/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010712.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, July 12, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 135
Headlines
E.PIPHANY INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
E.PIPHANY INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in S.D. NY
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Hands Down $90 Million Verdict
FORD MOTOR: Cuts Quotas in Job Rating System
GIO AUSTRALIA: Takes on Former CEO Steffey
HOUSING LITIGATION: Judge Approves $41 Million Settlement
IMMUNE RESPONSE: Stull Stull File Shareholder Lawsuit
INFOSPACE INC: Spector Roseman Files Complaint in W.D. Washington
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Suit in S.D. NY
IVILLAGE INC: Schiffrin & Barroway File LawSuit in S.D. NY
LIVENT INC: S.D. NY Court Sustains 2nd Amended Complaint
MARCONI PLC: Milberg Weiss Files S-Holder Suit in Western PA
NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Starts Suit in S.D. NY
NETCENTIVES INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NETWORK PLUS: Suit Without Merit, Company Says
NEXT LEVEL: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NEXT LEVEL: Schiffrin & Barroway File Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
ONTARIO COLLEGE: Alleged Lack Of Action Results In Suits
PALM INC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PALM INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: S.D. Florida Court Certifies Securities Suit
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway File S.D. NY S-Holder Suit
RETEK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SIPEX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MA
SOUTH KOREA: Class Action Securities Suits Allowed Next March
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in CA
*****
E.PIPHANY INC: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of E.piphany, Inc.
(Nasdaq: EPNY) securities during the period between September 21,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed
in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the
firm's website at http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/e.piphany.pdf.
The complaint charges defendants
* E.piphany
* Credit Suisse First Boston
* Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.
* BancBoston Robertson Stephens
* Roger S. Siboni
* Kevin J. Yeaman, and
* Eliot L. Wegbreit
with 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.
On or about September 21, 1999, E.piphany commenced an initial
public offering of 4,150,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, E.piphany
filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus,
with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that
(i) the Underwriter Defendants (Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch
and Robertson Stephens) had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of E.piphany shares
issued in connection with the E.piphany IPO; and
(ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate E.piphany shares to those customers in the E.piphany IPO
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
E.piphany shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Buyers of the securities of E.piphany between September 21, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may request for court appointment
as lead plaintiff no later than September 7, 2001. For more
information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau
of the Client Relations Department, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates,
LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-
551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com.
E.PIPHANY INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of E.piphany, Inc. (Nasdaq: EPNY) from September 21, 1999
through December 6, 2000, inclusive.
On or about September 21, 1999, E.piphany commenced an initial
public offering of 4,150,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, E.piphany
filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus,
with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that:
(i) the following defendants:
* E.piphany
* Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
* Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
* BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors in exchange for which Credit Suisse, Merrill
and Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of E.piphany shares issued in
connection with the E.piphany IPO; and
(ii) Credit Suisse, Merrill and Robertson Stephens had entered
into agreements with customers whereby Credit Suisse, Merrill and
Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate E.piphany shares to those
customers in the E.piphany IPO in exchange for which the customers
agreed to purchase additional E.piphany shares in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is
investigating underwriting practices in connection with several
other initial public offerings.
Members of the class described above may, not later than September
7, 2001, seek court appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.
For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Hands Down $90 Million Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------
An Alameda County Superior Court jury ordered a $90-million
judgment Tuesday against Los Angeles-based Farmers Insurance
Exchange for cheating claims adjusters out of years of premium pay
for long hours, Lisa Girion, writing for the L.A. Times, reported.
Girion said that according to San Francisco lawyer Steven G. Zieff,
the award could exceed $130 million when interest and attorneys'
fees are added. Zieff, who represents the 2,400 adjusters in the
class-action lawsuit, told the Times, "It's a vindication of the
workers' right to overtime. Farmers has ignored the courts' prior
orders that these folks are entitled to overtime, and the jury has
spoken. The people are entitled to be paid for all of their
hours."
The size of the compensatory award has been described as
"shocking" by employment experts and lawyers who had been closely
following the lawsuit because of the large number of plaintiffs
involved and because it went to a jury trial instead of settling.
Farmers issued a statement saying it was disappointed in the award
and would appeal.
Zieff disclosed that a survey conducted for the trial showed the
typical Farmers adjuster makes $30,000 a year and works 50 hours a
week. The award represents $37,500 per plaintiff, with the amount
that each plaintiff actually receives to be determined by a judge
based on tenure and other factors.
