/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010601.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 1 2001, Vol. 3, No. 107 Headlines ALPHARMA INC.: Freed From All But Four Personal Injury Lawsuits AMERCO: Overtime Compensation Lawsuit in California Resolved AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces Four Lawsuits Over Merger With Prudential ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Settles Mass. Securities Suit For $1.25 Million COMDISCO INC: Court Dismisses All But One Securities Suit in Illinois CONCORD EFS: Plaintiffs Claim Class Consists of 60,000 Merchants CONCORD EFS: Subsidiary Sued in Texas Over Unsolicited Advertisements CONSECO INC.: Forty-five Securities Suits Consolidated in Indiana CONSECO FINANCE: Appeal Continues Re $26.8M Award in SC Supreme Court GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Five Lawsuits Over Types D, E Light Truck Tires GREAT LAKES: Expects Certification on Bromine Suits Late This Year HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in Maryland HAWKINS CHEMICAL: Less Than Five Yet to Settle Claim From Company HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: German Companies Declare Legal Security in U.S. IDS LIFE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement in Minnesota INTERCONTINENTAL LIFE: Discovery Commenced by Plaintiffs in Two Suits KANSAS CITY: Motion to Dismiss Still Undecided by NY Supreme Court KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Faces Several Securities Suits Filed in N.D. OH KENNAMETAL INC.: Awaits Approval of Settlement Deal Inked Last Year LAFARGE CORPORATION: Canadian Subsidiary to Incur $9.9M Liability LORAL SPACE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY MATTEL INC.: Intends to File Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Plaint MATTEL INC.: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Broderbund Lawsuit MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Louisiana Lawsuit Drop Appeal METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Court Hears Plaintiffs Appeal MOSLER INC.: Waite Schneider Commences Shareholders Suit in Ohio MP3.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY MULTEX.COM: Milberg Weiss Commences Suit Against IPO Underwriters NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP: Defense Against CA Securities Suit Continues NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Securities Suits in U.S. And Canada NORTEL NETWORKS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Texas OAKWOOD HOMES: Case Dismissal Final as Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Asks Ohio Court to Drop All Pending Cases QWEST CORPORATION: Six State Courts Currently Approve Settlement Deal THE KROGER: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY: Sixteen-State Fiber Optic Cable Suit Settled UNITED DOMINION: Settles Water Billing Suit in Texas For $2.7 Million UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: To Defend Against Challenges to its Care Policies WESTERN RESOURCES: Court Consolidates All Pending Suits in California WORLDCOM INC.: Court Consolidates All Securities Suits Filed in Miss. ********* ALPHARMA INC.: Freed From All But Four Personal Injury Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Alpharma, Inc. has been dismissed from all but four of the 90 lawsuits alleging personal injuries and six class actions for medical monitoring resulting from the use of Phentermine distributed by the Company and subsequently prescribed for use in combination with fenflurameine or dexfenfluramine manufactured and sold by other defendants. AMERCO: Overtime Compensation Lawsuit in California Resolved ------------------------------------------------------------ AMERCO (Nasdaq: UHAL) announced the resolution of a class action overtime compensation lawsuit (Crandall) in the state of California. "The law in California is wrong and needs overhauling," stated Chairman, Joe Shoen. "We chose to fight this case and lost at the trial court level. At this time it appears this matter will effect our earnings in excess of $10.3 million dollars for fiscal year 2001." This non-recurring extraordinary expense creates a negative impact on the Company's profitability. "This case is part of a feeding frenzy by California plaintiff attorneys," said Shoen. "Track Auto, Rite Aide, Robinsons May, Wendys, Dennys, Taco Bell, Edwards Theatres, Kits Camera, Payless Shoes, Pizza Hut, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, and many more employers in the state of California are being victimized by predatory litigators. AMERCO continues to take every prophylactic measure possible in this area consistent with respecting its entry level management personnel." "AMERCO will fall short of its earnings estimates for fiscal year 2001," stated Shoen. "I am disappointed with the 2001 results but the underlying business is strong and also resilient. Our primary focus is to serve our customers and to do so profitably." AMERICAN GENERAL: Faces Four Lawsuits Over Merger With Prudential ----------------------------------------------------------------- Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged shareholders against American General Corporation and certain of its officers and directors in connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on March 11, 2001, between the company and Prudential pursuant to which the company would become a wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential: (i) Samuel Bamdas Revocable Trust v. American General Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 2001-14869 (filed March 20, 2001, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 11th Judicial District), (ii) Harold Goldberg v. American General Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 2001-18388 (filed April 4, 2001, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 133rd Judicial District), (iii) Kenneth Steiner v. Robert M. Devlin, et al., Civil Action No. 2001-18389 (filed April 4, 2001, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 164th Judicial District), and (iv) Richard Britten v. Robert M. Devlin, et al., Civil Action No. 2001-19670 (filed April 12, 2001,in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 189th Judicial District). These actions were each filed by a purported class of shareholders alleging that certain officers and directors of the company breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the pricing and terms of the proposed Prudential transaction. ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Settles Mass. Securities Suit For $1.25 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------- Anika Therapeutics Inc. (Nasdaq:ANIK) announced on Wednesday it has reached an agreement to settle the consolidated putative securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Anika and certain of its directors and officers, which relates to the company's restatement of financial results for 1998 and the first three quarters of 1999. The settlement agreement expressly provides that it does not constitute an admission that the defendants have any liability to or acted wrongfully in any way with respect to the plaintiffs, the members of the class, or any other person. As part of the proposed settlement, Anika will pay a total of $1.25 million into a settlement fund that will, among other things, be used to pay authorized members of the class, which consists of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Anika common stock between April 15, 1998 and May 30, 2000. The proposed settlement is contingent upon certain events, including certification by the court of the class for purposes of the settlement, final court approval of the settlement after court-approved notice and a settlement hearing, and dismissal of the action with prejudice. In conjunction with the settlement, Anika expects to record a pre-tax charge in the quarter ending June 30, 2001. "We are satisfied with the settlement of this matter," said J. Melville Engle, chairman, president and CEO. "We believe that the settlement is in the best interest of Anika. Now that this litigation is behind us, we can focus on our business objectives without the expense and significant distraction of this suit." The litigation is described in more detail in Anika's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2001. COMDISCO INC: Court Dismisses All But One Securities Suit in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------------- In a hearing held on April 6, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed all but the first of the actions filed against Comdisco, Inc. in early February this year. The Court, however, has yet to determine who will serve as the Lead Plaintiff and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, according to a recent regulatory filing of the Company with SEC. "Once the Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel are selected, the plaintiffs will file an Amended and Consolidated Complaint. Comdisco will then respond to the Consolidated Complaint," the document said. On February 7, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Company, Nicholas K. Pontikes, a director and its former chief executive officer, and John J. Vosicky, a director and its current executive vice president and chief financial officer, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The purported class action was filed on behalf of all those who purchased Comdisco stock between January 25, 2000, and October 3, 2000. CONCORD EFS: Plaintiffs Claim Class Consists of 60,000 Merchants ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the case involving EFS National Bank filed recently an amended complaint alleging that the class involved in the suit consists of at least 60,000 merchants who were subjected to allegedly improper rate and fee charges. The amended complaint seeks damages in excess of $15 million as well as injunctive relief and unspecified punitive damages, treble damages, attorney fees and costs. EFS National Bank is a wholly owned financial arm of Concord EFS, Inc. In September 2000, it was named a defendant in the above purported class action filed in the Circuit Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis. The plaintiffs alleged that certain of EFS National Bank's rate and fee changes were improper under Tennessee law due to allegedly deficient notice. A similar complaint has also been filed in St. Charles County, Missouri. CONCORD EFS: Subsidiary Sued in Texas Over Unsolicited Advertisements --------------------------------------------------------------------- Card Payment Services, a subsidiary of Concord EFS, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a class action suit filed in the District Court, Harrison County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that the subsidiary has violated Section 227(b)(1)(C) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., and Section 35.47(g) of the Texas Business and Commerce Code by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and statutory damages in the amount of $500 per facsimile and treble damages in the amount of $1500 per facsimile for willful or knowing violations of the statutes. The full amount of damages sought by plaintiffs is not known at this time. CONSECO INC.: Forty-five Securities Suits Consolidated in Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- All of the Conseco, Inc. securities cases have now been consolidated into one case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned: "In Re Conseco, Inc. Securities Litigation", cause number IP00-585-C-Y/S. This information is based on a regulatory document filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The same document also disclosed that the Company filed on April 27 a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. An amended complaint was filed on January 12, 2001, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, with respect to common stock and various other securities issued by the Company and Conseco Financing Trust VII. A total of forty-five suits were filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Nineteen of these cases were putative class actions on behalf of persons or entities that purchased the Company's common stock during alleged class periods that generally run from April 1999 through April 2000. CONSECO FINANCE: Appeal Continues Re $26.8M Award in SC Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of Conseco Finance Corporation over a $26.8 million award in two arbitrated class suits in South Carolina is still pending in the state's Supreme Court. This was the information submitted by the Company to the SEC in a recent regulatory filing. Conseco Finance Corporation is a defendant in Lackey v. Green Tree Financial Corporation, n/k/a Conseco Finance Corp. and Bazzle v. Green Tree Financial Corporation, n/k/a Conseco Finance Corp. The two purported arbitration classes consist of South Carolina residents who obtained real estate secured credit from Conseco Finance's Manufactured Housing Division (Lackey) and Home Improvement Division (Bazzle) in the early and mid 1990s, and did not receive a South Carolina specific disclosure form relating to selection of attorneys in connection with the credit transactions. The arbitrator, in separate awards issued on July 24, 2000, awarded a total of $26.8 million in penalties and attorneys' fees. The awards were confirmed as judgments in both Lackey and Bazzle. GOODYEAR TIRE: Faces Five Lawsuits Over Types D, E Light Truck Tires -------------------------------------------------------------------- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with SEC that it is presently facing five class actions alleging defects, among others, on the Company's types D and E light truck and recreational vehicle tires. In addition, the plaintiffs also alleged that the Company engaged in a "silent recall" thereby committing an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The lawsuits seek the following relief from the court: (i) punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, (ii) court supervised recall and repair or replacement program, and (iii) a public awareness campaign to alert the class and the general public to the defects in, and dangers associated with, the specified tires. GREAT LAKES: Expects Certification on Bromine Suits Late This Year ------------------------------------------------------------------ To date, 10 federal purported class action lawsuits and five California purported class actions have been filed against Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, each claiming treble damages, says a regulatory document recently filed by the Company with SEC. These suits claim, among other things, that the Company conspired with others in violation of the antitrust laws regarding the pricing of bromine and brominated products. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated in the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class of purchasers of three particular brominated products, and the Company has opposed the motion. A ruling on the class certification is expected later this year. The California cases have been stayed pending resolution of the federal cases. HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Mounting Strong Defense Against Suit in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------------- On November 28, 2000, a class action complaint (Norman Ottmann v. Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc., Ivan R. Sabel and Richard A. Stein; Civil Action No. 00CV3508) was filed against Hanger Orthopedic, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from November 8, 1999 through and including January 6, 2000. The complaint alleges that during the above period of time, the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company believes that the allegations have absolutely no merit and plan to vigorously defend the lawsuit. HAWKINS CHEMICAL: Less Than Five Yet to Settle Claim From Company ----------------------------------------------------------------- Less than five claimants remain who have not yet resolved their claims under the settlement agreement offered by Hawkins Chemical Inc. in the DONNA M. COOKSEY, ET AL. V. HAWKINS CHEMICAL, INC. AND THE LYNDE COMPANY case. The court approved this settlement agreement more than two years ago. The case was brought in March 1995 against the Company and its former subsidiary, for damages alleged to be caused by a fire at an office/warehouse facility used by the former subsidiary. The court approved the settlement agreement on January 30, 1998. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company agreed to pay certain of the plaintiffs' costs and expenses as well as certain compensation to the class. HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: German Companies Declare Legal Security in U.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------- German industry representatives declare that sufficient legal security now exists for German companies in the United States, German Economy Foundation Initiative Steering Group spokesman Wolfgang G. Gibowski said in a statement. The member companies who originally started the German Industry Foundation Initiative declared that in light of the latest developments in the United States they feel that a sufficient level of legal security has been achieved. Following the amendment order issued by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on May 17, the dismissal of the Gutmann case (the last class action suit against German banks), and the referral of the Gartska case to Judge Bassler, the German companies who constitute the membership of the Foundation Initiative take the view that the prerequisites are now given for the German Bundestag to be able to confirm the existence of a sufficient level of legal security for German companies in the United States. The companies in question have made this declaration based on the assumption that the appeals cases that have not yet been dismissed in Philadelphia (3rd Circuit) and the contentious appeals case in California (9th Circuit) will be dismissed shortly. The Foundation Initiative is also working on the assumption that administrative and legislative interference in various US states will be ended. Significant progress has been made in recent weeks and months towards achieving a situation of legal security. Of the 68 cases that had been pending against German companies in the United States, the most important have now been dismissed. They include the consolidated class action suits against industrial companies, against insurance companies, and against banks. In last week's reversal of the decision handed down by Judge Kram in the bank cases the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals made clear reference to the application of the political question doctrine which prevents courts from interfering with the foreign policy interests of the United States. The statement of interest made by the US government and which is now being applied is based on the declared foreign policy interest of the United States in ending all proceedings of this kind against German companies. Since the German Industry Foundation Initiative began on February 16, 1999 more than 6,300 companies have joined, declaring their willingness to support its objective of creating the Foundation for Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future and providing financial contributions, in some cases quite considerable ones, for this purpose. IDS LIFE: Awaits Final Court Approval