/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010612.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 12 2001, Vol. 3, No. 114 Headlines AES CORPORATION: Power Manipulation Plaint Moved To S.D. California ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania BANCWEST CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits Over Merger With BNP Paribas CALIFORNIA: State Faces Potential Liability That Could Exceed $400M CALIFORNIA: Sued For Alleged Discriminatory Services To The Disabled CHASE MANHATTAN: Plaintiff's Appeal Of Settlement Pact Without Merit EATON VANCE: To Put Up Strong Defense Against Boston Securities Suit EL SITIO: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York ENSTAR CABLE: Illinois Customers Challenge Extra Fee For Delinquency HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Austrian Slaves, Forced Laborers To Be Paid IVILLAGE INC.: Receives Info Re Securities Suit In S.D. New York KITTY HAWK: Claims In Four Lawsuits In N.D. Texas Treated As Class 9 LOS ANGELES: Faces Huge Housing Development Liability Near Gas Depot LUXOTTICA GROUP: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit In E.D. NY MAX INTERNET: Consolidated Securities Suit Filed In N.D. Texas MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Suits Filed Against Subsidiaries NCI BUILDING: Too Early To Gauge Effect Of Pending Shareholders Suits NORTHEAST UTILITIES: Settlement Hearing Scheduled July 13 PARACELSUS HEALTHCARE: Attempts To Settle Subsidiary Suits Fail PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settles Securities Lawsuit For $49 Million REDDI BRAKE: Settlement Agreement Remains Pending After Three Years REPUBLIC OF POLAND: Jewish Americans File Restitution Claims In NY SPIEKER PROPERTIES: Shareholder Files Suit Enjoining Merger Agreement UNO RESTAURANT: To Mount Strong Defense Against DE Shareholder Suit ********* AES CORPORATION: Power Manipulation Plaint Moved To S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------- In November 2000, AES Corporation was named in a purported class action suit along with six other defendants alleging unlawful manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market, resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices throughout California. Alleged causes of action include violation of the Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any actions asserted against it and expects that it will defend itself vigorously against the allegations. ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of ATI Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATYT) common stock during the period from January 13, 2000 through May 24, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges ATI and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. For additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP Client Relations Department: Sue Null, Charlie Gastineau or Jackie Addison by mail: P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by phone: 1-888-551-9944 (Toll-free) or by email: info@classlawyer.com BANCWEST CORPORATION: Faces Lawsuits Over Merger With BNP Paribas ----------------------------------------------------------------- On May 7, 2001, eight purported class action suits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against BNP Paribas, BancWest Corporation and the members of its board of directors. On May 9, 2001, a BancWest stockholder filed a purported class action suit (Index No. 321199) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, against the same defendants and specified officers of BancWest. These complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants have breached fiduciary and other duties to its public stockholders in connection with BNP Paribas' preliminary proposal to acquire all of BancWest's outstanding shares that BNP Paribas does not own at a price of $35 per share. These complaints variously seek, among other things, a court order enjoining any proposed transaction with BNP Paribas and an award of unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. "We believe that these complaints are without merit and we intend to defend them vigorously," the Company said in recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. CALIFORNIA: State Faces Potential Liability That Could Exceed $400M ------------------------------------------------------------------- According to a recent report by Dreyfus Premier California Municipal Bond Funds to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the State of California faces a potential liability that could exceed $400 million. In Charles Davis v. California Health and Human Services Agency, the plaintiff has brought a class action under a number of federal acts, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that persons who are institutionalized with disabilities at San Francisco-run, 1,200 bed skilled nursing facility (Laguna Honda) who require long term care should be assessed as to whether they can be treated at home or in a community-based facilities, and then provided appropriate care. Dreyfus is a Massachusetts business trust that invests primarily in the debt securities of the State of California. CALIFORNIA: Sued For Alleged Discriminatory Services To The Disabled -------------------------------------------------------------------- In Stephen Sanchez, et al. v. Grantland Johnson et al., the plaintiffs have brought a class action in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging, in part, that provider rates for community-based services for developmentally disabled individuals are discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act and violate the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act because they result in unnecessary institutionalization