/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000229.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 29, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 42 Headlines ATLANTA: Suit May Decide Water Rates for Unincorporated Fulton County BNC MORTGAGE: Receives CA, DE Suits in Response to Going Private Buyout CADENCE DESIGN: Milberg Weiss Sues over Illegal Payoffs in OrCAD Buy COINMACH CORPORATION: Acquisition Proposal Spawning Suit Terminates COSMO SECURITIES: Settles Securities Suit in Japan with Reconciliation GORAN, SYMONS: Companies Receive Shareholder Complaint Filed in IN HAGEMEYER P.P.S.: Sued for Illegal Payoffs Re Purchase of Vallen Corp. MARINER POST-ACUTE: Bankruptcy Stays Colorado Consumer Protection Suit MT. PROSPECT: Alleged Racism of Police Puts Driving Data in Spotlight MUSICMAKER.COM: Responds to Press Release of Securities Suit in CA QUALITY SYSTEMS: Cautions Shareholders of Litigation's Adverse Effects RAVISENT TECHNOLGIES: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in PA RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit in PA RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in PA RUBIN MONTGOMERY: Action Groups Win Award for Low-Income Tenants in PA ST. JOHN'S: Parents Allege Racism at Military Academy In Wisconsin STEWART ENTERPRISES: Company Believes Shareholders Abandoned Suit SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Qtr. 4 Brings Final Resolution to Securities Suit UNISYS CORPORATION: Company Will Defend Against Shareholders' Suits UNITED SHIPPING: Mediation Process Begins in Employee Vehicle Use Case UPGRADE INTERNATIONAL: Responds to Charges in Milberg's Press Release ********* ATLANTA: Suit May Decide Water Rates for Unincorporated Fulton County --------------------------------------------------------------------- A pending court case against the city of Atlanta may decide how much more unincorporated Fulton County residents should pay for city-provided water than city residents. With state-mandated negotiations between the city and the county at a standstill and a deadline looming, a lawsuit filed by a group of Fulton residents may decide the issue. If the plaintiffs win their lawsuit, the city could end up paying as much as $ 30 million in reimbursements to outside water customers for past inequitable billings. Even city officials agree that the additional 34 percent that Atlanta charges 33,000 homes and businesses outside the city for water is significantly higher than outside experts hired to determine a fair charge have recommended. A January letter from Atlanta Chief Operating Officer Larry Wallace to Fulton County Manager Thomas Andrews recommends that the city reduce the additional charge from 34 percent to 26 percent. But the plaintiffs in the suit say that even 26 percent extra is far more than they should have to pay for their water service. "There's no justification except that they (city officials) have monopoly power," said Eva Galambos, one of the seven lead plaintiffs in the suit filed against the city last year. More than 40 Sandy Springs residents plan to travel by bus to the Fulton County Courthouse to attend a hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Alice Bonner on Atlanta's motion to dismiss the suit. If Bonner rejects the city's motion, the suit probably will determine what, if any, difference outside water customers will pay the city. Recommendations from a variety of experts range from no difference at all to as much as 21 percent. "It's undisputed by the experts that the 34 percent differential can't be justified," said David Pope, the plaintiffs' attorney. In addition to changing the rates for the future, Pope's suit asks the court to reimburse all outside water customers for overcharges going back six years. If the court finds that no difference can be justified, as an expert for the plaintiff has testified, those payments could total $ 30 million. City Attorney Susan Pease Langford is tight-lipped about the lawsuit, but said the city does see its water rates to outside customers as "negotiable at some point." Fulton County Attorney O.V. Brantley said that she will recommend to county commissioners that they allow her to file suit against the city over water rates. The county also could intervene in the customers' suit. A decision on the water rates must be rendered by March 1. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, February 25, 2000) BNC MORTGAGE: Receives CA, DE Suits in Response to Going Private Buyout ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BNC Mortgage, Inc., (NASDAQ/NM:BNCM) announced that two class action lawsuits have been filed, one in the Superior Court of the State of California in Orange County, California and one in the Court of Chancery in Delaware by purported stockholders of the Company alleging a breach of fiduciary duties and seeking damages and other relief in response to the Company's announcement that it had signed a merger agreement with an entity formed by an investor group led by senior members of the Company's management pursuant to which the public stockholders of the Company would receive $10.00 per share in cash. The Company and the other defendants named in the law suits deny breaching their fiduciary duties and/or self dealing in connection with the proposed merger. BNC Mortgage Inc. is a specialty finance company engaged in the business of originating, purchasing and selling, on a whole loan basis for cash, conforming and non-conforming, residential mortgage loans secured by one-to-four family residences. CADENCE DESIGN: Milberg Weiss Sues over Illegal Payoffs in OrCAD Buy -------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com)announces that a class action has commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of persons who tendered shares of OrCAD Inc. (Nasdaq:OCAD) to Cadence