/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010619.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 19 2001, Vol. 3, No. 119 Headlines ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Included In $5B Columbine High Shooting Suit AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Files New Jersey Securities Suit ASHWORTH INC.: Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending BACOU USA: Stockholders File Four Putative Lawsuits In Delaware CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Motion To Dismiss Texas Securities Suit Undecided DELTATHREE INC.: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York EBT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Drop Shareholder Suit In MA EMEX CORPORATION: Dyer & Shuman Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY FREEMARKETS INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit In W.D. PA HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit For IPO, Others For Restatement HEALTHCARE LITIGATION: Senior Citizens Suit In New Mexico Certified HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Reparations Awarded To Nazi-era Slaves In NY IPRINT TECHNOLOGIES: Edward Carreiro Files Four Securities Suits MARIMBA INC.: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In E.D. Louisiana MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Settles Texas Securities Suit For $2.7 Million NEW YORK CITY: Judge Approves $50M Settlement On Strip-search Claims ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In Louisiana PEABODY ENERGY: Accused of Discriminating Against Indian Miners PLUG POWER: Files Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit In E.D. New York RAZORFISH INC.: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York SEAVIEW VIDEO: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In M.D. FL SEX DISCRIMINATION: Excluding Women From Contraception Coverage Illegal STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal In Fifth Circuit SUNGLASS HUT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files New York Shareholders Suit TIVO INC.: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed In S.D. New York WAREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT:Ex-worker Files Wage Suit In LA Superior Court * S Korea Forms Group To Consider Possible Suits Against US Forces ********* ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Included In $5B Columbine High Shooting Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. and other companies in the entertainment industry were sued in an action entitled Sanders et al. v. Meow Media et al., filed in April 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Civil Action No. 01-0728. The complaint purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all persons killed or injured by the shootings, which occurred at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999. "We are a named defendant in the action along with more than ten other publishers of computer and video games," the Company said in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that the Video Game Defendants negligently caused injury to the plaintiffs as a result of their distribution of unidentified "violent" video games, which induced two minors to kill a teacher related to the plaintiff and to kill or harm their high school classmates, thereby causing damages to plaintiffs. The complaint seeks: (i) compensatory damages in an amount not less than $15,000 for each plaintiff in the class, but up to $20,000,000 for some of the members of the class; (ii) punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000,000; (iii) statutory damages against certain other defendants in the action; and (iv) equitable relief to address the marketing and distribution of "violent" video games to children. AREMISSOFT CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Files New Jersey Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Gardy, LLP filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired AremisSoft Corporation (Nasdaq: AREM) common stock between December 17, 1999 and May 17, 2001. The case is pending in the District Court of New Jersey. Named as defendants in the complaint are AremisSoft, Lycourgos Kyprianou, the Company's CEO and Chairman of the Board and Roys Poyiadjis the Company's President. The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For more information, contact: Maria Ciccia or Nancy Kaboolian of Abbey Gardy, LLP at 800/889-3701 or email mcriscitie@abbeygardy.com or nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's website at http://www.a- g-s.com ASHWORTH INC.: Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- On January 22, 1999, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of ASHWORTH, INC. during the period between September 4, 1997 and July 15, 1998 alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleged that, during the class period, Company executives made positive statements about the Company's business including statements concerning product demand, offshore production and inventories. The complaint further alleged that the defendants knew these statements to be false and concealed adverse conditions and trends in the Company's business during the class period. The complaint sought to recover unspecified damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period September 4, 1997 to July 15, 1998. The Company was served a copy of the complaint on January 26, 1999. Subsequently, two other suits were served upon the Company making similar allegations. The three actions have been consolidated by order of the United States District Court and lead counsel for the plaintiffs has been appointed. Per order of the Court, Plaintiffs filed their Amended and Consolidated Complaint on December 17, 1999. On February 18, 2000, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On May 22, 2000, the Court heard the motion to dismiss and took it under submission. On July 18, 2000, the U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss the Amended and Consolidated Complaint as to all defendants. The Court granted plaintiffs sixty days to amend the complaint if they chose to do so. On September 18, 2000, plaintiffs served their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint making allegations and seeking remedies similar to those in the prior complaint. On November 6, 2000, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The motion to dismiss was heard before the U.S. District Court in February 2001. The matter is currently under submission. No discovery has taken place in this matter to date. BACOU USA: Stockholders File Four Putative Lawsuits In Delaware --------------------------------------------------------------- On May 30, 2001, four putative class action complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the public stockholders of Bacou USA, Inc. against the Company, its directors and Bacou S.A. One of the complaints also includes Christian Dalloz as a defendant. Each of the complaints alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in setting an unreasonably low price to be paid to its public stockholders in the merger with Daniel U.S. Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Christian Dalloz S.A. The complaints seek a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the proposed transaction, rescission in the event that the transaction is completed, damages and attorneys' fees. Bacou USA and Christian Dalloz believe that these claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Motion To Dismiss Texas Securities Suit Undecided --------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossroads Systems, Inc. and several of its officers and directors were named as defendants in several class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs in the actions purport to represent purchasers of the Company's common stock during various periods ranging from January 25, 2000 through August 24, 2000. The Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The amended consolidated complaint was filed in February 2001 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interests and costs, including legal fees. "The class action lawsuit is still at an early stage. Consequently, it is not possible at this time to predict whether we will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, or the range of damages, if any, that we might incur in connection with this lawsuit," the Company said in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. DELTATHREE INC.: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody filed late last week a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of deltathree, Inc. (NASDAQ:DDDC) common stock between November 22, 1999 and June 12, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants deltathree, Amos Sela, Mark J. Hirschhorn, Elie C. Wurtman, Jacob A. Davidson, Itzhak Fisher, Nir Tarlovsky, Donald R. Shassian, Jacob Z. Schuster and Avery S. Fischer violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Deltathree.com, Inc. common stock pursuant to the November 22, 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 Deltathree.com, Inc. offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions. For more 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. EBT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Drop Shareholder Suit In MA --------------------------------------------------------------------- eBT International, Inc. reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the plaintiffs in the consolidated shareholders suit filed in Massachusetts have voluntarily dropped their case. Accordingly, the plaintiffs received no consideration from the Company for their decision. Their motion to dismiss filed on April 29 is now pending for court approval. During February 2000, certain shareholders of the Company filed two substantially similar putative class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts that were captioned as follows: (i) Liz Lindawati, et al. v. Inso Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 00-CV-10305GAO; (ii) Group One Limited, et al. v. Inso Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 00-CV-10318GAO. They asserted claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as a claim for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. EMEX CORPORATION: Dyer & Shuman Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Shuman, LLP filed a class action on behalf of purchasers of Emex Corporation (Nasdaq: EMEX) common stock during the period between April 9, 2001, and May 23, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges Emex and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's attempt to secure much needed financing. In particular, on April 9, 2001, the company issued a press release announcing that it had entered an agreement to obtain a $100 million loan needed to finance the building of the first of a series of its commercial plants. Emex further stated that this financing was "arranged through the efforts of Credit Suisse First Boston," a leading global investment bank. In reaction to this news, the company's stock rose 13% on April 10, 2001, and continued to climb to its Class Period high of $36 per share on May 22, 2001. Thereafter, on May 23, 2001, it was reported on Dow Jones Newswire that Credit Suisse denied any role in the $100 million financing. As a result of this news, Nasdaq halted trading of Emex stock pending additional information. On May 30, 2001, Emex finally acknowledged that Credit Suisse was not behind the $100 million financing, but rather another company, Fieldstone, Inc., had agreed to provide the financing. Following this announcement, Nasdaq resumed trading in Emex common stock, which plummeted over 35% on May 30, 2001, to close at $16.98 and continued to fall an additional $5.31 per share to close at $11.67 on June 1, 2001. For more information, contact: Dyer & Shuman, LLP, through Denver Jeffrey A. Berens by Phone: 303/861-3003 or 800/711-6483 by Fax: 303/830-6920 or by Email: jberens@dyershuman.com FREEMARKETS INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit In W.D. PA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz & Nobel filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock and/or publicly traded call options in FreeMarkets, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMKT) between July 24, 2000 and April 23, 2001, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that FreeMarkets, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer misled the investing public by reporting "record" results during the Class Period, following the announcement of a contract with Visteon Corporation. On April 23, 2001, FreeMarkets revealed that the SEC had determined that revenues recognized in connection with the Visteon contract during fiscal year 2000 ($8 million) and the first quarter of fiscal year 2001 ($2.8 million) "should not be classified as revenue," because Visteon had been granted a warrant for 1.75 million shares of FreeMarkets when their contract was entered into. According to the SEC, the revenue obtained from Visteon should have been "classified as money paid for