/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010302.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 2, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 43 Headlines ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Decries Merit of Antitrust Lawsuit in PA By Dentist CENDANT CORP: 2 Former Execs Indicted On Charges Of Inflating Earnings DOMINOES PIZZA: Residents Sue Alleging Discrimination in Deliveries FILM COMPANIES: Lawsuit Accuses of Waiting Too Long to Pay Fired Workers GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Charles J. Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Hit With Securities Suit in Filed By Shalov Stone GOODYEAR TIRE: IL Suit Accuses of Silent Recall of Load Range E Tires NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Settles Federal Shareholder Lawsuit for $30 Mil NORTEL NETWORKS: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit Filed in NY OFFICE DEPOT: Willie Gary Says Employment Race Bias Suit Is Prepared OKLAHOMA: Unclaimed Money in License Suit Waiting for Eligible Drivers PPA: Cohen, Milstein Files National Suits to Educate Doctors & Consumers RISCORP, INC.: Burt & Pucillo Announces Settlement Hearing in FL SMITHFIELD FOODS: Product Liability Lawyers Take up Suits Re Hog Farms SMITHFIELD FOODS: U.S.' Top Hog Processor Accused Of Planned Pollution TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT's Legal Fees Rise to $ 200 Mil U.S.: Vet Care Case By Career Military May Cost Feds Billions U-M: Minority Students lose round in Case over Admissions Program VICORP RESTAURANTS: Sued in CO over Proposed BancBoston Affiliate Merger VISX, INCORPORATED: Announces Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in CA WORLDWIDE XCEED: Shareholder Suit Filed in NY By Schiffrin & Barroway WORLDWIDE XCEED: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filed in N.Y. XCEED GROUP: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit Filed in New York ********* ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Decries Merit of Antitrust Lawsuit in PA By Dentist --------------------------------------------------------------------- Align Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALGN), the inventor of the Invisalign(R) System, a proprietary method of straightening teeth without unsightly wires and brackets, announced that a complaint was filed against the company on February 22, 2001 by Jon L. Richter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Richter, a general practice dentist, purports to sue on behalf of himself and all licensed dentists in the U.S., excluding orthodontists. Mr. Richter alleges that Align Technology reached an agreement with unspecified orthodontists to restrict the sales of the Invisalign System only to orthodontists, and thereby violated U.S. antitrust laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages. While the Invisalign System is not available to dentists, Align Technology has not entered into any agreements with orthodontists restricting the distribution of the Invisalign System. For this reason, among others, Align Technology believes the lawsuit is without merit. Since launching the Invisalign System in July of 1999, Align Technology's policy has been to sell the System solely to orthodontists. Orthodontists are dental specialists who receive two to three years of training beyond general dentistry in treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth. About Align Technology, Inc. Align Technology designs, manufactures and markets the Invisalign System, a proprietary new method for treating malocclusion, or the misalignment of teeth. The Invisalign System corrects malocclusion using a series of clear, nearly invisible, removable appliances that gently move teeth to a desired final position. Because it does not rely on the use of metal or ceramic brackets and wires, the Invisalign System significantly reduces the aesthetic and other limitations associated with braces. Invisalign is appropriate for treating adults and older teens. Align Technology was founded in March 1997 and received FDA clearance to market the Invisalign System in 1998. CENDANT CORP: 2 Former Execs Indicted On Charges Of Inflating Earnings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cendant Corp.'s former Chairman Walter A. Forbes and former Vice Chairman E. Kirk Shelton were indicted on charges of inflating company earnings in what prosecutors called one of the biggest securities frauds ever. Forbes and Shelton, who have denied wrongdoing, resigned in 1998 from New York-based Cendant, a marketing and franchising company of such chains as Days Inn hotels and Century 21 real estate brokers. The criminal and civil fraud charges contend Forbes, 58, and Shelton, 46, contributed to a decade-long fraud scheme mostly at CUC International Inc., a Cendant predecessor. Cendant has restated three years of results, saying that former CUC executives inflated earnings before charges by $ 500 million. A federal grand jury in Newark, N.J., on Wednesday indicted Forbes and Shelton, and the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud lawsuit in Newark federal court. "Some call this kind of manipulation 'earnings management,' " said Robert Cleary, the U.S. attorney in New Jersey. "Investors who watched helplessly as their share values plunged call it 'fraud.' " Forbes and Shelton were charged with conspiracy and wire fraud for conspiring with subordinates to use fraudulent accounting methods to inflate income, the U.S. attorney's office said. Both face a maximum of five years in prison and a $ 250,000 fine on each of the two counts. They also face possible fines in the SEC case. The SEC said its separate civil case alleges the men "directed a massive financial fraud while selling millions of dollars worth of the company's stock." CUC, a marketer of discount membership clubs, merged with HFS Inc., a hotel and real estate franchiser, to form Cendant in December 1997. Forbes was CUC's founder and chairman before he became Cendant's top executive. Shelton was CUC's president. After Cendant made a post-merger announcement that it had found CUC accounting abuses, its stock tumbled 46% in one day to $ 19.06, erasing $ 14 billion in market value. On Wednesday, Cendant shares dipped 5 cents to close at $ 13.08 on the New York Stock Exchange. Three other former Cendant executives, including former Executive Vice President Cosmo Corigliano, pleaded guilty in June to participating in the CUC accounting fraud. Corigliano cooperated in the investigation that led to Wednesday's indictment. "We intend to contest the charges with great vigor," said Forbes' attorney, Brendan V. Sullivan Jr. of Washington. Shelton's attorney, Martin J. Auerbach of New York, blamed Corigliano for the fraud. "Mr. Shelton did not participate in the fraud that occurred at CUC/Cendant and is innocent of all the charges brought against him," Auerbach said. Forbes and Shelton both refused to testify in the SEC inquiry, asserting their constitutional rights against self- incrimination, the SEC said. A Cendant spokesman said: "The employees and shareholders of our company have moved well beyond this episode in our history." Cendant has agreed to pay $ 2.83 billion to settle a class-action fraud lawsuit, the largest settlement ever of a securities fraud case. CUC's former auditor, Ernst & Young, settled another investor suit for $ 335 million. Cendant, which had $ 3.8 billion in revenue last year, has agreed to buy Avis Group Holdings Inc., the world's No. 2 car-rental company, next month. Cendant franchises Days Inn, Howard Johnson, Ramada Inn and other hotels; real estate brokers such as Century 21 and Coldwell Banker; and Jackson Hewitt tax-preparation services. (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2001) DOMINOES PIZZA: Residents Sue Alleging Discrimination in Deliveries ------------------------------------------------------------------- A group of residents in a predominantly black neighborhood have filed a federal lawsuit against Domino's Pizza Inc., saying the company is discriminatory in its deliveries. The lawsuit filed this week is a continuation of a lawsuit originally filed last year in Circuit Court and then in July in federal court by plaintiff Kenneth Moore. He later obtained class-action status, and now 92 people are included in the suit. The plaintiffs claim that Domino's "practice of refusing to deliver to the doors of certain residences has been implemented in areas of the city that are predominantly black." They are seeking $1 million in compensatory damages for every act of discrimination proven by the plaintiffs during a two-year period starting in 1998, along with $50 million in punitive damages. Domino's officials, however, have said they do not deliver to certain areas because of security concerns, not race, according to the lawsuit. Two residents - one white and one black - in the neighborhood where the suit is being filed told The Commercial Appeal on Wednesday that Domino's does deliver there and doesn't discriminate against blacks. "They have been delivering to us for years," said Marcia Jennings, who is black. Connie Copeland, who is white, said Jennings told her about an incident in January of 1996 in which a Domino's deliverer was robbed. She said such endangerment might explain a concern for deliveries in the area. However, the company has dealt with claims of delivery discrimination in other parts of the country. Under an agreement with the U.S. Justice Department last June, Domino's settled complaints that its nationwide delivery policy and delivery limits were biased against black customers. Under the agreement, Domino's can deny delivery to an area based only on a legitimate safety concern for drivers. In 1998, a federal judge in Jacksonville, Fla., issued an injunction ordering Domino's to deliver to the predominantly black enclave of American Beach, Fla., after two residents sued the company that owned the area Domino's franchise. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, March 1, 2001) FILM COMPANIES: Lawsuit Accuses of Waiting Too Long to Pay Fired Workers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ About 40 studios, management companies and other firms that hire film crews face a lawsuit that says they break California's labor laws by waiting too long to pay fired workers. The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, names every major studio--including Walt Disney Co.'s Walt Disney Studios, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. and Sony Corp.'s Sony Pictures Entertainment--as well as payroll firms, production companies and talent agencies. The workers allege that all of the employers illegally wait until the next regularly scheduled payday after terminations before delivering checks. Under California law, motion picture employers must pay fired workers within 24 hours after they are terminated, the workers say. Ten plaintiffs filed the suit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of 25,000 workers. (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2001) GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Charles J. Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. announced on February 28 that a private securities action requesting class action status has been initiated on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. during the period December 6, 1999 through and including October 27, 2000.No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased the stock listed above during the class period, you have certain rights. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. Contact: Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., Baltimore Charles J. Piven, 410/332-0030 pivenlaw@erols.com GLOBALSTAR TELECOMM: Hit With Securities Suit in Filed By Shalov Stone ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone & Bonner issued the following announcement February 28: A class action was commenced on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. (Nasdaq: GSTRF) in the period from December 6, 1999 to October 27, 2000. The complaint names Globalstar, Bernard Schwartz and Loral Space & Communications Ltd. as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the company's business performance during the relevant time. According to the complaint, throughout the relevant time period, defendants repeatedly assured investors that the company's operations were performing well, that the company was enjoying strong growth and that the company's shares were undervalued, among other things. At the same time, however, the complaint alleges that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Globalstar was falling dramatically below the company's publicly stated business plan and that severe shortfalls in the sales of phones necessarily imperiled the company's business plan at all relevant times. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 01 Civ. 1748). Contact: Kenneth A. Ricken, Esq.; or Mark J. Nemetz, Legal Assistant, both of Shalov Stone & Bonner, 212-686-8004 GOODYEAR TIRE: IL Suit Accuses of Silent Recall of Load Range E Tires --------------------------------------------------------------------- An economic-damage class action has been filed in Illinois state court against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Kelly-Springfield Tire Co., with plaintiffs charging that the companies knew of problems with Load Range E tires and have been conducting a "silent recall." Harper et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al. , No. 00-L-1154, complaint filed (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison County, Nov. 11, 2000). The proposed nationwide class consists of: All persons and entities in the United States who own or owned, other than for purposes of resale, Goodyear Wrangler AT, Goodyear Wrangler HT, Goodyear Wrangler RT/S, Goodyear All-Season Workhorse, Kelly-Springfield Power King, Kelly-Springfield Trailbuster, Goodyear Marathon and other Goodyear/Kelly-Springfield Load Range E, Load Range D, light truck and recreational vehicle tires or who owned or leased vehicles with such tires. Claims for personal injury and wrongful death are not included in the suit. The plaintiffs seek damages caused by the defendants' "wrongdoing," including costs of replacing the tires, which they claim are prone to tread separation. Fifteen deaths and numerous injuries have been linked to the tires. According to the complaint, Goodyear has known of the problem for five years and made a design change in 1996, but has publicly denied that a defect exists. "The problem with the Defective Tires is massive," the plaintiffs maintain, "affecting