/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/000731.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 31, 2000, Vol. 2, No. 147 Headlines ANICOM, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in Illionois CARD ISSUERS: Consumers Sue over Excessive Fees Following Govt Lead CHICAGO BOARD: Settling Eight-Year Legal Feud Re Education for Homeless CLARK PUBLIC: Utility Seeks Delay in Document Review in River Road Plant CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Texas D.C. FEDERAL: Suit Says Police Violated World Bank Protesters' Rights DRUG AGENTS: Drug-Trafficking Defendants File Suit over 1997 Search ENTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in Texas GEORGIA POWER: Black Employees File Lawsuit over Racial Discrimination INMATES LITIGATION: Suit Filed over Collect Calls at D.C. Prisons PROFIT RECOVERY: Chitwood & Harley Plans to Expand Securities Suit in GA PROFIT RECOVERY: Wolf Haldenstein Plans to Expand Securities Case in GA RIDGEWOOD ENERGY: 3rd Cir Criticizes NJ Judge for Cursory Fee Cutting ST. CHARLES: Teachers Sue for Payment for Infertility Treatments SUHARTO: Indonesia’s A.G. Files Corruption Charges TELEGLOBE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New York TOBACCO LITIGATION: S&P Affirms Settlement Bond Ratings after Jury Award UNICAPITAL CORP: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida USDA: Black Farmers Rally For Support WATER CONTAMINATION: Ontario Hires Subsidiary of GA Firm as Evaluators ********* ANICOM, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in Illionois ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Anicom, Inc. (Nasdaq: ANIC) from April 29, 1998 through July 18, 2000 inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Robert B. Weiser, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com. The complaint charges Anicom and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's revenues, income and earnings. Contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP Marc A. Topaz, Esq. Robert B. Weiser, Esq. 888/299-7706 (toll free) or 610/667-7706 e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com CARD ISSUERS: Consumers Sue over Excessive Fees Following Govt Lead ------------------------------------------------------------------- Government actions against credit card issuers seem to have emboldened dissatisfied consumers and class action lawyers, who have been taking matters into their own hands by filing suits against the companies. This month Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay $45 million to settle a consumer class action. The suit accused Citi's credit card unit of improperly assessing finance charges. Citi did not take blame for the problem but said it settled to "avoid the expense of litigation." And on July 7, Direct Merchants Credit Card Bank NA, the card subsidiary of Metris Cos., was slapped with a lawsuit that makes similar allegations about excessive fees. That suit is seeking class action status. Credit card experts say this type of lawsuit may grow more prevalent now that consumers and class action lawyers smell blood in the water. The Justice Department's ongoing lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard, which is scheduled to resume Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, has called national attention to card industry practices. And Providian Financial Corp.'s agreement to settle a government probe for $300 million made headlines everywhere. "As long as the plaintiffs' class-action bar senses that there is money out there, you'll see other lawsuits," said Anita Boomstein, an attorney in the New York law firm Hughes, Hubbard & Reed. Citigroup's $45 million hit may be the biggest private action settlement to date, experts say. While Citi is not alone in paying a large sum to make its legal troubles go away, some industry executives worry about the precedent that has been set. "The trial bar has set its sights on the bank card industry, and it is increasingly viewing it as a treasure trove," said Duncan MacDonald, a former general counsel of Citigroup who is now a consultant. Mr. MacDonald said the card industry invited this trouble two years ago when it began sending notices to consumers changing the terms and prices of their cards. PaineWebber analyst Gary Gordon said, "A lot of the reason there are complaints like this is because the industry is so competitive." Credit card companies are increasingly relying on fee income -- selling ancillary products, and penalizing customers for the slightest infraction -- to make up for the money they lose by peddling products with low interest rates and no annual fee. In the Citigroup lawsuit, Citibank South Dakota NA and Universal Bank NA (which issued the AT&T credit card portfolio that Citibank purchased several years ago) were accused of improperly crediting the payments of some customers on the day the payments were received. Because of the way the payments were handled, they were deemed late, and the cardholders were assessed a finance charge. Sometimes the finance charges led Citi to raise the cardholders' interest rates. The suit was filed in December in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. This month Citigroup began notifying cardholders about the lawsuit and the plan to settle it. According to these notices, Citibank is establishing an $18 million settlement fund. Another $18 million is earmarked for the expenses involved in distributing the refunds. And $9 million will be spent on attorneys' fees. Citigroup said it would change the cutoff time for crediting consumer card payments received on a business day from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. A statement issued by Citibank's public relations office says: "Citibank believes that it is in the best interest of our cardmembers and our shareholders to settle this case, which focuses on technical questions relating to the 10 a.m. cutoff time for credit card payments to be posted as of that day. This settlement enables us to avoid the expense of litigation and brings the benefits of a settlement, including improved disclosures and educational material as well as refunds, to our cardmembers." To get the refund Citi customers must fill out a claim form. Even then, most people will get only about $1. The lawsuit filed against Metris this month in a district court in Minnesota accuses the St. Louis Park, Minn., card lender of charging cardholders for services they did not request and of unfairly assessing finance, late, and over-the-limit fees, among other things. According to the lawsuit, Metris increases "the likelihood that cardholders' payments will either be late, and thus charged a late payment fee in addition to greater finance charges; or simply be delayed, and therefore will incur greater finance charges." Metris "routinely designate(s) Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays as payment due dates when, in accordance with its standard cardholder agreement, defendants do not accept credit payments as received on these days," the suit says. This year alone, it alleges, 31% of Metris' payment due dates are Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. The other major complaint against Metris involves its marketing of so-called fee-based services, such as Fraud Alert, PurchaseShield, and Quality Jewelry Care. Metris routinely enrolls cardholders in these services "without their express consent or first providing a complete description of these services, failing to honor 'money back' guarantees, and failing to give cardholders full refunds upon receipt of timely cancellation requests," it is alleged. A Metris spokesman, Michael Smith, said Metris would not comment on pending litigation. Keelyn M. Friesen, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said her Minneapolis law firm, Zimmerman Reed, is considering suing other card companies. "We are finding that these practices are not limited to Providian and Metris," she said. Ms. Friesen's law firm is also involved in one of the half-dozen pending consumer lawsuits against Providian. Those lawsuits were combined last fall for the purposes of pretrial discovery, she said. Not every lawsuit results in a settlement. First USA seems to be defending itself handily in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where a judge dismissed a consumer lawsuit seeking class action status. That