the warrant instead of revenue." Following this disclosure, the share price of FreeMarkets stock fell to $9.30 per share on April 24, 2001, well below its Class Period high of $87.563 per share on September 5, 2000. For further details, contact: Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S. Nobel, or Patrick A. Klingman at (800) 797-5499, by e-mail at sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: www.snlaw.net HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit For IPO, Others For Restatement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In 2000, Hastings Entertainment, Inc. restated its financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 1999 and the prior four fiscal years. Following the Company's initial announcement in March 2000 of the requirement for such restatements, six purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and certain of the current and former directors and officers of the Company asserting various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although four of the lawsuits were originally filed in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, all of the five pending actions have been transferred to the Amarillo Division of the Northern District and have been consolidated. One of the Section 10(b) and 20(a) lawsuits filed in the Dallas Division was voluntarily dismissed. On May 15, 2000, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company, its current and former directors and officers at the time of the Company's June 1998 initial public offering and three underwriters, Salomon Smith Barney, A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. and Furman Selz, LLC asserting various claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. None of the six pending complaints specify the amount of damages sought. HEALTHCARE LITIGATION: Senior Citizens Suit In New Mexico Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------- Senior citizens who claimed they were subjected to "bait and switch" tactics in buying a health care plan from St. Joseph Medicare Plan Plus have been certified as a class by State District Judge Susan Conway, according to a recent Associated Press report. The Medicare office in Albuquerque, New Mexico filed a lawsuit February 27 on behalf of four named plaintiffs, who allege that St. Joseph offered a certain level of benefits in a letter, dated December 26, 2000, knowing, but not mentioning, that it planned to make significant reductions a few months later. The class in the Medicare case is estimated to include about 4,000 seniors, said Rachel Higgins, an attorney for the Senior Citizens Law Office. The members of the class were all recipients of the December 26th letter from St. Joseph, who decided to renew their membership in the plan as a result of the allegedly misleading letter. The class action claims violations of the state unfair practices laws and frauds. Lawyers for St. Joseph contend that federal health officials severely restricted what they were able to tell potential customers. Therefore, defendant claims the seniors' complaint is really with the Health Care Financing Administration, the defendant's lawyers said. HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Reparations Awarded To Nazi-era Slaves In NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ The former Nazi-era slave laborers who brought a class action suit in New York City, will receive reparations ranging from $7,500 for an individual forced into camps and ghettos to $2,500 for an individual forced to work for German companies or the German government, according to a recent New York Times report. Eleven lawyers were awarded more than $1 million each, with the biggest award of $6.3 million going to Melvyn I. Weiss of the Manhattan law firm Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach. Michael D. Hausfeld of Washington received $5 million and Burt Neuborne, professor at New York University School of Law, was awarded $4.4 million. The lawyers will be paid from a separate fund negotiated with the German Foundation, the organization in charge of distributing the reparation money. >From this description of awards, one can understand why E. Stuart Eizenstat, the American government's chief negotiator, observed that, "There are highly held views, somehow, the lawyers in these cases made out like bandits at the expense of the Holocaust victims, which is grossly untrue. It was the class action suits that got the attention of German industry." Eizenstat explained that the lawyers were an integral part of the negotiations that led to creation of the fund. It was decided that it would be "unseemly" for the lawyers to receive the traditional contingency fee of one-third the settlement amount. Instead, the lawyers agreed to split at the rate of 1 to 1.5% of the total awarded in U.S. District Court, as a result of arbitration by Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, former attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson and Kenneth R. Feinberg, a lawyer specializing in class action litigation. A total of 51 lawyers were involved in a variety of suits filed on behalf of people forced to work by the Nazi government, mostly persons now in their 70's and 80's. Many died without receiving any of the money in the year since the German government and companies established the $4.5 billion fund to pay the reparations. In return, the companies wanted assurance that they would be free from future claims by Holocaust victims. IPRINT TECHNOLOGIES: Edward Carreiro Files Four Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Edward J. Carreiro, of Hatboro, PA, filed last week a class action lawsuit against iPrint Technologies, Inc., 724 Solutions, Inc., Onvia.com, Inc. and Netcentives, Inc. and its officers resulting from alleged violation of the federal and/or state securities laws for those individuals who purchased the above named stocks in the following class periods: Corporation Class Period iPrint Technologies, Inc. NASDAQ:IPRT 3/8/00 - 2/6/00 724 Solutions, Inc. NASDAQ:SVNX 1/28/00 - 12/6/00 Onvia.com, Inc. NASDAQ:ONVI 3/1/00 - 12/6/00 Netcentives, Inc. NASDAQ:NCNT 10/14/99 - 12/6/00 For more information, contact: The Law Offices of Edward J. Carreiro by Mail: 41 Byberry Road, Hatboro, Pennsylvania 19040 by Email: carreirolaw@yahoo.com or by Phone: 215-672-7600. MARIMBA INC.: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In E.