thousands, if not millions, of consumers across the nation. According to The Los Angeles Times, 'sources familiar with the matter said Goodyear has received more than 3,000 claims about its light truck tires since A majority of these claims have been settled, said sources, with consumers receiving replacement tires and reimbursements if their vehicles were damaged.' "For perspective, NHTSA the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received approximately 3,700 complaints about the Bridgestone/Firestone tires that were recently subject to recall." The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph P. Danis of Carey & Danis in St. Louis; Gary E. Mason, Alexander E. Barnett and Matthew F. Pawa of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll in Washington, D.C.; Ronald L. Motley of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole in Mount Pleasant, S.C.; Donni Young of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole in New Orleans; and David Nester of Nester & Constance in Belleville, Ill. (Products Liability, January 2001) NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Settles Federal Shareholder Lawsuit for $30 Mil ------------------------------------------------------------------- Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA), announced on March 1 that it has settled a federal shareholder class action suit, filed in April 1999, arising from the accounting treatment of in-process research and development in connection with various acquisitions by Network Associates and predecessor corporations in 1998 and prior years. The settlement resolves federal securities law claims of members of the Class, which consists of persons who purchased Network Associates' shares between January 20, 1998 and April 6, 1999. The amount of the settlement is $30 million and will be funded primarily by the Company's D & O insurance carriers. The settlement is subject to judicial approval. The settlement does not affect the federal shareholder class action lawsuits that were filed in December 2000 and January 2001. With headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., Network Associates, Inc. is a leading supplier of security and availability solutions for e-businesses. Network Associates is comprised of four business units: McAfee, delivering world class anti-virus products; PGP Security, providing firewall, intrusion detection and encryption products; Sniffer Technologies, a leader in network and application management; and Magic Solutions, providing web-based service desk solutions. For more information, Network Associates can be reached at 972-308-9960 or on the Internet at http://www.nai.com. NORTEL NETWORKS: Bernard M. Gross Announces Securities Suit Filed in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. gives notice that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Nortel Networks Corp. (NYSE:NT) between November 1, 2000 and February 15, 2001 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Nortel and certain of its executive officers with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising from material misstatements and omissions made during the Class Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants repeatedly issued materially false and misleading statements overstating sales growth and revenues for the company's services and products for the year 2000 and especially strong fourth quarter 2000 performance. Besides boasting that Nortel's "industry leading portfolio" would allow it to "continue to outpace the market and gain profitable market share" despite the tightening of capital within the telecom sector, defendant Dunn projected that Nortel would achieve 30% growth in revenues and EPS in 2001. The complaint alleges that defendant's guidance concerning revenue and earnings for the full year 2001 was materially false and misleading because at the time they made these statements, defendants were aware that the economy in the United States had slowed down dramatically. As a result, defendants' misrepresentations caused the price of Nortel's securities to be inflated throughout the Class Period, allowing certain defendants to collectively sell over $7 million of personally held Nortel stock. On February 15, 2001, Nortel surprised investors by issuing a press release announcing that it would not meet previous sales expectations and would reduce its workforce by 10,000 employees. Contact: Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. Susan Gross, Esq. Deborah R. Gross, Esq. 866/561-3600 (toll free) 800/849-3120 (toll free) 215/561-3600 OFFICE DEPOT: Willie Gary Says Employment Race Bias Suit Is Prepared -------------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart trial attorney Willie Gary -- who relishes taking on corporations in the courtroom -- has sent a letter to executives of Office Depot Inc., suggesting they meet with him before he files a class-action race discrimination lawsuit on behalf of its current and former black employees. "The lawsuit is prepared, not filed yet," attorney C.K. Hoffler, a partner in Gary's law firm, said on Wednesday in Seattle, where they were preparing for the first court hearing on a $ 5 billion race discrimination suit filed in January against Microsoft Corp. Flamboyant, powerful and a top litigator, Gary heads a 130-person law firm, whose staff includes an airline captain and co-pilot to fly his Boeing 737 jet. Office Depot is the fourth Fortune 500 company targeted by Gary in the past 18 months for discriminatory employment practices. Before Microsoft, suits were filed against Coca-Cola Co. and Eastman Kodak. Hoffler, echoing statements made by her boss, said allegations of disparate pay, promotions and job opportunities for black employees at Delray Beach-based Office Depot are more widespread than charges leveled against giant software manufacturer Microsoft. "Office Depot is a hostile work environment for black employees," said Hoffler, who said the firm has met with more than 50 former and current employees. "There is a definite pattern of discriminatory employment practices. There is a glass ceiling and disproportionately less African-Americans in higher positions." But Office Depot denied the allegations that it discriminates against black employees in a statement released in response to public statements by Gary published Tuesday in the Palm Beach Post. "Naturally we take seriously any allegation of discrimination, and we are certainly willing to meet with Mr. Gary for the purpose of determining the nature of the grievances of his clients," said Eileen Dunn, vice president of investor relations for Office Depot. She said the company's general counsel and chief executive officer had received Gary's letter Tuesday but no meeting date was set. "We emphatically deny that there is any policy or systematic practice of discrimination of any sort at Office Depot," the company said in its statement. "Office Depot has a long-standing policy of equal opportunity and affirmative action in its hiring and promotion practices. We are committed to diversity in our management, our work force and in our relations with suppliers and vendors." (Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), March 1, 2001) OKLAHOMA: Unclaimed Money in License Suit Waiting for Eligible Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys representing members of a class action lawsuit are looking for thousands of Oklahoma drivers who may be entitled to refunds in a settlement. The settlement involved a lawsuit over excessive fees people paid the state Department of Public Safety to reinstate their drivers licenses between July 1990 and 1995. Oklahoma County District Judge Niles Jackson appointed attorneys at the Oklahoma City law firm of Carpenter and Laquer to represent all class members, an advertisement in The Daily Oklahoman and other major metropolitan newspapers said. Refunds could range from $10 to $2,000 according to an ad that ran in The Oklahoman on Wednesday and Sunday. Attorney Richard Laquer said close to 40,000 people were part of the class action lawsuit. So far, attorneys have been unable to contact 20,000 people to inform them they may be eligible for a refund, he said. Those whose names appear in the ads did not respond to letters sent to them about possible refunds, Laquer said. This month, the names of 1,500 people were listed, Laquer said. Each month, another 1,500 names will be published until all the names of those who didn't respond are published, Laquer said. People who see their names in the advertisements should contact the law firm of Carpenter and Laquer at (405) 232-1515 in the Oklahoma City area or toll-free at (877) 560-1515, the advertisement said. (The Associated Press State & Local Wire, March 1, 2001) PPA: Cohen, Milstein Files National Suits to Educate Doctors & Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Six national class action suits representing millions of consumers who purchased over-the-counter cold, flu and allergy medications containing the potentially deadly drug Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) were filed by the national class action law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. The firm has offices in Seattle, Washington and Washington, D.C. PPA has been associated with strokes, seizures, heart attacks and related problems, and even death. The suits, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, are the first national class actions involving PPA filed on behalf of consumers. The suits seek, among other things, to require the manufacturers of cold, flu and allergy medications formerly containing PPA, to inform health care providers nationwide that some of their patients may have suffered brain, heart or other injury from the ingestion of PPA, and to educate consumers about the potential explanation for undiagnosed injuries they may have suffered from PPA. The lawsuits claim that the drug companies who marketed, manufactured and distributed these medications knew, for over 20 years, that PPA has serious life-threatening side effects, but continued to sell the products in order to reap huge sums in profits. At the urging of the FDA, the use of PPA ingredients in the manufacture of these medications was discontinued in November, 2000. The companies named in the suits include American Home Products Corp., Shering-Plough Corp., Bayer Corp., SmithKline Beecham Corp., Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Novartis Corp. These companies are the major manufacturers of cold, flu and allergy products, including varieties of Dimetapp, Robitussin, Coricidin, Contac, Triaminic, Comtrex, Naldecon Pediatric and Alka-Seltzer, among others. Stephen D. Annand, a partner and head of Cohen Milstein's Healthcare Practice Group, and co-counsel in the litigation with Lewis at Cohen Milstein, pointed out that "the suits request that consumers be warned not to ingest any products containing PPA that they may still have in their medicine cabinets." According to Annand, "This is of critical importance because the specified shelf life of these products may not have expired and consumers who do not know about the PPA withdrawal from the market would be likely to continue to take these medications, possibly leading to disastrous health consequences." Annand pointed out that efforts to date to notify consumers of this danger have been totally inadequate. Additional counsel in the suits, Baltimore attorney Barry L. Steelman, who has successfully litigated cases involving individuals who have suffered personal injuries caused by PPA, including death, said, "These suits will bring to light a public health hazard that has existed for decades in America. We believe that these cases will serve the public interest by assisting physicians to completely and accurately assess the patients' health." Steelman pointed out that "providing information concerning adverse effects of PPA is extremely important because many of the patients affected would not have been considered at risk for cardiac or neuro-vascular events that PPA is known to cause, and thus normally would not be evaluated by their physicians for such conditions, particularly in cases involving unclear symptom presentations." Based on claims that the medications were falsely advertised and that there were no warnings about the known health risks of PPA, the lawsuits also seek refunds to consumers for the purchase price of cold, flu and allergy medications containing PPA. The annual sales for these medications are estimated to be in the billions of dollars. The suits further propose that a portion of the sums disgorged by these manufacturers be used for additional research on the adverse effects of PPA and dissemination of the results of that research to health care providers and consumers. Additionally, the suits seek allocation of a portion of the fund to enhancing ways of treating injuries caused by PPA. Contact: Media Relations, Inc. Deborah Schwartz, 301/897-8838 dschwartz@mediarelationsinc.com RISCORP, INC.: Burt & Pucillo Announces Settlement Hearing in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Burt & Pucillo, LLP Announces Summary Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement Against Riscorp, Inc. The following was released by Burt & Pucillo, LLP: SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF RISCORP, INC. ("RISCORP" OR THE "COMPANY") BETWEEN NOVEMBER 19, 1997 AND JULY 20, 1998, INCLUSIVE, (AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST OR ASSIGNS). Class action litigation (the "Litigation") has been pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court") against RISCORP and certain of its former directors and officers ("Defendants") since July 9, 1999. The parties to the action have reached a proposed Settlement. You are hereby notified, pursuant to Court Order, that a settlement hearing will be held on Thursday, April 19, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable James S. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge, at the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Courtroom 13A, Tampa, Florida 33602 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine: (1) whether the Class should be certified and whether the Class Representative and Class Counsel have adequately represented the Class; (2) whether the Settlement of the Litigation in the amount of $400,000.00 in cash, plus accrued interest (the "Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the Class; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the class action is fair, just, reasonable and adequate; (4) whether the applications of counsel for the Class for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (5) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of January 25, 2001, filed with the Court; and (6) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. If you purchased RISCORP common stock during the period from November 19, 1997, through and including July 20, 1998, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this Litigation. To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, members of the Class must establish their rights and file a Proof of Claim form postmarked on or before May 19, 2001. If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must file a written request for exclusion by April 9, 2001. If you are a member of the Class and have not yet received a detailed printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement of Class Action Determination, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear, please write to the Claims Administrator referred to below: Riscorp, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc. P.O. Box 24676 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 Lead Counsel for the Class is: Michael J. Pucillo BURT & PUCILLO, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive Suite 1701 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT. Dated: January 30, 2001 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Contact: Burt & Pucillo, LLP, West Palm Beach Michael J. Pucillo, Esq., 561/835-9400 Fax: 561/835-0322 SMITHFIELD FOODS: Product Liability Lawyers Take up Suits Re Hog Farms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Wall Street Journal (3/1, Kilman) reports, "A coalition of environmental and populist farm groups are targeting Smithfield Foods Inc., in their campaign against factory-style hog farms. The coalition, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is president of the New York environmental group Water Keeper Alliance and son of the assassinated senator, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Raleigh, N.C., accusing the Smithfield, Va., company of violating environmental laws by allowing hog manure to pollute some of that state's rivers. The groups are preparing a series of similar lawsuits. And in a twist, the lawsuits are being handled by some of the product-liability lawyers who have helped to slam the tobacco and drug industries in recent years with class-action litigation. Nine law firms, which have each contributed $50,000 to a war chest, were assembled by Pensacola, Fla., attorney Mike Papantonio, who represented some plaintiffs in the Fen-Phen diet-drug lawsuit." (The Bulletin's Frontrunner, March 1, 2001) SMITHFIELD FOODS: U.S.' Top Hog Processor Accused Of Planned Pollution ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Environmental groups on Wednesday hit the nation's biggest hog processor with a racketeering lawsuit accusing the company of deliberately fouling water, air and soil as part of a strategy to drive competing small farmers out of business. The lawsuit accuses Smithfield Foods Inc., which churns out 6 billion pounds of meat a year, of lowering its production costs by flouting federal and state environmental laws. By polluting, rather than treating its waste, Smithfield is able to produce pork so cheaply that independent farmers can't compete, the suit alleges. In filing a case under RICO, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the environmentalists are seeking to hold Smithfield and its top executives financially responsible for the environmental and economic harm its business practices allegedly caused. They are asking a court to award triple damages--three times the amount of actual harm. Smithfield Vice President Richard J.M. Poulson responded with a furious statement calling the case "extortion by litigation" and "a gross perversion of our legal system." Poulson defended Smithfield's waste-disposal system as "state-of-the-art" and said the company's farms adhered to a "strict zero-tolerance standard for environmental discharge." The environmentalists' charges of massive pollution "are exaggerated beyond belief," agreed Stephen Cohen, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council. But the lawsuits were welcomed by activists in nearly a dozen states who have long railed against the "factory farms" that confine thousands of hogs in a single barn and pipe their manure to huge open-air lagoons. The biggest hog lots can produce more waste than millions of people, but unlike cities, they are not required to build sewage treatment plants. Instead, they collect the manure and urine in lagoons, then spray it on crops as fertilizer. From Utah to Missouri to North Carolina to Mississippi, rural residents who live near the big farms complain that the lagoons give off rank odors, that the manure fouls rivers and that the corporations drive independent farmers into bankruptcy. The groups supporting Wednesday's lawsuits hint at the depth of local rage: Along with well-known national organizations such as the Sierra Club and Humane Society, there were at least a dozen grass-roots coalitions with names like People Opposed to Ruining Kansas or Families Against Rural Messes. "I promise you this: We will march across this country and we will bring these kind of lawsuits against every single pork factory in America if we have to," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president of the Water Keeper Alliance and a leader in the legal campaign against Smithfield. Many, if not all, big hog operations already have been tested by legal action. Smithfield Foods, for instance, in 1997 drew the largest civil penalty ever assessed for violations of the Clean Water Act--a $ 12.6-million fine. It was also ordered to pay $ 3.8 million for about 22,000 pollution violations in Virginia. The nation's second-largest pork producer, Premium Standard Farms, in 1999 settled an environmental lawsuit in Missouri by agreeing to spend $ 25 million to study technology that could reduce pollution. On a smaller scale, hog lots in several states have compensated neighbors who sued to recover the losses they incurred when the pigs moved in and their property values sank. Such cases have sparked some tinkering with the way corporations handle hog waste. But their basic model of lagoons and spray fields has remained intact. The racketeering lawsuit, filed in federal court in Tampa, Fla., aims to force systemic change by insisting that big hog lots treat their waste the way an industrial factory or a city would before releasing it into the environment. There's just one hitch: Hog lots are not considered factories or cities. They're classified as farms. And as such, they're not required by law to build waste treatment plants. "The courts thus far have been reluctant to be too critical of confinement factories as long as they're doing what's required by state or federal law," said Neil Harl, an agricultural analyst at Iowa State University. Aside from occasional spills, most big farms are doing what their permits allow. As Harl put it: "It's hard to surmount that kind of defense." Pork producers argue as well that nostalgia for the "good old days" of family farms is misplaced. The nation has moved on, they argue; the industrial revolution has come to agriculture. When consumers buy pork chops, they expect the meat to look and taste a certain way. They want it