of Settlement in Minnesota ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDS Life Insurance Company is just waiting for final approval of a settlement pact for a class action pending in the Fourth Judicial District for the State of Minnesota. According to a recent SEC filing by the Company, oral arguments for the final approval of the settlement was held on March 6, 2001, where six motions to intervene were filed. In August 2000, Lesa Benacquisto, Daniel Benacquisto, Richard Thoresen, Elizabeth Thoresen, Arnold Mork, Isabella Mork, Ronald Melchert and Susan Melchert filed the case versus the following companies: (i) American Express Financial Corporation, (ii) American Express Financial Advisors, (iii) American Centurion Life Assurance Company, (iv) American Enterprise Life Insurance Company, (v) American Partners Life Insurance Company, (vi) IDS Life Insurance Company and (vii) IDS Life Insurance Company of New York The complaint put at issue various alleged sales practices and misrepresentations and allegations of violations of federal laws. INTERCONTINENTAL LIFE: Discovery Commenced by Plaintiffs in Two Suits --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intercontinental Life Corporation informed the Securities and Exchange Commission that discovery on the two pending shareholders suit was recently initiated. These two class action lawsuits were filed on the day Financial Industries Corporation and the Company each publicly announced the formation of a special committee to evaluate a potential merger. The actions allege that a cash consideration in the proposed merger is unfair to the shareholders of ILCO, that it would prevent the ILCO shareholders from realizing the true value of ILCO, and that FIC and the named officers and directors had material conflicts of interest in approving the transaction. In their initial pleadings, the plaintiffs sought certification of the cases as class actions and the named plaintiffs as class representatives, and among other relief, requested that the merger be enjoined (or, if consummated, rescinded and set aside) and that the defendants account to the class members for their damages. KANSAS CITY: Motion to Dismiss Still Undecided by NY Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ The New York State Supreme Court has yet to render a decision on the motion to dismiss and opposition thereto in a purported class action on behalf of the preferred shareholders of Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc. This lawsuit seeks a declaration that the Company's Spin-off was a de facto liquidation of the Company, alleges violation of Directors' fiduciary duties to the preferred shareholders and also seeks a declaration that the preferred shareholders are entitled to receive the par value of their shares and other relief. The lawsuit was filed in the New York State Supreme Court on October 3, 2000, naming the Company, its Board of Directors and Stilwell as defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice in the New York Supreme Court on December 22, 2000; the plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on February 1, 2001, and the Company served reply papers on March 7, 2001. The motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and awaiting a ruling to be rendered. KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS: Faces Several Securities Suits Filed in N.D. OH --------------------------------------------------------------------- Keithley Instruments, Inc. said in a latest regulatory filing with SEC that it intends to answer all securities suit filed against the company at the appropriate time. On March 26, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and Joseph P. Keithley, the Company's chairman, president and CEO, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The purported class action was filed on behalf of all those who purchased Keithley stock between January 18, 2001 and March 9, 2001. The Company and Keithley have been served with six additional complaints that are identical to the Complaint described above. These complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on March 28, 2001, March 29, 2001, March 30, 2001, April 5, 2001, April 12, 2001 and May 4, 2001. KENNAMETAL INC.: Awaits Approval of Settlement Deal Inked Last Year ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kennametal Inc. informed SEC in a recent regulatory filing that it is waiting for court approval of the settlement it reached in November last year with the plaintiffs in several putative class action lawsuits. The proposed settlement would provide for complete releases of the defendants, as well as among other persons their affiliates and representatives, and would extinguish and enjoin all claims that have been, could have been or could be asserted by or on behalf of any member of the class against the defendants which in any manner relate to the allegations, facts, or other matters raised in the lawsuits or which otherwise relate in any manner to the agreement, the offer and the merger. The MOU also provides, among other matters, for the payment by JLK of up to approximately $0.3 million in attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel. No payment is to be made for liability or damages. In July 2000, the Company and its subsidiary JLK Direct Distribution Inc., including the JLK directors and one former director, were named as defendants in the putative class action. The lawsuits seek an injunction, rescission, damages, costs and attorney fees in connection with the company's proposal to acquire the outstanding stock of JLK not owned by the company. LAFARGE CORPORATION: Canadian Subsidiary to Incur $9.9M Liability ----------------------------------------------------------------- In April and December 2000, the Ontario (Canada) Court rendered two decisions against Lafarge Canada, Inc., a subsidiary of Lafarge Corporation, and other defendants in a lawsuit originating in 1992 arising from claims of building owners, the Ontario New Home Warranty Program and other plaintiffs regarding allegedly defective concrete, fly ash and cement used in defective foundations. The Company estimates that the total amount of liability attributed to LCI in capital, interest and third-party costs represents approximately Canadian $9.9 million, net of insured amounts. LCI has appealed both decisions. In 1999, LCI became involved as a defendant in a class action related to the 1992 lawsuit. The action was certified as a class action in 2000, but will not