/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010618.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 18 2001, Vol. 3, No. 118 Headlines AVICI SYSTEMS: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY BORDERS GROUP: Asst. Managers Denied Overtime Pay Sue In California BROADCOM CORPORATION: Consolidation Of California Suits Expected CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Tender Offer Sparks Shareholder Suit In S.D. NY DOLLAR GENERAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York DOUBLECLICK INC.: CA Court Upholds Internet Privacy Complaint Ruling GASOLINE LITIGATION: CA Supreme Court Drops Oil Firm Conspiracy Case INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Invasion Of Privacy Complaint IVILLAGE INC.: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York LIFE PARTNERS: Hearing Set To Clarify 'Viatical Settlement' Status LUXOTTICA GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Lawsuit In E.D. New York MARIMBA INC.: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY MICRON ELECTRONICS:`Defective Computer' Consumer Suit Impact Unclear NAVISITE INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY NPC INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOA With Plaintiffs To Settle Suits In Kansas ORGANIC INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Cauley Geller Begins Louisiana Securities Suit PURCHASEPRO.COM: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit In Nevada ROBOTIC VISION: Wechsler Harwood Files Massachusetts Securities Suit SEAVIEW VIDEO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In M.D. Florida SERVICE CORPORATION: Motion To Dismiss Consolidated Case Undecided SUNGLASS HUT: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In E.D. New York * DVD Rental Giant Attempts To Turn Blockbuster's Misfortune To Boon ********* AVICI SYSTEMS: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the securities of Avici Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:AVCI) during the period between July 29, 2000 and March 29, 2001. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 (Case No. 01 CV 3983). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For more information, contact: Barbara A. Podell, Adam T. Savett or Renee C. Nixon, of Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan. P.C. by Phone: 800/993-3233 by Email: mail@savettlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.savettlaw.com BORDERS GROUP: Asst. Managers Denied Overtime Pay Sue In California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Two former employees, individually and on behalf of a purported class, consisting of all current and former employees who worked as assistant managers in Borders stores in the state of California at any time between April 10, 1996, and the present, have filed an action against BORDERS GROUP, INC. in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco. The action alleges that the individual plaintiffs and the purported class members worked hours for which they were entitled to receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation under California law, and that they were classified as "exempt" store management employees but were forced to work more than 50% of their time in non-exempt tasks. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The relief sought includes compensatory and punitive damages, penalties, preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Borders to pay overtime compensation as required under California and Federal law, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys fees and such other relief as the court deems proper. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, including contesting the certification of the action as a class action. BROADCOM CORPORATION: Consolidation Of California Suits Expected ---------------------------------------------------------------- In March and April 2001, Broadcom Corporation and its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Technical Officer and Chief Financial Officer were served with a number of complaints filed primarily in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These complaints were brought as purported shareholder class actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and in general alleges that the defendants improperly accounted for performance-based warrants assumed by the Company in connection with its acquisitions of Altima, Silicon Spice, Allayer, SiByte and Visiontech. While there is some variation in their specific allegations and their purported class periods (the earliest date identified for the onset of a class period is July 30, 2000 and the last date identified for the close of the class period is March 6, 2001), the essence of the allegations in each of these complaints is that the defendants intentionally failed to properly account for the financial impact of performance-based warrants assumed in connection with the acquisitions, which plaintiffs allege had the effect of materially overstating the Company's reported financial results. Motions to consolidate and for appointment of Lead Plaintiff(s) pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 were filed by at least six groups of plaintiffs on or before May 15, 2001. The Company anticipates that all of these actions will ultimately be consolidated into one action and that a consolidated amended complaint will be filed after the appointment of Lead Plaintiff(s). The Company has not yet answered any of the complaints, and discovery has not commenced. CURTIS INTERNATIONAL: Tender Offer Sparks Shareholder Suit In S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed late last week in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of all shareholders of Curtis International Ltd. (Nasdaq: CURT) who have been damaged in connection with a tender offer commenced by the Company's management on or about May 4, 2001. The named plaintiff alleges that the tender offer documents were materially false and misleading in that they failed to disclose defendants' scheme to defraud shareholders of Curtis by artificially depressing the Company's stock price in order to eventually repurchase the Company from the public at a steep discount. The tender offer materials failed to disclose that defendants used their controlling stake to depress Curtis' stock price by selectively disclosing negative information regarding the Company, improperly reporting bad debt expense and otherwise failing to disclose material information about the Company. Also concealed from the public was the fact that a third party had expressed interest in making a tender offer for the common stock of Curtis on terms more favorable than offered by the defendants. For additional information, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. or Ben Coleman, Legal Assistant of Beatie And Osborn LLP by Mail: 521 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10175 by Phone: 800-891-6305 (toll free), 212-888-9000 by Fax: 212-888-9664 or by E-mail: clientrelations@bandolaw.