to be lean and cheap. The corporate system of genetically engineering pigs and breeding them in confinement lots was developed to meet that demand. These "generally accepted methods of production," Cohen said, are used not only by big corporations, but by many independent family farmers as well. "Mr. Kennedy and his cohort of contingency-fee lawyers have declared war on an industry that constitutes a way of life across the country," Poulson added. Ten major class-action law firms have each pledged $ 50,000 to get that battle rolling. And they'll ante up more if need be, Kennedy said: "Whatever it takes to win." (Los Angeles Times, March 1, 2001) TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT's Legal Fees Rise to $ 200 Mil ------------------------------------------------------ LEGAL fees at British American Tobacco soared to $ 200 million (Pounds 138 million) last year as more than 4,200 new cases for damages were filed against the company. Martin Broughton, chairman of BAT, the world's second biggest tobacco company, said that more than $ 140 million was paid to lawyers in America. The increase in fees accompanied a huge rise in the number of product liability cases filed against the company in America, which rose to more than 4,740 last year from just 537 in 1999. BAT's UK subsidiaries have been named as co-defendants in some 1,345 of those cases, compared with 161 the previous year. The company has already been ordered to pay Pounds 17.6 billion in damages in 35 class actions in America. BAT was also forced to pay $ 750,000 in the first of 4,637 individual claims against the company. The company is seeking to have both decisions reversed, with the individual case heading for the Supreme Court. While reluctant to reveal the total potential cost of all the litigation, BAT said: "It is not impossible that the results of operations or cashflows of the group could be materially affected by the final outcome of any particular litigation." Despite the legal problems, profit before tax for the year to December 31 rose by 11 per cent to Pounds 1.5 billion. BAT said, however, that sales volumes across the group had declined by 2 per cent while price increases across the board had helped to increase profits. Mr Broughton said: "Record results in a year of tremendous change provide us with a sound platform for further growth." (The Times (London), March 1, 2001) U.S.: Vet Care Case By Career Military May Cost Feds Billions ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal appellate court has opened the U.S. government to billions of dollars in potential damages for breaking a promise to provide free, lifetime health care to career military personnel. The Feb. 8 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is another dramatic set-back for the government, which has unsuccessfully fought liability for breaching contractual promises in such diverse areas as savings-and-loan bailouts, spent nuclear fuel disposal and oil exploration. In all these areas, the potential damages exposure is considered staggering, reaching well into the multibillion-dollar stratosphere. The three-judge Federal Circuit panel in Schism v. U.S., No. 99-1402, held that the government, in recruiting efforts that continued into the early 1990s, promised free lifetime health care to enlistees who served at least 20 years. That promise created an implied-in-fact contract that the government breached in 1956 when Congress passed a law imposing space-available limitations on military medical care, wrote Chief Judge H. Robert Mayer. As the demand for care began to exceed the capacity of military medical facilities, some retirees were turned away based on the 1956 law; they later had to rely on Medicare. "The retirees entered active duty in the armed forces and completed at least twenty years service on the good faith belief that the government would fulfill its promises," wrote Chief Judge Mayer. "The terms of the contract were set when the retirees entered the service and fulfilled their obligation. The government cannot unilaterally amend the contract terms now." An estimated 1.5 million military retirees -- most from World War II and the Korean War -- and their dependents could be eligible for damages totaling $ 14 billion to $ 25 billion, according to retired Air Force Col. George E. "Bud" Day of Day & Meade in Fort Walton Beach, Fla., a Medal of Honor recipient who represented retired Navy Col. William O. Schism and retired Air Force Lt. Col. Robert L. Reinlie in the litigation. Mr. Day, the nation's most highly decorated officer and a former "roommate" of U.S. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., in a Vietnam POW camp, says he will return now to a Florida district court for a determination of damages and for a ruling on a class action certification motion. He also will keep a close eye on Washington, where the federal government has 45 days to request review of the panel decision by the full Federal Circuit and 90 days to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court. "No decision has been made yet," says E. Roy Hawkins of the Department of Justice's civil appellate staff, who opposed Mr. Day in the Federal Circuit. Another War Suing the federal government is "like going back to combat," says Mr. Day wryly. The litigation over the government's promise actually began with Mr. Day's filing a suit on behalf of himself. "I got aggravated," he recalls. When military retirees were turned away or moved out of military hospitals, they turned to several veterans' groups, says Mr. Day. "The retirees said to them, 'You've got lawyers and a bit of money. Sue them.' But they all said no." When word got out that he had sued on behalf of himself, "my office got 3,000 phone calls from all over the country." Before he knew it, a few military retirees came into his office and offered to do legwork on the litigation. They call themselves the Class Act Group. They have launched a Web site and have collected $ 100 contributions and thousands of volunteer hours from interested retirees. Mr. Day refiled the suit in 1996 on behalf of Messrs. Schism and Reinlie. Key to the Federal Circuit's ruling was U.S. v. Winstar, 518 U.S. 839 (1996), which has become the linchpin for recent breach-of-contract actions against the federal government. In Winstar, which involved the government's savings-and-loan bailout, a lower appellate court held that the terms of a government contract, like any other contract, do not change with the enactment of subsequent legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court, applying ordinary principles of contract, affirmed. When Winstar was affirmed, Mr. Day recalls, "I said, 'Holy smoke, this is great for us.'" In Schism, the government argued that any promise of free, lifetime health care was unenforceable because it was not expressly authorized by Congress. But the circuit panel held that Congress had delegated "broad authority" to military secretaries "to recruit service members; and the secretaries, through their agents the recruiters, promised free, life-time health care to those who met certain service obligations." Simultaneous with their litigation battle, Mr. Day and his supporters began pressing Congress for relief. They erected more than 100 billboards around the country. Using the famous recruiting figure of