proceed until after the Court of Appeals renders its decision in the 1992 lawsuit. LORAL SPACE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (NYSE: LOR) from November 4, 1999 through February 1, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges Loral and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and prospects. The complaint alleges that Loral misrepresented that Globalstar, which was controlled by Loral, was on schedule to roll out its satellite phone network and that demand for the system was strong. However, demand for the Globalstar system was much less than predicted, due in part to the fact that Globalstar did not offer roaming service, rendering it uncompetitive in developed nations. Defendants' false statements artificially inflated the price of Loral's stock. For more details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Marc A. Topaz, Esq., Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610- 667-7706 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com MATTEL INC.: Intends to File Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Plaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mattel Inc. revealed in a recent regulatory document filed with SEC that it intends to file a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaints filed last March. In January, the court had dismissed this consolidated complaint against the Company. It, however, granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Following Mattel's announcement in October 1999 of the expected results of its Learning Company division for the third quarter of 1999, several of Mattel's stockholders filed purported class action complaints naming Mattel and certain of its present and former officers and directors as defendants. In March 2000, these shareholder complaints were consolidated into two lead cases: Thurber v. Mattel, Inc. et al. (containing claims under (S) 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act) and Dusek v. Mattel, Inc. et al (containing claims under (S) 14(a) of the Act). MATTEL INC.: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Broderbund Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Other purported class action litigation has been brought against Mattel, Inc. as successor to Learning Company and the former directors of Learning Company on behalf of former stockholders of Broderbund Software, Inc. who acquired shares of Learning Company in exchange for their Broderbund common stock in connection with the Learning Company- Broderbund merger on August 31, 1998. The consolidated complaint in In re Broderbund generally alleges that Learning Company misstated its financial results prior to the time it was acquired by Mattel. Mattel and the other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in In re Broderbund, and are awaiting a ruling. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs in Louisiana Lawsuit Drop Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the securities lawsuit in Louisiana have voluntarily dropped their appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court on April 25, 2001. The court dismissed the case the following day. This was the latest information McDermott International, Inc. furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, in a recent regulatory filing. In December 1999 and early 2000, several persons who allegedly purchased shares of our common stock during the period from May 21, 1999 through November 11, 1999 filed four purported class action complaints against the Company and two of its executive officers, Roger E. Tetrault and Daniel R. Gaubert, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Each of the complaints alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading information and/or concealing material adverse information relating to the Company's estimated liability for asbestos-related claims. METROMEDIA INTERNATIONAL: Appellate Court Hears Plaintiffs Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal by plaintiffs in relation to the dismissal of a consolidated shareholders lawsuit. In an opinion on March 10, 2000, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia had dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety. On April 7, 2000, plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The consolidated lawsuit alleged that certain officers, directors and shareholders of RDM Sports Group, Inc., including Metromedia International Group, Inc. and current and former officers of the Company who served as directors of RDM, were liable under federal securities laws for misrepresenting and failing to disclose information regarding RDM's alleged financial condition during the period between November 7, 1995 and August 22, 1997, the date on which RDM disclosed that its management had discussed the possibility of filing for bankruptcy. MOSLER INC.: Waite Schneider Commences Shareholders Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Stanley M. Chesley of Cincinnati, Ohio announced that the law firms of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A. and Strauss & Troy filed a class action and derivative shareholder lawsuit against Mosler, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer, Michael Rapoport, and three directors; Thomas R. Wall, IV, William A. Marquard and Robert A. Young, III. The Complaint alleges that these Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Mosler shareholders by misrepresenting Mosler's financial condition, by allowing Mosler to become burdened with crippling debt that it had no ability to repay; by failing to address its lack of internal financial controls, and by improperly funding its Employee Stock Option Plan with its common and preferred stock. The Complaint also alleges that as a result of the Directors' conduct, the Mosler stock, which is owned by shareholders, individually and in their retirement accounts, declined in value by approximately eighty percent (80%). For more information, contact: Stanley M. Chesley or Robert A. Steinberg (Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley) (bobsteinberg@wsbclaw.cc) (513/621-0267); or Richard S. Wayne (Strauss & Troy) (513/621-2120) (classactions@strauss-troy.com). MP3.COM: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of MP3.