A statement from Farmers said the company would "continue to comply
with all laws, regulations and court decisions regarding its claims
adjusting force, while also seeking final clarification of this
important issue through the courts of appeals."
FORD MOTOR: Cuts Quotas in Job Rating System
---------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. is planning to change an annual evaluation system
that has triggered age discrimination suits. The embattled company
said it would no longer dictate how many employees got poor job
ratings that would cause them to face possible dismissal, Reuters
reports.
The job rating system was started by CEO Jacques Nasser in January
2000 to revamp the company's corporate culture and make employees
focus on bottom-line results. Ford spokesman Nick Sharkey
announced the quota elimination in a note to employees at the
company's headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan Tuesday. Mr. Sharkey
said the appraisal process will continue with the A, B, and C
grades replaced by "top achiever, achiever and improvement
required", although there would be no guidelines for the number of
employees to be grouped in the "improvement required" category,
according to Reuters. Managers who get the poorest rating would no
longer be barred from receiving bonuses or merit pay increases.
The evaluation system rates about 18,000 mid-level managers A, B,
or C annually. A year at the C level means no bonus, while 2 years
may lead to dismissal or demotion, Reuters said. The quota for the
number of managers to get a C rating was formerly 10%, but this was
cut to 5% for this year.
GIO AUSTRALIA: Takes on Former CEO Steffey
------------------------------------------
Insurer GIO Australia is claiming $9.4 million in damages from its
former CEO Nick Steffey in a side issue to a $600 million Federal
court class action by shareholder against the company, its
directors and advisers, The West Australian reports.
Steffey was given $8.5 million in termination payments after seven
months in the job. GIO alleges Steffey approved success fees of
$6.2 million in December 1998 to Macquarie Bank. He also
reportedly approved a $3.2 million fee to Chase Manhattan without
proper authority. The fees were for advice given during GIO's
defense of AMP's $3-billion takeover attempt. GIO says Steffey
breached his duty as a director and is liable for the payments.
Steffey has reportedly launched his own claim against Macquarie
Bank to recover the $6.2 million success fee on the grounds that if
GIO was claiming against him, he would take his own recovery action
against Macquarie Bank, the paper said. Macquarie Bank has
requested the Supreme Court to obtain a security for costs from Mr.
Steffey of $693,800, which it estimates will be the cost to defend
the fee reclaim action.
Justice Paddy Bergin has ruled the security for costs and the
strike-out hearings mounted by Macquarie Bank should be heard first
this year, and has set a timetable for GIO to file its evidence
against Steffey, the West Australian said.
HOUSING LITIGATION: Judge Approves $41 Million Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles county superior court judge approved a class action
settlement whereby approximately 5,000 homeowners in the Santa
Clarita Valley will recover $41 million to be paid by manufacturers
of defective galvanized steel plumbing systems.
The decision was handed down on Friday, June 29.
The plaintiffs, who were represented by attorneys Ross Feinberg,
Paul Kiesel and Ronald Hartmann, filed this action against Newhall
Land and Farming Co. and some 40 other builders, plumbers,
suppliers and manufacturers.
The homeowners spread across 15 new-home communities built from
1986 through 1994 and will receive up to $9,000 each, enough to
replace the bad pipes in their homes and, in some cases, pay for
past repairs.
The homeowner plaintiffs alleged the homes were built with
substandard plumbing materials that leaked, produced rusty tap
water and corroded to clog pipes and reduce water pressure.
According to attorney Feinberg, the developers saved money by
installing Korean-made galvanized pipes which prematurely corrode
as opposed to more expensive steel or copper piping. The pipes
developed pinhole leaks causing drinking and bathing water to turn
a yellowish brown color.
Feinberg practices law in Newport Beach and Las Vegas.
For additional information contact Janie Roach, The Market
Connection, 949/851-6313.
IMMUNE RESPONSE: Stull Stull File Shareholder Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action complaint on behalf of
all persons who acquired Immune Response Corp. (NASDAQ:IMNR)
securities between May 31, 1999 and July 6, 2001, inclusive. The
complaint charges Immune Response Corp. and its top officer and
Agouron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its top officer with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Immune is a biopharmaceutical company developing immune-based
therapies to induce specific T cell response for the treatment of
HIV, autoimmune diseases, gene therapy and cancer. Immune's major
product is Remune, an injectable HIV-1 immunogen-based treatment
designed to slow or stop the progression of HIV infections into
AIDS. The company is also developing and testing therapeutic
products for other autoimmune conditions. Agouron Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. was, until July 6, 2001, Immune's partner in developing Remune
for commercial distribution and sale.