Design Systems Inc. (NYSE:CDN) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, CDSI Acquisition Corp., in connection with Cadence's purchase of the outstanding shares of OrCAD at $13.00 per share. The complaint charges Cadence and certain of its senior executives with violations of the federal securities laws arising out of defendants' unlawful payments to senior OrCAD executives to obtain their support in consummating the Tender Offer and their agreement to tender their own shares. Plaintiff alleges that by offering to pay special payments to senior OrCAD executives, defendants have violated the provisions of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC regulations promulgated thereunder. Contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com COINMACH CORPORATION: Acquisition Proposal Spawning Suit Terminates ------------------------------------------------------------------- On November 18, 1999, K. Reed Hinrichs v. Stephen R. Kerrigan, et al., a purported class action lawsuit, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Newcastle County naming Coinmach Corporation and certain of its executive officers as defendants. The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants are breaching their fiduciary duty to the Company's public shareholders by selling the Company for inadequate compensation. The matter has been stayed by agreement of the parties. On February 3, 2000, GRKC Holding Company, LLC, whose acquisition proposal was the subject of the lawsuit, withdrew its proposal to acquire the Company's common stock. Based on the allegations contained in the complaint and the withdrawal of the acquisition proposal, management believes that this action will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. COSMO SECURITIES: Settles Securities Suit in Japan with Reconciliation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Daiwa Bank, Limited announced that the lawsuit raised against its consolidated subsidiary, Cosmo Securities, Ltd., had been settled with reconciliation dated on February 28, 2000. In April 1997, MK Finance Co, Ltd instituted a lawsuit against the Subsidiary for allegedly 3.5 billion yen of damages caused by securities transactions with the Subsidiary. The case has been before the Tokyo District Court since then, and the Subsidiary decided to comply with the recommendation by the Tokyo District Court to settle the case by reconciliation with the Plaintiff. Under the Terms of Reconciliation, Cosmo will pay the Plaintiff 3,275 million yen for the reconciliation. The Subsidiary will incur extraordinary losses equivalent in amount to the reconciliation payment during the current fiscal year which ends on March 31, 2000. However, revision of the previous consolidated earnings forecast of the Bank, which was announced on November 22, 1999, according to Daiwa will not become necessary by this fact. (Regulatory News Service, February 28, 2000) GORAN, SYMONS: Companies Receive Shareholder Complaint Filed in IN ------------------------------------------------------------------- Goran Capital Inc. (Nasdaq: GNCNF) (Toronto: GNC), and Symons International Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIGC), announced that a complaint for a class action alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has been filed against the Company, certain officers, and certain directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants rendered false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning financial condition and business prospects of the Company, as well as the financial benefits that would inure to the Company and its shareholders. The Company believes that the allegations of wrongdoing as alleged in the complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend the claims brought against it. The announcement says that Goran Capital Inc. (Nasdaq: GNCNF) (Toronto: GNC) and Symons International Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SIGC) are the 12th largest nonstandard automobile insurers in the United States. IGF Insurance Company is the fifth largest insurer of crops in the United States and writes business in 46 states plus Canada. HAGEMEYER P.P.S.: Sued for Illegal Payoffs Re Purchase of Vallen Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss (http://www.milberg.com)announces that a class action has commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of persons who tendered shares of Vallen Corp. (Nasdaq:VALN) to Hagemeyer P.P.S. North America Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Shield Acquisition Corp., in connection with Hagemeyer's purchase of the outstanding shares of Vallen at $25.00 per share. The complaint charges Hagemeyer and certain of its senior executives with violations of the federal securities laws arising out of defendants' unlawful payments to senior Vallen executives to obtain their support in consummating the Tender Offer and their agreement to tender their own shares. Plaintiff alleges that by offering to pay special payments to senior Vallen executives, defendants have violated the provisions of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC regulations promulgated thereunder. Contact plaintiff's counsel, William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg Weiss at 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at wsl@mwbhl.com MARINER POST-ACUTE: Bankruptcy Stays Colorado Consumer Protection Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On August 26, 1996, a class action complaint was asserted against GranCare in the Denver, Colorado District Court, Salas, et al v. GranCare, Inc. and AMS Properties, Inc. d/b/a Cedars Healthcare Center, Inc., case no. 96-CV-4449. The lawsuit asserted five claims for relief, including third-party beneficiary, tortious interference and negligence per se causes of action arising out of quality of care issues at a healthcare facility formerly owned by GranCare. Pursuant to the Third Amended Complaint, the class claims were finally identified as third-party beneficiary of contract; breach of contract; tortious interference with contract; fraud; and negligence per se. In addition to the class claims, the named plaintiffs each asserted claims for promissory estoppel and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. March 15, 1998, the Court entered an Order in which it certified a class action in the matter. On June 10, 1998, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims and Motion for Summary Judgment Precluding Recovery of Medicaid Funds and these motions were partially granted by the Court on October 30, 1998. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the Court on November 19, 1998, the Court's decision was certified as a final judgment on December 10, 1998, and plaintiffs then filed a writ with the Colorado Supreme Court and an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeal. This Supreme Court writ has been denied, the Court of Appeal matter has been briefed and Oral Argument has been set for January 18, 2000. In accordance with the Company's voluntary filing under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and more particularly, Sec. 362 of that Code, this matter was stayed on January 18, 2000. The Company will continue in its opposition to all appeals and further intends to vigorously contest the remaining allegations of class status. MT. PROSPECT: Alleged Racism of Police Puts Driving Data in Spotlight --------------------------------------------------------------------- A seemingly disproportionate number of Hispanics get hauled down to the Mt. Prospect Police Department for offenses such as driving without a license. It's a volatile issue that has already hurt the village in one federal lawsuit and is being raised in three others. Police critics say the arrest figures show the village is selectively enforcing the law, targeting Hispanics. But the village's lead investigator says the figures may show only that Hispanics are statistically more likely to commit certain offenses. For example, "a higher percentage of Hispanics don't have driver licenses," said Terry Ekl, a lawyer who also represents Mt. Prospect Police Chief Ronald Pavlock in one of the lawsuits. "That's simply a fact of life." Ekl has not said what data, if any, he will use in support of the idea that even-handed enforcement can lead to more arrests of Hispanics. But the issue is a highly charged one, and the village has a lot riding on the outcome. When it comes to ethnic groups and traffic offenses, hard data are hard to come by. The Illinois secretary of state's office, for example, doesn't record the ethnic background of licensed drivers. But some researchers have expressed concerns about Hispanics and their driving practices. In 1998, the Midwest Latino Health Research, Training and Policy Center in Chicago and researchers from other organizations conducted five focus groups for a report on Hispanics and motor vehicle safety. They listened to groups of Hispanics in Cicero, Waukegan and Rolling Meadows. The two focus groups that were conducted in Rolling Meadows included residents of Mt. Prospect. The resulting report concluded that "a substantial number were driving without a license" and that "when participants reported having insurance, it tended to be limited to liability coverage, due to their socioeconomic status." Jose Arrom, research coordinator for the Midwest Latino Health Research, Training and Policy Center, cautioned that there is no way to know from the focus groups how widespread these problems are or how Hispanic drivers compare with other groups. But he noted that some participants were recent immigrants without much driver training. "We really need to beef up our safety education with those populations," Arrom said. "When we did our groups, we would bring state driving manuals with us, and people would just grab them up." Also in 1998, the Metropolitan Chicago Information Center, a not-for-profit research group, surveyed 3,116 households by phone to find out who owned various types of insurance. About 92 percent of the white households surveyed reported having auto insurance, but just 64 percent of the Hispanic households did, the group said. In some cases, city-dwelling Latinos may not own cars, said Lolita Sereleas, a senior consultant for the group. But she said the key issue is that insurance companies aren't doing enough to reach the Hispanic community. None of this explains the arrest patterns in Mt. Prospect, according to Keith Hunt, the attorney battling the village in three employment-discrimination lawsuits filed by Mt. Prospect police officers. The village also faces a civil rights suit brought by a Hispanic motorist and a Justice Department preliminary inquiry into allegations of racial profiling by its police. In a case tried last month, Hunt presented evidence that Hispanics have accounted for more than 45 percent of arrests in the village over the past five years--even though estimates of the village's Hispanic population range from 6 percent to 12 percent. A jury concluded that Hunt's client, fired Police Officer Javier Martinez, had been discriminated against and awarded him $1.2 million. Small disparities in arrest figures might be explained by socioeconomic factors, said Michael Rodriguez with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Chicago. "If it's grossly disproportionate to the population, I think it's an indication that some racial profiling is going on." Mt. Prospect, like most communities, does not keep data on how often police stop minority drivers. But Ekl has said a preliminary analysis of traffic tickets has not shown the police to be less than even-handed. Hispanics