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: MPPP) from July 21, 1999 through May 16, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges MP3 and certain of its officers and directors with issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with MP3's initial public offering that contained materially false and misleading formation and failed to disclose material information. The Securities and Exchange Commission is also presently investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings of the Company, including the offerings of VA Linux Systems, Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. For additional information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Marc A. Topaz, Esq., Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by telephone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com MULTEX.COM: Milberg Weiss Commences Suit Against IPO Underwriters ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action lawsuit on May 30, 2001 on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Multex.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: MLTX) between March 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action 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 BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For additional details, contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, New York, Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by phone: 800/320-5081 by email: multexcase@milbergNY.com or check the firm's Website: http://www.milberg. NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP: Defense Against CA Securities Suit Continues ------------------------------------------------------------------ On August 27, 1998, two investors holding an aggregate of eight units of limited partnership interests in Real Estate Associates Limited III, an affiliated partnership in which National Partnership Investments Corporation is the managing general partner, and two investors holding an aggregate of five units of limited partnership interest in Real Estate Associates Limited VI, another affiliated partnership in which NAPICO is also the managing general partner, commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against NAPICO and certain other affiliated entities. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the limited partners of certain NAPICO managed partnerships and made materially false and misleading statements in the consent solicitation statements sent to the limited partners of such partnerships relating to approval of the transfer of partnership interests in limited partnerships, owning certain of the properties, to affiliates of Casden Properties Inc., organized by an affiliate of NAPICO. On August 4, 1999, one investor holding one unit of limited partnership interest in the Partnership commenced a virtually identical action. This second action has been subsumed in the first action, which has been certified as a class action. The managing general partner of such NAPICO managed partnerships and the other defendants continue to contest the actions vigorously NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces Securities Suits in U.S. And Canada ---------------------------------------------------------- Nortel Networks Corporation disclosed in a recent SEC filing that subsequent to its February 15, 2001 announcement in which the Company provided revised guidance for financial performance for the fiscal year and first quarter 2001, the Company and certain of its then current officers and directors have been named as defendants in a number of purported class action lawsuits. These lawsuits, which have been filed through April 13, 2001 in the United States, and in Ontario and Quebec, Canada on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities as early as November 1, 2000 and as late as February 15, 2001, allege violations of United States federal and Canadian provincial securities laws. NORTEL NETWORKS: Files Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- On February 12, 2001, Nortel Networks Inc., an indirect subsidiary of Nortel Networks Corporation, was served with a consolidated amended class action complaint that purported to add the Company as a defendant to a lawsuit commenced in July 2000 against Entrust Technologies, Inc. and three of its then current officers in the United States District Court of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint alleges that Entrust Technologies, certain then current officers of Entrust Technologies, and the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to certain statements made by Entrust Technologies. The Company is alleged to be a controlling person of Entrust Technologies. On April 6, 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against the Company. OAKWOOD HOMES: Case Dismissal Final as Plaintiffs Fail to Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- A recent regulatory document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by Oakwood Homes Corporation reveals that the Company is now free of the securities lawsuit filed in November 1998. According to the Company, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed the consolidated amended shareholders lawsuit in January this year. The order became final after the Plaintiffs failed to file an appeal before the time for filing such an action expired. In November 1998 the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in lawsuits filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock for various periods between April 11, 1997 and July 21, 1998. An amended complaint sought class action certification and alleged violations of federal securities law based on alleged fraudulent acts, false and misleading financial statements, among others. OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Asks Ohio Court to Drop All Pending Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Overseas Partners Ltd. disclosed in a recent SEC filing that it has filed a motion to dismiss all actions filed against the Company, including an antitrust suit for failing to state a claim. In addition, the Company also pointed out that federal laws preempted the other cases, arising from violations of state Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Laws. On November 19, 1999 and January 27, 2000 OPL was named as a defendant in two class action lawsuits, filed on behalf of customers of United Parcel Service of America, Inc., in Montgomery County, Ohio Court and Butler County, Ohio Court, respectively. The lawsuits allege that UPS told its customers that they were purchasing insurance for coverage of loss or damage to goods shipped by UPS. The lawsuits further allege that UPS wrongfully enriched itself with the monies paid by its customers to