The Complaint charges that Immune and Agouron withheld the results
of Remune's major clinical trial, and instead hyped the prospects
of Remune, even though defendants knew during the Class Period that
Remune had no effect upon people with HIV and AIDS. The Complaint
further alleges Defendants' false misrepresentations that Remune
was effective in the fight against AIDS operated to artificially
inflate the price of Immune stock.
The Complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct,
plaintiffs and other members of the Class suffered damages.
INFOSPACE INC: Spector Roseman Files Complaint in W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against defendant InfoSpace, Inc.
(Nasdaq:INSP - news) on behalf of purchasers of the stock of
InfoSpace during the period from January 26, 2000 through January
30, 2001, inclusive.
The complaint charges InfoSpace and its founder and Chairman,
Naveen Jain, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that between January 2000 and January
2001 Defendants disseminated false and misleading information
concerning InfoSpace's actual FY 1999 and 2000 financial
performance and Defendants' expectations concerning InfoSpace's FY
2001 revenue and earnings.
In fact, neither InfoSpace's reported FY 1999 and FY 2000 results
nor its projected FY 2001 performance were accurate. Defendants'
public representations were the result of Defendants' efforts to
manipulate InfoSpace's reported earnings and expected FY 2001
performance and were designed to (and did) allow:
(i) Jain to sell millions of dollars of his own InfoSpace
shares at artificially inflated prices; and
(ii) allow Defendants to complete a series of acquisitions
using shares of InfoSpace's artificially inflated stock as
currency, including the October 2000 acquisition of Go2Net.
On January 30, 2001, after Defendants had completed several
acquisitions using inflated InfoSpace shares as currency,
Defendants disclosed that, contrary to the representations made by
them during 2000 that InfoSpace was experiencing strong revenue
growth during 4Q99 and FY 2000, and that InfoSpace would continue
to post strong revenue growth through FY 2001, InfoSpace would
report no revenue growth or EPS for FY 2001, but rather would
report declining revenue and a significant loss for the year. As
Defendants began to reveal some of their improper conduct,
including the fact that Defendants' projected revenues and earnings
estimates were false, InfoSpace's shares fell to less than $6 per
share, a 95% decline from their Class Period high of $138-1/2 per
share.
Purchasers of InfoSpace securities during the Class Period may, no
later than August 18, 2001, move to be appointed as a Lead
Plaintiff in this class action. For more information about this
action, contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman toll-free at
888-844-5862 or via E-mail at classaction@spectorandroseman.com.
For more detailed information about the firm please visit its
website at http://www.spectorandroseman.com.
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Weiss & Yourman Files Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Weiss & Yourman filed a class action lawsuit
against Integrated Information Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:IISX), its
senior executives, and underwriters was commenced in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of
investors who purchased IIS securities between March 17, 2000 and
June 27, 2001.
The action, number 01 CV 6120, is pending against defendants
* Integrated Information Systems, Inc.
* James G. Garvey, Jr.
* David Wirthlin
* Alan Hald
* Daniel Foreman
* Stephen Lindstrom
* Daniel Roche
* Keith Walz
* FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.
* U.S. Bankcorp Piper Jaffray Inc.
* Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, and
* Legg Mason Wood Walker, Incorporated.
Honorable Victor Marrero is the Judge presiding over the case.
The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It alleges that the
March 17, 2000 Prospectus for shares of IIS common stock contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The complaint also
alleges that defendants were responsible for the materially false
and misleading statements and that the underwriters of IIS'
Offering engaged in a pattern of conduct to surreptitiously extract
inflated commissions greater than those disclosed in the Offering
materials.
Plaintiff is represented by Weiss & Yourman, a law firm possessing
significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions
on behalf of defrauded shareholders in federal and state courts
throughout the United States. Weiss & Yourman has been appointed by
numerous courts to serve as lead counsel in class action lawsuits
and in that capacity has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
on behalf of investors.
Purchasers of IIS securities between March 17, 2000 and June 27,
2001 may no later than September 8, 2001 request court appointment
to serve as a lead plaintiff of the class. For more information,
contact: David C. Katz, James E. Tullman, and/or Mark D. Smilow,
(888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025, via Internet electronic mail at
wynyc@aol.com or by writing Weiss & Yourman, The French Building,
551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176.
