represented Bova in the past, was in court on Sept. 25 when the judge noticed the bruises on his ears, Mahaney said. Bova told Mahaney that he had been beaten by guards. That led to interviews with more inmates by Mahaney and his partners, Theodore H. Goguen and Sean T. Goguen, and the filing of the civil rights suit. "Some of these guys have been in prison before," said Theodore Goguen. "Usually, you have to worry about the other prisoners, not the guards. But at this one, you have to worry about the guards." Theodore Goguen said the number of inmates suing the department may eventually top 200. He said possible outcomes include payments to the inmates, court orders against individual guards banning further violence, and the appointment of a receiver to run the prison. He stressed, however, that it was too soon to specify what remedies his clients would seek. "It's not supposed to be a picnic, but, jeez, you are not supposed to get this kind of treatment," Theodore Goguen said. He described a "pervasive" atmosphere where correction officers were routinely allowed to beat inmates without fear of being punished by their superiors. (The Boston Globe Nov-16-1999) INTELECT COMMUNICATIONS: Kaplan Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit In TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Intelect Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: ICOMC) between February 24, 1998 and November 17, 1998. The lawsuit charges Intelect and certain of its top officers and directors with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period, Intelect's financial statements were false and misleading in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On November 17, 1998, Intelect announced that it was restating its financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 1998 and was writing off various assets. Plaintiff is represented by Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP. You may move the court, no later than 60 days from November 17, 1999 to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your rights, or your interests, please e-mail us at mail@kkf-law.com or contact: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Adrienne L. Valencia, Esq. Brigid T. Kavanaugh, Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP 805 Third Avenue - 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 800-290-1952 212-687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 E-mail address: mail@kkf-law.com MIRACLE SUPPLY: Co. Owner Claims Nothing To Do With Camera In Washroom ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The owner of a plumbing-supply business on Tuesday defended his company against charges that a video camera had been hidden two years ago in a bathroom that his female employees used. Martin Holtzman, president of Miracle Supply Co. in University City, said there was a camera in the bathroom. But he said he had nothing to do with its installation, and defended the employee who put it there. It is the subject of a lawsuit that four women, three of whom are former employees, filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court on Oct. 4, alleging invasion of privacy. 50 members of the National Organization for Women marched outside Miracle, at 1580 North and South Road, in support of the lawsuit. Holtzman was unavailable last week, but he called the Post-Dispatch on Tuesday to respond to the charges. NOW national president Patricia Ireland, who was in St. Louis for a debate, led the demonstration. "They were trying to say that sexual harassment goes on every day, and that's not true," Martin Holtzman said of the demonstrators. "It's a misrepresentation of the facts. This whole thing happened two years ago." As for the camera, Holtzman said, "I had no knowledge of it until after the fact." He said he assumed company vice president Michael M. Dattilo installed it, but Holtzman said he didn't know why. In April 1997, Dattilo, 42, of St. Charles, was charged with 11 counts of invasion of privacy, a misdemeanor, after several female employees discovered where the camera had been. Court records make no mention of the charges. Dattilo said Tuesday he received a suspended imposition of sentence, but declined to be more specific or comment further. If a person meets the conditions of a suspended imposition of sentence, case files are closed. Holtzman said he took no action against Dattilo because he is a good worker. "I can't fire him. It took 25 years for him to be such a valuable employee," Holtzman said. "He had an off day when he did something that was unnatural. But that's got nothing to do with his value to the company." Betty Hofstetter of Belleville, lead plaintiff in the lawsuit and a member of NOW, could not be reached. But Martha Tyson, a spokeswoman for last week's NOW protest, said of Holtzman's comments: "They show such a deep disrespect for his employees that it's kind of hard to respond. For women who continue to work there, it was a real slap." Miracle settled with another former employee in U.S. District Court, but Hofstetter said she refused to accept the terms. Ira Blank, a company lawyer, said that means Hofstetter had no right to sue in state court. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov-17-1999) NANTUCKET ISLAND: Contests Securities Fraud Suit Filed In MA In June 99 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is incorporated in the report of Nantucket Island Associates Limited for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1999 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of November 10, 1999. The report states the company's business as at One International Place, C/O Winthrop Financial Associates and names Three Winthrop Properties, Inc. as Managing General Partner Lewis Jacobs et al., vs. Winthrop Financial Associates, et al., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 99CV11363WGY. In June 1999, plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts as a purported class action on behalf of themselves and limited partners in Nantucket Island Associates Limited Partnership [the "Partnership"] against certain affiliates of the Partnership. Plaintiffs' complaint purports to allege class claims for fraud under the federal securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs contend in substance that in connection with a 1996 offering of preferred limited partnership units in the Partnership and a 1998 sale of property, the defendants preferred their own interests to those of the limited partners in the Partnership. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and an accounting. The defendants flied a motion to dismiss in response to the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws, and that the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims included in the complaint. The court heard argument on that motion on October 20, 1999, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court indicated its intention to hold its decision for 30 days to permit the plaintiffs to appeal, and thereafter to remand the state law claims to Massachusetts state court. Discovery has not commenced. The defendants believe the claims are without merit and intend to contest this action. NANTUCKET ISLAND: Intends To Contest Delaware Suit Over Rights Offering ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is incorporated in the report of Nantucket Island Associates Limited for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1999 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of November 10, 1999. The report states the company's business as at One International Place, C/O Winthrop Financial Associates and names Three Winthrop Properties, Inc. as Managing General Partner Richard Anisfield, et. al., vs. Three Winthrop Properties, Inc. et. al., Court of Chancery for New Castle County, Delaware, CA. No. 17379NC. In August 1999, the plaintiffs brought suit, as a class action, against the general partner of the Partnership and one of its affiliates alleging breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the rights offering as described in the preceding paragraphs. In September 1999, the defendants filed a motion to stay the action pending the outcome of the two actions identified above. That motion has not yet been briefed or argued. The defendants believe the claims are without merit and intend to contest this action. NANTUCKET ISLAND: MA Ct Dismisses Partners Securities Suit Filed Oct 98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is incorporated in the report of Nantucket Island Associates Limited for the quarterly period ended September 30, 1999 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of November 10, 1999. The report states the company's business as at One International Place, C/O Winthrop Financial Associates and names Three Winthrop Properties, Inc. as Managing General Partner. Frederic D. Nemer et al., vs. Winthrop Securities Co., Inc., et al., Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 98-5536C. In October 1998, plaintiffs filed an action in Massachusetts state court as a purported class and derivative action on behalf of themselves and limited partners in Nantucket Island Associates Limited Partnership [the "Partnership"] against the Partnership and certain affiliates. The October 1998 complaint was never served upon any of the defendants. In July 1999, plaintiffs filed and served an Amended Class Action Complaint which purports to allege class and derivative claims against the Partnership and its affiliates (the "Winthrop Defendants"), as well as certain unaffiliated defendants, seeking damages and equitable relief. The Amended Class Action Complaint purported to allege claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the Massachusetts securities laws, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, fraud and deceit, civil conspiracy, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection statute, breach of contract and breach of covenant. Plaintiffs had contended in substance that in connection with a 1996 offering of preferred limited partnership units in the Partnership and a 1998 sale of property, the Winthrop Defendants preferred their own interests to those of the limited partners in the Partnership. Plaintiffs also alleged that events and information occurring in 1996 and 1998 caused them to be misled as to the terms of the original 1987 offering of limited partnership units in the Partnership. On October 27, 1999, the court held a pretrial conference at which plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear. The court therefore dismissed the Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety. PLUMAS COUNTY: Sch officials immune; Dog Sniff Was Not Clearly A Search ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Although a random dog sniff of students at a California high school qualified as a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, school officials and other defendants successfully raised the defense of qualified immunity against a student's suit asserting violations of his constitutional rights. B.C. v. Plumas County Sheriff's Department, No. 97-17287 (9th Cir. 9/20/99). In May 1996, the Quincy High School principal and vice principal directed the student and his classmates to leave their classroom. As they left, they passed a deputy sheriff and a drug-sniffing dog, which "alerted" to one student. The students waited in the school hallway while the dog proceeded to sniff backpacks, jackets and other