lawsuit focusing on First USA's late fees is now wending its way through the appeals courts. The maelstrom over what consumer groups say is an unreasonable uptick in punitive fees started about a year ago, when Providian and First USA, the credit card subsidiary of Bank One Corp., were publicly accused of being too greedy in collecting various fees. Investigations by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and some state attorneys general started, and eventually Providian and First USA were accused of charging late fees to customers who had paid their card bills on time. In Providian's case, the accusations included deceptive marketing practices and a policy of charging customers for services, such as credit protection, that they had not asked for. Providian blamed its late-fee problem on a computer glitch, and First USA said it might have "inadvertently" posted erroneous late fees to cardholder accounts between November 1998 and March 1999. After the news broke about the investigations, consumers filed at least six lawsuits against these companies, most of them aimed at Providian. In the third quarter of last year Providian took a $20 million charge to refund the late fees it had wrongly charged customers. This June, Providian agreed to settle with government regulators, promising to pay a whopping $300 million to atone for its business practices. The threat of more litigation appears to be affecting card lenders' marketing efforts. Michael Auriemma, president of Auriemma Consulting Group in Westbury, N.Y., said that within the past six weeks "we have seen some card solicitations saying: We have eliminated late and over-the-limit fees." Among the card lenders doing this, Mr. Auriemma said, are Chase Manhattan Bank, Wachovia Bank, and First USA. Robert McKinley, president of CardWeb.com Inc., a consulting company and news service for the card industry, said such lawsuits would likely be limited to the top card lenders, because "they are the ones with deep pockets." (The American Banker, July 28, 2000) CHICAGO BOARD: Settling Eight-Year Legal Feud Re Education for Homeless ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Chicago board of education and homeless advocates said they are settling an eight-year legal feud over how the city's public schools serve as many as 22,000 homeless students. Representatives of both sides said they worked more closely in the past year to bring the school system in compliance with the McKinney Act, a federal law meant to guarantee quality education for homeless children. They said that cooperation prompted them to end the court battle so that together they might tackle a wide range of issues, from training for school employees about the rights of homeless children to addressing truancy. "This agreement provides the framework for us to work cooperatively to secure the highest-quality education for students who attend the Chicago Public Schools," said Paul Vallas, the schools CEO. Vallas spoke at a joint press conference with the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, which filed a 1992 class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeless families with students enrolled in the city's public schools. The board and the coalition originally settled in 1996. But in 1999, the homeless advocates sought sanctions against the schools, saying they had violated the agreement. Last August, Cook County Circuit Judge Michael Getty agreed and ordered the district to pay a $1,000-a-day fine until it came into compliance--a decision that school officials appealed. Last Thursday July 27, they dropped that appeal, and, under the terms of the new settlement, the board will not pay penalties. The pact also calls for the board to pay as much as $3 million in bus or cab fare for transient students so they can continue to attend the same school, regardless of the relocation of their families, Vallas said. Since homelessness can mean moving as many as five times a year, education officials and homeless advocates said that remaining at the same school was important to maintain stability in a student's life and to promote learning. Other terms of the agreement require the schools to hire people to enroll in school children who are living in homeless shelters, and to offer complimentary tutoring and uniforms to homeless children. One homeless woman attending the press conference said she was optimistic about the settlement. "They should give us a chance, not because of the way we look or the situation we find ourselves in, but just out of respect and dignity," said 27-year-old Maribel Blanco. "That's the only thing we ask for." (Chicago Tribune, July 28, 2000) CLARK PUBLIC: Utility Seeks Delay in Document Review in River Road Plant ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Clark Public Utilities is seeking a delay in naming an engineer to review documents that are part of a lawsuit over whether Clark's officials withheld public records related to the utility's generating plant. The utility has asked for a two-week extension of an already-past deadline, and its opponent in the 4-year-old lawsuit is fighting the idea. In late June, Superior Court Judge Edwin Poyfair ruled that Clark and the half-dozen plaintiffs must agree on the selection of an "unbiased and independent" engineer to look at purportedly proprietary documents. The decision was the latest in the May 1996 lawsuit involving contentions that Clark officials withheld public records related to specifications for the River Road Generating Plant. State law requires a public vote on generating facilities producing 250 megawatts or more; when the plant was being designed, Clark officials said the River Road project would produce 248. Believing that specifications would show otherwise, the six-member Concerned Ratepayers Association requested documents. What they got was incomplete, they contended. The state Supreme Court ruled last September that certain documents the utility did not provide to the plaintiffs were public records. However, the case was bounced back to Poyfair for a ruling on whether the records, while "public," qualify under certain state law exemptions that would keep them under wraps. Poyfair gave both parties until this last Tuesday July 25 to agree on an engineer; failing that, he implied he would find one himself. In a letter faxed to Poyfair last Tuesday, Seattle-based attorney James Lobsenz asked for a two-week deadline extension, saying he had returned to his office "well rested after my one-month sabbatical trip" but didn't have enough time to reach agreement with plaintiff's attorney John Karpinski on naming an engineer. Last Wednesday morning, Karpinski filed court papers asking Poyfair to make the decision. In letters to a Lobsenz associate earlier in July, Karpinski wrote that the Tuesday deadline was set with the knowledge that it would be shortly after the end of Lobsenz's vacation. Poyfair's June decision was made while Lobsenz was already on vacation. Karpinski's papers included the names of five engineers he submitted earlier to the utility. The lone submission from Lobsenz is "a Portland patent attorney whose last experience was in 1957 as 'engineer,"' Karpinski's papers say. "I don't think the utility is capable of agreeing with us on anything," Karpinski said. "If we said the engineer was blue, they would say he is aqua or something." Poyfair, who was presiding over a jury trial last Wednesday, said he was considering the request. He added that "the court is looking into who is available" to review the documents. The plant has been operating for months. If Poyfair rules the documents are disclosable, the plaintiffs would be entitled to their attorney fees. However, the decision could be appealed by either side conceivably all the way, once again, to the state's high court. (The Columbian (Vancouver, WA.), July 27, 2000) CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Crossroads Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRDS) common stock between July 13, 2000 and July 26, 2000. The complaint alleges that Crossroads and its CEO issued materially false and misleading statements - in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 - regarding Crossroads' operations and financial results for its fiscal third quarter (ending July 31, 2000). Specifically, the complaint alleges that Crossroads and its CEO knew by July 13, 2000 - but did not disclose to investors until July 27, 2000 - that certain of its products were experiencing interoperability problems with network software. These problems were so severe that the company, by mid-July, had stopped shipping the products and has not yet resumed shipment of corrected devices. On July 27, 2000, the company disclosed that its revenues would decline from the previous quarter's revenues by a shocking 66% due to the product shipment halt as well as a cancellation of an order at the end of the quarter. When the truth about the company's operations and financial results was finally revealed to investors on July 27, 2000, investors saw their shares lose more than 50% of their value in one day, from $13 7/16 to $6 3/8 per share. Thus, as result of Crossroads' misrepresentations and omissions, the complaint alleges, the price of Crossroads' stock was artificially inflated during the class period, and investors who bought these securities were damaged thereby. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses suffered by investors who purchased Crossroads stock during the class period, excluding the defendants and their affiliates. Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, which specializes in complex litigation, including securities class actions. Kirby McInerney & Squire has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various courts which have appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi-district litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and its achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in published decisions. Contact: Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP Ira Press, Esq. Gretchen Becht, Paralegal 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 317-2300 or Toll Free (888) 529-4787 E-Mail: gbecht@kmslaw.com D.C. FEDERAL: Suit Says Police Violated World Bank Protesters' Rights --------------------------------------------------------------------- Civil rights attorneys filed suit last Thursday July 27 accusing District and U.S. authorities of violating the First Amendment during the World Bank protests in April, and they warned police elsewhere against using similar tactics to stifle a new "progressive movement." Joined by a 14-year-old girl who was caught up in a mass arrest by D.C. police and a young man who said he was beaten during a march, legal activists, including lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, announced the class action lawsuit on the steps of U.S. District Court on behalf of 15 named plaintiffs and thousands of unnamed protesters. The suit alleges that the defendants, including D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey and the directors of seven federal law enforcement agencies, used unconstitutional tactics to intimidate and disrupt protesters. The tactics, they said, included a blanket arrest of everybody on a single block the night before the demonstrations and a raid of the protesters' headquarters. "What happened here was a dramatic and widespread violation of the law by the police," said Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the local chapter of the ACLU. Spitzer said the timing of the lawsuit was meant to put the police in Philadelphia and Los Angeles on notice that civil rights advocates will be watching how they handle large demonstrations planned at the Republican and Democratic national conventions this summer. Many activists who participated in the D.C. protests are in Philadelphia for the GOP event. The Democratic convention is Aug. 14 to 17 in Los Angeles. Attorneys for the protesters said a common theme of anger at corporate influence over national politics and world trade link the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle last year, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund protests in the District in April, and the convention protests this summer. "It's the post-Seattle police strategy for how to stop a progressive movement, a new youth movement," said Brian Becker, co-director of the International Action Center, a plaintiff. "This lawsuit is important because our movement is growing, as will be demonstrated at the conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles." After the Washington protests of April 16 and 17 ended with nearly 1,300 arrests but without the chaos that gripped Seattle, police officials congratulated themselves on a job well done. "I apologize for nothing we did," Ramsey said in response to the lawsuit. "They have the right to sue us just like they had to right to protest." Ramsey would not comment on the specifics of the lawsuit because, he said, he hadn't read it. A spokeswoman for Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said the mayor also would have no comment because the case is pending. The suit, filed by groups including the National Lawyers Guild and the Partnership for Civil Justice, focuses on several police actions. Under the category of "disruption," the suit alleges that city or federal officers stopped and frisked activists in the street and searched vehicles without probable cause. The suit accuses the D.C. police of "false arrest" in the case of the 600 people rounded up at 20th and K streets NW the evening of April 15. According to Becker, many of the 600 were marchers who were returning from a legal protest at the Justice Department. He said D.C. police officers told the protesters to turn north on 20th Street. Then, at K Street, police closed the block and arrested everyone there--including tourists, bystanders and a Washington Post photographer. Mitra Mohammadi, of the District, who was then 13, said she and her mother had come that night to see what the demonstrations were all about. "We saw the marchers go by, then we decided to film it, and then we got locked up and arrested." She said she spent six hours in custody before being released. The suit accuses police of using excessive force but names only one victim, Rob Fish, 21, of New Jersey. At a news conference, Fish described being beaten by a man in civilian clothes who had a badge and wielded a baton. Spitzer said the attorneys intend to append numerous examples of brutality. The suit also attacks the closing of the protesters' headquarters on Florida Avenue NW the day before the demonstration. Police said there were fire violations. Spitzer said that there may well have been violations but that there are such violations across the city. He said it was a pretext to disrupt the group. Authorities confiscated supplies, including political pamphlets and protest puppets. A few hours later, they gave back some of the puppets. The suit alleges that city officials reneged on a deal to return the rest of the confiscated material before the demonstrations began. Executive Assistant Chief Terrance W. Gainer said: "I thought we were trying to be as fair as can be in that situation. The fire codes shut that building down, and we tried to work with them to free the puppets and materials." The suit accuses police of spreading false information to reporters, including allegations that materials for making pepper spray were found in the activists' headquarters. The protesters say the materials police found were actually ingredients to make gazpacho. Gainer said that the department does not concede that the peppers and onions officers found were indeed the makings for gazpacho. "I like gazpacho," he said. "But what we found there, in the context of the situation, was seen as potentially dangerous." (The Washington Post, July 28, 2000) DRUG AGENTS: Drug-Trafficking Defendants File Suit over 1997 Search ------------------------------------------------------------------- Several defendants in a 1996 drug-trafficking case have sued agents with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and federal prosecutors, alleging the government went beyond the scope of a search warrant in 1997. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the civil-rights suit in June on behalf of 10 men indicted in the case. The government alleged the men and 16 other people were part of a methamphetamine conspiracy in southern New Mexico. The lawsuit claims that in May 1997, agents Richard Rottinger, Fred Moore, William Goodenough, Ron Kahn, Stephen Woodson and Frank Chavez inappropriately seized items from the plaintiffs, who were jailed at the Torrance County Detention Center in Estancia pending trial. The suit also said Assistant U.S. Attorneys Julie Shemitz, David Williams and Kelly Burnham should be held accountable because they did not prevent the inappropriate seizure. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the DEA declined to comment on the lawsuit because it is pending. Each of the 10 men has since pleaded guilty to various charges in a 27-count indictment, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. ACLU attorney Philip B. Davis said the pleas are not the point. "This case is all about following the rules and requiring the government to play by the rules," Davis said in a recent interview. The suit said agents obtained a warrant in May 1997 to "seize letters between inmates and/or family members or associates of the inmates." Affidavits submitted in support of the search warrant alleged the 10 men were members of a conspiracy to ' "beat the charges' by hanging together and not pleading guilty to the charges." The lawsuit said the 10 men were pulled out of their cells at the Estancia prison while the agents searched. "The federal agents went beyond the scope of the warrant by seizing from each of the plaintiffs numerous documents protected by the attorney-client privilege," the lawsuit said. "Also seized were such obviously nondocumentary items as religious crosses, pieces of hard candy, a nail clipper, an emery board, packets of decongestants, family photographs and (size) AA batteries." The lawsuit said Shemitz, Burnham and Williams knew some of the evidence seized was protected by attorney-client privilege, but did not seek a judicial determination to determine whether the government could keep the evidence and review it. In late 1997, U.S. District Judge Bruce D. Black suppressed the evidence, noting that the men's Sixth Amendment rights were violated. "They thought they'd get away with it," Davis said of the government. "They didn't get away with it in the criminal case, and they're not going to get away with it this time." (Albuquerque Journal, July 27, 2000) ENTRUST TECHNOLOGIES: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------------- Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announced on July 27 that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Entrust Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq:ENTU - news) common stock during the period between April 19, 2000 and July 3, 2000 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Entrust and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Entrust develops, markets, and sells products and services that allow enterprises to manage trusted, secure electronic communications and transactions over networks. The complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the revenues that Entrust was deriving from its public key infrastructure business which together with defendants' false representations that Entrust would post 2Q 2000 EPS of $0.08, operated to artificially inflate the price of Entrust stock to a Class Period high of $ 82-3/4 on 6/30/00. This upsurge in Entrust's stock caused by defendants' false and misleading statements enabled Entrust to complete the $703 million stock-for-stock acquisition of enCommerce. On 7/5/00, two business days after the acquisition of enCommerce was completed, Entrust revealed that it was in fact suffering a huge decline in revenues, was not posting earnings per share growth, and contrary to defendants' repeated assurances, Entrust was forced to reveal the problems it had been experiencing during the Class Period in attempting to grow its business. This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $34-3/8 (or over $40 per share) on record volume of 19 million shares on 7/5/00, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class. Contact: Spector, Roseman, & Kodroff Robert M. Roseman, 888/844-5862 classaction@spectorandroseman.com GEORGIA POWER: Black Employees File Lawsuit over Racial Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Three employees of Georgia Power Co. sued the utility last Thursday July 27, claiming it fosters a "pattern of discriminating against African-Americans'' who work there and shows "reckless indifference'' to a racially hostile workplace. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of high-profile racial discrimination suits against major corporations in Georgia. The Georgia Power workers, who seek class action status to represent all 2, 100 African-American employees, claim that management of Georgia's largest utility company paid black employees less and maintained a "glass ceiling" that discriminated against them for promotions. In anticipation of the lawsuit, Georgia Power President David Ratcliffe addressed all 8,000-plus employees statewide via closed-circuit television from the company's downtown Atlanta headquarters last Thursday. He said the company "maintains a strong policy of zero tolerance for racially or intolerant behavior.'' He announced the appointment of a Diversity Action Council, co-chaired by an African-American board member, and promised to "move expeditiously to address these concerns.'' "I take these concerns seriously,'' Ratcliffe said. Both sides in the legal action expressed a willingness to discuss settlement. In support of its claim of a hostile work environment, the lawsuit alleges that Georgia Power management did nothing about the display of a hangman's noose in a heavily traveled area at the utility's operating headquarters in Cornelia between 1997 and September 1999. A photograph depicting what appears to be a noose hanging in a storeroom was attached to the lawsuit. A similar allegation was made in a racial discrimination suit filed in May against Lockheed Martin Corp. "Although a hangman's noose has long been one of the most chilling representations of racial harassment, two Georgia Power vice presidents and several managers who were aware of it and had even viewed the noose took no action to remove it,'' the lawsuit says. "This example of grossly inappropriate behavior and offensive conduct is just the tip of an iceberg. African-Americans company-wide report incidents of racial harassment, including being called (by a racial epithet) or being told in essence that 'blacks are too dumb to be managers.' '' Ratcliffe said in an interview the company during the past two weeks had found two hangman's nooses at operations centers in Cornelia and Dalton, both in North Georgia, that had "apparently been there for some time." They were taken down, he said. "Clearly this is embarrassing and represents a very insensitive action by our employees,'' he said. Ratcliffe vowed to be "very firm'' with any employees who were involved, but said he wants to gather the facts before taking action. "But it's clear to me we need some more sensitivity training,'' he said. Filed in Fulton County Superior Court, the 29-page lawsuit names Georgia Power Co. and its parent Southern Co. as defendants. It was filed by the same law firm that represents Coca-Cola employees in a racial discrimination lawsuit against the Atlanta-based soft drink company. Other recent discrimination lawsuits have named Home Depot and Waffle House, both Atlanta companies. The companies have all denied discriminating against employees and Coca-Cola has reached a tentative settlement of one of two pending lawsuits. Ratcliffe, a 30-year Southern Co. veteran who took over the presidency of Georgia Power 14 months ago, said the company began an assessment of its employment practices two weeks ago when he discovered employees had retained attorneys. "I tried to meet with the employee group,'' he said. "Their response was that they would not meet with us without attorneys present.'' From there, it became a discussion between the plaintiffs' attorneys at Bondurant & Elmore and Georgia Power's law firm, Troutman Sanders. Ratcliffe appeared to be taken aback when he read the lawsuit for the first time. "You may hear or read some things about our company that are not pleasant, '' Ratcliffe said in his five-minute talk to employees. " Don't overreact to those things.'' But, he promised, "if we have made mistakes, we will work hard to correct them.'' Ratcliffe also announced that Juanita Baranco will co-chair with him a diversity council that will recommend improvements in employment practices. Baranco is chief executive of Atlanta-based Baranco Automotive Group and one of