of developmentally disabled persons. The State Of California has filed a responsive pleading and is vigorously contesting this case, according to a recent report by Dreyfus Premier California Municipal Bond Funds to the Securities and Exchange Commission. "At this early state in the proceedings, it is difficult to assess the financial impact of a judgment against the State. However, should the plaintiffs prevail, the State's liability could exceed $400 million," the report noted. Dreyfus is a Massachusetts business trust that invests primarily in the debt securities of the State of California. CHASE MANHATTAN: Plaintiff's Appeal Of Settlement Pact Without Merit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Several lawsuits have recently been commenced against various credit card issuers alleging generally that the manner in which customer payments were credited to accounts resulted in violations of the related account agreements and state and federal law and unjustified finance charges, late fees and penalty interest rates. Two such cases were filed against Chase Manhattan Bank USA in the federal courts in Texas and California. A court has issued a final judgment and order approving the class action settlement in its entirety, and dismissed the lawsuits with prejudice. One class member who objected to the settlement filed a notice of appeal from the order, which appeal the Company believes to be without merit. EATON VANCE: To Put Up Strong Defense Against Boston Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Eaton Vance Corporation announced last week its intention to defend vigorously against the securities lawsuit filed by shareholders on May 25, 2001. According to a company press release, the Company and its advisers, trustees and officers believe the complaint is without merit. The complaint is currently pending in the federal district court in Boston. The suit was filed by two shareholders of one account of EV Classic Senior Floating-Rate Fund against the Fund, its advisers, trustees and certain officers. The Complaint, framed as a class action, alleges that for approximately two years ending on March 2, 2000, the Fund's assets were incorrectly valued and certain matters were not properly disclosed, in violation of the federal securities laws. Eaton Vance Corp. is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol EV. EL SITIO: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit last week in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of El Sitio, Inc. (NASDAQ:LCTO) common stock between December 9, 1999 and June 7, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants El Sitio, Inc., Roberto Vivo- Chaneton, Roberto Cibrian-Campoy, Horacio Milberg, Alfredo Jimenez de Arechaga, Carlos Cisneros, Michael Greeley, Guillermo Liberman, Ricardo Verdaguer, Michael Levitt, and Sofia Pescarmona violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling El Sitio common stock pursuant to the December 9, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the El Sitio offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions. For further details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. ENSTAR CABLE: Illinois Customers Challenge Extra Fee For Delinquency -------------------------------------------------------------------- Customers in Illinois have filed a punitive class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons residing in the state who are or were customers of the cable television service of Enstar Cable of Macoupin County, and who have been charged a fee for delinquent payment of their cable bill. The action challenges the legality of the processing fee and seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and unspecified damages. At present, the Company is not able to project the outcome of the action, said a regulatory document recently filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Austrian Slaves, Forced Laborers To Be Paid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Compensation will be made to approximately 150,000 slave and forced laborers of the Nazi period once two class action lawsuits pending against Austrian companies are resolved, this according to a recent Associated Press report. These lawsuits were brought by the laborers, who alleged that the companies profited from their work during World War II or conspired with the Nazis to confiscate their property, which included possessions such as paintings, real estate and businesses. The fund for payment totals $371 million, comprised of public money and funds provided by Austrian business and industry, and will be processed by the Austrian Reconciliation Fund. "From our side, all matters have been clarified," said Ludwig Steiner, the Fund's chairman. Applications for payment are being received; some 16,000 applications have been approved and are awaiting payment. One-time payments will be made according to the type of hardship endured: slave laborers to receive $6,500; forced laborers in industry, $2,200; forced laborers in agriculture, $1,200. In event of death, payment will be made to their heirs. IVILLAGE INC.: Receives Info Re Securities Suit In S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- iVillage Inc. (Nasdaq: IVIL), announced last week that it has become aware of a pending class action lawsuit against the Company, certain current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters of its initial public offering of common stock in March 1999, alleging violations of federal securities law surrounding the company's initial public offering. The Company has yet to be served with a copy of the complaint. iVillage believes that the lawsuit and the claims asserted against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The action, Saul Kassin v. iVillage Inc., et al., was filed in New York federal court on June 5, 2001 purportedly on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of iVillage Inc. between March 18, 1999 and October 28, 1999 inclusive. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages. KITTY HAWK: Claims In Four Lawsuits In N.D. Texas Treated As Class 9 -------------------------------------------------------------------- During April through July 2000, four purported class action lawsuits were filed against Kitty Hawk, Inc. and/or certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division: (i) Todd Holley v. Kitty Hawk, Inc., M. Tom Christopher and Richard Wadsworth, No. 3:00-CV-0828-P; (ii) Russell Schwegman v. M. Tom Christopher, Conrad A. Kalitta, Richard R. Wadsworth, Jr. and Kitty Hawk, Inc., No. 3:00-CV- 0867-P; (iii) Dale Crandall v. M. Tom Christopher, Conrad A. Kalitta, and Richard R. Wadsworth, Jr., No. 3:00-CV-1102- T; and (iv) Charles Landan and Trans American Airlines, Inc. v. M. Tom Christopher and Richard R. Wadsworth, Jr., No. 3:00-CV-1623-P. Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated the United States securities laws by publicly issuing materially false and misleading statements and omitting disclosure of material adverse information regarding Kitty Hawk's business during the period from April 22, 1999 through April 11, 2000. Among other things, the complaints allege that the defendants materially overstated Kitty Hawk's earnings and financial condition by refusing to disclose that Kitty Hawk had deferred required maintenance and repairs on its aircraft and engines, and by refusing to timely write down the value of Kitty Hawk's obsolete aircraft that were beyond repair. Each of the complaints alleges that as a result of such alleged improper actions, the market price of Kitty Hawk's securities was artificially inflated at the time that the stockholders in the classes acquired those securities. In May 2000, the court entered orders in the actions that had named Kitty Hawk as a defendant staying all claims against Kitty Hawk due to its filing for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The actions were not stayed as to the individual defendants. In July 2000, the actions were consolidated into a single action. The court has entered an agreed scheduling order that requires a consolidated amended complaint to be filed after the court appoints a lead plaintiff. The individual defendants are not required to file a response until after the consolidated amended complaint is filed. The Claims against Kitty Hawk, Inc. asserted in these lawsuits are treated as Class 9 Claims. LOS ANGELES: Faces Huge Housing Development Liability Near Gas Depot -------------------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles City Council is scheduled to meet today to take up the issue of the Playa Vista Housing Development on the west side of Los Angeles. This development is situated at the site of Southern California Gas Company's Playa del Rey underground gas storage facility. The Grassroots Coalition and other civic action groups are urging City officials, including the civil division of the City Attorney's office and the City Controller, to investigate the potential liability associated with this development. In a report issued February 26, 2001, City Controller, Rick Tuttle, estimates that Los Angeles for the first time surpassed the $1 billion mark in reported total liability. Of this, approximately $125 million is made up of current and future damages involving the Rampart police scandal. "If the Public Health and Safety issues we believe exist at the Playa Vista site are ignored and residents are killed or injured," stated Patricia McPherson, president of Grassroots Coalition, "the resulting liability could dwarf the Rampart costs." SoCalGas records indicate that billions of cubic feet of natural gas are being held at pressures of 1700 pounds per square inch and above in the partially depleted Playa del Rey oil field that underlies the area. According to the State Division of Oil and Gas, a network of underground pipes fans out from the SoCalGas compressor station located at the edge of the property. These high-pressure injection pipes are used to force the gas into the geological formations below. Evidence shows that, once in the ground, the enormous pressure can force the gas to migrate through the substrata. According to a number of professional gas migration experts including Oil and Gas Environmental Consultant, Bernard Endres, PhD, co-author of "Gas Migration" (Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers), there is no way to accurately determine if or where the gas may surface. "We know the gas is going somewhere because, in a recent study by one of the preeminent experts on underground gas storage, Dr. M. Rasin Tek, it was determined that one hundred million (100,000,000) cubic feet of gas disappears from this site each year," Endres said. "They began pumping natural gas into the Playa del Rey oil field back in 1942," said McPherson. "But it was farmland then. I don't think anyone ever expected it to become a residential area." Dr. Endres observed that, as a result of a catastrophic explosion in a rural area near Brenham, Texas, involving gas leaking from an underground storage site, a jury awarded $138 million to twenty-two victims of the accident. And last January, an explosion associated with an underground site near Hutchinson, Kansas spawned at least two class action lawsuits. "If an explosion half the size of the one in Brenham were to occur in a densely populated area such as Playa Vista, hundreds would be killed. Since the City is aware of the gas storage facility and its vicinity to the development, and is allowing construction to proceed anyway, the potential for massive damages is staggering," Dr. Endres warned. "I think the taxpayers of Los Angeles have a right to know that this development has the potential to financially cripple the city," McPherson concluded. LUXOTTICA GROUP: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit In E.