student belongings. When the students returned to the classroom, the dog again "alerted" to the same student, who was searched by school officials. However, no illegal drugs were found that day. A student who was not singled out for an individualized search sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging several deprivations of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from searches and seizures. He sought injunctive relief, money damages and class certification. A federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of school officials, finding that qualified immunity protected them from money damages. In affirming, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression in determining that the dog sniff was an unreasonable search. It agreed with case law from other circuits ruling that a dog sniff in a school setting was intrusive in nature. The court focused on whether the search in this case was reasonable under the circumstances, analyzing whether the individual student's privacy interests were minimal and whether an important governmental interest was furthered by the intrusion. Even though students maintained a diminished expectation of privacy, the dog sniff was "highly intrusive" given the personal nature of body odors, the court determined. Further, the record failed to show the existence of a drug problem at the school that could have triggered an important governmental interest. Thus, the search was unreasonable. Nevertheless, school officials were still entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the search, it was not clearly established that the use of dogs to sniff students in a school setting constituted a search. Accordingly, they were immune from suit for money damages, the court held. (National Public Employment Reporter Nov-3-1999) PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Judge Orders Probe Into Settlement For Churning --------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has ordered an investigation into allegations that Prudential Insurance Company of America is cheating policyholders who made claims against the company as part of its nationwide class-action settlement. U.S. District Court Judge Alfred M. Wolin ordered the investigation based on a request from Prudential and attorneys for Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach--the law firm that initially brought the class-action suit over deceptive sales practices. In 1997, Prudential agreed to a settlement worth as much as $2 billion after allegations that agents induced customers to switch old policies for new ones through a practice called churning, causing them to lose the cash value of their policies or benefits (BestWire, March 11, 1999). The settlement covered about 10.7 million policyholders. Of those, about 1.15 million applied for relief through the settlement, Prudential has said. Of those, 500,000 filed a basic claim for the minimum relief. Some $1 billion covers another 650,000 who pursued the alternative dispute resolution program. The latest action involves a group of current and former Prudential employees in Minnesota who have filed lawsuits against Prudential, alleging that claims are downgraded to a score of 2 on a scale of 1-3, thereby yielding a smaller remedy for policyholders. So far, about 25 lawsuits have been filed, with more promised by the Neff Law Firm in Bloomington, Minn. "What we're being accused of doesn't make any sense," said Prudential spokesman Robert DeFillippo. Prudential initially tried to talk to the employees and their attorneys to try to get details of the allegations, to no avail. That's why Prudential sought help from the court. "When it became clear that discussions with the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel weren't going to be productive, we went to the court and to regulators," DeFillippo said. DeFillippo said Prudential sought permission to record sworn testimony from the employees, as did Milberg Weiss, which continues to work as the overseer of the settlement process. According to DeFillippo, Prudential has no incentive to downgrade policyholders' claims. An independent attorney reviews any claim that is scored at a 2 or below. If the claim isn't upgraded, the policyholder has a right to appeal to a third-party arbiter. Prudential, meanwhile, has to pay for the entire review process. "It's an additional expense, and we have no control over the outcome," DeFillippo said. At mid-year, Prudential, which has set aside $2.6 billion for the settlement, had sent $1 billion in payments to claimants. As of June, about 20% of the claimants qualified for the highest remedy, which included a refund with interest. Another 64% qualified for smaller refunds or policy adjustments. Another 12% didn't qualify for a remedy, while the rest had policies that weren't included in the settlement. DeFillippo said Prudential officials have so far found no information to substantiate the plaintiffs' claims, and doesn't expect to. The depositions will begin as soon as possible, the company spokesman said. The judge "wants them done right away. He doesn't want any delay, which, by the way, we completely agree with," he said. RITE AID: Steven E. Cauley Files Securities Fraud Suit In Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. announced on November 17, 1999 that a Class Action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Rite Aid Corporation (NYSE: RAD; PCX) bonds between May 29, 1997 and October 2, 1998, inclusive. The complaint filed by Steven E. Cauley charges that Rite Aid and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations about Rite Aid's financial condition and filing false financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On June 1, 1999, Rite