Uncle Sam, the billboards announce that the government lies. Last year, Congress passed Tricare for Life, which allows retirees over 65 to participate in the military's health insurance plan, free of cost, if they first buy Medicare's Part B coverage. The Part B premium is $ 45 per month. Many retirees have been paying $ 5,000 or more per year for Medicare supplement policies. "That does not take care of the problem," says Philip E. Cushman, executive director of Veterans for Due Process. "The bottom line of all this is the government is trying to save money." Although he is grateful that Congress has acted, Mr. Day says it is not enough: "That is all prospective, and it doesn't give back the money we had to pay to Medicare and for supplementary insurance to cover what Medicare doesn't." And, adds Mr. Cushman and others, it is not what was promised. When he started the litigation, Mr. Day recalls, "I had 13 volunteers, all guys like me, in their 70s. Reinlie is 79 and Schism is 75, and I'll be 76. Eventually, we got a pretty big group." But four or five of the group have died during the course of the case, he says. "I'm told that of those eligible, they are dying at the rate of 1,000 a day. The bottom line is we had 3 million plaintiffs when I filed suit and that population is dwindling at lightning speed. It's terrible." He will file an emergency motion in the district court to expedite matters, he says, adding, "I think they're entitled to get paid while they're alive, instead of the government sweating them out and waiting for them to die." (The National Law Journal, February 26, 2001) U-M: Minority Students lose round in Case over Admissions Program ------------------------------------------------------------------ A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a group of minority students did not present enough evidence that the University of Michigan needs an undergraduate affirmative action admissions program to remedy past and present discrimination. The ruling is a setback for the intervening defendants who say their argument of historical discrimination should be heard by the higher courts. They will appeal U.S. District Judge Patrick Duggan's decision, said attorney Godfrey Dillard. "Obviously Judge Duggan doesn't feel people of color have anything to contribute to the affirmative action debate," Dillard said. Duggan ruled Dec. 14 without a trial that U-M's undergraduate admissions policy, which gives minority applicants extra points on a score sheet of entrance qualifications, is legal. Duggan said U-M can use affirmative action to diversify its student body, but the intervenors also wanted him to rule that remedying discrimination is another legal justification for the policy. The two plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, represented by the Washington, D.C. Center for Individual Rights, have filed an appeal. Meanwhile, attorneys in a similar case against U-M's Law School admissions policy are awaiting a decision from U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman. The monthlong trial in that case ended Feb. 16. Curt Levey, a CIR lawyer, said Duggan's decision shows that the intervenors don't belong in the case. He said the decision does not bode well for intervenors in the Law School case. Duggan found that the minority students didn't produce evidence that U-M's reason for having an affirmative action policy was to remedy discrimination. "Defendant intervenors have failed to present any evidence that the discrimination alleged by them, or the continuing effects of such discrimination, was the real justification for the (U-M's) race-conscious admissions programs," Duggan wrote. "Furthermore, the terms of the admissions policies themselves indicate that they were developed to achieve diversity, not as a means to remedy discrimination." He found that the intervenors did not establish that discrimination in admissions decisions exists or existed, and did not show why affirmative action is the least intrusive way to remedy discrimination. "This is a very solid repudiation of their claims," Levey said. "I don't think the intervenors in the law school case can be too happy today. It casts a dark cloud over their case." When the case was filed in 1997, Duggan ruled that the intervenors should not be allowed into the case but the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. Dillard hopes the appeals court again rules in their favor. "We feel confident we will be reinstated in this case," Dillard said. (The Detroit News, March 1, 2001) VICORP RESTAURANTS: Sued in CO over Proposed BancBoston Affiliate Merger ------------------------------------------------------------------------ VICORP Restaurants, Inc. (Nasdaq:VRES) ("VICORP") announced on February 28 that two lawsuits were filed on February 20, 2001, in the District Court in the City and County of Denver, Colorado, with respect to the proposed merger of VICORP and a newly formed affiliate of BancBoston Capital, Inc. and Goldner Hawn Johnson & Morrison, Incorporated. Each of the suits purports to be filed as a class action on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other shareholders of VICORP. The complaints in the two actions are virtually identical, except for the name of the plaintiff, and both suits were filed by the same Denver law firm. The complaints allege that the consideration to be received by VICORP shareholders in the merger is inadequate because it did not result from an open bidding or "market check" mechanism. The complaints further allege that the directors of VICORP and certain of its officers breached their fiduciary duties to the VICORP shareholders by failing to exercise ordinary care and diligence in connection with the merger and had conflicts of interest in the transaction. Each plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action certification, an injunction prohibiting VICORP from proceeding with the merger, and an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. VICORP believes that the allegations in the complaints are without merit and intends to defend the suits vigorously. The proxy statement to be provided by VICORP to its shareholders in connection with the merger will contain a description of the auction process conducted by VICORP prior to entering into the merger agreement and a detailed summary of the merger agreement. Information Concerning Participants VICORP, its directors, and executive officers may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from VICORP shareholders to approve the merger. The directors and executive officers of VICORP have an interest in the merger, some of which may differ from or may be in addition to those of VICORP shareholders generally. Those interests, which will be described in greater detail in the proxy statement with respect to the merger, include interests related to continuing employment relationships, payments under a severance agreement and a covenant against competition, payments in settlement of stock options and rights under a directors' compensation plan and options in the acquiring company to be issued to certain officers. Availability of Proxy Statement VICORP has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission preliminary proxy material relating to the special meeting of shareholders at which the merger will be voted