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Dollar General Corporation (NYSE: DG) securities during the period between May 12, 1998 and April 27, 2001, inclusive, against Dollar General, Cal Turner, Jr. (Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Brian M. Burr (Chief Financial Officer), and Deloitte & Touche, LLP (Dollar General's auditor and principal accounting firm during the Class Period). The judge presiding over the case is the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, and the case is numbered 01-CV-3732. Investors should be aware that additional complaints have been filed against Dollar General which are pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. The complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks to recover damages. For further details, contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106, by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-9999, by Fax: (215) 440-9475, by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 DOUBLECLICK INC.: CA Court Upholds Internet Privacy Complaint Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in four California class action lawsuits against DoubleClick, Inc. announce the final ruling by California Superior Court Judge Lynn O'Malley Taylor denying DoubleClick's second challenge to Plaintiffs' Internet privacy case. Plaintiffs allege that DoubleClick has secretly and in an unauthorized manner used "cookies", "Web bugs" and other means to secretly intercept and access computer users' personal data and Web browsing habits for its own commercial benefit. The complaint upheld by the Court last week alleges that DoubleClick's actions have violated California consumers' rights to privacy under the California Constitution; violated provisions of California's Penal Code concerning illegal eavesdropping on communications; and unjustly enriched DoubleClick at Internet users' expense. The complaint also alleges that DoubleClick's practices are unlawful, fraudulent and unfair under California's state consumer protection act. "What DoubleClick has been doing - and continues to do - violates state statutory and common law and Internet users' fundamental right to privacy," said Alan Mansfield of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, one of the four co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "What's worse," added Seth R. Lesser, of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, another of the co-lead counsel, "is that DoubleClick has been promoting itself as concerned about consumer privacy when, in fact, the very nature of its business is to secretly monitor and profile Internet users' habits by tagging it with a unique identifier as they surf the Internet. Most Internet users have no idea this is occurring since DoubleClick's presence on thousands of websites is rarely disclosed." Despite the fanfare with which DoubleClick has pointed to the recent dismissal of a federal class action lawsuit against it in New York, Bryan Clobes of Miller Faucher & Cafferty, another of the plaintiffs' co-lead counsel in both the California and New York cases, said, "the New York decision, which did not address the merits of any state law claims and only addressed claims under three federal statutes, has now been appealed. Other federal judges have more recently disagreed with its reasoning. "We look forward to having this appeal heard by the federal court of appeals. Further, California is not the only state in which DoubleClick has been sued and we are also looking forward to similar claims being sustained against DoubleClick in these states as well," he said. Ira Rothken, another of the co-lead counsel in the California case, stated, "We are pleased that the Court rejected Doubleclick's Motion to Dismiss. If the California Constitutional Right to Privacy stands for anything, it stands for the notion that companies like Doubleclick have to ask permission first before tracking, storing, and analyzing what families click on and read on the Internet. We look forward to getting a remedy for the General Public of California." Plaintiffs in the California case seek injunctive relief to prevent DoubleClick from continuing to violate their legal rights and state law, as well as monetary damages. The California Penal Code claim carries statutory penalties of $2,500 per violation. For more information contact Seth R. Lesser at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, (800) 380-8496; William Doyle at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, (800) 449-4900; Bryan Clobes at Miller Faucher and Cafferty, (215) 864-2800, or Ira Rothken at The Rothken Law Firm, (415) 924-4250. GASOLINE LITIGATION: CA Supreme Court Drops Oil Firm Conspiracy Case -------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action charging nine major oil companies of conspiracy to gouge consumers for clean-burning gasoline was axed last week in California, the Reuters News Agency reported. The State Supreme Court upheld, in a unanimous decision, an appellate court's 1996 ruling dismissing the lawsuit on grounds of insufficient evidence that the firms conspired to limit supply and fix prices in California. The firms named in the original lawsuit included Atlantic Richfield Co, now owned by BP Ltd., Chevron Corp., Exxon Corp., now Exxon Mobil Corp., Mobil Oil Corp., now part of Exxon Mobil, 76 Products Co., Shell, Texaco Inc.'s, Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., Tosco Corp., and Ultramar Inc. Craig de Recat, an attorney who represented the oil firms, hailed the ruling, saying the lawsuit could have chilled competition by eliminating things such as trade associations and consultants, which businesses rely on. INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Invasion Of Privacy Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ On March 3, 2000, a class action lawsuit, Bruce v. Intuit