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who tendered their shares of common stock of Sunglass Hut International, Inc. (NASDAQ: "RAYS") to Shade Acquisition Corp., pursuant to the Tender Offer dated March 5, 2001 by Luxottica Group S.p.A. and Shade to Sunglass shareholders, in exchange for $11.50 net cash per share. Excluded from the Class are the named Defendants and James N. Hauslein, who is the Chairman of the Board of Sunglass. The Complaint names Luxottica and Shade as Defendants. Shade is a wholly owned subsidiary of Luxottica. The Complaint charges Defendants with violations of Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that pursuant to the Tender Offer and as an integral part thereof, Defendants offered and paid greater consideration to Hauslein than to other tendering Sunglass shareholders, as an inducement to Hauslein to support the Tender Offer and to tender his approximately 1.7 million Sunglass shares to Shade. Plaintiff alleges that the additional consideration to Hauslein, which was never offered nor paid to other Sunglass shareholders, was in the form of a lucrative Consulting Agreement entered into between Hauslein and Luxottica, under which Luxottica allegedly agreed to pay Hauslein $15 million over a five-year period. For more information, contact: James W. Johnson, Esq. (E-mail: johnsoj@glrs.com) David J. Goldsmith, Esq. (E-mail: goldsmd@glrs.com) GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017-5563 212/907-0700 or Burton H. Finkelstein, Esq. Conor R. Crowley, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., Suite 601 Washington, D.C. 20007 202/337-8000 MAX INTERNET: Consolidated Securities Suit Filed In N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- On various dates between August 1, 2000 and September 14, 2000, MAX Internet Communications, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors, were named as defendants in lawsuits which were filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. In these purported class action lawsuits, plaintiffs allege that they and other similarly situated investors purchased common stock of the company at artificially inflated prices due to false and misleading disclosures by the company concerning its sales revenue for the quarterly financial reporting periods ending September 30, 1999 and December 31, 1999. Plaintiffs allege that the company's false and misleading disclosures violated Sections 10(b) of 20(a), as well as other sections, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to represent persons or entities who purchased the company's common stock between November 15, 1999 and May 12, 2000. On the latter date, the company announced that it was restating earnings for the two prior quarters due in part to the booking of sales in reliance upon documentation that was later found to be falsified. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, together with prejudgment interest, attorney fees and other costs of suit. These lawsuits were consolidated by court order on October 25, 2000. Upon selection of lead plaintiffs and appointment of counsel to represent the purported class, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in May 2001. The company intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. MEDIACOM COMMUNICATIONS: Settles Suits Filed Against Subsidiaries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Certain plaintiffs have filed or threatened separate class action complaints against cable systems of Mediacom Communications Corporation across the United States alleging that the systems' delinquency fee constitutes an invalid liquidated damage provision, a breach of contract and violates local consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek recovery of all late fees paid to the subject systems as a class purporting to consist of all subscribers who were assessed such fees during the applicable limitation period, plus attorney fees and costs. In December 2000, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court with respect to certain late fee class action complaints, which involves certain subscribers of Georgia Mediacom Systems, Southern Illinois Mediacom Systems, Iowa Mediacom Systems, and Missouri Mediacom Systems. Certain other plaintiff suits, involving the above cable systems, remain unresolved. The December 2000 and any future settlements are not expected to have a material impact on the financial condition or excess of revenues over direct expenses of the four companies. NCI BUILDING: Too Early To Gauge Effect Of Pending Shareholders Suits --------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencing in April 2001, several class action lawsuits were filed against NCI Building Systems, Inc. and certain of its present officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiffs in the actions purport to represent purchasers of common stock of the Company during various periods ranging from August 25, 1999 through April 12, 2001. The complaints assert various claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees. The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends to defend them vigorously. "The lawsuits are at a very early stage. Consequently, it is not possible at this time to predict whether the Company will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company might incur in connection with such actions, or whether an adverse outcome could have a material