purchase such insurance. The allegations in the lawsuits are drawn from a recent opinion by the United States Tax Court, currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, that found that the insurance program, as offered through UPS, several domestic insurance companies, and their related reinsurance agreement with OPL, was not adequate for UPS to avoid liability for federal income tax. QWEST CORPORATION: Six State Courts Currently Approve Settlement Deal --------------------------------------------------------------------- Qwest Corporation reported to the SEC recently that six state courts have already approved the settlement the Company offered in November last year in relation to class actions arising from its local telephone service. As of April 23, 2001, the following state's courts approved the settlement agreements: Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, New Mexico, Arizona and Washington. Through March 2001, seven purported class action complaints have been filed in various state courts against Qwest and U S WEST on behalf of customers in the states of Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, Washington and New Mexico. The complaints allege, among other things, that from 1993 to the present, U S WEST, in violation of alleged statutory and common law obligations, willfully delayed the provision of local telephone service to the purported class members. The complaints also allege that U S WEST misrepresented the date on which such local telephone service was to be provided to the purported class members. THE KROGER: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, Case Number C-1-01-343, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) from December 5, 2000 through March 2, 2001, inclusive. The plaintiff is Margaret L. Feldman Knopper, suing on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The defendants include Kroger and Joseph A. Pichler, Kroger's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors. The complaint charges Kroger and one of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that on March 5, 2001, Kroger announced that it would have to restate earnings back to its fiscal 1998 year as a result of improper accounting practices at its "Ralphs" subsidiary. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the improper accounting practices since September 2000. For additional details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Marc A. Topaz, Esq., Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by telephone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY: Sixteen-State Fiber Optic Cable Suit Settled --------------------------------------------------------------------- Notices of a class action settlement are being sent this week to more than 50,000 landowners in 16 states. The settlement was reached between attorneys representing the landowners and Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc. (T-Cubed), the telecom subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Corporation, owner of one of the nation's four largest railroads. The settlement is the largest ever involving installation of fiber optic cable on right-of-way land, and it is the first ever on active railroad rights-of-way, according to attorneys for the landowners. The settlement has received preliminary approval from the federal court that is presiding over the case, and the judge has approved the notice to class members. A list of the states and counties involved in the settlement appears below. The settlement permits T-Cubed to install bundles of conduits on railroad corridors that have been identified between major metropolitan areas in the East, Northeast, South and Midwest. In return, T-Cubed will pay landowners along the routes where conduits are installed. Class members are all owners of land adjacent to or underlying the specified railroad corridors as of June 5, 2001. Class members whose land is used for the fiber optic conduits will receive compensation in three forms. First, they will receive a guaranteed payment of $6,000 per mile, which will compensate the landowners for the first three conduits that T-Cubed plans to install. Second, they will receive 7.5% or more of the revenue obtained by T- Cubed from selling additional conduits, beyond the first three. If all of the planned conduits are leased, the cash compensation to landowners may exceed $30,000 per mile. Third, all class members will have an opportunity to own equity in a company that has been formed for their benefit as a part of the settlement. The company, named Class Corridor, LLC, is a limited liability company that has been formed under the laws of Delaware. This company will own telecom easements over class members' land on the side of the railroad corridor that is not being occupied by T-Cubed's conduits. The company will also have the right to receive strands of dark fibers from T-Cubed and an option to purchase a conduit from T- Cubed, or in the alternative to receive a cash payment from T-Cubed. Class Corridor, LLC will develop its assets for the benefit of the class members. The class action lawsuit claims that the landowners own much of the land on which the fiber optic cables are being installed, and that T- Cubed's railroad affiliates own only an easement for railroad purposes. The landowners claim the rights to permit telecom uses on their land. T-Cubed denies liability, but has agreed to the terms of the settlement. Final determination on approval of the settlement will be made by the federal court following a fairness hearing to be held in Indianapolis on August 21, 2001. Nels Ackerson, Co-lead Class Counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "This settlement will put real value into the hands of the people whose property is being used to construct the country's fiber optic backbone. Landowners will get cash and they will also participate for the first time in future profits from use of their land for fiber optic systems." He continued, "I compliment T-Cubed for its sense of fairness and its good business sense in reaching this settlement. It is a win-win solution. Landowners will get fair compensation, and T-Cubed will have prime corridors to develop for fiber optic uses free from title challenges. T-Cubed's land rights will be unique. We know of no other telecom company that can claim legal rights on all of the land for an entire fiber optic system." Timothy Elzinga, an Indiana farmer and the settlement class representative, owns land along a railroad line leading