Inc., was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division. Two virtually identical lawsuits were later filed: (i) Rubin v. Intuit Inc., filed on March 8, 2000 in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and (ii) Newby v. Intuit Inc. was filed on April 27, 2000, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division. The Bruce and Newby lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, In re Intuit Privacy Litigation, filed on July 28, 2000 in the United States District Court of California, Eastern Division. Following Intuit's successful motion to dismiss several of the claims, an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2001. These purported class actions allege violations of various federal and California statutes and common law claims for invasion of privacy based upon the alleged intentional disclosure to third parties of personal and private customer information entered at Intuit's Quicken.com website. IVILLAGE INC.: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action lawsuit last week on behalf of purchasers of the securities of iVillage, Inc. (NASDAQ:IVIL) between March 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action, captioned Israel Spitzer v. iVillage, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants iVillage, Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Lehman Brothers, Candice Carpenter, Nancy Evans, Craig T. Monaghan and Sanjay Muralidhar. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For more information, contact: Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP through Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800/320-5081 by Email: ivillagecase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com LIFE PARTNERS: Hearing Set To Clarify 'Viatical Settlement' Status ------------------------------------------------------------------ On September 28, 2000, Bobbie J. Griffitts filed suit in the District Court of McLennan County, Texas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against Life Partners, Inc. Plaintiff is a purchaser of two viatical settlements. She alleges that LPI has violated the registration requirements of the Texas Securities Act by selling viatical settlements that are "securities" under the Texas Securities Act and are unregistered. The complaint seeks certification as a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all purchasers of viatical settlements within the three years preceding the filing of the suit. The complaint seeks a judgment compelling LPI to rescind all viatical settlement sales during the three-year period, costs and attorney's fees. The registration claim is the sole claim alleged in the complaint. The Court has not certified the action as a class action and the Company has pending a summary judgment motion to dismiss the suit. "We believe that our viatical settlements are not securities under the Texas Securities Act and thus the plaintiff's complaint is without merit as a matter of law. For the suit to proceed, the plaintiff must establish that our viatical settlements are "securities," the Company said in a recent report to SEC. In 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined in SEC v. Life Partners, Inc. (87 F.2d 536, rehearing denied, 102 F.3d 587 D.C.Cir.1996) that the viatical settlements sold by the Company were not securities under the Federal Securities Act. While this decision is not binding on the Texas court, Texas courts have held the definitions of "securities" under the Federal Securities Act and the Texas Securities Act to be virtually the same. The Company believe the Court of Appeals' decision will be highly persuasive. A motion hearing is set for June 22, 2001, at which the issue of whether the Company's viatical settlements are securities will be presented. "We intend to vigorously defend this suit and our counsel has advised us that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is remote," the Company said. LUXOTTICA GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Files Lawsuit In E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran 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 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. For more information, contact: Donald J. Enright, Esq. (E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com), Conor R. Crowley, Esq. (E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com), FINKELSTEIN, THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN, 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007, 202-337-8000. 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. MARIMBA INC.: Savett Frutkin Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the common stock of Marimba, Inc. (NASDAQ:MRBA) during the period between April 30, 1999 and March 27, 2000. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 (Case No. 01 CV 4104). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For additional information, contact: Barbara A. Podell, Adam T. Savett or Renee C. Nixon, of Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan. P.C. by Phone: 800/993-3233 by E-mail: mail@savettlaw.com. or visit the firm's Website: www.savettlaw.com MICRON ELECTRONICS:`Defective Computer' Consumer Suit Impact Unclear -------------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Electronics, Inc. is defending a consumer class action lawsuit filed in the Federal District Court of Minnesota based on the alleged sale of defective computers. No class has been certified in the case. The case involves a claim that the Company sold computer products with a defect that may cause errors when information is written on a floppy disk. Substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against other major computer manufacturers. "The case is currently in the early stages of discovery, and we are therefore unable to estimate total expenses, possible loss or range of loss that may ultimately be connected with the matter," the Company said in a recent report to the Securities and Exchange Commission. NAVISITE INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action lawsuit last week on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NaviSite, Inc. (NASDAQ:NAVI) between October 22, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action, captioned Stuart Werman and Lynn McFarlane v. NaviSite, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants NaviSite, BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Joel B. Rosen and Kenneth W. Hale. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For further details, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by Email: navisitecase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com NPC INTERNATIONAL: Inks MOA With Plaintiffs To Settle Suits In Kansas --------------------------------------------------------------------- NPC International, Inc. disclosed in its latest regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has recently reached an agreement to settle the following cases: (i) Barry Feldman v. Bicknell, et al., Civil Action No. 00C2628, filed on December 14, 2000 in the District Court of Crawford County, Kansas; (ii) James Miller v. Bicknell, et al., Civil Action 00C2637, filed on December 15, 2000, in the District Court of Crawford County, Kansas; and (iii) Harbor Finance Partners et al. v. Bicknell et al., Civil Action No. 00-CV-07833, filed on December 19, 2000 in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas; In these cases, the plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that (1) the offer by Mr. O. Gene Bicknell, by and through Mergeco, to purchase each outstanding share of the Company common stock for $11.40 in cash without interest was grossly unfair to the Company's public stockholders, (2) the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company stockholders, and (3) the offer was advanced through unfair procedures. On May 10, 2001, the Company, the defendant directors and the named plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of agreement in which both parties agreed to: (a) attempt in good faith to settle all claims; (b) pay fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel and experts of $250,000 in the aggregate following plaintiffs' confirmatory discovery, if any; and (c) execute and seek court approval of a definitive settlement agreement and certain other terms and conditions without any admission of any breach of fiduciary duty or other wrongdoing on the part of any of the defendants. The settlement agreement would become effective only if, among other things, the merger is consummated. ORGANIC INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit against Organic, Inc. (NASDAQ:OGNC), its senior executives, and underwriters in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of investors who purchased Organic securities between February 9, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It alleges that the Registration Statement and the Prospectus dated February 9, 2000 contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The complaint also alleges that the underwriter defendants were responsible for the materially false and misleading statements and that they engaged in a pattern of conduct to surreptitiously extract inflated commissions greater than those disclosed in the Offering materials. For inquiries, contact: David C. Katz, Mark D. Smilow, and/or James E. Tullman by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 by Email: wynyc@aol.com or by Mail: Weiss & Yourman, The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176. ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Cauley Geller Begins Louisiana Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) common stock during the period between April 27, 2000 through March 15, 2001, inclusive. 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. For additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com PURCHASEPRO.COM: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit In Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock and/or publicly traded call options in PurchasePro.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: PPRO) between July 19, 2000 and April 25, 2001, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that PurchasePro and four members of its senior management misled the investing public during the Class Period by touting the Company's "record financial results," which had actually been obtained as the result of improper revenue recognition and accounting practices. Just days prior to the Company's October 27, 2000 announcement that it was "reclassifying" almost 25% of its total profit for the second quarter of 2000, two PurchasePro insiders sold stock for proceeds of more than $10 million. Ultimately, on April 25, 2001, a little over a month after representing that it would exceed profit estimates for the first quarter of 2001, PurchasePro revealed that its revenues would be below expectations "due to the deferred recognition of certain license revenue." On this news, the share price of PurchasePro dropped 35%, trading as low as $3.87 per share, well below its Class Period high of $44.95 in September 2000. For additional details, contact: Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S. Nobel or Patrick A. Klingman by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by Email: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: www.snlaw.net ROBOTIC VISION: Wechsler Harwood Files Massachusetts Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed a class action lawsuit against Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. and its top two executives. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the commons stock of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROBV - news) between January 27, 2000 and May 15, 2001 inclusive. The complaint charges Robotic Systems and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It also alleges that during the Class Period, Robotic Vision Systems reported materially false and misleading financial results for fiscal year 2000 in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On May 15, 2001, before the market opened, Robotic Vision Systems announced that it would be restating its financial results for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000 and for the three-month period ending December 31, 2000 to correct certain accounting errors involving the recognition of revenue at its Acuity CiMatrix division. As a result of defendants' alleged fraud, Robotic Systems' common stock traded at artificially inflated levels through out the class period. In response to the shocking news that Robotic Systems' financial statements required restatement, the Company's stock price lost almost 15% of its value in one day. For further details, contact: Shareholder Relations Department of Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP by Mail: located at 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, by