IVILLAGE INC: Schiffrin & Barroway File LawSuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
iVillage, Inc. (Nasdaq: IVIL) from March 18, 1999 through December
6, 2000, inclusive against the following 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.
On or about March 18, 1999, iVillage commenced an initial public
offering of 3,650,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $24.00 per share. In connection therewith, iVillage filed
a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the
SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:
(i) Goldman, Credit Suisse, Robertson Stephens, and Lehman
Brothers had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman,
Credit Suisse, Robertson Stephens, and Lehman Brothers allocated to
those investors material portions of the restricted number of
iVillage shares issued in connection with the iVillage IPO; and
(ii) Goldman, Credit Suisse, Robertson Stephens, and Lehman
Brothers had entered into agreements with customers whereby
Goldman, Credit Suisse, Robertson Stephens, and Lehman Brothers
agreed to allocate iVillage shares to those customers in the
iVillage IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional iVillage shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.
Members of the class described above may, not later than August 6,
2001, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. For
more information, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman,
Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite
400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-
667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.
LIVENT INC: S.D. NY Court Sustains 2nd Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
On June 29, 2001, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York sustained the Second Amended Class Action
Complaint filed in In re Livent, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
98-Civ-5686, brought on behalf of purchasers of Livent stock from
March 5, 1996 and August 7, 1998. The Complaint was dismissed with
respect to certain outside directors who sat on Livent's audit
committee.
In a simultaneous ruling, in Griffin v. PaineWebber, Case No. 99-
Civ-2292, the Court granted plaintiffs the right to amend the
Complaint with respect to claims brought against CIBC and certain
other investment banking firms in connection with Livent's
secondary public offering conducted on March 27, 1996. Buyers of
Livent shares in this offering may contact the following Co-Lead
Counsel:
* David Kessler, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP toll free
at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or
* Sherrie Savett, Esq. of Berger & Montague at 1-215-875-
3000, or
* Daniel Osborn, Esq. of Beatie & Osborn at 1-212-888-9000.
MARCONI PLC: Milberg Weiss Files S-Holder Suit in Western PA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on July 10, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Marconi, plc (NASDAQ: MONI) between April 11,
2001 and July 4, 2001, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in
this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on
Milberg Weiss' website at: http://www.milberg.com/marconi/
The action, numbered 01-CV-1267, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, located at
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Seventh & Grant Streets, P.O. Box
1805, Pittsburgh, PA 15230, against defendants Marconi, George
Simpson, John Mayo and Steve Hare. The Honorable Gary L. Lancaster
is the Judge presiding over the case.
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, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between April 11, 2001 and July 4,
2001, concerning the demand for its products. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued several press releases in
which they assured investors that the Company would experience an
increase in its revenues in the current year and that, despite
earnings warnings from most of its competitors, the Company saw no
need to change its guidance. On July 4, 2001, however, defendants
finally disclosed that they were, in fact, experiencing a slowdown
in customer spending and, as a result, the Company expects sales to
fall more than 15% and operating profit to fall 50% for the year
ending March 2002. The market's reaction to this announcement was
immediate and punitive. When shares reopened for trading on July 5,
2001, after having been suspended pending this announcement, the
price per share of Marconi American Depositary Receipts dropped by
over 50% to close at $3.35 per share, significantly below the Class
Period high of $12.50 per share.
Buyers of the securities of Marconi between April 11, 2001 and July
4, 2001 may, no later than September 7, 2001, request court
appointment as lead plaintiff. For more information, contact the
following attorneys: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081,
Email: marconicase@milbergNY.com, Website: http://www.milberg.com.
NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Files S.D. NY Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of investors who purchased Net2000 Communications, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NTKK) securities between March 6, 2000 and June 6, 2001.
The complaint alleges that the March 6, 2000, Registration
Statement and the Prospectus for the initial public offering of
10,000,000 shares of Net2000 common stock, contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions. The complaint also alleges
that defendants were responsible for the materially false and
misleading statements and that the underwriters of Net2000's
Offering engaged in a pattern of conduct to surreptitiously extract
inflated commissions greater than those disclosed in the Offering
materials.
For more information on this action, contact: Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square,
Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone at 888-643-6735 or
215-625-9999, by facsimile at 215-440-9475, by e-mail at
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's website at
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
NET2000 COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Haldenstein Starts Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Net2000
Communications, Inc.) [Nasdaq: NTKK] between March 6, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive, against defendants Net2000, certain of
its officers and directors, and its underwriters.