Georgia Power's three African-American board members. The three plaintiffs are Cornelius Cooper, a 28-year company veteran now working as a lineman in Atlanta; Michael Edwards, a 13-year veteran who is a lineman; and Sarah Jean Harris, a 21-year veteran who is a senior region support representative in the engineering and operations department. Cooper has been "repeatedly subjected to offensive comments about his race, '' the lawsuit says, citing specific examples. The suit claims Cooper and Edwards have been denied promotions because of their race. And Harris, the only African-American in her department, unfairly received lower performance evaluation scores than her white counterparts and, as a result, lower compensation, the suit alleges. Ratcliffe and other Georgia Power officials declined to discuss personnel matters and plaintiffs' attorney Steven Rosenwasser said his three clients were not available for comment beyond the claims made in their lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, African-Americans constituted 19.2 percent of Georgia Power's work force in December 1998, they accounted for 22 of the company's "higher-level positions,'' and five of 150 foremen were black. Georgia Power said that as of last Thursday July 27, 1,793 of its 8,632 employees were African-American, 15 of 272 foremen were African-American, 97 of 1,030 manager-supervisors are African-American and three of 21 executives with vice presidential rank or higher are black. Georgia Power officials clearly wanted to present a conciliatory front. Georgia Power already has a "process in place'' to deal with the charges and make changes, said spokesman Todd Terrell. "I'm always open to settling the case," Ratcliffe said in an interview. Rosenwasser said his clients also are open to settlement talks --- if Georgia Power is willing to agree to "full compensation for past wrongs'' and to independent monitoring of any reforms the company makes and to ensure a non-discriminatory environment in the future. "We don't want employees to be at the mercy of the company that has promised to reform its employment practices in the past but has repeatedly failed to do so," the attorney said. Ratcliffe said he has no problem with reporting steps the company takes. " We're not a closed company,'' he said. The Georgia Power suit follows other class action proceedings claiming racial discrimination by two major Georgia companies: Coca-Cola Co. Suit filed: April 1999. Plaintiffs: Eight current and former African-American employees. Claims: Coca-Cola discriminated against African-American employees in pay, promotions, performance evaluations and terminations. Suit sought class action status to cover 2,000 African-American workers. Coke denied the claims. Status: Tentative settlement reached in June, but financial details have to be worked out. Meanwhile, four former black employees have filed another discrimination suit against Coke, seeking $ 1.5 billion. Coke denies the claims. Lockheed Martin Corp. Suit filed: Two lawsuits filed in May 2000, one by salaried workers and one by hourly workers that also named as defendants the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers and the Local Lodge No. 709. Plaintiffs: Seven hourly and four salaried African-American employees and former employees of the Marietta plant, seeking class action status. Claims: Lockheed discriminated in promotions, raises and training; retaliated against workers for complaints about discrimination; and created a hostile work environment. Lockheed denies the claims. Status: The case is in the preliminary stage, setting deadlines for motions and other matters that govern its management. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, July 28, 2000) INMATES LITIGATION: Suit Filed over Collect Calls at D.C. Prisons ----------------------------------------------------------------- Telephone companies that handle collect calls from inmates at Washington state prisons have been accused of violating consumer protection laws. The lawsuit, filed by two relatives of inmate and prison activist Paul Wright in King County Superior Court, accuses phone companies of disregarding a state law which requires that each recipient of a collect call be told the cost before being asked to accept the charges. Lawyers asked that the case be certified as a class action on behalf of all Washington state prison inmates. Collect calls are the only way state prison inmates can call outside local calling areas. "You have no idea how much money you're going to be charged for this call," Wright said by phone from the McNeil Island Corrections Center. "One thing we can guarantee is it's going to be a ridiculous amount." The head of United Friends and Families of Prisoners, Janet Haynes of Kitsap County, whose husband is an inmate at the Monroe Correctional Complex, estimates she has spent more than $70,000 on collect phone calls in her 13 years of marriage. Under state law, each violation is subject to a $200 fine. The lawsuit covers four years worth of calls by prisoners numbering as high as 14,000 at one time. Michael Dunne, a spokesman for Qwest, which recently acquired U S West, and AT&T spokesman Vic Kucera denied any wrongdoing. Steve McLellan, a spokesman for the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, said recipients of collect calls often are instructed in a recording to press a button on touch-tone telephones to hear the charges. The Herald of Everett reported that the message preceding a call from Wright did not provide any way to learn the price of the call. The recording said it was a collect call from a prisoner via U S West and included warnings that the call wouldn't work with call waiting and other special services and that it would be recorded. The only option, The Herald reported, was: "If you wish to accept this collect call, press 1 now." Out-of-state calls through AT&T's inmate program cost 69 cents a minute plus a $3.95 connection charge, while in-state long distance collect calls run 59 cents with a $3 charge, company spokeswoman LeeAnn Kuster said. Less expensive alternatives, including AT&T's 1-800 collect call system, which costs 40 cents a minute with connection charges ranging from $2.99 to $ 5.50 for out-of-state calls, are not available to inmates. One reason prison calls cost more is the additional security controls, said Jeannine Hansen, another spokeswoman. Wright noted that under phone company contracts with the state, much of the revenue from such calls is turned over to the prison system. Prisoner-rights groups in New Mexico, New York and Washington D.C. have filed lawsuits challenging such contracts and the price of calls this year. The Washington state prison system received $5.2 million last year under contracts that providing the state with 27 percent to 45 percent of gross collect call revenues, said Veltry Johnson, a Corrections Department spokesman. The money is split between funds for crime victims and prisoner improvements such as recreation supplies, crafts equipment, cable television hookups and arts programs, Johnson said. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, July 28, 2000) PROFIT RECOVERY: Chitwood & Harley Plans to Expand Securities Suit in GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chitwood & Harley plans to expand the class period in the class action lawsuit that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. ("PRGX" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: "PRGX") and certain officers and directors. The expanded class period will include those who purchased shares of PRGX between February 16, 2000 and July 26, 2000 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges PRGX and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly-reported revenues and earnings that artificially inflated PRGX's stock price throughout the Class Period. A recent press release by the Company revealed that PRGX had continued the course of conduct challenged in the complaint until July 26, 2000. Contact: Chitwood & Harley Martin D. Chitwood or David Bain 888/873-3999 or 404/873-3900 dab@classlaw.com PROFIT RECOVERY: Wolf Haldenstein Plans to Expand Securities Case in GA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it intends to extend the class period in a previously filed action against Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. (PRGX) and certain directors and officers. The extended class period includes those who purchased shares of PRGX between February 16, and July 26, 2000 (the "Class Period") (NASDAQ:PRGX). On July 25, 2000, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. http://www.whafh.com.Thecomplaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors, namely John M. Cook, Chairman & CEO, and Scott L. Colabuono, Executive VP, Treasurer and CFO, violated federal securities laws by providing materially false and misleading information about the Company's revenues and earnings during the Class Period. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein website at www.whafh.com, or can be obtained directly from the firm by calling the number below or by writing. By press release dated July 26, 2000, PRGX revealed that to that date, it had continued the fraudulent course of conduct challenged in the complaint. If you purchased PRGX securities between the period February 16, 2000 to July 26, 2000, you may, no later than August 7, 2000, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Julie Sullivan, Esq., or Michael Miske Tel: (800) 575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com whafh@aol.com nespole@whafh.com sullivan@whafh.com Website: www.whafh.com URL: http://www.businesswire.com RIDGEWOOD ENERGY: 3rd Cir Criticizes NJ Judge for Cursory Fee Cutting ---------------------------------------------------------------------Strongly urging lower court judges to explain their reasoning when cutting attorney fees in class actions, a federal appeals court vacated a fee award of $ 1.7 million to lawyers who asked for more than $ 3.1 million for their work in winning a $ 9.5 million settlement. "The district court abused its discretion in this case by not exercising it; and when it did exercise it, by misapplying our jurisprudence," Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Edward R. Becker wrote in Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp. The ruling is a victory for attorneys Joseph Sternberg of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow in New York and G. Martin Meyers of Denville, N.J., who argued that U.S. District Judge William H. Walls of the District of New Jersey ignored their arguments that the case was an extremely difficult and labor-intensive one that had resulted in a very favorable settlement for the class. The case arose from a series of failed oil and gas investments. The plaintiffs were investors in a series of limited partnerships who claimed that the defendants fraudulently marketed and sold about $ 150 million worth of interests in the partnerships between 1986 and 1990. When the $ 9.5 million settlement was struck, the plaintiffs' lawyers asked for $ 3.16 million in fees. But Judge Walls allowed fees of only 18 percent of the fund, or $ 1.71 million. Judge Becker said Walls explained his decision to slash the fees by nearly half with "a conclusory one-sentence statement. "Walls wrote: "The nature of this litigation, its resolution at this stage without the necessity of a trial, the nature of the settlement and its value, convince the court that it would place a reasonable burden on the class to award fees of 18 percent of the settlement fund." Becker said Walls "expanded slightly upon that statement" when he denied a motion for reconsideration, by saying that he did not credit "the unexplained and undetailed expenditure of 2,500 hours by counsel." But Becker said Walls declined the lawyers' invitation to review their billing records and that the judge did not explain why he had refused to credit 2,500 of the 8,500 hours "even though counsel proffered documentation for that work." The jurisprudence of the 3rd Circuit, Becker said, calls for "thorough judicial review" of fee applications. "Without a reasoned and documented explication of the rationale for approving or denying a particular fee award, it is difficult, if not impossible for an appellate court to review such an award for abuse of discretion," Becker wrote. Walls' rulings, Becker said, were "vague and conclusory" and "did not address or apply the relevant criteria ... that a district court should consider in awarding fees in a class action." Becker, who was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Jane R. Roth and Max Rosenn, said it was impossible to review Walls' rulings because he never discussed how he had applied the seven factors that go into deciding how to award fees in a common-fund case. "The problem in this case is that the district court dealt with the fee-award issue in a cursory and conclusory fashion," Becker wrote. "Even after reading the district court's opinions, it remains difficult to discern both how the court arrived at the 18 percent award figure, and why it reached certain other conclusions that it did. The court mentioned the costs awards factors that a court should consider in such circumstances, but did not apply any of the factors, at least insofar as we can ascertain," Becker wrote. In a final footnote to the opinion, Becker said that lower court judges can "avoid many of the complications associated with fee awards by setting guidelines and ground rules early in the litigation process." Such ground rules, he said, may include orders pertaining to record-keeping that facilitate judicial review; periodic status reports; establishing reasonable hourly rates; and capping the amount of time that lawyers may spend on a particular matter if they expect to be compensated. Another approach, Becker said, is to determine the fee arrangement in advance through competitive bidding. "This device appears to have worked well, and we commend it to district judges within this circuit for their consideration," Becker wrote. Listing cases in which bidding processes have been used, Becker cited district court rulings from the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois and one decision by Walls himself in In Re: Cendant Corp. Litigation. Finally, Becker said, a judge who suspects that the class plaintiffs' rights are not being adequately vindicated by appointed counsel may appoint a special master "to review or challenge the fee application." (The Legal Intelligencer, July 28, 2000) ST. CHARLES: Teachers Sue for Payment for Infertility Treatments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Although a formal response hasn't been made, attorneys for St. Charles School District 303 will argue the district hasn't violated any federal laws despite a lawsuit filed by two of its teachers, alleging the district's health coverage is discriminatory because it excludes payment for infertility treatments. Attorney Mike Duggan said the district's health plan does not violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, as the lawsuit alleges. "We are self-insured and there is an ADA provision that claims cannot be based on that type of plan unless it can be shown the terms are a subterfuge for discrimination in some other way," he said. He also maintained the plan does not discriminate on the basis of sex, as the teachers' suit alleges, because "it also excludes male infertility treatments." Lisa Mack and Angela Moreau filed the suit in federal court, alleging that the district's exclusion of the treatments from their health coverage violates both the ADA and their civil rights. The suit seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the district from denying health-care benefits on the basis of a disability, specifically infertility, or on the basis of sex, including pregnancy. It also seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Federal law requires that bias claims first be presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Duggan said the district presented the same responses when the women filed their claims with the EEOC in April. In June, the commission found cause for violations of the ADA, and the teachers proceeded with their action. The suit states both women suffer from infertility disease and fit the ADA's definition of a disability because the disease is a "physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities," including procreation and raising their own children. It also said the district is violating the pregnancy-discrimination part of the federal civil rights act since the treatments would be for a medical condition related to pregnancy. Mack, who has worked for the district for 13 years, was diagnosed 2 1/2 