get about 18.7 percent of all traffic tickets written in Mt. Prospect and account for 12 percent of the population, according to work done by the village's expert, Stanford University professor John Donohue, and a private market research firm. If Ekl needs more analysis of whether Hispanics commit more of certain types of offenses in Mt. Prospect, Donohue could be the one to provide it. As an expert defending the Illinois State Police's drug interdiction team against racial-profiling allegations in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of minority motorists, he concluded in 1999 that low-income minorities would be more likely to seek out the drug trade as way to make money. Donohue's report helped beat back an attempt by the ACLU to gain class-action certification for the suit. The ACLU has appealed that ruling. Arrom said it was fairly common to hear Hispanic focus group members talk about problems with licenses and insurance. But they did complain of other problems too. As the researchers noted in their conclusion, "police actions such as traffic stops were thought to be arbitrary and discriminatory." (Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2000) MUSICMAKER.COM: Responds to Press Release of Securities Suit in CA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Provider of music on the internet musicmaker.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: HITS) announces that it has been made aware that at approximately 8 p.m. Eastern Time on February 25, 2000, the Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy transmitted a press release via PR Newswire providing notice that "a Class Action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the common stock of musicmaker.com, Inc. between July 7, 1999 and November 15, 1999, inclusive." The Company claims it has not received nor had an opportunity to review the complaint referenced in the February 25 press release and has no knowledge as to the specific allegations underlying the claims contained therein and is therefore not in a position to comment on any allegations contained in such complaint. The Company says it is one of the largest Internet providers of custom CDs and digital downloading of licensed music on the Internet with offices in New York City and Reston, Virginia. The company claims it has an on line library of over 250,000 tracks from over 125 labels. The company was founded by Robert Bernardi, Cofounder of PictureTel and TranSwitch, Raju Puthukarai, former President of RCA/BMG Music and Video Club and President of Warner Music Media and Irwin H. Steinburg, former Chairman and CEO of PolyGram Records, USA. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Cautions Shareholders of Litigation's Adverse Effects ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 22, 1997, a purported class action was filed in California Superior Court on behalf of all persons who purchased Common Stock in Quality Systems, Inc., between June 26, 1995 and July 3, 1996. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as well as other defendants not affiliated with the Company, violated sections of the California Corporations Code by issuing positive statements about the Company that allegedly were knowingly false, in part, in order to assist the Company and certain of its officers and directors in selling Common Stock at an inflated price in the Company's March 5, 1996 public offering and at other points during the period specified. On May 14, 1997, a second purported class action was filed in the same court essentially repeating the allegations of the April 22, 1997 suit. On July 1, 1997, a third purported class action was filed in the United States District Court repeating essentially the same factual allegations as the April 22, 1997 suit and purports to state claims under the Federal securities laws. The Company and its named officers and directors deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against them in these suits, consider the allegations groundless and without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these actions. On March 23, 1999, a purported class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, on behalf of all non-director shareholders, and derivatively on behalf of the Company, alleging that certain directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly entrenching themselves in their positions of control, failing to ensure that third-party offers involving the Company were fully and fairly considered, and/or failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry to assure the maximization of shareholder value. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, an accounting of monetary damages allegedly suffered by plaintiff and the purported class, and attorneys' fees. The named directors deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against them in this suit, consider the allegations groundless and without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the action. "The pending Federal and state securities actions and the derivative action are in the early states of procedure. Consequently, at this time it is not reasonably possible to estimate the damage, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company might incur in connection with such actions. However, the uncertainty associated with substantial unresolved litigation may be expected to have an adverse impact on the Company's business. In particular, such litigation could impair the Company's relationships with existing customers and its ability to obtain new customers. Defending such litigation will likely result in a diversion of management's time and attention away from business operations, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. Such litigation may also have the effect of discouraging potential acquirors from