Phone: (877) 935-7400 (toll free) or by Email: pguiteau@whhf.com. SEAVIEW VIDEO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action on behalf of all individuals and institutional investors that purchased the common stock of SeaView Video Technology, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SEVU) between March 30, 2000 and March 19, 2001, inclusive. The lawsuit, captioned Howlin v. SeaView Video Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:01 CV 1133-T-27 TGW, is pending in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, located at 801 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602, and has been assigned to the Honorable James D. Whittemore. The Complaint charges SeaView and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Richard L. McBride with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, SeaView, a provider of marine, medical and security-related video equipment, and McBride made numerous materially false and misleading statements, concerning, among other things, SeaView's reported revenues for the second and third quarter of 2000 as well as expected revenue for the Year 2000, the demand for SeaView's products, and SeaView's ability to manufacture sufficient product to meet the purported demand. In addition, the Complaint charges that SeaView and McBride failed to disclose that the Company recognized revenue for non-existent sales. As alleged in the Complaint, on March 19, 2001, SeaView revealed, in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, that its financial results for the second and third quarters of 2000 were materially false. For further details, contact: Client Relations Department of CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com SERVICE CORPORATION: Motion To Dismiss Consolidated Case Undecided ------------------------------------------------------------------ Service Corporation International was served in January 1999, 23 putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of Texas, on behalf of persons and entities who: (i) acquired shares of the Company's common stock in the merger with Equity Corporation International; (ii) purchased shares of the Company's common stock in the open market during the period from July 17, 1998 through January 26, 1999 (referred to herein as the class period); (iii) purchased call options of the Company in the open market during the class period; (iv) sold put options of the Company in the open market during the class period; (v) held employee stock options in ECI that became options to acquire the Company's stock pursuant to the ECI merger; and (vi) held employee stock options to purchase the Company's common stock under a plan during the class period. These actions have been consolidated into one lawsuit in the federal court in Houston, Texas. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and three of its current or former executive officers and directors violated sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, allegedly by issuing false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information concerning the Company's pre- arranged funeral business and other financial matters, including in connection with the ECI merger. The consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company violated Section 11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the ECI merger related claims. Plaintiffs allege damages based on the market loss, during the class period, of the outstanding shares, including those exchanged in the ECI merger. The case is subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA). Under the PSLRA, all discovery is currently stayed pending the court's resolution of a motion to dismiss. In October 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint that has not been ruled on by the court. Four similar cases were also brought in the state courts of Texas by former officers, directors and shareholders of ECI alleging violations of Texas securities laws and statutory and common law fraud in connection with the ECI merger. SUNGLASS HUT: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf 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. The complaint charges Sunglass and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that pursuant to the Tender Offer and as an integral part thereof, Defendants offered and paid greater consideration to James N. Hauslein, the Chairman of the Board of Sunglass, 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. Furthermore, 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 further details, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com * DVD Rental Giant Attempts To Turn Blockbuster's Misfortune To Boon -------------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix (www.netflix.com), the world's largest online DVD rental source with no due dates or late fees, is offering consumers who qualify to participate in one of the 23 class-action suits against Blockbuster over late fees, an opportunity to eliminate these fees altogether by trying a free, two-week Netflix trial membership of its rental service. Blockbuster has agreed to settle the 23 class-action suits filed on behalf of disgruntled consumers in several states, who feel they have been unfairly charged as a result of the video chain's policy of assessing late fees equal to or exceeding the fee of the original rental period. The video chain's settlement offer provides customers with free rental coupons and payment of some attorney fees associated with filing the action. Late fees, however, will continue to be charged for extended viewing. In contrast, Netflix doesn't have due dates or late fees, offering customers a movie experience that is free from these worries. To take part in the free DVD rental offer, simply visit the Netflix Web site at: http://www.netflix.comand enter the code 601 370 69. The free two-week trial is available to any Blockbuster customer who feels they have paid unwarranted late fees. The free trial offer expires July 31, 2001. "People rent movies to relax and enjoy themselves and Netflix understands this," said Reed Hastings, Netflix CEO. "Movie renters don't want the stress associated with due dates and paying late fees. Since Netflix doesn't have late fees or due dates, movie lovers can simply watch the movies they want, when they want, and return them when they are ready for another movie." ********* 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 * * *