adverse impact on the business, consolidated financial condition or results of operations of the Company," said the Company in a statement. NORTHEAST UTILITIES: Settlement Hearing Scheduled July 13 --------------------------------------------------------- Weiss & Yourman announced last week that a hearing will be held on July 13, 2001, before the Honorable Denny Chin, United States District Court Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, to consider and determine: (i) whether a proposed settlement between Plaintiffs and certain defendants should be approved as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether judgment should be entered finally approving the settlement, dismissing Count I of the litigation on the merits and with prejudice; and (iii) whether the application of counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and costs should be granted. In consideration of the settlement of Count I of the litigation and the claims released in such settlement, Defendants have disseminated a supplemental proxy containing the disclosures that Plaintiffs contended should have been included in the Initial Proxy and mailed directly to shareholders of Northeast Utilities and Consolidated Edison, Inc. in advance of the scheduled shareholder votes and meetings. It is Plaintiffs' contention that the information disseminated in the supplemental proxy was vital in assisting shareholders with casting their vote on the proposed merger. Plaintiffs' counsel assisted in the drafting of the supplemental proxy and agreed that it satisfied all of their claims as contained in Count I of the Federal Complaint. The proposed settlement is described more fully in a printed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and of Settlement Hearing, which has been mailed to all current Northeast shareholders and is available at www.wyca.com. For more details, contact: WEISS & YOURMAN, Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. or David C. Katz, Esq. by mail: 551 Fifth Avenue Suite 1600 New York, New York 10176 or by phone: (888) 593-4771 (toll-free) (212) 682-3025 PARACELSUS HEALTHCARE: Attempts To Settle Subsidiary Suits Fail --------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation is a defendant in two lawsuits alleging certain violations of Federal and North Dakota wage and hour laws for the period 1994 through 1998 at the Fargo, North Dakota hospital. The actions currently pending are Sister Colette Werlinger, et al., vs. Champion Healthcare Corporation, et al., Civ. NO. 97-2466 (District Court, County of Cass, State of North Dakota) and Sister Juliana Wisnewski, et al., vs. Champion Healthcare Corporation, et al., Civil No. A3-96-72 in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, Southeastern Division, on appeal as Shelly Reimer, et al. vs. Champion Healthcare Corporation, et al., Case No. 00-2413 in the United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal case was certified as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action in 1999, and the state case was granted class action status in 1998. In January 2000, the federal court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment for all but one of the federal claims. The federal issue not dismissed involved a computation error on the part of the Company that had been voluntarily corrected. Related liquidated damages were subsequently settled with the payment of an immaterial amount. The parties have appealed the federal trail court's summary judgment rulings to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2000, the state court issued a ruling that increased the number of individuals covered under the class action and the scope of the potential damages to which the Company might be subject in the event of an adverse jury verdict. Attempts to settle this matter have been unsuccessful to date, although discussions are ongoing. In the fourth quarter of 2000, the Company recorded an unusual charge of $2.7 million to accrue for its estimated liability with respect to this matter. The Company has also incurred an additional $655,000 in legal fees related to this matter. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Settles Securities Lawsuit For $49 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE: PG) announced last week it has reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action litigation filed against it in connection with the company's March 2000 earnings announcement. Under the agreement, the company will pay $49 million in cash. The settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery, final documentation and court approval. Details regarding the settlement will be communicated to potential class members prior to final court approval. "In the end, this was a business decision," said P&G president and CEO A. G. Lafley. "The settlement in no way changes our belief that we have always complied fully with our obligations under the securities laws. Nonetheless, we are pleased to put the matter behind us and eliminate this distraction from our single-minded focus on restoring the company's long-term growth." The company confirmed it remains comfortable with the range of analysts' estimates for core earnings-per-share growth for the quarter. This includes the estimated impact of the securities litigation settlement on core earnings. Procter & Gamble markets approximately 300 brands to nearly five billion consumers in over 140 countries. These brands include Tide(R), Ariel(R), Crest(R), Pantene Pro-V(R), Always(R), Whisper(R), Pringles(R), Pampers(R), Olay(R), Iams(R) and Vicks(R). Based in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, P&G has on- the-ground operations in over 70 countries. For more information, contact: Linda Ulrey, 