Aid announced that it would restate the materially false financial statements it filed with the SEC for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999. Then, on October 18, 1999, Rite Aid announced that it would undertake further restatements of the materially false financial statements it filed for fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999, equal to approximately $500 million pre-tax. According to the complaint, in connection with Rite Aid's admissions that its 1997, 1998 and 1999 financial statements violated GAAP, Rite Aid's accountants have resigned. As a result of these announcements, the price of Rite Aid bonds collapsed, falling as much as 30% on November 10, 1999 along, and now trade at a faction of their trading prices during the Class Period. If you wish to serve as one of the lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit you must file a motion with the court within 60 days of November 17, 1999. If you have any questions regarding this lawsuit or how you may be able to recover for the losses you have incurred through your purchase of Rite Aid bonds, please E-mail or call one of the attorneys listed below: Steven E. Cauley Scott E. Poynter Gina M. Cothern 2200 N. Rodney Parham Road Suite 218, Cypress Plaza Little Rock, AR 72212 E-mail: CauleyPA@aol.com 1-888-551-9944 - toll free SEED MANUFACTURERS: Cohen, Milstein's Plans Trigger Global Alliance ------------------------------------------------------------------- Last summer, news stories about Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll's plans to file class actions against companies making genetically modified seeds triggered calls from attorneys as far away as India for more information from the Washington, D.C., law firm. In response, lawyers at the firm called a meeting of interested foreign attorneys in London for Oct. 20, and that has resulted in an international network of attorneys who plan a global litigation assault against the seed companies. Cohen Milstein's Elizabeth Cronise said that the network, which includes 10 domestic firms and three international ones, expects to file the first suits in November. She declined to comment on which companies will be named, saying only that all major companies involved in the production of genetically modified seed and food crops will be involved. Ms. Cronise said that the suits will include antitrust claims, claims of misrepresentation and fraud against the farmer-plaintiffs and, perhaps, environmental, health or ecological claims. Global Alliance Ms. Cronise declined to elaborate on the specifics of Cohen Milstein's relationships with any of the firms in the network. She did say that the Panama-based firm Morgan & Morgan will head up litigation in the Caribbean and in Latin and South America. India's Udwadia, Udeshi, Berjis will be in charge of suits in India, and Britain's Mishcon de Reya will be overseeing litigation in Britain and Europe. Cohen Milstein has handled numerous complex class actions with favorable results. Most recently, the firm helped obtain a $ 1.25 billion settlement with Swiss banks on behalf of Holocaust survivors and was involved in a $ 176 million settlement with Texaco Inc. in a race discrimination lawsuit. The firm is also working with a number of top plaintiffs' attorneys domestically, including San Francisco's Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein L.L.P.; Boies & Schiller L.L.P., in Armonk, N.Y., and Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross L.L.P., in New York. The National Family Farm Coalition and a public-interest group, the Foundation on Economic Trends, initially approached Cohen Milstein about the litigation. The broadening of the suit into global waters, Ms. Cronise said, is a first: "We consider this to be, on a global scale, unchartered territory." Novartis, Monsanto and DuPont representatives either could not be reached about the intended litigation or declined to comment, noting that no litigation has been filed yet. (The National Law Journal, Litigation Pg. B17, Nov-8-1999) ST. LOUIS HOUSING: Sued Over Lead-Poisoning & Lack Of Proper Inspection ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Neltha Brandon, who moved her family from a federally subsidized house that was contaminated with lead, sued the St. Louis Housing Authority. In her suit, filed in St. Louis Circuit Court, Brandon contends the Housing Authority broke federal regulations by not properly inspecting a house on the city's South Side in its Section 8 program. The federal program pays for rental housing for poor families. Brandon filed the suit on behalf of her 4-year-old son, Darryl Jr., who suffers from lead poisoning. "The Housing Authority has a long history of not enforcing lead inspections," said R. Bruce Carlson, whose Pittsburgh-based law firm represents the Brandons. In March, Carlson's firm filed a similar federal class-action suit against the Housing Authority here. That suit is pending. Lead poisoning can slow the intellectual development of children. The risk of problems increases as the blood level of lead increases. Low levels of poisoning over sustained periods increase the risk of long-term intellectual disability. The damage may be permanent. Carlson also filed suit on behalf of another mother who lived in Section 8 housing and whose three children became lead poisoned. Carlson's firm has filed suits across the country on behalf of plaintiffs in lead-paint cases. The latest suits are asking for at least $ 25,000 per child, but the families will probably seek more money, Carlson said. Cheryl Lovell, executive director of the Housing Authority, refused to comment because she had not yet seen the suits. The Housing Authority recently hired a private firm to head