/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000313.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 13, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 50 Headlines ALLIEDSIGNAL: Class Status Not Sought in LA Suit over Chemical Leak AOL: CO Suit Claims 5.0 Changes Computer Systems & Precludes Other ISPs BASSETT FURNITURE: '97 CA Suit Re Product Specifications Still Pending BLOOD VICTIMS: Crawford to Administer Canadian Hep. C Compensation Fund BMC SOFTWARE: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Texas CINAR CRP: Canadian Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in Montreal CINAR CORP: Trading Halted As OSC Reviews; Market Waits for Statement COCA COLA: New Chairman Pledges His Own Benefits with Diversity COMMERCIAL ASSETS: Amends Merger with AIC As Part of Settlement DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Lawyers Accused of Frivolity Sue over Defamation DELL COMPUTER: Recalls Notebooks for Suspected Defective Memory Chips FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in MA INFORMATION ARCHITECTS: Argument for Securities Suit in NC in Mar. 2000 LANDRYS SEAFOOD: Plans Vigorous Defense against Securities Suit in TX MCROSOFT CORP: MN Suit Accuses of Price-Fixing and Restraint of Trade FOINT WEST: Resolves CA Securities Suit against Former Dignity Partners PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Suit in Ohio PROCTER & GAMBLE: Retirees Concerned with Stock Fall File Suit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Ohio RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in PA RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suits in CO Have Been Consolidated SAFETY KLEEN: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in SC SMITH A O: Settlement for '99 MI Suit Re Water Heaters to Be Finalised SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: DCR Lowers Ratings of Notes & Bank Credit Facility TEXACO AFFILIATE: Fd Ct Certifies Class for Race Discrimination Lawsuit VISX INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit in California VISX, INC.: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Securities Complaint ********* ALLIEDSIGNAL: Class Status Not Sought in LA Suit over Chemical Leak -------------------------------------------------------------------- More than 700 north Baton Rouge residents are seeking damages as a result of a hydrogen chloride leak last year at a Lupine Avenue plant. Two multiple-plaintiff lawsuits were filed against AlliedSignal. The suits do not seek class action status. The plaintiffs say they encountered medical costs, property damage, cleaning expenses and fear when hydrogen chloride leaked from the plant on March 2, 1999. Each resident is seeking less than $75,000, the suits say. Both lawsuits allege AlliedSignal and other defendants acted negligently. The other defendants include the manufacturer and installer of a generator that allegedly failed to start at the plant the night of the leak. "We have five defendants," said attorney Walter Dumas, who filed one of the suits. "All of them had a little bit to do (with the leak)." Attorney Andre LaPlace, who filed the other suit, said most of his plaintiffs own property near the plant. Plant officials have said the leak happened after a power failure during a thunderstorm. Fire Department Hazardous Materials Unit officers saw what might have been a vapor cloud or haze on Chippewa Street and alerted area residents. When hydrogen chloride mixes with moisture in the air, it forms a weak form of hydrochloric acid. The rain helped clear the gas from the air. Plant officials have said they did not see evidence of an off-site impact. Fire Department personnel did not detect any hydrogen chloride gas outside the plant site and did not enter the site. (The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA.), March 2, 2000) AOL: CO Suit Claims 5.0 Changes Computer Systems & Precludes Other ISPs ----------------------------------------------------------------------- America Online (NYSE:AOL), the world's largest Internet service provider, is again the target of a class-action lawsuit for its latest version AOL 5.O, claiming the company's latest version causes damage to users' computers. AOL was hit with a new class-action lawsuit filed March 9 in Colorado, citing a recently enacted federal law designed to safeguard online communications. The proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Federal Court in Denver, Colorado, claims that AOL violated federal electronic communications law by releasing software that, without adequate warning, made major configuration changes to users' computers. The lawsuit contends that AOL failed to inform AOL 5.0 users that the program would make dramatic changes to their computers' operating systems and would interfere with their ability to connect to the competing ISP networks. Seattle attorney Steve Berman, known for his national expertise in class-action lawsuits, filed the lawsuit on behalf of all Colorado residents using AOL 5.0 under the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access Act. The recently enacted law prohibits illegal altering, modifying or reconfiguring electronic communications files. The lawsuit was brought by EZ Bookings Inc., a Steamboat Springs, Colorado, company. According to the complaint, Xavier N. Reyna, president of EZ Bookings and a professional computer consultant, spent more than 20 hours unraveling and fixing files corrupted by installing AOL 5.O on his firm's computer. "My client dug in and began looking at what AOL did to his system and was floored," attorney Berman said. "He discovered that AOL 5.0 went in and changed the Windows registry, which is the most complex segment of the operating system the DNA of the machine." "To think that AOL's software -- without warning or permission -- put its corporate thumb-print right in the middle of the registry is unbelievable," he added. According to Berman, AOL 5.0 is a brazen attempt to force consumers to use AOL. "Once the software is up and running, it changes so many of the system's configurations, the average user has no hope of connecting with anyone else other than AOL," said Berman. "Many who have tried to unwind the installation found that it is almost impossible since AOL 5.O affects more than 2000 files. This activity in our view is unlawful." The class, if approved, would represent all AOL users in Colorado who subscribe to the service and installed AOL 5.0. According to Berman, the exact number of people affected by this is yet unknown, but could number in the tens of thousands. Contact: Hagens Berman Steve Berman, 206/623-7292 steve@hagens-berman.com or Media Only - Firmani & Assoc. Mark Firmani, 206/443-9357 mark@firmani.com BASSETT FURNITURE: '97 CA Suit Re Product Specifications Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A suit was filed in June, 1997, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles against Bassett Furniture Industries Inc., two major retailers and certain current and former employees of the Company. The suit sought certification of a class consisting of all consumers who purchased certain mattresses and box springs from the major retailers which were manufactured by a subsidiary of the Company, E.B. Malone Corporation, with allegedly different specifications than those originally manufactured for sale by these retailers. The suit alleged various causes of action, including negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, violations of deceptive practices laws and fraud. Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages of $100 million and punitive damages. In 1997, the Superior Court twice sustained the Company's demurrers to several of plaintiffs' causes of action, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. In 1998, the Superior Court dismissed the class action allegations in the plaintiff's complaint and transferred the entire class action out of the class action department. The Court also dismissed many of the individual claims. Plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal from the class action ruling. Plaintiffs also filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or other extraordinary relief, which was denied. The suit was subsequently transferred from the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles to the Superior Court for Orange County. After the case was transferred to Orange County, the plaintiffs stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of all individual defendants. Additionally, all remaining claims against the Company were stayed by the Orange County Court pending Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of their class action allegations. The parties have recently briefed the issues on appeal, but no hearing date has been set by the appellate court. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this suit, because it believes that the damages sought are unjustified and because this case is inappropriate for class action treatment. Because the Company believes that the two major retailers were unaware of the alleged changes in specifications, the Company has agreed to indemnify the two major retailers with respect to the above. BLOOD VICTIMS: Crawford to Administer Canadian Hep. C Compensation Fund ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. has been appointed to administer the Compensation Fund set up for the individuals infected in Canada with the hepatitis C virus (HCV), between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990, through a blood transfusion or the use of blood or certain blood products. The amount of the Compensation Fund is $1.2 billion. The decision was made public by the Honourable Justice Nicole Morneau of the Superior Court of Quebec. Her counterparts from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Honourable Justice Warren Winkler, and the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Honourable Justice Kenneth J. Smith, contributed to this decision. The Court indicated that it had selected Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. because it had demonstrated its capacity to process an important number of complex claims in both official languages of Canada. The Court also pointed out that Crawford Expertises Canada Inc., with its 85 offices, would be able to ensure a presence across Canada. Following the Court's decision, Navigant Consulting Inc./Peterson Worldwide LLC, which had been working on this program, will transfer all documents and activities to Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. "We are very pleased with the Court's decision. We believe that Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. will be in a position to deliver the services that the victims expect and deserve. Every effort will be made to ensure that claim forms are sent out as soon as possible'', said Mr. Michel Savonitto, co-counsel for the class actions for Quebec's transfused victims. Role of the Administrator The appointment of an Administrator was part of the Settlement Agreement concluded on June 15, 1999 between the federal, provincial and territorial governments, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the class actions representatives for individuals infected with HCV through a blood transfusion or the use of blood or certain blood products between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990. The responsibilities of the Administrator will be to receive, process and evaluate applications from claimants, make decisions concerning these claims and to administer payments accordingly. The Administrator's mandate also involves assisting claimants in filling out the required forms, thereby sparing them from seeking the services of lawyers to complete the required documents. Public notices will soon be published in newspapers to inform all individuals with regard to the details of the compensation program. A website http://www.hepc8690.com- has been created for the benefit of the individuals concerned and a toll-free information line - 1 888 726-2656 - has been set up to answer their questions. Details of the Agreement The class actions Settlement Agreement for the 1986-1990 period concluded with the federal, provincial and territorial governments requires them to pay a total sum of $1.2 billion, including interest from April 1, 1998, to individuals directly or indirectly infected by HCV, as well as to a group of persons indirectly infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) (spouses, partners, children) who were not compensated by previous programs. As soon as Crawford Expertises Canada Inc. is ready to provide a timetable for the start-up of the compensation program, a follow-up with the media will be made to inform them of the next steps. BMC SOFTWARE: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of BMC Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:BMCS) common stock during the period between July 29, 1999 and Jan. 4, 2000. The complaint charges BMC and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading statements about strong sales of BMC's existing software products, the successful integration of its acquisitions of Boole & Babbage and New Dimension Software earlier in 1999, strong demand for its mainframe MIPS software, notwithstanding a slowdown in sales of IBM mainframe computers, and the lack of customer deferrals of orders or purchases due to Y2K concerns, which would result in 25%-30% EPS growth for BMC during F00-F01 and 3rd and 4thQ F00 EPS of $.52-$.55 and $.58-$.64, respectively, artificially inflated its stock to a Class Period high of $86-5/8 on Jan. 3, 2000. During the Class Period, BMC insiders and controlling shareholders sold 1,085,015 shares of their BMC stock at as high as $78.83 for $63.1 million in proceeds. On Jan. 5, 2000, just two days after BMC's stock hit its all-time high, BMC revealed that, due to problems integrating the BMC, Boole & Babbage and New Dimension sales forces, sales execution procedures in Europe and the U.S., and weakness in demand for mainframe MIPS software products, its 3rdQ F00 results would be much worse than earlier forecast. BMC's stock fell from $85-1/8 on Jan. 4, 2000 to $47, an almost 50% drop in one day, and when BMC reported 3rdQ F00 EPS of just $.41, a decline from its 2ndQ F00 EPS and its year-earlier 3rdQ F99 EPS, its stock continued to fall to just $36. For any questions about this notice or the action, please contact one of the following attorneys: Julie Goldsmith (jgoldsmith@cmht.com) or Clarence D. Williams (cwilliams@cmht.com) of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 999 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104. PH.: 888/240-1238 or 206/521-0080. CINAR CORP: Canadian Shareholders File Securities Lawsuit in Montreal --------------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Canadian shareholders has filed a request for a class action against Cinar in the latest blow to the reputation of the Montreal producer of children's programs such as