bidding for the Company or reducing the consideration such acquirors would otherwise be willing to pay in connection with an acquisition," the Company cautions its shareholders in its latest quarterly earnings report. RAVISENT TECHNOLGIES: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in PA ------------------------------------------------------------------ The the law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. gives notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District for Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies, Inc. (NASD:RVST) between July 15, 1999 and February 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Ravisent and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Complaint, defendants commenced and engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the revenues and profits of Ravisent by improperly recording revenues on contracts in violation of generally accepted accounting principles in order to accomplish the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") at the maximum price per share, and to then create the expectation in the market that Ravisent was an increasingly profitable company. Pursuant to their scheme, defendants determined to effectuate the IPO during the fiscal quarter so that there would be no current period certified financial statements of Ravisent included. On February 18, 2000, defendants announced that the release of its 1999 audited financial statements would be delayed due to final audit procedures as a result of its discussions with its independent auditors concerning Ravisent's having inappropriately recognized revenue in 1999 on certain contracts. As a result of this announcement, Ravisent's share price plunged $9 to close at $18 9/18 on traded volume in excess of 3,500,000 shares. Contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman toll-free at 888/844-5862 or via E-mail at classaction@spectorandroseman.com and for more detailed information about the firm please visit website at http://www.spectorandroseman.com RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit in PA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross announces that pursuant to Section 21(D)(A)(3)(a)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Notice is hereby given that on February 25, 2000, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ:RVST) between July 15, 1999 through February 17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges certain of Ravisent officers with violations of Section 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding Ravisent's revenue recognition policy, revenues and income. Contact: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan Gross, Esq. Tina Moukoulis, Esq. 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pa. 19102, Telephone: 800/849-3120 or 215/561-3600, E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or tina@bernardmgross.com Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Savett Frutkin Files Securities Suit in PA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. hereby gives notice that a class action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the common stock of Ravisent Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: RVST) at artificially inflated prices during the period July 15, 1999 through February 17, 2000 ("Class Period") and who were damaged thereby. The complaint charges Ravisent and certain of its senior officers and/or directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and misleading statements about the Company's revenues and profits which resulted in artificially inflated stock prices during the Class Period. Contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. Robert P. Frutkin, Esquire Barbara A. Podell, Esquire 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 E-mail: sfprpc@op.net RUBIN MONTGOMERY: Action Groups Win Award for Low-Income Tenants in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas awarded $2.6 Million to Over 1,500 Class Action participants in a suit against Rubin Montgomery Realty (RMR), following a multi-year court battle between low-income residents of Philadelphia and RMR. The situation began around April 1994 when a TAG staff member distributed flyers that raised questions concerning RMR's business practices targeting low-income tenants, and those with bad credit seeking to buy homes. RMR's advertised program included a credit repair component that purported to assist those with bad credit with resolving their credit problems. RMR charged a $600 non-refundable fee for its services regardless of the outcome received by potential homebuyers. TAG received numerous complaints from tenants regarding RMR's program. While TAG explored the possibilities of helping those low-income consumers, RMR sued TAG and others for defamation based upon the flyer distributed by the TAG staff member. The suit requested $10 million. In early 1998, after several weeks of trial, a jury found in favor of TAG regarding the alleged libeling of RMR. After CLS investigated numerous complaints from low-income individuals, CLS filed a consumer fraud class action complaint against RMR. Recently, TAG learned that the Court of Common Pleas found that RMR committed violations of the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law and assessed treble (triple) damages -- $ 2.6 million. In addition to the class action initiated by CLS, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania launched its independent investigation and initiated license revocation proceedings. On September 30, 1997, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs issued a letter of intent to prosecute James Montgomery and Bernie Rubin to revoke their real estate licenses. In its announcement, TAG thanks its allies for providing support and assistance during the past