Section 8 inspections. Earlier this year, the Post-Dispatch detailed problems with the Housing Authority's Section 8 program and some of the specifics of Darryl Brandon's situation. Doctors had suspected that the youngster got lead poisoning from chipped and exposed lead paint in a Section 8 house the family occupied. The house had so many problems the city's building division had refused to give the landlord an occupancy permit, officials acknowledged. The Brandons should have never been allowed to move into the house. Now, the family lives in a Section 8 house in the 4000 block of North Ninth Street. Until September, the Brandons had lived for nearly six mon ths in a Salvation Army homeless shelter. Neltha has a husband, Darryl, and 11 children. In August, one of the children - Jade - was placed under custody of the state Division of Family Services. The then 22-month-old girl wound up in state custody after she was found at the new Life Evangelistic Center downtown. She had been left behind at the center for several hours before her parents noticed that she was missing. The family had gone to the center to pick up school supplies. Jade remains in state custody, the family said. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch Nov-16-1999) TAMPA GENERAL: Poor, Pregnant Women Agree To Settle In Drug Study Case ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A lawyer for poor, pregnant women who say they were not informed of risks a drug study posed to their pregnancies has reached a monetary agreement with a hospital and university, court records show. Attorneys for the women, Tampa General Hospital and the University of South Florida all declined comment on the financial terms, saying non-monetary terms still need to be worked out. The monetary settlement would help resolve a federal suit filed in January 1990 when Steve Hanlon, a public interest lawyer for Holland & Knight sued on behalf of 279 women. The case, which was certified as a class action in 1996, had been scheduled for trial in April. The women were part of a study combining two drugs that had been used separately to reduce chances of respiratory problems in premature infants. In the study, the women underwent amniocentesis, a test that causes spontaneous abortion in one out of 100 cases. Hanlon maintained the consent forms were misleading and not as clear as forms given to paying clients. He said the women were done "dignitary harm." He does not identify a woman, fetus or newborn who suffered medical harm. According to the lawsuit, Flora Diaz, 18 in 1987 when she entered Tampa General Hospital with a high-risk pregnancy, was drowsy from drugs and told by a nurse amniocentesis was necessary to check the baby's lungs. Diaz's mother was asked to sign a consent form. She was told the amniocentesis would not hurt the baby and if the test was not done the baby would be born early and die, the suit states. The amniocentesis was done. Diaz's daughter Erica was delivered in November 1987 and has grown normally. Hanlon filed a notice of financial settlement last month, but declined to discuss specifics or the issues that remain undecided. "I believe it is stupid, frankly, to discuss the terms of settlement in the middle of the settlement process," Hanlon said. TOBACCO LITIGATION: CNN Coverage; Cancer Victim Takes Stand In Fla Case ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Broadcast On Cable News Network on November 17, 1999 BRIAN NELSON, CNN ANCHOR: A lawsuit by Florida smokers seeking damages from the tobacco industry brought some dramatic testimony, yesterday. A cancer victim took to the stand to explain why she couldn't kick the habit, even after developing several tumors. MARK POTTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mary Farnan is only 44 years old and has already had three cancer operations to remove tumors from both lungs and her brain. On the witness stand in Florida's historic tobacco trial, she described a smoking addiction so severe that even as she endured cancer treatments should couldn't quit. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How could you go through radiation and chemotherapy and still be smoking three packs of this every day, knowing what this had done to you? MARY FARNAN, TOBACCO LAWSUIT PLAINTIFF: I had to have them. I -- I would go through withdrawal symptoms, I would get sick to my stomach, and I was already having enough trouble with the chemotherapy and the radiation; I couldn't give up my cigarettes then. There was no way. I was addicted to them. I had to have them. POTTER: Mary Farnan, a registered nurse, began smoking at age 10 and is now one of the lead plaintiffs in Florida's class-action suit against the tobacco industry. During cross-examination, an attorney for R.J. Reynolds suggested she knew the dangers and questioned her resolve to quit. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You never went to a medical doctor and said, please help me quit smoking? FARNAN: No, I never went to a medical doctor or a sociologist to try to quit smoking. POTTER: Mary Farnan's response to the tobacco companies was she tried quitting and failed many times. FARNAN: And I used to blame me, but after I worked at the hospital and all, and I realized later on about the nicotine and the way that you put different things in there to make them more addicting, that it wasn't my fault, it was your fault. POTTER: At the end of the trial, the jurors must decide whether to penalize big tobacco and award damages to Mary Farnan and perhaps hundreds of thousands of other Florida smokers. Mark Potter, CNN, Miami. UGA: Savannah Judge Oks Class Against Admissions Based On Gender & Race ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that hundreds of students