Arthur. The suit, filed in Montreal late March 8 -- the same time as a similar suit was filed in New York -- alleges investors paid more for their stock than they should have because executives falsely inflated the value of the company and tried to play down the effects of fraud allegations against it. The action requires the approval of Quebec Superior Court to proceed. "The reason that people are so angry is that our whole system of public investment is based on trust that insiders will not use information that is confidential and which outsiders who are not in the know cannot use," lawyer Paul Unterberg said, referring to petitioners. Preparation for the Montreal suit began well before the eventful week, when the stock collapsed the day after Cinar's top two executives quit and the chief financial officer was fired over alleged investment irregularities. The suit was filed on behalf of a non-profit shareholder activist group, founded by Yves Michaud, who is known for crusading against the country's banking executives on behalf of minority shareholders. (The Ottawa Sun, March 10, 2000) CINAR CORP: Trading Halted As OSC Reviews; Market Waits for Statement --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Securities Commission has been called in to review Cinar Corp., the Montreal animation firm that recently discovered $122-million (US) of unauthorized investments, according to the Financial Post. The provincial regulator was contacted after the Montreal company announced that the money it had earmarked for acquisitions had been invested without the approval of its board of directors, according to a source which the report does not specify. Trading in the firm's stock was halted all day on March 9, the Financial Post says, as investors waited for further news, which according to a spokeswoman is related to the continuing internal audit and includes, in part, information on the 'tax credit issue.' The spokeswoman said officials at the Toronto Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, where Cinar stock trades, have requested more information on the corporate developments. The audit, being conducted by Cinar's auditors, Ernst & Young, was launched last fall after allegations surfaced that Cinar had filed fraudulent tax claims by passing off American scripts as the work of Canadian writers, as pointed out in the Financial Post report. The company, which is now in talks with the federal government's Canada Customs & Revenue Agency on a settlement, says it can account for only $35-million (US) of the total sum and the maximum it could lose is roughly the remaining $86-million (US), according to the Financial Post. Cinar's stock closed at $10.35 on March 9 -- more than a 75% drop from its high of about $44 last fall, when the trouble began for the company well known for such children's programming as Arthur and The Busy World of Richard Scarry, the report mentions. The stock started falling after the tax credit allegations were raised in the House of Commons in October, and plummeted to as low as $8.15 on March 8, the day after it was halted on the company's news of money being improperly invested, says the Financial Post. As has been reported in the CAR, the company's co-founders, the husband-and-wife team of Ronald Weinberg and Micheline Charest, have resigned from their positions as co-chief executives and Hasanain Panju, but will remain on the board. The senior executive vice-president, was fired for making the investments, the Financial Post says. Mr. Panju, who was Cinar's chief financial officer until April last year, has released a statement saying he 'diligently followed the instructions of [Cinar's] founders,' according to the report. Denis Dube, spokesman for the Quebec Securities Commission, said while officials don't have a formal investigation of Cinar underway, they are collecting information and analyzing whether or not there has been any violation of securities law, according to the Financial Post. Mr. Dube said the Quebec securities regulator began the review following heightened media coverage late last year in connection with Cinar's use of federal tax credits for film production, according to the report. He said the commission will also not necessarily acknowledge if it upgrades its review to the status of inquiry, a process through which it can assume extraordinary powers to search for documents or call witnesses. (National Post (formerly The Financial Post), March 10, 2000) COCA COLA: New Chairman Pledges His Own Benefits with Diversity --------------------------------------------------------------- Coca-Cola's new chairman and chief executive told employees that he will be linking his success and compensation --- as well as his managers' --- to meeting soon-to-be-established diversity goals. "What gets measured gets done, and for that reason there will be a series of (diversity) goals, objectives and targets established over the next few months," Daft said in an e-mail memo to all employees. "Everyone in the organization will be held accountable for meeting them. My own success and compensation will be tied to these diversity goals, and the same will be true throughout the management ranks." Daft is making diversity a "top priority" and said he is creating a new position of vice president and director of diversity strategies, who will report directly to him. March 9's e-mail to employees was Daft's second one on diversity within the week. Two days before that he told them the company was "working toward an expedient and equitable resolution" of the racial discrimination suit filed against Coca- Cola, which seeks class-action status. The moves came after the meeting and rally by African-American employees and their supporters, who said they would pressure the company to treat black employees fairly. Plaintiffs' attorney Cyrus Mehri praised Daft's move to link executive compensation to diversity. "This is a major victory for plaintiffs in the class who have been seeking these kinds of reforms for nearly a year," Mehri said. "This is the first step towards moving Coca-Cola from a laggard to a leader on diversity." While the practice of linking executive compensation to diversity goals has been growing among big companies, executive compensation experts said, most firms --- big and small --- still do not do it. "Companies are paying more attention to diversity and other nonfinancial measures in determining executive compensation," said Sanford Godwin, an executive compensation expert for the William M. Mercer human resources consulting firm. "But still a significant majority of companies do not directly link executive pay to measures such as diversity." In a 1998 survey, the Society for Human Resource Management found that 58 percent of the participants from Fortune 500 companies did not link compensation and performance to diversity goals. At smaller firms, 79 percent did not tie such goals to compensation and performance. "It's been one of the points of contention in promoting diversity for a long time," said Tim Mulvaney, president of Mulvaney Group, a New York-based diversity and leadership consulting firm. "If you want to know what people are spending their energies on, you can look at two things --- what they get paid for and what their boss is asking them about." Daft told employees the company must have an organizational structure that supports its diversity goals. In the near future, he said, he will be appointing the new diversity director, who will work with top company executives "to build new initiatives to move the company to the head of the class in leading and managing diversity." Mehri, the plaintiffs' attorney, expects Daft to announce other diversity initiatives in the coming weeks as both sides prepare to begin settlement talks on the lawsuit. "We will examine each reform closely and seek to make necessary improvements so that the reforms have staying power," Mehri said. The federal suit, filed by eight current and former employees, alleges that the company has discriminated against African-Americans in pay, promotions and performance evaluations. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of about 2,000 black salaried employees in the United States. The company has denied the suit's allegations and opposed the plaintiffs' attempt to make it a class-action case. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, March 10, 2000) COMMERCIAL ASSETS: Amend Merger with AIC As Part of Settlement Pact ------------------------------------------------------------------- Asset Investors Corporation (NYSE: AIC) and Commercial Assets, Inc. (Amex: CAX) jointly announced that they have amended the terms of their merger to provide CAX stockholders the option of receiving either (i) 0.4075 shares of AIC common stock for each share of CAX common stock; or (ii) $ 5.75 cash for each share of CAX common stock. The cash option is limited to 3,549,868 shares of CAX common stock, or $20.4 million cash. If holders of more than 3,549,868 shares of CAX common stock elect to receive cash, CAX stockholders electing to receive cash will receive their pro rata share of the $ 20.4 million and will receive 0.4075 share of AIC common stock for each of their remaining CAX shares. AIC and the officers and directors of AIC and CAX have agreed to not elect to receive cash for the 3,298,294 CAX shares that they own. CAX has 10,368,029 shares of common stock outstanding. The cash will be paid from the companies' existing cash resources. In addition, the merger agreement has been amended to increase the required vote for approval from a majority to 2/3 of CAX's outstanding shares. Previously, the agreement required the approval of a majority of CAX's outstanding shares. The requirement that a majority of AIC's outstanding shares approve the merger has not been changed. The amended terms were agreed upon in conjunction with an agreement in principle relating to a settlement of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of CAX stockholders. The settlement also provides for the payment of up to $ 600,000 in attorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement is contingent upon the approval by a Delaware court and the merger is contingent, among other things, upon the court's approval of the settlement. AIC and CAX are affiliated real estate investment trusts (REITs) that hold interests in manufactured home communities. AIC manages and owns 27% of CAX and owns 21 manufactured home communities and two recreational vehicle parks. CAX owns 12 manufactured home communities and owns 2% of AIC. As CAX's manager, AIC personnel perform all of CAX's daily activities and the companies have the same officers. The combined company will own 6,360 developed homesites and 3,880 expansion sites, primarily in Florida and Arizona. DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Lawyers Accused of Frivolity Sue over Defamation ----------------------------------------------------------------- In response to a suit filed by DaimlerChrysler Corp. alleging that the Philadelphia law firm of Greitzer & Locks (G&L) violated state law by filing "frivolous" class actions on allegedly unsafe car seats, the firm has countersued the automaker for defamation and interference with prospective contractual relationships. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Askinazi et al. , No. 99-CV-5581 (ED PA, complaint filed Nov. 10, 1999). In addition to G&L, Chrysler sued attorney William Askinazi of Maryland and Brian Lipscomb, the named plaintiff in a 1999 class action against the automaker. G&L maintains that the statements of Chrysler and Associate General Counsel Lewis H. Goldfarb demonstrate their intention of preventing prospective litigants from signing on with the firm. Indeed, the firm notes, it has already lost prospective business because of the Chrysler action. In a Nov. 11, 1999, article in The Wall Street Journal , Goldfarb was quoted on his hopes that the suit would "discourage prospective litigants from signing on" to the pending class actions. G&L also contends that the published statements of Chrysler and Goldfarb were "defamatory in character" in that they disparage the manner in which the firm conducts its practice of law. These statements referred to "unwarranted and baseless cases," "legalized blackmail" and class actions as a "rigged lottery." The Lipscomb case cited by Chrysler was filed in Pennsylvania state court in June 1999, and alleged that the single-lever seat release mechanism on 1994 Dodge Neons and 1996 Dodge Intrepids was dangerous and defective. Chrysler argued that the plaintiffs failed to investigate their claims that: -- The Intrepid seats had a single recliner mechanism with "teeth of minimal depth and width"; -- The Neon seats were the same as the Intrepid seats; and -- Chrysler engaged in a conspiracy with Ford, General Motors, and Saturn with respect to the allegedly defective seats. Chrysler contends the claims are false and the "Lawyer Defendants would have known this if they had made even a minimal investigation." Lipscomb was eventually dismissed with prejudice after the automaker illustrated that the plaintiff had never owned a Chrysler vehicle. Chrysler seeks actual and punitive damages under the Dragonetti Act, which makes attorneys and their clients accountable for frivolous lawsuits filed in a grossly negligent manner, without probable cause, and/or for improper purposes. G&L is represented by John H. Lewis Jr. and David D. Langfitt of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Philadelphia. Chrysler is represented by Charles A. Newman and Kathy A. Wisniewski of Bryan Cave in St. Louis, and by Abraham C. Reich and Theodore H. Jobes of Fox, Rothschild, O'Brien & Frankel in Philadelphia. DELL COMPUTER: Recalls Notebooks for Suspected Defective Memory Chips --------------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Computer Corp. is warning as many as 400,000 notebook computer customers that their machines may contain defective memory chips. It sent a letter to customers who purchased the Latitude and Inspiron notebooks shipped between Feb. 1 and Nov. 20, 1999, saying some computers may freeze following system failures, causing a loss or corruption of data. Affected models include the Latitude CPiA, CPiR, CPt, CPx and CS and Inspiron 3500, 3700, 7000 and 7500. A test can be downloaded at s/en/memory--test. |http://support.dell.com/us/en/memory--test. FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS: Cohen, Milstein Files Securities Suit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. on March 9, 2000, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Focus Enhancements, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCSE) during the period between April 29, 1999 and March 1, 2000, inclusive. The action charges that Focus improperly reported its financial results including revenues and income in its public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in its press releases for the fiscal year 1999. On March 1, 2000, Focus