513-983-8975, or Martha Depenbrock, 513-983-5366, both of the Procter & Gamble Company REDDI BRAKE: Settlement Agreement Remains Pending After Three Years ------------------------------------------------------------------- Reddi Brake Supply Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the settlement agreement it forged with the plaintiffs in a 1997 class suit is still pending. Both parties in the McCormick, et al., v. Reddi Brake Supply Corp., et al., LASC Case No BC 180840 entered a stipulation of settlement on May 21, 1999 . The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the Plaintiffs will release the Company from a $20 million judgment if the Company and individual defendants assign any and all rights for insurance coverage to the Plaintiffs. On November 6, 1997, the above action was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court as a class action on behalf of all persons or entities who bought common stock of Reddi Brake Supply Corporation prior to March 23, 1996 and/or who bought or sold such stock thereafter until August 13, 1996. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty by officers and directors and conspiracy to manipulate the price of the common stock of the Company and concealment thereof. REPUBLIC OF POLAND: Jewish Americans File Restitution Claims In NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ More than ten years after the end of communism in Central Europe, Poland and the Czech Republic are still trying to work out systems for resolving claims for restitution of property seized during and after the Second World War. The Czech government, for example, continues a dispute with the Roman Catholic Church, which has been trying to retrieve over 770 square miles of land. The new government of Czechoslovakia passed laws of restitution, in 1990 and 1991, after the end of communism. These laws are, however, of limited scope: Jews who lost land or other property after the 1938 Nazi invasion are excluded, as are the 3 million Sudeten Germans, many of whom cheered the 1938 Nazi invasion and whose assets were confiscated under a series of decrees even if they had not collaborated with the Nazis. In Poland, there are no laws governing return of private property. Title to many buildings in Warsaw is unclear; for example, a Polish family has claimed ownership of the land on which sits the American embassy. As a result of the government's failure to provide a system of restitution, many Poles have taken their claims to court both in Poland and America. A National Coalition of Organizations for Restitution may be planning to bring some 40,000 cases to Polish courts. Jewish claimants have filed a class action suit in New York against the Polish government and are lobbying President Bush to bring up this topic with Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski at their scheduled meeting in the near future. Outstanding restitution claims are a barrier to economic development in both these countries because foreigners are cautious about investing in property whose ownership is uncertain. Czech laws do not promise early resolution of the restitution problem: The government has set tight deadlines for the claims; without liberalization of the deadlines, many Czechs and non-Czechs will be left out of the present process. The Polish restitution problem is even more complex. For example, a Polish restitution bill, which was vetoed by the Polish president, provided that successful claimants be compensated for one-half the property's present value. Now many claimants are asking for 100% compensation. SPIEKER PROPERTIES: Shareholder Files Suit Enjoining Merger Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 8, 2001, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, by an alleged stockholder of Spieker Properties, Inc. This complaint names as defendants Spieker and each member of its board of directors and principally alleges that the directors breached duties assuredly owed to Spieker's stockholders in connection with entering into the merger agreement with Equity Office Properties Trust. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek an injunction (1) against the defendants' agreement to the termination fee provisions of the merger agreement and (2) requiring an unspecified "fair and objective process to sell the company." Spieker intends to continue vigorously defending the lawsuit, said the Company in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. UNO RESTAURANT: To Mount Strong Defense Against DE Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 25, 2000, Bruce Cox filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for New Castle County against Uno Restaurant Corporation, Aaron D. Spencer and each of the current directors of Uno. The complaint alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff because Spencer and certain members of senior management of Uno timed a proposed acquisition of the outstanding shares of Uno in order to freeze out Uno's public stockholders and to capture for themselves Uno's future potential without paying an adequate or fair price to Uno's public stockholders. The plaintiff seeks to have the action maintained as a class action, to have the defendants enjoined from proceeding with or closing the proposed transaction and to recover unspecified costs of the action. The class is alleged to include all public shareholders of Uno, excluding the defendants and their affiliates. Uno has filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of ripeness and intends to defend vigorously against the complaint. ********* 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. Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil 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 * * *