can join a reverse discrimination lawsuit against the University of Georgia's admissions program, lawyers will begin to try to find them. U.S. District Judge B. Avant Edenfield of Savannah granted class-action status Monday to a lawsuit challenging UGA's admissions program. The lawsuit, filed by four white females who were denied admission, claims the university unconstitutionally discriminated against them by providing preferences to male and African-American applicants. UGA no longer uses gender as a factor, but it continues to give added weight to applications filed by prospective African-American students. Edenfield ruled the class-action case can include students unconstitutionally denied admission to future freshmen classes, as well. UGA spokesman Tom Jackson expressed disappointment in the ruling, but noted, "It's not an entirely unexpected development." "It's great news," said Atlanta lawyer Lee Parks, who represents the women plaintiffs. He renewed his call for UGA to stop using race as a factor in admissions. "I think now that they've seen the judge has certified this as a class action, they'll reconsider it," Parks said. "Every time you reject somebody based on race at this point, you're just adding another zero to the check. You can't do it prudently. This is tax money we're talking about." Parks said damage claims against UGA could be significant. Almost all the students with potential claims would have qualified for the HOPE scholarship, he said. When denied admission to UGA, many attended private schools and now pay tuition costs of as much as $ 25,000 a year, he said. Parks said he will put together a letter, to be approved by Edenfield, that will be mailed to potential class action plaintiffs. They include any students who claim to have been denied admission because of their race or gender in the freshman classes of 1997, 1998 and 1999. The cutoff is the 1997 academic year due to the statute of limitations on damage claims, Parks said. He estimated the potential number of eligible plaintiffs to be 100 to 200 for each year. The number of legitimate claims could be much smaller. When deciding how many plaintiffs have a viable claim, the lawyers would have to consider the number of freshman class openings. Also to be taken into account would be how many students actually benefited from an admissions formula called the Total Student Index. The formula gives added weight to an applicant's academic standing if the applicant is a minority or a male. Getting the names and previous addresses of potential class members should be accomplished quickly, Parks said. He predicted UGA may be required to begin admitting wrongly-denied applicants as early as January. While Edenfield did not address the issue of whether UGA's admission policy is constitutional, the judge has made it clear that he thinks the use of race and gender cannot be legally justified. UGA has said it modeled its admissions program on the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In that decision, the late Justice Lewis Powell wrote "the interest of diversity is compelling in the context of a university's admissions program." Edenfield conceded the Bakke ruling is still the law of the land. But in light of more recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, he noted, "there is indeed strong doubt as to whether Bakke's reasoning remains sound." (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution Nov-17-1999) VISX INC: Intends To Defend Vigorously Antitrust Suits; Resolves 1 Case ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the commencement of the FTC administrative proceedings on March 24, 1998, a large number of purported class actions have been filed against VISX and others alleging, among other things, violations of various state and federal antitrust laws. The case captioned Castino v. VISX, Inc. and Summit Technology, Inc. (USDC D Minn 99-861) was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 12, 1999. The remainder of the purported class actions alleging violations of antitrust laws are still in the early stages. Although VISX believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims presented in these actions and intends to defend them vigorously, it is too early to estimate their outcome. WAR VICTIMS: American WWII Veterans & Heirs Sue Japanese Corporations --------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Jackfert et al. v. Kawasaki, Mitsui, Nippon Mitsubishi, Showa A group of American World War II veterans and their heirs have filed a class action suit against five major Japanese corporations, alleging that while prisoners of war in Japanese camps, they were forced to do slave labor in Japanese factories. The plaintiffs say that, among other things, they were beaten and denied food and critical medical attention. The suit, filed in Albuquerque on September 13, names 11 plaintiffs who were National Guardsmen in Albuquerque before going overseas. About 500 other ex-POWs and their heirs have agreed to be part of the suit, says plaintiffs lawyer Eli Warach. Warach says he has only recently been able to corroborate some allegations, as a result of the declassification of certain Japanese wartime military documents. The plaintiffs seek damages, including the market value of their labor, and disgorgement and restitution of all economic benefits the companies derived from their labor. "Mitsui never used any POW labor, moreover, these claims are specifically barred by the San Francisco Peace treaty between the U.S. and Japan." says Mitsui counsel David Balabanian, For Edward Jackfert, et al. (Albuquerque): Albuquerque-based solo practitioner Paul Wainwright and Hackensack, New Jersey-based solo practitioner Eli Warach. Warach was referred to the plaintiffs through the American Center for Civil Justice. For Nippon Steel Corporation (Tokyo) At press time counsel had not yet been assigned. For Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (Tokyo) McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen (San Francisco): David Balabanian, Anthony Davis, Christopher Hockett, and Eric Pierson. Keleher & McLeod (Albuquerque): Kurt Wihl. For Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (Kobe, Japan) At press time counsel had not yet been assigned. For Mitsubishi International Corporation (New York) Morrison & Foerster (San Francisco): Kathleen Fisher and Tamu Sudduth, of counsel Shirley Hufstedler and Arne Wagner, and associate Phyllis Oscar. Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk (Albuquerque): Douglas Schneebeck. For Showa Denko K.K. (Tokyo) Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (New York): Christopher Lunding and Sara Schotland. (Lunding is in the firm's Tokyo office and Schotland is in their Washington, D.C., office.) Sheehan, Sheehan & Stelzner (Albuquerque): Craig Erickson and Luis Stelzner. (The American Lawyer, Suits, page 41 November, 1999) WESTERN UNION: Settles Chicago Lawsuit Over Money Wiring To Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------------ Under a preliminary settlement of a lawsuit, Western Union Financial Services, a subsidiary, Orlandi Valuta, and MoneyGram Payment Systems will create two funds to help the Latino communities in the U.S., attorneys said. Last year, a class-action lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs who alleged the companies did not disclose all the fees associated with wiring money to Mexico. One fund of $4.66 million will benefit community organizations that serve Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. A second will allow customers to donate money to Latino community organizations. Latino community leaders and elected officials voiced their support of the charitable funds in Chicago Tuesday. Also as part of the settlement, millions of customers will receive as much as $375 million in coupons to use on future wire transactions. A final hearing on the settlement is scheduled for Dec. 10 in federal court in Chicago. (Chicago Tribune, Metro Chicago, Pg. 6, Zone: S, Nov-17-1999) * SEC Oks Reimbursing Brokerage Houses For Mailings On Securities Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A new, controversial and potentially lucrative client solicitation technique employed by securities fraud litigators at Weiss & Yourman got the blessing of the Securities and Exchange Commission last week, in the form of an amicus curiae brief. The Los Angeles firm this year convinced several brokerage houses to send out mass mailings informing their clients of stock-drop suits that Weiss & Yourman had filed. Weiss & Yourman in turn reimbursed the brokerage houses for the mailings, and then hoped that the stock traders would sign on as plaintiffs with the firm. Plaintiff-side giant Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach objected to Weiss & Yourman's gambit in the Northern District case of Knisley v. Network Associates, 99-1729. In an attempt to knock Weiss & Yourman from the competition to be lead counsel in that case, Milberg filed a motion with Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong that essentially called the practice an illegal solicitation. Milberg partner William Lerach pointed to provisions in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act that prohibited lawyers from paying brokers for clients. But Armstrong ruled in Weiss & Yourman's favor, saying that reimbursing the brokerage houses is different from paying brokers. Milberg Weiss then asked the SEC to make the call, and the commission came down on Weiss & Yourman's side. Not only is the practice above board, the SEC said in the brief signed by General Counsel Harvey Goldschmid, it may even be beneficial. "The effects of mailings could be to encourage additional investors to come forward, negotiate with and retain counsel and move to be lead plaintiff, thereby enhancing competition for lead plaintiff and lead counsel," the brief stated. The SEC brief, however, said its thumbs up to Weiss & Yourman's practice should not be construed as an endorsement of "aggregation." Aggregation is the practice of one firm presenting dozens -- and sometimes hundreds -- of disparate plaintiffs as a single group in order to win lead plaintiffs status. "The commission wishes to make clear that the amalgamation of large numbers of unrelated shareholders into a proposed lead plaintiff group is a serious concern because such a 'group' cannot provide the kind of monitoring that the Reform Act contemplates," the brief stated. "In the commission's view, a lead plaintiff 'group' should generally be limited to three to five members, and thus be able to actively oversee the conduct of the litigation and monitor the effectiveness of counsel for the protection of the class." Palo Alto's Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, representing a defendant in a securities case in the Southern District of Texas, made an objection similar to the one Lerach filed and lost here. But the judge has not ruled on the motion in Laney v. Landry's Seafood Restaurant Inc., 99-1948, which sought to disqualify Weiss & Yourman from competing for the lead counsel's cudgel. Meanwhile, Judge Armstrong has since transferred the Network Associates case to newly minted Northern District Judge William Alsup. (The Recorder Nov-16-1999) ********* 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. Theresa Cheuk and Peter A. Chapman, editors. Copyright 1999. 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 301/951-6400. * * * End of Transmission * * *