/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010615.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 15 2001, Vol. 3, No. 117 Headlines AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In NJ FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Limited Discovery Completed In Texas Suit FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Class In Idaho Wage Lawsuit FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Women Employees File Suit For Discrimination FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Suit Filed By Pension Fund Stayed Indefinitely HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION:Files Answer To Consolidated Amended Complaint HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: France's Railway Sued For Death Camp Deliveries INFORMATION ARCHITECTS: Motion To Dismiss In NC Federal Court Pending LUXOTTICA GROUP: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In E .D. NY MTI TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA NATIONAL HOME: Motion To Dismiss Filed In Federal Court Still Pending NEBRASKA: Disabled Mothers Challenge State Denial Of Aid To Children NORDSTROM INC.: Motion For Dismissal Granted In Subsidiary Case ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit In E.D.Louisiana PFIZER INC.: Faces State Actions In SC and Nigeria Over Trovan Drug RE-CON BUILDING: Settlement On FireFree(R) Tiles, Quantum Panels Ok'd SPANLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Consolidates 11 Anti-Fraud Suits In IL * Guidelines For Wall Street Analysts Fall Short Of Goal -- Solon ********* AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In NJ --------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of AremisSoft Corporation (NASDAQ:AREM) common stock between December 17, 1999 and May 14, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants AremisSoft, Inc., Lycourgos K. Kyprianou, Roys Payiadjis, and Michael Tymvios violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by materially misrepresenting the Company's business and operations, particularly with respect to a 1999 contract entered into with Bulgarian authorities. Specifically, the complaint alleges the Bulgarian contract was worth approximately $4 million, not the purported $37 million claimed by defendants throughout the Class Period. As a result of the false and misleading statements, the price of AremisSoft common stock was inflated during the Class Period, as was the price of AremisSoft options. On May 14, 2001, when a report by a short-seller alerted investors that AremisSoft's representations about the Bulgarian Healthcare contract were false and misleading and that other accounting irregularities and misrepresentations during the Class Period had distorted the truth about AremisSoft's business and operations, the market reacted dramatically. The price of AremisSoft common stock plummeted from $18.47 on May 14, 2001 to $14.55 on May 15, 2001, on a daily volume of 12.64 million shares on 12 times its 200 day moving average of 1.038 million shares traded per day. For additional 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. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Limited Discovery Completed In Texas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is a defendant in a purported class action in the case of MCMANUS V. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The complaint attempts to establish a class of purchasers of the Company's Class A motor homes for the model years 1994-1999 and makes claims with respect to the alleged breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violation of various state statutes in connection with the ability of such motor homes to tow an automobile or other vehicle or cargo. Only limited discovery has been completed. "We continue to deny the material allegations in the complaint while asserting a vigorous defense to that end," the Company said. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Court Certifies Class In Idaho Wage Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In February 2000, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries were served with a purported class action filed on behalf of nine present or former associates of the Company's Idaho manufactured housing facility. The complaint in the matter of BRISTOW ET AL., V. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC. ET AL., was filed in the U.S. District Court in Idaho and alleges that, as a result of the Company's management incentive pay system and other policies, associates have been permitted or encouraged to work off the clock and through lunch and rest breaks and that overtime pay claims have been suppressed in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state laws. On February 20, 2001, the Magistrate Judge conditionally certified a class of plaintiffs comprised of certain production associates and supervisors of the Company's housing and recreational vehicle groups. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Women Employees File Suit For Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------- Women employees of Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. filed a purported class action for alleged gender discrimination and sexual harassment resulting from a sexually hostile environment at four manufacturing centers of the Company. The plaintiffs are attempting to establish a national class action and are requesting compensatory and punitive damages, litigation expenses and attorneys' fees. Bristow along with a Jane Doe filed the class action complaint on August 14, 2000. On January 19, 2001, an amended complaint, entitled BOGEN, ET AL., V. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES, INC., was filed in the U.S. District Court. "We have denied the material allegations in the amended complaint and plan to assert a vigorous defense," the Company said in a recent report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Suit Filed By Pension Fund Stayed Indefinitely ----------------------------------------------------------------- On September 30, 1998, the New England Health Care Employees Pension Fund filed a purported class action on behalf of all those who purchased the Class A Common Stock and publicly traded options of Fruit of the Loom, Inc. between July 24, 1996 and September 5, 1997 against Fruit of the Loom and William F. Farley, Bernhard Hansen, Richard C. Lappin, G. William Newton, Burgess D. Ridge, Larry K. Switzer and John D. Wigodsky, each of whom is a current or former officer of Fruit of the Loom. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The plaintiff claims that the defendants engaged in conduct violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that Fruit of the Loom and Mr. Farley are also liable under Section 20(a) of the Act. Fruit of the Loom and counsel for the plaintiff reached agreement, so ordered by the Bankruptcy Court on November 20, 2000 (105 Stipulation), to stay the New England Action and certain other proceedings at least until January 15, 2001, (which has been extended on consent) subject, among other things, to certain limited document discovery against non- parties (other than any current or former officers and directors) being permitted to proceed, and to the right of the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add additional parties. Pursuant to the 105 Stipulation, as extended on consent, the New England Action has been stayed indefinitely as to all parties. Management believes that the suit is without merit, and management and the Company intend to defend it vigorously. HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Files Answer To Consolidated Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Healthsouth Corporation was served with various lawsuits filed beginning September 30, 1998 purporting to be class actions under the federal and Alabama securities laws. These lawsuits were filed following a decline in the Company's stock price at the end of the third quarter of 1998. Seven such suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. In January 1999, those suits were ordered to be consolidated under the case style In re HEALTHSOUTH Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV98-O-2634-S. On April 12, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against HEALTHSOUTH and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging that, during the period April 24, 1997 through September 30, 1998, the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose certain material facts concerning the business and financial condition of the Company, hence violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Certain of the named plaintiffs in the consolidated amended complaint also purport to represent separate subclasses consisting of former stockholders of Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corporation and National Surgery Centers, Inc. who received shares of HEALTHSOUTH common stock in connection with the Company's acquisition of those entities and assert additional claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to the registration of securities issued in those acquisitions. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the federal action in late June 1999. On September 13, 2000, the magistrate judge issued his report recommending that the court dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs objected to that report, and we responded to that objection. On December 20, 2000, without oral argument, the court issued an order rejecting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denying the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company believed that the December 20, 2000 order failed to follow the standards required under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and filed a motion asking the court to reconsider that order or to certify it for an interlocutory appeal to the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument on that motion was held on March 2, 2001, and the court denied that motion on March 12, 2001. Accordingly, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended complaint on March 26, 2001. HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: France's Railway Sued For Death Camp Deliveries --------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, brought by a number of survivors of Nazi death camps, in the federal court in Brooklyn (Eastern District of New York) charges that France's national railroad, Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer, delivered, for profit, more than 72,000 Jews and tens of thousands of others to Nazi camps from March 1942 to August 1944. Less than 3% survived, according to a recent New York Times report. Lawyer Harriet Tamen said "it could not have happened without S.C.N.F." The Germans did not have the rolling stock, she explained. Tamen is one of the Manhattan lawyers bringing the case on behalf of about 100 survivors and heirs. According to the lawsuit, the railroad was paid "per head, per kilometer." And, when Paris was being liberated in August 1944, the railroad was still billing for its deportation services, and threatening to charge interest for arrears. Further, the lawsuit charges that the railroad had to have known of the "horrendous conditions" on the trains packed with men, women and children because it cleaned and disinfected the cars after each journey. The amount of reparations has not been specified. The railroad is challenging the case chiefly on jurisdictional grounds. The defendant's New York law firm, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, has argued that since the railroad is an "instrumentality" of France, it may not be sued in American courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act of 1976. Although the law was not in place when the events took place, the firm argues that Congress intended the law to apply retroactively. The case was filed before Judge David G. Trager, to whom, on May 29, was submitted the final brief arguing the jurisdictional issue. The judge must now decide whether the court has jurisdiction; if he decides in the affirmative, the trial will proceed on the merits. INFORMATION ARCHITECTS: Motion To Dismiss In NC Federal Court Pending --------------------------------------------------------------------- Information Architects Corporation and current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in four purported class action lawsuits between May 14, 1999 and July 13, 1999. The suits are filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The suits purport to be brought on behalf of a class of persons that purchased the common stock of the Company between November 14, 1997 and April 1, 1999 and allege violations of the federal securities laws. The suits seek class action status and an unspecified amount of damages, including compensatory damages, interest, attorney's and expert's fees and