years ago, and Moreau, a 10-year employee, about 19 months ago. Patricia Collins, the teachers' attorney, said there are good reasons to file the suit, which also is asking the court to declare it a class action. "Infertility is the only disease that is excluded in the district's health plan," she said. "But an employer cannot single out one disability not to cover. That is discriminatory because it is treating that disability differently, and those who have that disability are receiving a lower level of benefit from the plan than everyone else." The district's assistant superintendent for business, Dave Zager, said the district switched about 10 years ago from a traditional insurance company to a self-insured plan to save money. A few years ago, he said, it looked at adding the infertility treatments to its plan, which covers 915 employees, including teachers, support staff, custodians and administrators. Its health benefits committee, however, determined the $300,000-a-year cost was too high because too few employees would be affected. Collins said she doesn't buy that argument. "They don't have a cost basis for excluding the treatments because they are covering diseases which are far more expensive to treat," she said. "If the district can afford to pay for more expensive treatments, then they can't say [infertility] would bankrupt the district. They are discriminating against one disability and that violates the act. And the plan also will cover drugs like Viagra and prescriptions for acne but not the hormonal drugs that will assist women in becoming pregnant." Zager said he isn't sure if the disease is the only one the district's plan excludes but said the district covers cases that are potentially more expensive, including heart transplants and cancer treatments. "Imagine working for the same place for years and paying into your health plan, and then find out you have a disease that isn't covered," Collins said. "It's devastating." (Chicago Tribune, July 28, 2000) SUHARTO: Indonesia’s A.G. Files Corruption Charges -------------------------------------------------- Indonesia's attorney general filed corruption charges against former President Suharto, accusing him of skimming $ 157 million from seven charitable foundations he controlled during his 23 years of rule in Jakarta. Suharto, who was forced to resign in 1998, is alleged to have amassed billions of dollars in illegal wealth. Suharto, 79, who has been under house arrest for two months, has suffered two strokes and his attorneys say he is unfit to stand trial or be questioned by prosecutors. (Chicago Sun-Times, July 27, 2000) TELEGLOBE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2000, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Teleglobe Inc. (NYSE:TGO) between February 11, 1999 and July 29, 1999, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on Milberg Weiss' website at http://www.milberg.com/teleglobe/ The action, numbered 00 Civ 5610, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, against defendants Teleglobe, Charles Sirous (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) and Claude Seguin (Chief Financial Officer). The Honorable Barbara S. Jones is the Judge presiding over the case. The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between February 11, 1999 and July 29, 1999, thereby artificially inflating the price of Teleglobe common stock. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Teleglobe's profitability was plummeting as a result of back office problems in its newly-acquired Excel division, a severe price war in the North American wholesale long distance market, shrinking profit margins in nearly all of its business lines and adverse fluctuations in certain currency markets. Nevertheless, as alleged in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants falsely represented that these problems were merely isolated events in order to permit Teleglobe to complete a huge $1 billion bond offering on July 20, 1999, which was necessary for Teleglobe to raise the capital it needed to finance its$5 billion global telephone network called GlobeSystem, which would facilitate Teleglobe's transition from a provider of slow growing/low margin telephone services to a provider of fast growing/higher margin data services. However, as alleged in the complaint, just eight days after Teleglobe sold $1 billion worth of bonds to unsuspecting investors, it announced that it would badly miss analysts' earnings estimates for the second quarter in a row. Upon this announcement, the price of Teleglobe common stock collapsed in value from $ 27 13/16 per share to $21 11/16 per share on huge trading volume which was many times more than Teleglobe's average daily trading volume. Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 Phone number: 800/320-5081 Email: teleglobecase@milbergNY.com Website: http://www.milberg.com TOBACCO LITIGATION: S&P Affirms Settlement Bond Ratings after Jury Award ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Standard & Poor's has affirmed its ratings on all tobacco settlement revenue securitization bonds following the $144.9 billion punitive damage award in Florida against U.S. tobacco companies as a result of the Engle class action case (see list). This affirmation takes place in conjunction with the commentary issued by Standard & Poor's on the Engle punitive damage award dated July 17, 2000. Rated companies affected by this ruling include Philip Morris Cos. Inc. (single-'A'/Stable/A-1 corporate credit rating), RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. (triple-'B'-minus/Stable/--), Loews Corp. (double-'A'-minus/Negative/-- and parent of Lorillard Tobacco), and British American Tobacco PLC (single-'A'/Stable/A-1). Although tobacco company ratings are considered in the analysis of the tobacco settlement bonds, the company-specific ratings were not directly linked to the specific settlement bond ratings. As industry volume is the basis on which annual Master Settlement Agreement payments are made, however, the securitized bond ratings are linked to the overall performance of the industry, which continues to be subject to potential setbacks and litigation risk. If rating actions on the tobacco companies are taken in the future as a result of industry risk, there may be resultant rating action on these securitization bonds. Current ratings stability for these companies hinges on several assumptions, including expectations that no enormous payments will be made in the near term, as the Florida legislature has put a $100 million cap on posting a bond for appeal. Standard & Poor's also does not believe that any money is likely to be paid for many years. If the bonding cap is not upheld, however, Standard & Poor's will reassess its position, as a sizable bond requirement may not be manageable by some or all of the defendants, or may be affordable but damaging to credit measures. Further, a final judgment cannot be entered on this award as the size of the class has not yet been determined, making it unlikely that the court will be able to allocate damages to the plaintiffs that have already completed the individual trial phase. Additionally, the size of the current award could be reduced to more manageable amounts, as none of the defendants can afford to pay it today. Lastly, Standard & Poor's does not believe the industry would consider a settlement at this time. Over the past 10 years, Standard & Poor's has factored uncertainty related to litigation into its ratings of tobacco companies, which, given the business and financial profiles of some of these firms, has clearly been a limiting factor. The Engle case represents another chapter in a complex story that may take many years to resolve and which may even be dismissed by a higher court. Though Standard & Poor's is not taking any rating actions at this time because of the uniqueness of this case and the duration of the appeals process, it remains concerned about the potential for additional setbacks. Most states have ruled against class action suits in tobacco cases. Recently, however, Standard & Poor's has been concerned about changing jury sentiments, and the Engle decision seems to confirm that concern. Also, although tobacco products have proven that they have considerable pricing flexibility, large additional judgments will certainly reduce this flexibility. Uncertainties also continue