The case name and index number are Chin v. Net2000 Communications,
Inc. et al, (01-CV-6219). A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling Net2000 common stock
pursuant to the March 6, 2000 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.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the
excessive commissions, defendants allocated Net2000 shares to
customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations (i.e., the
ability to purchase shares) at the IPO price, the underwriters'
brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement
that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher
prices as the price of Net2000 stock rocketed upward (a practice
known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did)
drive Net2000's share price up to artificially high levels. This
artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price
and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket
prices.
Buyers of Net2000 securities during the class period may request
that court appointment as lead plaintiff by August 13, 2001. For
more information, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at
(800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner Esq.,
Thomas Burt, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com.
Your e-mail should refer to Net2000.
NETCENTIVES INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 9, 2001, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of Netcentives, Inc. (NASDAQ: NCNT) securities between
October 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against
defendants Netcentives, certain of its officers and directors, and
its underwriters.
The case name and index number are Kraemer v. Netcentives, Inc. et
al, (01-CV-6185). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling Netcentives common stock
pursuant to the October 14, 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.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the
excessive commissions, defendants allocated Netcentives shares to
customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations (i.e., the
ability to purchase shares) at the IPO price, the underwriters'
brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement
that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher
prices as the price of Netcentives stock rocketed upward (a
practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and
did) drive Netcentives' share price up to artificially high levels.
This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and
their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO
price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated
aftermarket prices.
Buyers of Netcentives securities during the class period may
request court appointment as lead plaintiff by August 13, 2001.
For more information on this action, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016,
by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory
M. Nespole, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com.
Your e-mail should refer to Netcentives.
NETWORK PLUS: Suit Without Merit, Company Says
----------------------------------------------
Network Plus Corp. (NASDAQ: NPLS), an integrated communications
provider (ICP) of bundled voice and high-speed data services,
confirmed that the company, certain of its officers and directors
and certain of the underwriters in its initial public offering have
been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Werman et al.
v. Network Plus Corp. et al., which was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on July 3, 2001. This
class action lawsuit is similar to over 200 others filed recently
against companies that went public between 1998 to 2000. Network
Plus believes the claims against it and its officers and directors
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.
The complaints allege 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. The
complaints allege that the Prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering of Common Stock in June 1999 was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
the following allegations made by plaintiffs:
(i) that Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman
Brothers and Solomon Smith Barney (each an underwriter in the
Company's IPO) solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for which these
underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the
restricted number of Network Plus shares issued in connection with
the Company's IPO; and
(ii) that Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman
Brothers and Solomon Smith Barney entered into agreements with
customers whereby these underwriters agreed to allocate shares to
those customers in the Company's IPO in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional Company shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
More About Network Plus
Network Plus is a network-based integrated communications provider
headquartered in Quincy, Massachusetts. Network Plus offers
broadband data and telecommunications services, primarily to small
and medium-sized business customers located in major markets in the
Northeastern and Southeastern regions of the United States. The
Company's bundled product offerings include local and long distance
service as well as enhanced, high-speed data and Internet services.
NEXT LEVEL: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP announced today
that a class action has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers
of Next Level Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: NXTV) securities during
the period between November 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or can be viewed on the firm's website at
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/next_level.pdf.
The complaint charges defendants
* Next Level
* Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.
* Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
* Lehman Brothers, Inc.
* BancBoston Robertson Stephens
* Peter W. Keeler, and
* James T. Wandrey
with 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.
On or about November 9, 1999, Next Level commenced an initial
public offering of 8.5 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, Next
Level filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the
Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that
(i) the Underwriter Defendants (Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse,
Lehman and Robertson Stephens) had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of Next Level shares
issued in connection with the Next Level IPO; and
(ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Next Level shares to those customers in the Next Level IPO
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
Next Level shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Purchasers of the securities of Next Level between November 9, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive, may request for court appointment
as lead plaintiff no later than August 31, 2001. For more
information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau
of the Client Relations Department, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates,
LLP, P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-
551-9944, E-mail: info@classlawyer.com.
NEXT LEVEL: Schiffrin & Barroway File Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Next Level Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: NXTV) from
November 9, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.
On or about November 9, 1999, Next Level commenced an initial
public offering of 8,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, Next
Level filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus
was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that:
(i) the defendants
* Next Level
* Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated
* Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
* Lehman Brothers, Inc.
* BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors in exchange for which Merrill, Credit
Suisse, Lehman and Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of Next Level shares
issued in connection with the Next Level IPO; and
(ii) Merrill, Credit Suisse, Lehman and Robertson Stephens had
entered into agreements with customers whereby Merrill, Credit
Suisse, Lehman and Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Next Level
shares to those customers in the Next Level IPO in exchange for
which the customers agreed to purchase additional Next Level shares
in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the
complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in
connection with several other initial public offerings.
Members of the class described above may, not later than August 31,
2001, request court appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.
For more information on this action, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or
Stuart L. Berman, Esq., of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, 1-888-299-7706 (toll
free) or 1-610-667-7706, or by e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com
ONTARIO COLLEGE: Alleged Lack Of Action Results In Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario College of Physicians & Surgeons, Ontario's self-
regulatory "watchdog" agency of the province's 26,000 doctors,
faces two class-action lawsuits. Each suit alleges the College
delayed the investigation and revocation of the license of an
incompetent doctor, according to a report written by Gay Abbate and
appearing recently in the Toronto News.
The College is a defendant in the lawsuit filed in May 2001 against
Dr. Richard Neale, a gynecologist and obstetrician, who worked in
Durham Region and was prohibited from practicing in Ontario before
he returned to England. Also named in the lawsuit are three
hospitals where Dr. Neale had practising privileges: Ajax and
Pickering Health Centre, Oshawa General Hospital and Whitby General
Hospital. Pat Ball and her family are the representative
plaintiffs in the suit filed in Ontario Superior Court; 45 other
plaintiffs have joined the class action so far. "And the number is
climbing," said Ball.
This is the second class-action lawsuit filed against the College
and the Ajax and PickeringHealth Centre over a doctor in the past
three months. Both are named in a lawsuit representing about 300
individuals, which was filed in June against Dr. Erroll Wai-Ping, a
Whiby gynecologist. The lawsuit against Dr. Wai-Ping alleges, among
other things, that he performed unnecessary hysterectomies and
failed to remove surgical instruments from patients.
Dr. Neale is living in England, but the court can make a judgment
against him in his absence. However, the allegations in the cases
against the two doctors have not yet been tried in court. And
Andrew Erlich, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs in
the case against Dr. Neale, said that he has not yet seen a defense
statement from the doctor. The British General Medical Council,
following complaints over 10 years ending in 1996, found Dr. Neale
guilty last year "of serious professional misconduct" and took away
his license for at least five years.
The allegations against Dr. Neale go back many years, according to
the same news report. Ball stated in an interview that her
problems started with a "botched" hysterectomy at Ajax and
Pickering Hospital in 1984; and the statement of claim alleges the
hospitals continued Neale's privileges when they knew or should
have known that he was not competent to practice medicine. The
statement alleges and sets forth a pattern of public complaints
made to the College which it failed to take seriously.
Ball said the lawsuit is about change, not money. "We want to see
big changes in the medical care that is so failing us. We want
changes in people's attitudes towards complaints. We want the
College to change. We want hospitals to change." For too long,
she said, the College and hospitals have kept many things secret
from the public.
Similar sentiments were reported in earlier Toronto Star articles
of May 31 and June 1, concerning the class-action against Dr. Wai-
Ping. During a press conference about this lawsuit, six women
claimants expressed their frustration at the College's failure to
communicate to them any results of their complaints filed against
the doctor. And Paul Harte, a medical malpractice lawyer from
Richmond Hill, said at the conference that what his clients most
desire is a change in the system.
PALM INC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Palm Inc. (Nasdaq: PALM)
between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.
On or about March 1, 2000 Palm commenced an initial public offering
of 23,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$38.00 per share. In connection therewith, Palm filed a
registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the
SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that:
(i) the Underwriter Defendants (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley,
Merrill Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Salomon Smith Barney) had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants
allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted
number of Palm shares issued in connection with the Palm IPO; and
(ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Palm shares to those customers in the Palm IPO in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Palm shares
in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
For more information concerning this case, contact: Marc S. Henzel,
Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington
Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone at (888)
643-6735 or (215) 625-9999, by facsimile at (215) 440-9475, by e-
mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's website at
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
PALM INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Shareholder Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Palm,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PALM) from March 1, 2000 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive against the following defendants:
* Palm Inc.
* Goldman Sachs & Co.
* Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.
* Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
* FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
* Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
* Carl J. Yankowski, and
* Judy Bruner.
On or about March 1, 2000 Palm commenced an initial public offering
of 23,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$38.00 per share. In connection therewith, Palm filed a
registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the
SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:
(i) the Underwriter Defendants (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley,
Merrill Lynch, Robertson Stephens and Salomon Smith Barney) had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants
allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted
number of Palm shares issued in connection with the Palm IPO; and
(ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Palm shares to those customers in the Palm IPO in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Palm shares
in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
Members of the class described above may, not later than August 27,
2001, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. For
more information about this action, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or
Stuart L. Berman, Esq. at Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, toll free at 1-888-
299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: S.D. Florida Court Certifies Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2000, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida certified a Class Action on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased common stock or call
options, or sold put options of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc.
between March 31, 1997 and April 2, 1999, inclusive.
In the same action, the Court certified lead plaintiffs Florida
State Board of Administration. Louisiana State Employee Retirement
Systems, Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund and New Orleans
Employee Retirement System are named as representatives of the
Class.
Excluded from the Class are Pediatrix, its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the Individual Defendants, members of the families of
each of the Individual Defendants, any entities in which any of the
defendants has a controlling interest, and the legal
representatives, heirs successors, affiliates or assigns of any of
the foregoing excluded persons and entities.
Persons who wish to be excluded from the class are enjoined to file
a written request for exclusion postmarked on or before August 27,
2001, to Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. Securities Class Action
Litigation, Claims Administrator, The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O.
Box 9269, Garden City, New York 11530-9269, Telephone: (888) 212-
5795.
For more information, contact plaintiff's lead counsel Michael J.
Pucillo, Esq. or Wendy H. Zoberman, Esq. of Burt & Pucillo, LLP,
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL 33401,
(561) 835-9400, or John P. Coffey, Esq. or Lisa Buckser-Schulz,
Esq. of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, 1285 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, NY 10019, (212) 554-1400.
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Portal Software,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PRSF) securities during the period between May 5,
1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed
in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the
firm's website at
http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/portal_software.pdf.
The complaint charges defendants
* Portal Software
* Goldman Sachs & Co.
* Credit Suisse First Boston corporation
* BancBoston Robertson Stephens
* John E. Little, and
* Jack L. Acosta
with 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.
On or about May 5, 1999, Portal Software commenced an initial
public offering of 4 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, Portal
Software filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the
Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that
(i) the Underwriter Defendants (Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse
and Robertson Stephens) had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of Portal Software
shares issued in connection with the Portal Software IPO; and
(ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Portal Software shares to those customers in the Portal
Software IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional Portal Software shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.
Buyers of the securities of Portal Software between May 5, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive, may request court appointment as lead
plaintiff no later than September 7, 2001. For more information,
contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau, Client
Relations Department, of Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP, P.O.
Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944,
E-mail: info@classlawyer.com.
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway File S.D. NY S-Holder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm Of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Portal Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRSF) from May 5, 1999
through December 6, 2000, inclusive.
On or about May 5, 1999, Portal Software commenced an initial
public offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, Portal
Software filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus
was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that:
(i) the defendants
* Portal Software
* Goldman Sachs & Co.
* Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
* BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.
had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, Credit
Suisse and Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of Portal Software shares issued
in connection with the Portal Software IPO; and
(ii) Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens had
entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs,
Credit Suisse and Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Portal
Software shares to those customers in the Portal Software IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
Portal Software shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting
practices in connection with several other initial public
offerings.
Members of the class described above may request court appointment
as lead plaintiff of the class not later than September 7, 2001.
For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.
RETEK INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 5, 2001, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of Retek, Inc. (NASDAQ:RETK) securities between November
17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against defendants Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation and BancBoston Robertson Stephens,
Inc.
The case name and index number are Kauffman v. Credit Suisse First
Boston Corp., et al, (01-CV-6102). A copy of the complaint filed in
this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling Retek common stock pursuant
to the November 17, 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.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the
excessive commissions, defendants allocated Retek shares to
customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations (i.e., the
ability to purchase shares) at the IPO price, the underwriters'
brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement
that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher
prices as the price of Retek stock rocketed upward (a practice
known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did)
drive Retek's share price up to artificially high levels. This
artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their
customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price
and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket
prices.
Purchasers of Retek securities during the class period may request
court appointment as lead plaintiff by August 10, 2001. For more
information on this action, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by
telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., or George Peters), via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com.