announced that its independent auditors had brought to the Board of Directors' attention financial controls issues relating to the fiscal year ending December 31, 1999 and prior quarters. The Board composed a committee to investigate the matter. Two top officers agreed to a paid leave from the Company during which time they would cooperate with the committee's review. For questions about this notice or the action, please contact either of the following: Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. or Robert Smits Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 E-mail address: afriedman@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com INFORMATION ARCHITECTS: Argument for Securities Suit in NC in Mar. 2000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Information Architects Corp. discloses in its filing with the SEC that between May 14, 1999 and July 13, 1999, the Company and its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in four purported class action lawsuits. The suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The suits purport to be brought on behalf of a class of persons that purchased the Company's common stock between November 14, 1997 and April 1, 1999 and allege violations of the federal securities laws. The suits seek class action status and an unspecified amount of damages, including compensatory damages, interest, attorney's and expert's fees and reasonable costs and expenses. Specifically, the suits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiffs' group and lead plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed by the court. On September 17, 1999, a consolidated and amended class action complaint was filed. On November 23, 1999, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action complaint. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and oral argument is currently scheduled for March 20, 2000. Defendants deny any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend themselves. LANDRYS SEAFOOD: Plans Vigorous Defense against Securities Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Class action lawsuits were filed in June and July of 1999 against Landrys Seafood Restaurants Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. These actions name the Company, all of its current executive officers and directors, E.A. "Al" Jaksa, Jr. (a former executive officer and director) and underwriters that participated in the Company's offering of Common Stock in March 1998. Such lawsuits allege that the defendants violated Federal securities laws during certain periods while individually selling the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs in these actions seek unspecified monetary damages. Although the ultimate outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time, the Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend these claims vigorously. MICROSOFT CORP: MN Suit Accuses of Price-Fixing and Restraint of Trade ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A consumer class action filed in state court under the Minnesota Antitrust Act has charged software giant Microsoft Corp. with monopolization in order to fix prices and restrain trade in the operating systems market. It also alleges Microsoft engaged in contracts in unreasonable restraint of trade to suppress and restrain trade and innovation in the market for Internet browsers or other application programming interfaces. Rubbright Group et al. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99-CV-2017 (MN Dist. Ct., Dec. 6, 1999). The complaint states that Microsoft, the world's largest manufacturer of computer operating systems such as Windows, has a monopoly in this business that has stifled competition and caused monopoly pricing. Plaintiffs say Microsoft's monopoly power in the market for personal computer (PC) operating systems derives from the fact that Windows is used in over 80 percent of Intel-based PCs, which are the most popular computers in use in the United States. More than 90 percent of new Intel-based PCs are shipped with a version of Windows pre-installed, plaintiffs assert. PC manufacturers (also known also original equipment manufacturers, or OEMs) have no commercially viable alternative to Windows for the PCs they distribute, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs allege there are high barriers to entry in the market for PC operating systems. To protect its valuable Windows monopoly against potential competitive threats from existing or new operating systems, and to extend its operating system monopoly into other software markets, Microsoft has engaged in a series of anticompetitive activities in unreasonable restraint of trade, according to the complaint. Plaintiffs say Microsoft's conduct includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products to Windows; exclusionary agreements precluding companies from distributing, promoting, buying, or using products of Microsoft's software competitors; and exclusionary agreements restricting the right of companies to provide services or resources to Microsoft's software competitors or potential competitors. As a result of Microsoft's conduct, plaintiffs contend they have paid higher prices for their computers and the accompanying operating systems. Additionally, the complaint states that the lack of competition in the operating system market has resulted in diminished product quality. Microsoft's conduct has also acted to suppress and restrain innovation and competition in the market for alternative platforms, plaintiffs allege. The complaint includes a summary of U.S. District Court Judge Thomas P. Jackson's findings of fact in United States v. Microsoft (D DC), in which he concluded Microsoft was a monopolist with vast market power that it wielded over other firms, including Netscape Communications Corp. and Sun Microsystems. Plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages as provided for under Minnesota's antitrust statute, and punitive damages due to the company's "intentional, outrageous, and egregious conduct which has been established as a matter of record in United States v. Microsoft." Plaintiffs are represented by Richard M. Hagstrom and Michelle K. Enright of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel & Gette LLP in Minneapolis. (Antitrust Litigation Reporter, February 2000) POINT WEST: Resolves CA Securities Suit against Former Dignity Partners ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On December 19, 1996, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California (Docket No. C96-4558) against Dignity Partners, Inc. (now Point West Capital Corporation) and each of its directors by three individuals purporting to act on behalf of themselves and an alleged class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period February 14, 1996 to July 16, 1996. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, interest, fees and costs. The allegations were based on alleged misrepresentations in and omissions from the Company's registration statement and prospectus related to its initial public offering and certain documents filed by the Company under the Exchange Act. In the second quarter of 1999, a settlement in principle was reached and on February 25, 2000, the Court approved a settlement agreement pursuant to which all claims against all defendants will be dismissed and $3.15 million will be paid to the plaintiffs. On February 13, 1997, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, City and County of San Francisco (Docket No. 984643) against Dignity Partners, Inc., and each of its executive officers and Echelon by an individual purporting to act on behalf of himself and an alleged class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period February 14, 1996 to July 16, 1996. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 25400 of the California Corporate Code and seeks to recover damages. The allegations are based on alleged misstatements, concealment and/or misrepresentations and omissions of allegedly material information in connection with the Company's initial public offering and subsequent disclosures. The case has been stayed since its inception by agreement of the parties. However, the claims in this case are covered by the settlement agreement described above and will also be dismissed pursuant to the settlement agreement described above PROCTER & GAMBLE: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of P&G, Inc. (NYSE: PG), between January 25, 2000 and March 6, 2000, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, announces Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP. The complaint charges P&G and certain of its directors and executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading information concerning the Company's financial and operating condition as well as its prospects for future growth during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented that it was achieving successful growth in line with expectations under its restructuring plan. In fact, P&G's growth had slowed considerably due to sharply increased costs, delays in regulatory approvals for new products and increased competition. The truth was disclosed on March 7, 2000 when P&G announced third quarter earnings 10 to 11 percent below a year ago and revised downward its anticipated earnings per share growth for the remainder of the fiscal year. In response, P&G shares plunged more than 30% in value. If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions related to it, you may contact Mr. Mark Punzalan, Director of Shareholder Relations at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by e-mail at PG@bernlieb.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Retirees Concerned with Stock Fall File Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Investors who've watched P&G's stock fall by more than half since early January have sued the company, claiming it provided "materially false and misleading" stock information. The class action lawsuit charges the company with overstating its growth projections while covering up setbacks such as the rising price of raw materials, delays in drug approval and continuing problems with meeting management goals. The suit says P&G executives hid information about: high raw prices of pulp, petroleum and other products; high product launch costs in Europe; delays in getting approval for Actonel, an osteoporosis drug; strong competition in North American food and beverage markets; and increased price competition for laundry detergent in Latin America. The lawyers are seeking to certify a class that includes everyone who bought P&G stock between Jan. 25 and March 6. Thousands of P&G retirees and employees own a lot of shares of the consumer product giant's stock. Those shares became a lot less valuable when their value plummeted more than $27 a share the first week of March after the company warned that third-quarter profits wouldn't meet analysts' expectations. Don Apking, who retired from P&G six years ago, says he feels for P&G employees nearing retirement, some of whom may have to delay their departures. For example, a 55-year-old with 20,000 shares of P&G stock - worth $2 million a couple months ago - is facing a portfolio worth $1 million. Before, they might have been able to earn more annually in retirement than their annual salary; now those expectations are much lower. Fay, who worked 35 years as a property coordinator for P&G, says he's never sold a share of P&G and he doesn't plan to now. He doesn't think other retirees will either. And it does appear the biggest sellers have been mutual fund managers and investors without close ties to P&G. P&G employees may contribute a portion of their salary to an employee stock ownership plan and the company will match that with shares of stock redeemable at retirement. And, according to a story in Barron's this week, 96.3 percent of the plan's assets are invested solely in P&G stock. "That's great as long as the stock is going up," DeSimio says. Now, he says, P&G employees who have a long time before retirement may want to consider putting more money into the plan while the stock price is low. But people a year or less from retirement have been hurt and have few immediate options. (Scripps Howard News Service, March 10, 2000) PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP announces that on March 9, 2000, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) two of the Company's officers. The case was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Procter & Gamble during the period January 25, 2000 through March 6, 2000. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in press releases during the Class Period regarding the Company's financial and operating condition, as well as its future prospects which allegedly gave the impression the Company was experiencing successful financial growth in line with an ambitious restructuring plan. Instead, the Company was allegedly experiencing less than stellar growth due to high raw material prices, high product launch costs in Europe, delay in the approval of the drug Actonel, strong North American competition in food and beverages, and increased price competition in the Latin American laundry segment, all of which was not disclosed to the public. On March 7, 2000, the Company stunned the market when it announced that its third quarter earnings per share were 10 to 11 percent below those of a year ago, rather than the 7 to 9 percent increase it had led the market to anticipate, and that the Company expected earnings per share growth for the fiscal year to be 7 percent, compared to the 13 percent originally anticipated. The market reaction to the news was both swift and disastrous; the price of Procter & Gamble's common stock plunged approximately 31 percent. Contact: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York New York 10022, John Halebian, Esq., Telephone: 1-877-935-7400 (toll free), Wechsler Harwood's Shareholder Relations Department, Craig Lowther, e-mail: clowther@whhf.com and you may also contact: Bull & Lifshitz LLP at classlaw@bellatlantic.net Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq., Peter D. Bull, Esq., 246 West 38th Street, New York, New York 10018, Telephone: (212) 869-9449 or (888) 893-1844 (outside New York State) RAVISENT TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan, Kilsheimer Files Securities Suit in PA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox, LLP has commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ravisent Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:RVST - news) during the period between July 15, 1999 and February 17, 2000, inclusive. 