reasonable costs and expenses. The suits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiffs' group and lead plaintiffs' counsel have been appointed by the court. On September 17, 1999, plaintiff's filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint. On January 31, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the Court has not yet ruled on that motion. While defendants deny any wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend themselves, the outcome of the suits cannot be predicted at this time. This litigation may be protracted and may result in a diversion of management's attention and other resources. LUXOTTICA GROUP: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In E .D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit Wednesday 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. The Complaint 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. The Complaint 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: 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. MTI TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Several class action complaints were filed against MTI Technology Corporation and certain officers in July through September 2000, alleging violations of the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs in those various cases filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the federal court for the Central District of California on or about December 5, 2000, making similar allegations. This consolidated complaint alleges a class period from July 22, 1999 to July 27, 2000 and alleges that the defendants were aware of certain adverse information that they failed to disclose during that period. On March 27, 2001, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds plaintiffs had failed to state a legally cognizable claim and had failed to plead the allegations consistently with the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court gave plaintiffs sixty days to attempt again to file a legally sustainable complaint. Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Consolidated Complaint on or about May 25, 2001. "The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and the Company intends to defend the suit vigorously." the Company said recently in a regulatory document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. NATIONAL HOME: Motion To Dismiss Filed In Federal Court Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------------- National Home Health Care Corporation, certain of its officers and directors (who previously were outside directors of SunStar Healthcare, Inc.) and other parties are named as defendants in In Re SunStar Healthcare Securities Litigation. This consolidated class action, currently pending in the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida, was brought on behalf of a purported class of shareholders of SunStar who purchased stock of SunStar between June 15, 1998 and December 14, 1999. The Consolidated Amended Complaint in this litigation purports to assert claims under sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based upon alleged acts or omissions of the defendants which allegedly resulted in misrepresentations or omissions of material information concerning the financial condition of SunStar (and its subsidiary SunStar Health Plan, Inc., a Florida HMO presently in receivership). The Complaint also alleges that the Company (which allegedly held 30.5% of SunStar's common stock during SunStar's fiscal year ending July 31, 1998 and reduced its holdings to 21.6% at July 31, 2000) and the director defendants exercised control over SunStar and therefore are liable as "controlling persons" thereof. On October 23, 2000, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint, which motions were granted on February 16, 2001. Pursuant to the order granting such dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint. On May 10, 2001, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the foregoing amended complaint. The court has not yet decided this motion. The Company believes that the complaints received to date are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend this action if the action continues. NEBRASKA: Disabled Mothers Challenge State Denial Of Aid To Children -------------------------------------------------------------------- In a recent court hearing of their class action lawsuit, three low-income, disabled mothers challenged the state's denial of benefits to their children, according to an Associated Press report. The plaintiffs argued that children born after the mothers started receiving benefits should not be denied assistance because the mothers are unable to work. The lawsuit is seeking benefits for three children in two families in Omaha and one child in a Lincoln family. Plaintiffs' attorney Milo Mumgaard estimates that there are about 1,000 women in the state of Nebraska who may be affected by a similar denial. The Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest filed the lawsuit. The state argued that rules put into place during Nebraska's 1997 welfare reform prohibit welfare benefits for children born into families already receiving welfare. However, plaintiffs claim that the cap was only to apply to families involved in the time-limited welfare reform program. Mumgaard further explained that the disabled mothers receiving Aid to Dependent Children are not part of the time-limited program; therefore the cap does not apply to them. The record of legislative debate, argued the attorney, indicates that the Nebraska Legislature did not intend the family cap to apply to children of disabled women. But Dan Cilessen, director of the system's economic assistance office and who testified at legislative hearings when the reforms were drafted, said that the cap was meant to apply to everyone, including ADC cases. Judge Paul Merritt, Jr. will issue a decision after receiving written briefs from both sides by July 9. NORDSTROM INC.: Motion For Dismissal Granted In Subsidiary Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Nordstrom fsb, a subsidiary of NORDSTROM INC., has been named a defendant in a purported class action in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case purports to be brought under the National Bank Act and the Arizona Consumer Loan Act of 1997. Plaintiff, a resident of Pennsylvania and a user of Nordstrom's credit through Nordstrom fsb, claims to represent all customers of Nordstrom who have been extended credit by Nordstrom fsb under revolving credit accounts for consumer purchases at Nordstrom stores. Plaintiff claims that Nordstrom fsb has been paid principal, interest and late fees in violation of said statutes on account of which plaintiff seek recovery or forfeiture thereof. Nordstrom fsb moved to dismiss the complaint which motion was granted by court order on May 15, 2001. ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit In E.D.Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all shareholders who purchased the common stock of Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) from April 27, 2000 through March 15, 2001. The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants "front-loaded" OCA's revenue by improperly recognizing service fee revenue in the first month of patient services on contracts that typically spanned at least 26 months. Furthermore, defendants improperly inflated OCA's fee revenue by recording amounts equal to a portion of operating losses incurred by start-up affiliated companies. The combined effect of these practices caused the Company to recognize as much as 33% of total contract revenue in the first month of patient services while actually recording a negative revenue figure in the last month of service. It is alleged that to conceal the negative effects of OCA's revenue recognition practices, defendants had to and did acquire new "Affiliated Orthodontic Centers." Plaintiff further alleges that during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented that OCA's accounting and reporting polices were in conformity with GAAP. For further details, contact: Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 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: info@sbclasslaw.com PFIZER INC.: Faces State Actions In SC and Nigeria Over Trovan Drug ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission recently in a regulatory document that it is presently facing three purported state court class actions in South Carolina seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of Trovan patients and their spouses and one purported class action in Nigeria arising out of a clinical trial during a meningitis epidemic in 1996. Trovan is a broad-spectrum antibiotic, which have been reported recently to cause severe or adverse liver reactions. The cases are in early stages of discovery, the Company said. RE-CON BUILDING: Settlement On FireFree(R) Tiles, Quantum Panels Ok'd --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Contra Costa County Superior Court in California has granted final approval of the Settlement Shah, et al. v. Re-Con Building Products, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CC99-02919. The approval was promulgated on March 2, 2001. The Settlement provides for the creation of an $18.6 million Settlement Fund. The Settlement establishes a registration and claims process to provide for inspections and roof repair and to pay monetary compensation for damage to roofing that can no longer be repaired. Class Members may file their claims through January 15, 2007. Re-Con's FireFree(R) roofing products are a composite product made from Portland cement and cellulose fiber. They were manufactured as tiles and panels between December 1993 and November 1997. These products were marketed under the names FireFree(R) Rustic Shake, FireFree(R) Quarry Slate, FireFree(R) Colonial Shingle, Quantum Shake and Quantum Slate Panels. The settlement does not involve Re-Con products marketed as FireFree(R) PMFC Tiles or Quantum Plus PMFC Panels, which were manufactured and sold beginning in December 1997. To identify whether they have a FireFree(R) roof, individuals are encouraged to ask the builder of their property or the roofer who installed their roof. Individuals may also remove a shingle to see whether the capital letters "FF" are embossed on the upper front portion of the shingle or take a shingle to a local building supply store or roofer for assistance with its identification. All Class Members are automatically members of the Class and entitled to participate in the Settlement. Class Members may not exclude themselves from the Class and are bound by the Settlement Agreement, Claims Protocols and all related Court orders, including Class Certification and Final Approval. Class Members will be prohibited from pursuing independent litigation against the Settling Parties. The Court has approved the following as Class Counsel: Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq., and Daniel L. Rottinghaus, Esq., Berding & Weil, LLP and David Birka-White, Esq., Birka-White Law Offices. For complete information or to request a registration and/or claim form, individuals can call toll free 1-800-966-3696 or visit http://www.firefreeclaims.com Individuals may also write to FireFree(R) Claims, P.O. Box 6515, Portland, OR 97228-6515. SPANLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Scheduled -------------------------------------------------------------- The following is a summary notice of the settlement of a class action lawsuit as released by the law firm of Rabin & Peckel LLP: TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR SOLD SHARES OF SPANLINK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 29, 2000 THROUGH APRIL 12, 2000, INCLUSIVE OR WHO TENDERED THEIR SHARES IN THE TENDER OFFER OR OTHERWISE HAD THEIR SHARES PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED BY SPANLINK ACQUISITION CORP.: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and on Order of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, that a hearing will be held in a case captioned Russell, et al. v. Spanlink Communications, Inc., et al., Civil File No.00-CV-945 MJD/JGL, on Friday, September 7, 2001, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Michael J. Davis, at the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, U.S. Courthouse, 300 South Fourth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415. The purpose of the hearing will be to determine, among other things: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the above-described litigation for payment of an aggregate amount of Five Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($537,500.00), without interest, in exchange for a final judgment and a release of all Released Claims as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated as of April 6, 2001, is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class and should be approved; and (2) whether Plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses from the Settlement Fund is reasonable and should be approved. The Court may adjourn the hearing without further notice. If you purchased or sold shares of Spanlink common stock during the Settlement Class Period, or if you tendered shares pursuant to the Tender Offer of Spanlink Acquisition Corp., or if your shares were otherwise purchased or acquired by Spanlink Acquisition Corp., you may be a member of the Settlement Class, and, if so, your rights will be affected by the proposed settlement. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you or your attorney are entitled, but not required, to be present at the hearing described above. However, any objections to the proposed settlement, to the proposed final judgment, to the release of claims in favor of Settling Defendants, to the proposed plan of distribution of the Settlement Amount, to the request of Plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, or any other aspect of the Settlement, must be filed with the Court and served upon counsel for the parties by no later than August 28, 2001, in the manner provided in the detailed Notice of Class Action Settlement and Hearing referred to below. To share in the proceeds of the Settlement Fund, Settlement Class Members must file a Proof of Claim and Release no later than August 6, 2001, establishing that you are a member of the Settlement Class and are entitled to recovery. If you do not receive a detailed printed Notice of Class Action Settlement and Hearing, and a Proof of Claim and Release Form and instructions enclosed therewith, you may obtain copies by writing to the following: FRG Information Systems, Inc. Spanlink Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation P.O. Box 4069 New York, New York 10163 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THIS COURT FOR INFORMATION. Dated: June 13, 2001 The Honorable Michael J. Davis United States District Court WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Consolidates 11 Anti-Fraud Suits In IL ------------------------------------------------------------------ Westell Technologies, Inc. disclosed in a recently filed regulatory document with SEC that it has been named, along with certain of its officers and directors, as defendant in the following class actions: (i) Schumaster v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00C7991 (filed December 26, 2000); (ii) Barton v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00C7765 (filed December 12, 2000); (iii) Hoffman v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00C7624 (filed December 4, 2000); (iv) PAS Mgmt. & Consulting Serv., Inc.v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00C7605 (filed December 4, 2000); (v) Abdelnour v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00C7308 (filed November 20, 2000); (vi) Feinstein v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00C7247 (filed November 16, 2000); (vii) Lefkowitz v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00 C 6881 (filed November 2, 2000); (viii) Greif v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00 C 7046 (filed November 8, 2000); (ix) Seplow v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00 C 7019 (filed November 7, 2000); (x) Llanes v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00 C 6780 (filed October 30, 2000); and (xi) Bergh v. Westell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 00 C 6735 (filed October 27, 2000). Each of these cases was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and alleges generally that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by allegedly issuing material false and misleading statements and/or allegedly omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading thereby allegedly inflating the price of Westell stock for certain time periods. Each of these cases allegedly arises from the same set of operative facts and seeks the same relief -- damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the class by reason of the acts and transactions alleged in the complaints as well as interest on any damage award, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and other costs. On January 11, 2001 Judge George W. Lindbergh of the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois consolidated these cases into one lawsuit, captioned In re Westell Technologies, Inc., No 00 C 6735 (filed February 1, 2001). * Guidelines For Wall Street Analysts Fall Short Of Goal -- Solon ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawmaker commented Wednesday that the Wall Street Analyst Guidelines recently released fall short of its intended goals to promote objectivity among analysts, as it does not provide accountability for violators. ``There were no provisions in the recommendations for outside audit, for example,'' Rep. Richard Baker of Louisiana said Wednesday. ``It's one thing to put a nice, pretty code of standards together, publish it and put in on the shelf. I'm more interested in usage and whether or not it's actually being applied to the markets,'' Baker said in a press briefing. According to the Reuters News Agency, the Securities Industry Association released the set of ``best practices'' Tuesday amid growing concerns by Congress, the public and federal regulators over the perceived erosion of analysts' objectivity. ``We were both very interested in the proposal that was released by the SIA as an initial first step,'' Baker said. But, he added: ``It is not the remedy that will satisfy the criteria of the committee, I don't believe, at this time.'' Analysts are supposed to issue objective research reports on the companies they cover after analyzing corporate financial statements, visiting the companies and talking with executives, among other duties. Investors deciding where to put their money usually rely on analysts' recommendations, advice which solons and regulators worry can be compromised if their employers' huge investment banking fees from stock and bond offerings and mergers are at stake, Reuters said. The guidelines include a prohibition on linking analyst pay to investment banking deals. They also say that research departments should not report to investment banking units, and that analysts cannot trade against their own recommendations, Reuters reported. ********* 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 * * *