Your e-mail should refer to Retek.
SIPEX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a
class action lawsuit on July 10, 2001, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Sipex, Corp. (NASDAQ: SIPX) between July 20, 2000
and January 11, 2001 inclusive. A copy of the complaint filed in
this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on
Milberg Weiss' website at: http://www.milberg.com/sipex/
The action, numbered 01-CV-11185 (DPW), is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, located at
One Courthouse Way, Ste. 2300, Boston, MA 02210 against the
following defendants:
* Sipex
* James E. Donegan (Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board of Directors)
* Frank R. Dipietro (Chief Financial Officer and Vice
President)
* Stephen E. Parks (President and Chief Operations Officer
during the Class Period), and
* Manuel M. Del Arroz (Senior Vice President, Business
Development).
The Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock is the Judge presiding over the
case.
The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between July 20, 2000 and January
11, 2001. Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
improperly recognized revenues during its second and third quarters
of 2000 in order to meet revenue and earnings expectations during
the Class Period, on products which were shipped to distributors
months ahead of schedule and product-orders which had been canceled
by distributors. On January 11, 2001, Sipex issued a press release
announcing that its revenues for the fourth quarter of 2000 would
be much worse than prior guidance, due to order cancellations and
returns of products it already shipped and an inability to meet
supposedly high-demand for products that it was unable to deliver
to customers because of production problems. In response to this
announcement, Sipex's stock price dropped by 46.3% in one day, from
$24.2344 per share on January 11, 2001, to $13 per share by the
close of trading on January 12, 2001. Prior to the disclosure of
the true facts about Sipex's business, Sipex insiders sold a total
of over $35 million of their personally-held Sipex stock.
Buyers of the securities of Sipex between July 20, 2000 and January
11, 2001 may, no later than September 10, 2001, request court
appointment as lead plaintiff. For more information about this
case, contact attorneys Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165, Phone number: (800) 320-5081,
Email: sipexcase@milbergNY.com, Website: http://www.milberg.com
SOUTH KOREA: Class Action Securities Suits Allowed Next March
-------------------------------------------------------------
The South Korean government's plan to implement securities-related
class action suits in March of next year has been confirmed by Lee
Ki-ho, senior presidential secretary for economic affairs at the
Chong Wa Dae, according to a recent report appearing in Asia Pulse.
The government plans to submit the bill for implementation to the
National Assembly in September, said Lee Ki-ho, speaking to
representatives from foreign chambers of commerce in a meeting held
at the Hyatt Grand Seoul. The government's bill will allow
minority shareholders of companies to file class action suits
against management, starting March 2002, according to a recent
report in the Yonhap News, which cited Lee Ki-ho as its source.
The implementation of the class action suit is aimed at preventing
the management of a company from engaging in false disclosure,
window dressing and stock price manipulation; the system will be
phased in gradually, starting with large companies, according to
the same Asia Pulse Report.
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Transmeta Corporation
(Nasdaq: TMTA) publicly traded securities during the period between
November 7, 2000 and June 20, 2001.
On 11/7/00, Transmeta completed its Initial Public Offering
pursuant to a Registration Statement and Prospectus, selling
14,950,000 shares (including over-allotments) at $21.00 per share
for net proceeds of $289 million. The complaint alleges that in
connection with Transmeta's IPO and continuing throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about
Transmeta's business and its principal product, the Crusoe family
of microprocessors, stating that this technology represented a
revolutionary process that delivered longer battery life in Mobile
Internet Computers while delivering high performance. As a result,
Transmeta's stock traded as high as $50-7/8 per share. In 5/01, as
the Transmeta insiders' lock- up agreements expired, five of the
Individual Defendants sold 829,500 of their Transmeta shares for
proceeds of over $10.5 million.
Then, just weeks later, Transmeta was forced to admit that its
results for the Second Quarter 2001 would be much worse than
defendants had previously represented and that Transmeta would, in
order to properly account for its impaired inventory, be forced to
record a multi-million dollar inventory charge in connection with
Transmeta's inventory for defective and/or outdated products.
Following Transmeta's announcement, Transmeta stock collapsed to
$5.12 per share before closing at $5.36 per share, an 89% decline
from its Class Period high of $50.875.
For more information about this case, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square,
Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106, by telephone at 888-643-6735 or
215-625-9999, by facsimile at 215-440-9475, by e-mail at
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's website at
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
*********
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 * * *