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 prices per share. The Complaint further alleges that defendants' scheme included creating the illusion that Ravisent was an increasingly profitable company. Pursuant to their scheme, defendants determined to effectuate the IPO during the fiscal quarter so that no current period certified financial statements of Ravisent would be 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 the company's 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 trading volume in excess of 3,500,000 shares. Contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Brigid T. Kavanaugh, Esq. Hae Sung Nam, Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd FL New York, NY 10022 (800) 290-1952 (212) 687-1980 mail@kkf-law.com RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suits in CO Have Been Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals Inc. reports that the several substantially identical lawsuits, which purport to be class actions in which the Company, along with our chief executive officer, are defendants, have been consolidated in the United States District Court, District of Colorado. The lawsuits, filed on behalf of purchasers of common stock of the Company on November 16 and 17, 1999, allege the defendants violated certain federal securities laws based upon an allegedly misleading announcement made on November 15, 1999. No discovery has occurred, and the Company expects limited discovery to occur pending ruling on preliminary motions. The cases have been reported in the CAR. SAFETY KLEEN: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in SC -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Safety Kleen Corp. (NYSE: SK) from July 7, 1998 through March 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges Safety Kleen and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's revenues, income and earnings, which resulted in artificially inflated stock prices during the Class Period. On March 6, 2000, Safety Kleen announced that it had begun an investigation of its financial results and put its top executives on administrative leave. The price of Safety Kleen common stock fell to $2 per share and has declined over 89% from its class period high. Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Philadelphia Marc A. Topaz, Esq. Robert B. Weiser, Esq. 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 Or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com SMITH A O: Settlement for '99 MI Suit Re Water Heaters to Be Finalised ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 16, 1999, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri by individuals on behalf of themselves and all persons throughout the United States who have owned or currently own a water heater manufactured by Rheem Manufacturing Company, A. O. Smith Corporation, Bradford White Company, American Water Heater Company, Lochinvar Corporation and State Industries, Inc. (the "water heater manufacturers") that contain a dip tube manufactured, designed, supplied or sold by Perfection Corporation between August 1993 and October 1996. A dip tube is a plastic tube in a residential water heater which brings the cold water supply to the bottom area of the tank to be heated. The class claims in the lawsuit are broad and comprehensive and include by way of example claims for violation of federal, state, common or other laws; breach of any duties imposed by contract or otherwise; claims based on strict product liability, negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, fraud, conspiracy, suppression, consumer fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, negligent or intentional misrepresentation, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act. The plaintiffs and defendants reached a settlement of the claims of this litigation. On October 21, 1999, the parties petitioned the court to enter an order determining that the suit may be maintained as a class action and that the class be constituted as set forth in the complaint. The petition also asks for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and approval of the form and manner of notice which will be given to the class members. On November 22, 1999, the court entered an order giving preliminary approval to the settlement. On April 21, 2000, the court will hold a hearing on the fairness of the settlement and final approval of the settlement. The settlement agreement establishes a procedure whereby members of the class will be able to file claims for reimbursement of damages previously incurred for the repair or replacement of a subject dip tube and, for those class members who have not incurred out-of-pocket expense or whose subject dip tube related problems have not been fully remedied, the settlement provides a procedure for the repair and replacement of the subject dip tubes at no expense to the class member. The expenses of the reimbursements, repairs and replacements and administration of the settlement will be paid by the defendant water heater manufacturers. The settlement agreement contemplates an application to the court for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred on behalf of class members by counsel for the class in the amount of $5,650,000. The court approved award would also be paid by the defendant water heater manufacturers. In consideration of the agreement by the water heater manufacturers to effectuate the terms of the settlement agreement for the benefit of the class members, the class members will release and discharge the water heater manufacturers from any liability for settled claims. Further, all such claims of the class against Perfection Corporation, the manufacturer of the subject dip tubes, will be deemed assigned to the water heater manufacturers. Individuals can elect to be excluded from the class and separately pursue their remedies and if so elected, would not be entitled to the benefits of the settlement agreement. All other legal actions brought against the water heater manufacturers respecting dip tube claims have been stayed until this lawsuit is resolved. Separately, the water heater manufacturers on September 29, 1999, filed a direct action lawsuit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana against the insurers of Perfection Corporation and American Meter Company, the parent company of Perfection. This lawsuit seeks coverage from the defendant insurance companies for (i) the damages that the water heater manufacturers and the class members in the federal court action referred to above have incurred because of the property damages caused by the dip tube failures, (ii) the liability of the water heater manufacturers assumed by Perfection by contract, and (iii) the personal injuries suffered by the water heater manufacturers as a result of the disparagement of them and their products in the media reports relating to the dip tubes. SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: DCR Lowers Ratings for Notes & Bank Credit Facility ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Duff & Phelps Credit Rating Co. (DCR) has lowered the ratings of Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: BID) and Sotheby's, Inc. The rating action reflects the expectation of higher leverage related in part to possible financial obligations associated with government antitrust investigations and shareholder and consignor lawsuits. Further, Sotheby's cash funding requirements are anticipated to rise as a result of significant increases in Internet-related spending and lower revenues from valuable single-owner sales at the same time as the company is completing a major renovation and expansion of its New York headquarters facility. Recently, Sotheby's suspended its common dividend. The ratings of Sotheby's and Sotheby's, Inc. remain on Rating