to exist with respect to a federal lawsuit, other class actions, and third-party cases. Consequently, given recent developments, any incremental increase in litigation risk is likely to result in at least a moderate rating action for the rated tobacco companies, Standard & Poor's said. OUTSTANDING RATINGS AFFIRMED TSASC Inc. Tobacco Flexible Amortization Bonds Series 1999-1 Issuance Amount Due Rating $14.995 mil 7/15/03-05 AA- $24.005 mil 7/15/06-10 A+ $670.28 mil 7/15/11-39 A Nassau County Tobacco Settlement Corp. Tobacco Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds Series A Issuance Amount Due Rating $4.7 mil 7/15/03-05 A+ $8.465 mil 7/15/06-10 A $281.335 mil 7/15/11-39 A- Westchester Tobacco Asset Securitization Corp. Tobacco Settlement Asset-Backed Bonds Series 1999 Issuance Amount Due Rating $52.739 mil 7/15/29 A $50.765 mil 7/15/39 A Source: Standard & Poor's Ratings Services UNICAPITAL CORP: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of UniCapital Corporation Inc. (NASDAQ: UCP) between May 14, 1998 and May 15, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 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, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market During the Class Period. When the Company, on May 15, 2000, disclosed that its first quarter 2000 financial results would be far lower than the market had been led to believe, the price of UniCapital's stock dropped by 28%. Contact: Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. Robert M. Roseman, 888/844-5862 classaction@spectorandroseman.com USDA: Black Farmers Rally For Support ------------------------------------- For most of his 78 years, Leonard Nelson has done two things - farmed cotton in Jefferson County and voted for the Democratic Party. No longer do his livelihood and politics go hand in hand. Nelson stood last Thursday July 27 with about a dozen other black farmers on the steps of the Jefferson County Courthouse in a show of support for Republican congressmen Jay Dickey of Arkansas and J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. The farmers said the two Republicans have helped them the most in their efforts to get payments from a federal anti-discrimination lawsuit. "I've always been pretty strong with the Democrats, but as long as the Republicans are working for us, I'll support them," Nelson said. Dickey is facing a tough challenge from Democrat Mike Ross, a state senator, in the 4th District. When the Arkansas chapter of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association endorsed Dickey in June, the move caused a backlash from some of the state's black lawmakers and from the Washington-based National Black Farmers Association, another advocacy group for black farmers. But National BFA President Gary Grant said, in the courthouse news conference last Thursday, the association will support whoever it feels is acting in its best interest. "For a long time, politicians have taken for granted who we would support. But we are here today to let you know that we will support whoever is helping us the most," Grant said. The farmers reached a settlement last year in a lawsuit against the federal Agriculture Department that alleged they were systematically discriminated against when applying for farm loans and subsidies. Some now claim the federal government is wrongly denying payments and acting too slowly in cutting settlement checks. Grant said the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association will ask a federal judge to throw out the consent decree that authorized payments to farmers discriminated against by the government. He said the farmers will return to court to ask U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman to set aside the settlement agreement in the class-action lawsuit because it has failed to provide adequate relief for the 20,000 black farmers who made up the class nationwide. But an attorney for the farmers predicted the judge will not change "one word" of the decree. The lawsuit was filed for the organization in 1997 by Washington, D.C., attorneys Alexander Pires Jr. and Phillip Fraas, who alleged that the farmers were discriminated against in lending practices from 1981 to 1996. The consent degree, signed last year, provided $375 million to settle the claims. "I don't know what world these guys are living in," Pires told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in a telephone interview. "He (Friedman) is not going to change one word. ... He couldn't do that without the consent of the parties. It's an agreement. Either (the farmers) don't understand the suit - because I got everything I pleaded for - or they just enjoy complaining." Friedman said in an order he would allow attorneys 45 minutes to present new evidence in the case but he would not revisit the consent degree, according to Pires. The Arkansas group endorsed Dickey just weeks after he told them it would be difficult for him to push to speed up settlement payments in the discrimination lawsuit because they hadn't supported him. Since then, Dickey and Watts, the only black Republican in Congress, sponsored a failed nonbinding House resolution to speed up the payments. Alvin Oneal traveled from Tennessee to attend last Thursday's event. Oneal, a longtime cotton farmer, said he wanted to show national support for the Arkansas farmers. Like Nelson, he said he has traditionally supported Democratic candidates. "I would say my politics are in between right now," he said. "I see where the results are coming from." (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, July 28, 2000) WATER CONTAMINATION: Ontario Hires Subsidiary of GA Firm as Evaluators ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Crawford Adjusters Canada, an independent claims adjusting firm and a subsidiary of Crawford & Company (NYSE: CRD.A and CRD.B), has been hired by the government of Ontario to evaluate claims under the province's Walkerton Compensation Plan. The plan will provide financial compensation to individuals who became sick or lost loved ones because of Walkerton's contaminated drinking water. Jeffrey Bowman, Senior Vice President and Managing Director of Crawford & Company's Americas Group confirmed that immediate steps are being taken by Crawford to establish a claims center in Walkerton, Ontario. Glenn Gibson, Chief Executive Officer of Crawford Adjusters Canada added, "Our independent evaluators will be available to meet with each person to review their claim. They will assess value and entitlement to compensation, and the government will provide free consultation with an independent lawyer as people decide about making a claim, complete application forms, and review their compensation options." "This plan offers a quick and simple alternative to court cases in order to speed up support to the victims of the Walkerton tragedy," Ontario Attorney General Jim Flaherty said in a news release issued last Wednesday. "Getting the independent adjusters on board represents a critical step in making this commitment a reality." Flaherty added in the news release, "Crawford has earned a reputation for fairness, sensitivity and efficiency in responding to critical situations and we are delighted the company has accepted this important assignment." The firm's track record includes handling such emergencies as the 1995 tornado in the Barrie and Orangeville area, the 1998 Winnipeg floods and the 1998 ice storm in Montreal. Ontario courts have also appointed Crawford as administrator for various class action settlements. The provincial compensation plan is designed to provide those who suffered injury or loss with the same level of compensation that they could expect to receive in the courts - but to do so much more quickly. "This isn't about legal liability. It is about doing the right thing," Flaherty concluded in the release. The Walkerton Compensation Plan is one component of a full financial compensation and emergency relief package offered to Walkerton residents by the Ontario government. Also included in the package is emergency relief for individuals to cover water-related out-of-pocket expenses and fixed costs, emergency relief for local businesses, and a pledge by government to do whatever it takes to ensure that Walkerton residents have access to a safe, clean water supply. ********* 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 * * *