several years, and those Philadelphians who came forward. TAG expresses thanks to the law firms of Langsam Stevens & Morris LLP and Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads for defending TAG in this complex civil litigation. TAG also expresses confidence of surviving RMR's appeal at the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. ST. JOHN'S: Parents Allege Racism at Military Academy In Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------ A group of Chicago-area parents with a lawsuit pending against a military academy near Milwaukee wants the federal government to investigate their allegations of anti-Semitism and racism at the school. On February 24, the parents of six former students filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Defense and the inspector general's office in the Justice Department, alleging administrators at St. John's Northwestern Military Academy harassed and emotionally abused Jewish cadets and tolerated an atmosphere of anti-Semitism and bigotry. "This is not college prep at its best, as their ads state," said Gary Meyers, the lead plaintiff in the case. "This is like a nightmare from the 'Lord of the Flies.'" The school, according to the federal complaint, harassed Jewish cadets who wished to observe religious holidays, coerced participation in non-Jewish religious services and prevented the study of Jewish texts in preparation for a bar mitzvah. The school also overlooked gambling and drug use on school grounds, the lawsuit claims. The suit, which seeks class-action status, asks for $20 million in damages and is pending in Cook County Circuit Court. Academy officials have denied the allegations, saying that Meyers is spearheading a baseless crusade against the school because his 14-year-old son, Aaron, was asked to withdraw for academic shortcomings. "There is no merit to these allegations," said Ronald Kurth, the school's president and a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral. "We have been bringing boys through the difficult adolescent years into manhood for 115 years . . . and our standards are very high," Kurth said. Kurth noted that the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development this week dismissed a complaint filed by Meyers alleging his son suffered discrimination in a matter involving use of the school's chapel for a bar mitzvah. In August, Meyers and four other parents sued the college-preparatory academy in Delafield, Wis., alleging cadets were subjected to beatings by other students, hazings, brandings and verbal assaults. The parents turned to the U.S. government to investigate the allegations because the school receives some federal subsidies and equipment, according to the complaint. Kurth, however, said the school receives no government funding. About 20 miles west of Milwaukee, St. John's is a widely known military boarding school for boys in grades 7 through 12. Nearly half of its roughly 350 pupils come from Illinois. Founded in 1884, the school counts among its graduates former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.) and Daniel Gerber, founder of baby-food maker Gerber Products Co. Former President George Bush and his wife, Barbara, visited the school in April 1997. St. John's has no official religious affiliation, although there is a chaplain and chapel on the 150-acre campus. (Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2000) STEWART ENTERPRISES: Company Believes Shareholders Abandoned Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- During the fall of 1999, 16 putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against Stewart Enterprises, Inc., certain of its directors and officers and the Company's underwriters in its January 1999 common stock offering. The suits have been consolidated and the court has appointed lead plaintiffs as well as lead and liaison counsel for the plaintiffs. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period October 1, 1998 through August 12, 1999. Plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose allegedly material information in the prospectus relating to the January 1999 common stock offering and in certain of the Company's other public filings and announcements. The plaintiffs also allege that these allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions permitted the Chairman of the Company to sell Company common stock during the class period at inflated market prices. The plaintiffs seek remedies including certification of the putative class, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission to the extent any members of the class still hold the Company's common stock, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. By February 25, 2000, the Company expects to move to dismiss the complaint. This action is in its earliest stages and the outcome of the action and costs of defending it cannot be predicted at this time. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company was notified in September 1994 that a suit was brought by a competitor regarding the Company's acquisition of certain corporations in Mexico. The former owners of these corporations have agreed to indemnify the Company should an unfavorable outcome result. There has been no significant activity regarding this suit since 1996, and the Company assumes it has been abandoned. Unless there are new developments, the Company advises that it will provide no further updates in its regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Qtr. 4 Brings Final Resolution to Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 18, 1996, a class action complaint was filed by the law firm of Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company and several of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Symantec insiders inflated the Company's stock price and then sold stock