Watch-Down. Resolution of Sotheby's Rating Watch-Down status will require further clarity on the financial and operational impacts of the investigations and lawsuits as well as a possible change in the controlling shareholder's ownership interest. The rating on Sotheby's $100 million senior unsecured notes due 2009 was downgraded from 'BBB+' (Triple-B-Plus) to 'BBB-' (Triple-B-Minus). Commercial paper issued by Sotheby's, Inc. under a $300 million program was lowered from 'D-1-' (D-One-Minus) to 'D-2' (D-Two). For Sotheby's, Inc., which conducts auction operations in North and South America, commercial paper borrowings are guaranteed by parent company Sotheby's and will be supported by a newly amended and restated $300 million senior secured bank revolving credit agreement, which will expire July 2001. Designated borrowers under the current bank credit agreement include Sotheby's, Sotheby's, Inc. and two other operating subsidiaries. The rating on the bank facility was lowered from 'A-' (Single-A-Minus) to 'BBB' (Triple-B). Sotheby's ratings were placed on Rating Watch-Down on February 22, 2000 after the company's disclosed that an antitrust investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ), foreign governmental inquiries and shareholder and consignor class action lawsuits could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and/or operating results. Concurrent with the company's announcement, Sotheby's chairman and chief executive officer both resigned. Although demand remains strong for better quality auction lots, obtaining supply remains a challenge, and the allegation of price collusion has tainted the live auction industry's business reputation. Sotheby's principal competitor, Christie's International, faces the same allegations and lawsuits but has reached an agreement for leniency with the DOJ. TEXACO AFFILIATE: Fd Ct Certifies Class for Race Discrimination Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Beaumont Division) has issued a 34 page opinion allowing claims of broad based race discrimination against Texaco, Inc. and its affiliate Star Enterprise to proceed as a class action. The class has also been certified against Shell Oil Company, Aramco Services Company, and Saudi Refining Inc. as defendants who have various ownership interests in Star Enterprise and/or its successors. The lawsuit -- captioned Mathews Smith v. Texaco, Inc., et al. -- covers African American salaried employees of Star Enterprise from March 23, 1991 to the present who were not encompassed by the landmark 1998 employment discrimination settlement in Roberts v. Texaco, Inc. Star Enterprise is a joint venture between Texaco, Inc. and Saudi Refining. Star was formed in part to run what was Texaco's refining arm on the Gulf Coast of Texas. In his opinion, Judge Howell Cobb of the United States District Court in Beaumont, Texas explained that "the plaintiffs in this case claim they believed they would be part of the Roberts class action. However, it was later learned the Star employees would not be part of the settlement the Texaco employees received from Texaco when the judge in Roberts certified a settlement class only." The Judge noted that "Plaintiffs have alleged that Star's racially discriminatory policies originated with Texaco. Texaco has the power to control Star's employment practices through its indirect 50% ownership of Star. It also alleged that Texaco uses Star as a training ground for Texaco employees and that most of Star's assets came from Texaco." The Judge's opinion means that the Plaintiffs will be able to proceed in court and try their allegations on a class wide basis as opposed to proceeding in court through individual claims. All class members will receive a notice of the Court's opinion and will be given the right to participate in the case or opt-out. Contact: James Payne of Provost & Umphrey (Beaumont), 800-289-0101 VISX INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ VISX Inc. (NASDAQ:VISX) is accused in a class action lawsuit filed by Finkelstein & Krinsk of violating the federal securities laws by misrepresenting the company's true business and financial condition in order to artificially inflate the price of the company's stock. According to the complaint, the company and its controlling insiders issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market regarding, amongst other things, strong and increasing Excimer Laser procedure and equipment royalties, as well as the company's ability to maintain a steady income from existing licensing fee levels. The Class Action alleges that defendants' statements were false or omitted to state material adverse facts and caused VISX stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period of March 1, 1999 through February 22, 2000, and allowed certain VISX insiders to see 1.4 million shares of the company's stock for approximately $97 million in proceeds. The complaint particularizes plaintiff's allegations of how the company's management violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and specifies the company's false statements and omitted material facts. The complaint has been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California and represents a class comprised of all individual and institutional investors for the pertinent time period. For any inquiries or to discuss this lawsuit and alternatives, contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk at Finkelstein & Krinsk, the Koll Center, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101, by calling toll free 877-493-5366, E-Mail: fk@ class-action-law.com or fax 619-238-5425. VISX, INC.: Weinstein Kitchenoff Files Securities Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman Ltd. announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the common stock of VISX, Inc. (Nasdaq: VISX), between March 1, 1999, and February 22, 2000. The complaint charges VISX and several top officers of the Company with violating the federal securities laws by materially misrepresenting the Company's business, outlook for revenue growth and earnings expectations for fiscal year 2000. VISX is in the laser vision correction business. It generates revenue in two ways: through the sale of laser systems and through licensing revenue. The Company is paid a $250 licensing fee for each laser procedure. Throughout the Class Period, lower priced competitors entered the market place, including competitors that did not charge a licensing fee. Nevertheless, VISX publicly insisted that the $250 per procedure licensing fee would remain in effect. On February 22, 2000, after the close of trading, the Company revealed that contrary to prior representations, it would reduce the $250 per procedure licensing fee, effectively eliminating 60% of licensing revenue, citing the competition it previously said would not cause it to lower its per procedure fee. The complaint alleges that defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing that competition would force the company to reduce or eliminate this fee. As a result of the misstatements, VISX's stock price was artificially inflated during the Class Period, during which time defendants sold in excess of $97 million of their shares of VISX common stock. Contact: Mark Goldman, Esquire of Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman Ltd., toll free at 888-545-7201 or by e-mail at msgoldman@wksg.com ********* 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, 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 * * *