upon and intends to mail a proxy statement for that meeting to shareholders in March. Shareholders are urged to read the proxy statement carefully when it is available, as it will contain important information that shareholders should consider before making a decision about the merger. Copies of the proxy statement, as well as other filings containing information about VICORP, may be obtained without charge at the SEC's Internet site (http://www.sec.gov).Copies of the proxy statement, when finalized, and VICORP's other SEC filings will also be obtainable, without charge, from VICORP's Secretary at VICORP Restaurants, Inc., 400 West 48th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80216, 303/296-2121. VICORP operates and franchises approximately 374 mid-scale family-type restaurants, principally under the names Bakers Square and Village Inn, with concentrations in the Rocky Mountain region, upper Midwest, California, Arizona and Florida. VISX, INCORPORATED: Announces Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VISX, Incorporated (NYSE:EYE) announced on March 1 that United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer has issued an order dismissing the consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuits filed against VISX and certain of its officers in early 2000. The February 27, 2001 ruling will result in a final judgment for VISX and its officers on these consolidated complaints at the trial court level. VISX is the worldwide leader in the development of refractive laser technology. VISX systems are commercially available in the United States and markets worldwide. WORLDWIDE XCEED: Shareholder Suit Filed in NY By Schiffrin & Barroway --------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, announced on March 1 that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Worldwide Xceed Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: XCED) from November 29, 1999 through November 15, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Worldwide Xceed and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' filings with the S.E.C. contained financial statements that were materially false and misleading in that they were prepared in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the Company's own accounting procedures. These quarterly and annual reports filed with the S.E.C. overstated the Company's revenues and understated its losses. As a result, the price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated during the class period. Contact: Marc A. Topaz, Esq., or Robert B. Weiser, Esq., 888-299-7706 or 610-667-7706, or info@sbclasslaw.com, both of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP WORLDWIDE XCEED: Stull, Stull Announces Securities Suit Filed in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed on Feb. 13, 2001 by the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody and Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, on behalf of a Plaintiff and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of Worldwide Xceed Group Inc. (NASDAQ:XCED) against Worldwide Xceed Group Inc. ("Xceed" or "Company") and certain officers and directors for the class period November 29, 1999 through and including November 15, 2000 ("Class Period"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New York, in a case entitled Mann v. Worldwide Xceed Group Inc., et al., Index No. 01CIV1125 (GEL). The complaint alleges that Xceed, and certain officers and directors including Scott A. Mednick, Werner G. Haase, Nurit K. Haase, William Zabit and John P. Gandolfo ("Individual Defendants" hereinafter), violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions. The complaint alleges these misstatements resulted when defendants intentionally and/or recklessly violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") during the Class Period. By understating its losses and overstating its earnings, the complaint alleges Xceed attempted to create the impression on the public market that it was more successful that it actually was. Defendants stated affirmatively in Xceed's public filings that its accounting procedures complied with GAAP. In fact, the complaint alleges the company's operations were rife with accounting irregularities including: gross understatement of net losses due to inadequate allowances for uncollectible accounts; improper amortizing of goodwill and intangibles from acquired companies; improperly failing to recognize impairment of long-lived assets in conformance with Xceed's own stated accounting policies and GAAP; and the Company's violating its own stated policy for recognition of revenue. In addition, certain of the Individual Defendants also engaged in insider sales of Xceed common stock during the Class Period while allegedly in possession of material non-public information. As a result of the above alleged violations, the price of Xceed securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Upon revelation of the truth regarding Xceed's actual financial condition, the price of Xceed securities plummeted. Contact: Stull, Stull & Brody, New York Howard T. Longman, Esq., 1-800-337-4983 or Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Chestnut Ridge, New York Gary S. Graifman, Esq., 1-800-660-7843 or 845/356-2570 XCEED GROUP: Milberg Weiss Announces Securities Suit Filed in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on February 28, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Worldwide Xceed Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:XCED) between November 29, 1999 and November 15, 2000, 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/xceed/ The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 against defendants Xceed, Scott A. Mednick, Werner G. Haase, Nurit K. Haase, William Zabit and John P. Gandolfo. The Complaint alleges 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 November 29, 1999 and November 15, 2000, thereby artificially inflating the price of Xceed securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants filed quarterly and annual reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission that contained financial statements which were materially false and misleading as they were prepared in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the Company's own accounting procedures. In its filings, the Company repeatedly overstated its revenues and understated its losses by, among other things: (a) underreporting its allowance for uncollectible accounts receivable; (b) underreporting and miscomputing the amortization of intangible assets relating to workforce, customer base, technical know-how and industry contacts in connection with its acquisition of Zabit & Associates, Inc.; (c) failing to review, identify and/or take the appropriate charge for the impairment of its long-lived assets; and (d) using the "percentage of completion" method of accounting for reporting revenues for "fixed-price contracts" in violation of GAAP. As a result of this undisclosed conduct, the Company's stock was trading at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. Contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, New York Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman, 800/320-5081 xceedcase@milbergNY.com http://www.milberg.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 * * *