based on inside information that the Company's sales were not going to meet analysts' expectations. The complaint seeks damages of an unspecified amount. The complaint has been refiled twice in state court, most recently on January 13, 1997, following Symantec's demurrers directed to previous complaints. On January 7, 1997, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, based on the same facts as the state court complaint, for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The district court dismissed that complaint and plaintiffs served an amended complaint in April 1998. Symantec's motion to dismiss the new federal complaint was granted in part, substantially narrowing the complaint. In July 1999, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle these cases on terms that would have no material financial impact on the Company. In October 1999, the Federal Court approved the settlement, and in December 1999, the state court action was also dismissed. UNISYS CORPORATION: Company Will Defend Against Shareholders' Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- A number of purported class action lawsuits seeking unspecified compensatory damages have been filed against Unisys Corporation and various current and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by persons who acquired the Company's common stock during the period May 4, 1999 through October 14, 1999. The plaintiffs in these actions allege violations of the Federal securities laws in connection with statements made by the Company concerning certain of its services contracts. These actions, which are in the early stages, include the following: Frances W. Smith, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, Larry Weinbach, Jack McHale and Gerald Gagliardi (filed on October 28, 1999); Sam Wietschner, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 1, 1999); Larry Morrison, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 4, 1999); Alex Igdalski and Michael Sayegh, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 9, 1999); Patrick Yam, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 12, 1999); Edward L. Slate, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 12, 1999); Joseph Operman, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 16, 1999); Molly Levin, Custodian for Elizabeth H. Levin, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 19, 1999); Gary L. Hopkins, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on November 24, 1999); Marlene M. and Paul L. Baertschiger, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on December 1, 1999); Joseph Lasensky, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, et al. (filed on December 3, 1999); and Robert M. Peters, et al. v. Unisys Corporation, Lawrence A. Weinbach, James F. McGuirk II, Jack F. McHale and Gerald Gagliardi (filed on December 3, 1999). The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions and intends to defend them vigorously. UNITED SHIPPING: Mediation Process Begins in Employee Vehicle Use Case ---------------------------------------------------------------------- During February 2000, United Shipping & Technology, Inc., discloses, the parties in the Addvensky class action litigation met to continue mediation and reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims. On May 19, 1998 William F. Addvensky and other similarly situated individuals filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against CEDS and one of its subsidiaries. This involves a suit brought on behalf of drivers who provided services with their own vehicles and who were paid on a commission basis. The Plaintiffs allege that they were paid for their services half in the form of wages and half in the form of expense reimbursement. Based on the amounts that the Plaintiffs claim were paid as wages, the Plaintiffs seek damages for alleged underpayment based on California law governing minimum wages and overtime pay. The Plaintiffs also allege that the amounts paid in reimbursement were insufficient to cover their expenses. Plaintiffs seek back pay and reimbursement for any underpayment of wages that may have been paid at a rate less than the minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime wages for any overtime hours worked from May 19, 1995 through trial. Plaintiffs also request that the Court order the disgorgement of any profits that were realized from any alleged unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs further seek punitive damages, waiting time penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The case has been certified as a class. Plaintiffs have indicated they may seek damages in excess of $20 million. CEDS has denied the Plaintiffs' allegations and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. CEDS has filed a declaratory judgment case against its insurance carrier who has denied coverage. UPGRADE INTERNATIONAL: Responds to Charges in Milberg's Press Release --------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding to a News Release issued by Milberg Weiss concerning a class action suit against Upgrade International Corp. (OTCBB:UPGD), Mr. Daniel Bland, the President and CEO of Upgrade International Corp., and the Board of Directors of Upgrade International, Inc., issued the following statement: "The Company has not seen nor been served with any complaint as of this date. Upgrade's position is that the allegations contained in the press release issued February 24, 1999 are utterly unfounded and have no basis in fact. The Company will vigorously defend any lawsuits brought against it." On Behalf of the Board of Directors, Daniel Bland, President ********* 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. Romeo John D. Piansay, Jr., editor, Theresa Cheuk, Managing Editor. 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 * * *