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed last week 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 MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Settles Texas Securities Suit For $2.7 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mitcham Industries, Inc. has decided to settle the consolidated securities suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern Disrict of Texas, Houston Division. In a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company disclosed the $2.7 million settlement it offered to the plaintiffs. The Company and its insurance carrier will share in paying the amount. According to the Company, it was forced to settle the suit for fear of facing protracted and expensive litigation. The approval of this settlement by the federal court in Texas is still pending. The case stems from several purported class action lawsuits filed in April 1998. These suits were consolidated in November 1998. The consolidated suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. NEW YORK CITY: Judge Approves $50M Settlement On Strip-search Claims -------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge John S. Martin approved a settlement of $50 million between the City and tens of thousands of people who claimed they were illegally strip-searched after being arrested for minor offenses, according to a recent Associated Press report. Such searches are prohibited under New York City law during arrests for minor offenses unless there is a reasonable suspicion that contraband has been concealed. The City agreed to the settlement and stopped the practice. Notices of settlement have been sent to 65,000 potential claimants, who will receive payments ranging from $250 to $22,000, the higher amount being available to individuals who can prove through psychological screening that they suffered mental anguish. ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed last week 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 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 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com PEABODY ENERGY: Accused of Discriminating Against Indian Miners --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class action lawsuit against Peabody Energy Corporation in Phoenix, according to a recent Associated Press report. The lawsuit alleges that the St. Louis-based company has failed to hire qualified Hopi, Otoe and other Indians at the Kayenta and Black Mesa coalmines, which the company is operating through lease agreements with the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe in Arizona. "The case against Peabody Coal should send a strong message to employers on or near Indian reservations that preferring members of one tribe to the exclusion of members of other tribes is national origin discrimination," said Commission attorney C. Emanuel Smith. Peabody spokeswoman Beth Sutton said the company is "perplexed that the U.S. government believes it has jurisdiction over the affairs of sovereign nations." She added that Peabody believes it is abiding by the terms of its lease agreements with both the Navajo Nation and the Hopi tribe. More than 90 percent of the 700 people the company employs in the two mines are Indian, Peabody said. The lawsuit is seeking damages for three individuals who were not hired and a court order preventing Peabody from discriminating on the basis of national origin. PLUG POWER: Files Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit In E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- In September 2000, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the federal district court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that Plug Power, Inc. and various of its officers and directors violated certain federal securities laws by failing to disclose certain information concerning the Company's products and future prospects. The action was brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock who purchased the stock between February 14, 2000 and August 2, 2000. Subsequently, fourteen additional complaints with similar allegations and class periods were filed. By order dated October 30, 2000, the court consolidated the complaints into one action, entitled Plug Power Inc. Securities Litigation, CV-00-5553 (ERK)(RML). By order dated January 25, 2001, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. Subsequently, the plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint extends the class period to begin on October 29, 1999 and alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the state of development of its technology in a registration statement issued in connection with its initial public offering and in subsequent press releases. The Company served its motion to dismiss the claims in May 2001. "We believe that the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. We do not believe that the outcome of these actions will have a material adverse effect upon our financial position, results of operations or liquidity," the Company assured its investors. RAZORFISH INC.: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stull, Stull & Brody filed late last week a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Razorfish, Inc. (NASDAQ:RAZF) common stock between April 27, 1999 and June 11, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants Razorfish, Inc., Jeffrey A. Dachis, Craig M. Kanarick, Per I.G. Bystedt, Jonas S.A. Svensson, Susan Black, Carter F. Bales, Kjell A. Nordstrom and John Wren violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Razorfish common stock pursuant to the April 27, 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 Razorfish offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions. For additional 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. SEAVIEW VIDEO: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In M.D. FL -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, located at 801 N. Florida Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of SeaView Video Technology, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SEVU) from March 30, 2000 through March 19, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges SeaView and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, SeaView, a provider of marine, medical and security-related video equipment, and Richard L. McBride, President and Chief Executive Officer of SeaView, 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. For more details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com SEX DISCRIMINATION: Excluding Women From Contraception Coverage Illegal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In a recent class action suit, federal trial judge Robert S. Lasnik, in