into Chicago. "This is a wonderful settlement," he said. "I'm glad T-Cubed is doing the right thing. I was aware of other litigation on railroad right-of- way land, and when I learned that somebody was about to put fiber optic cables on my land without my permission, I called my attorney. This is the kind of result that I had hoped for. We could not have done it without a class action." The notice to class members provides information concerning the settlement. Members of the class who receive a notice and who choose to remain in the class do not need to take any action in order to get the results of the settlement. If any landowners wish to opt out of the class action, the notice gives instructions on how that may be done. A website also has been set up to answer questions concerning this lawsuit and the settlement (http://www.FiberOpticFundI.com). Persons who believe they are entitled to be members of the class but do not receive a personally addressed notice must return a registration form no later than July 13, 2001. Forms for persons who have not received notice may be obtained from the website or by calling the claims center at a toll free number: 866-653-5344. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit include the following: Nels Ackerson and Kathleen C. Kauffman of the Ackerson Group, Chartered, in Washington, D.C.; Roger C. Johnson of Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis, Lightfoot, P.C. in Washington, D.C.; John B. Massopust of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette, LLP in Minneapolis, MN; and Henry J. Price of Price, Potter, Jackson & Mellowitz, P.C. in Indianapolis, IN. NOTE: Additional information about the settlement, including court orders and maps that may be downloaded, can be found at http://www.FiberOpticFundI.com. Following is a list of the states and counties involved in the settlement: FIBER OPTIC FUND I SETTLEMENT States and Counties AL MD PA Colbert Washington Allegheny Jackson Armstrong Lawrence MI Beaver Limestone Monroe Blair Madison Wayne Cambria Morgan Cumberland MS Erie FL Alcorn Franklin Baker Tishimongo Huntington Duval Indiana Nassau NC Juniata Cleveland Lawrence GA Gaston Mifflin Banks Mecklenburg Perry Bibb Westmoreland Carroll OH York Charlton Ashtabula Chattooga Butler SC Clayton Clark Cherokee Clinch Crawford Greenville Cobb Cuyahoga Oconee Cook Delaware Pickens Crisp Erie Spartanburg Dade Franklin DeKalb Fulton TN Dooly Greene Anderson Douglas Hamilton Bradley Echols Huron Fayette Floyd Lake Hamilton Fulton Lorain Hardeman Gwinnett Lucas Knox Habersham Madison Loudon Hall Mahoning McMinn Haralson Marion McNairy Henry Montgomery Monroe Houston Ottawa Roane Lamar Portage Shelby Lowndes Sandusky Monroe Seneca VA Polk Stark Alexandria Spalding Summit Clarke Stephens Trumbull Fairfax Tift Warren Fauquier Turner Williams Manassas Walker Wood Manassas Park Prince William IL Warren Cook WV IN Jefferson De Kalb Elkhart La Porte Lake Noble Porter St. Joseph UNITED DOMINION: Settles Water Billing Suit in Texas For $2.7 Million --------------------------------------------------------------------- United Dominion Realty Trust, Inc. revealed in its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has settled, in the first quarter of 2001, the water usage billing class action in Texas. The case was settled for $2.7 million. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: To Defend Against Challenges to its Care Policies --------------------------------------------------------------------- In September 1999, a group of plaintiffs' trial lawyers publicly announced that they were targeting the managed care industry by way of class action litigation. Since that time, like other managed care companies, Unitedhealth Group, Inc. have received several purported class action matters that generally challenge managed care practices including cost containment mechanisms, disclosure obligations and payment methodologies. The Company intends to defend vigorously all of these cases. WESTERN RESOURCES: Court Consolidates All Pending Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California has consolidated all the pending purported class action against Western Resources, Inc., its subsidiary Westar Industries, Protection One, Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc. and certain present and former officers and directors of Protection One. According to a regulatory document filed with SEC by the Company, the plaintiffs filed a third consolidated amended class action complaint on February 27, 2001. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of publicly traded securities of Protection One, including common stock and notes, during the period of February 10, 1998, through February 2, 2001. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on allegations that various statements concerning Protection One's financial results and operations for 1997, 1998, 1999 and the first three quarters of 2000 were false and misleading and not in compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Amended Complaint further asserts claims against the company and Westar Industries as controlling persons under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WORLDCOM INC.: Court Consolidates All Securities Suits Filed in Miss. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Worldcom, Inc. revealed in a recent SEC filing that the United District for the Southern District of Mississippi has consolidated all securities suit filed in November 2000, along with the purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of individuals who purchased stock in Intermedia Communications, Inc. The consolidation of the above cases was made in a hearing on March 27, 2001. These case stem from allegations that the defendants made false and misleading statements about some aspects of the Company's performance by failing to disclose, among other things, that the merger with MCI did not yield the anticipated cost savings and revenue increases, that the Company's growth rate was declining, and that its financial statements were inflated due to the failure to write down, on a timely basis, $405 million in receivables. Based on these allegations, the complaints assert claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Act. ********* 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., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Larri-Nil G. Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors. Copyright 2001. 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 * * *