Washington State, ruled that a local family-owned drugstore chain had engaged in unlawful sex discrimination by excluding contraceptive coverage from its employee health plan, according to a recent editorial in The New York Times. The ruling is binding on only the one company as a technical matter, but this is the first time a court has addressed the issue of gender equity in drug coverage. The ruling could "set a legally solid precedent" to encourage more coverage of contraceptives nationwide. This issue commanded notice a few years ago when the fact was publicized that many employees chose to cover Viagra to treat impotence in men but excluded coverage of women's prescription contraceptives. The Washington state class action was brought under the pregnancy discrimination provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, and challenged the drug chain's health coverage, which paid for all basic health care needs of male employees but excluded the cost of birth- control pills or other forms of prescription contraception. Judge Lasnik found that Congress intended the Act to bar pregnancy discrimination. The Judge stated that men and women have different health care needs; that "the law is no longer blind to the fact that only women get pregnant, bear children or use prescription contraceptives." The law, he added, intended to outlaw any discrimination against women "in the terms and conditions of their employment, including the benefits an employer provides to its employees." STEWART ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal In Fifth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Enterprises, Inc. said in a recent report to the Securities and Exchange Commission that plaintiffs have already dropped their appeal on the dismissal of their suit against the Company. According to a recent regulatory document, the plaintiffs withdrew their appeal with the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on March 9, 2001. This withdrawal effectively ended the securities litigation. The appeal related to 16 putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in the fall of 1999 against the Company, certain of its directors and officers and the lead underwriters in the Company's January 1999 common stock offering. In December 2000, the District Court dismissed the suits against all defendants for failure of the plaintiffs to state a claim. On January 4, 2001, the plaintiffs subsequently filed a notice of appeal, which has now been withdrawn. The Company made no payments to the plaintiffs in connection with the withdrawal. SUNGLASS HUT: Schiffrin & Barroway Files New York Shareholders Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action recently 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. 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. For additional information, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com TIVO INC.: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed In S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- On June 12, 2001, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired the stock of Tivo, Inc. between September 30, 1999 and December 6, 2000. TiVo, certain of the executive officers of TiVo, and certain underwriters involved in the initial public offering of the Company were named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint charges the defendants with violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for issuing a registration statement and prospectus in the initial public offering that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired TiVo securities during the period covered by the complaint. "We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend this action vigorously. However, we could be forced to incur material expenses in the litigation, and in the event there is an adverse outcome, our business could be harmed," the Company said in a recent regulatory filing with SEC. WAREHOUSE ENTERTAINMENT:Ex-worker Files Wage Suit In LA Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In January 2001, the Warehouse Entertainment, Inc. was sued in the Los Angeles Superior Court by a former employee, claiming alleged failure to pay overtime wages to her and all salaried store employees similarly situated. The Complaint does not specify any amount of the claims, either individually or on behalf of the class. The Company's motion to strike the class action allegations was denied by the trial court and a request by the Company for discretionary preliminary appellate court review of the trial court's ruling was denied. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. However, no assurance can be provided as to its outcome. Management does not believe an adverse judgment against the Company would result in a material impact to the consolidated financial statements. * S Korea Forms Group To Consider Possible Suits Against US Forces ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lawyers for a Democratic Society, a human rights organization in South Korea has created a legal counseling team composed of 11 attorneys to provide services to local Koreans filing lawsuits related to the U.S. armed forces stationed in Korea, known as U.S. Forces Korea (USFK). "The purpose of our team, tentatively named the Study Group on U.S. Forces Korea, will provide more systematic, professional legal assistance to locals," said Lee Suk-tae, a lawyer who works as a member of the human rights group. Creation of the team followed a landmark court ruling in April, in which a Seoul court ordered the Seoul government to pay 132 won ($99,660) in compensation to 14 residents, located near the U.S. bombing range in Maehyang-ri, 80 km. south of Seoul, who had filed a class action with the Seoul District Court in February 1998. The legal team, said Lee, will cover all USFK-related issues, ranging from traffic problems to environmental problems. "We are now discussing how to deal with the noise problems near U.S. bases near Paju and Maehyang-ri," Lee added. And the Study Group on USFK also plans to join forces with local social and civic groups to effectively deal with USFK-related issues. Last month, 24 local civic groups created a coalition to represent residents living near U.S. bases in Korea in lawsuits against U. S. troops. The coalition plans to first conduct a fact-finding survey of nine U.S. bases and facilities in seven areas to collect exact data on environmental problems, which it said would be used as a legal basis for future lawsuits. ********* 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 * * *