/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010718.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 18 2001, Vol. 3, No. 139 Headlines BENTON COUNTY: Arkansas SC To Decide If Taxpayers Can Opt-Out of Suit BUY.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York CCC INFORMATION: Ten Additional Putative Cases Filed Early This Year CCC INFORMATION: Releases Updates On 6 Cases Filed Between 1999-2000 CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: 1995 Law Students Of Then Non-ABA School File Suit CHINADOTCOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY COMPUBANK: Customers Sue Over Deprivation of Service Without Notice CREDIT SUISSE:To Mount Vigorous Defense v. Securities, Antitrust Suits DELHAIZE BROTHERS: Shareholders Suit Settled, Awaits Final Approval ETOYS INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Suit In N.D. California G&L REALTY: Faces Suits Over Top Officials' Stock Acquisition Plan GRETNA CITY: Water Contamination Brings Dilemmas, Lawsuits MARCONI PLC: Charles Piven Files Securities Lawsuit Over 2001 ADRs MASSACHUSETTS STATE: $35M Settlement Reached Over Placement,Services MEDIA ARTS: Securities Suit Dropped After Acquisition Plan Rescinded MOTOR CAR: Seriously Pursuing Settlement of Securities Suit For $7.5M MUSE TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In New Mexico NAVARRE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Elevate Suit To Appellate Court NETCENTIVES INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY REDBACK NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Beatie & Osborn Files Suit In S.D. New York SLAVE REPARATION: Movement for American Slave Reparations Gains Steam SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY TELSTRA CORPORATION: 300 Customers To File Suit Over Poor Net Service TICKETS.COM: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York U.S. NAVY: Large Citizens Group To Join Jet Noise Suit In Virginia U.S. WIRELESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Suit In N.D. California UTAH STATE: 150 Female Inmates To Sue For Inequality In Program Access ********* BENTON COUNTY: Arkansas SC To Decide If Taxpayers Can Opt-Out of Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas' Supreme Court or Court of Appeals will decide whether taxpayers who also are property owners may opt out of an Amendment 59 lawsuit, according to a recent Associated Press report. Amendment 59 caps property tax increases at 10 percent per year; and lawyers representing the taxpayer class in a lawsuit contending that Benton County raised rates faster, will appeal Circuit Judge Tom Keith's ruling that taxpayers may decide not to participate in the suit. Property owners have until September 28 to decide whether they will remain part of the suit or whether they will opt out of the class. Each property owner in the county is now included in the lawsuit, which asks for a rollback of county, city and school taxes from 1990 to 1997. The appeal also will challenge the ruling that would permit government lawyers and other representatives to talk to taxpayers about the case and will ask the appeals court to remove Judge Keith from the case. Judge Keith already has said that he would step down from the case to eliminate any conflict of interest. Taxpayer attorney Kent Hirsch said that the top item for the appeal was the refusal of the circuit court to require that the defendants have approval prior to communicating with members of the class. "That's really got our attention because their purpose of encouraging people to opt out is to reduce the damages," said Hirsch, according to the report. David Matthews, attorney for the cities of Rogers, Siloam Springs and Gravette, estimates that if the rollback funds actually materialize as awarded damages, then the defendants would have to pay property owners $30 million to $50 million, less the one-third claimed by their attorneys. "For the average person," said Matthews, "their refund is not going to be great -- $300 to $400 will be a big one." BUY.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Buy.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: BUYX) between February 7, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. Listed as defendants in the suit were Buy.com, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The case name and index number are Berkowitz v. Buy.com Inc. et al, (01-CV-6395). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Buy.com common stock pursuant to the February 7, 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. For further details, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com CCC INFORMATION: Ten Additional Putative Cases Filed Early This Year -------------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action suit filed last year against CCC Information Services, Inc. has ballooned into 11 cases this year, the Company reported recently. In a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company revealed that 10 more cases were filed early this year. The additional suits were brought by a group of lawyers who also filed the original case in January last year, captioned: SUSANNA COOK V. DAIRYLAND INS. CO., SENTRY INS. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., NO. 2000 L-1. The above case is pending in the Circuit Court of Johnson County, Illinois. The ten other cases are as follows and pending in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois: (i) LANCEY V. COUNTRY MUTUAL INS. CO., COUNTRY CASUALTY INS. D/B/A COUNTRY COMPANIES, AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 113 (FILED 1/29/01); (ii) SCHOENLEBER V. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INC. CO. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 99 (FILED 1/18/01); (iii) EDWARDS V. MID-CENTURY INS. CO. D/B/A FARMERS INS. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 151 (FILED 2/6/01); (iv) BORDONI V. CGU INS. GROUP D/B/A CGU INS. CO. OF ILLINOIS AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 157 (FILED 2/6/01); (v) RICHARDSON V. PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INS. CO. OF ILLINOIS D/B/A PROGRESSIVE AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 149 (FILED 2/6/01); (vi) BILLUPS V. GEICO GENERAL INS. CO. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 159 (FILED 2/6/01); (vii) HUFF V. HARTFORD INS. CO. OF ILLINOIS D/B/A THE HARTFORD AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 158 (FILED 2/6/01); (viii) KNACKSTEDT V. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INS. CO. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 153 (FILED 2/6/01); (ix) MOORE V. SHELTER INS. COS. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 160 (FILED 2/6/01); (x) TRAVIS V. KEMPER CASUALTY INS. CO. D/B/A KEMPER INSURANCE AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., CASE NO. 01 L 290 (FILED 2/16/01). In the original case, Susan Cook alleges that her insurance company, using a valuation prepared by the Company, offered an inadequate amount for her automobile. Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all insurance customers, who, during the period from January 28, 1989, up to the date of trial, had their total loss claims settled using a valuation report prepared by the Company. The Company is a supplier of advanced software, communications systems, Internet and wireless-enabled technology solutions to the automotive claims and collision repair industries. Dairyland and Sentry, co-defendants of the Company in this particular case, filed a motion to compel an appraisal under the terms of the Plaintiff's policy, which motion was denied by the trial court. Dairyland and Sentry have appealed the denial of that motion. The ten other cases filed early this year also make similar claims as that in the Cook suit. Plaintiff asserts various common law and contract claims against the defendant insurance companies, and various common law claims against the Company. The Company has not yet responded to these complaints. CCC INFORMATION: Releases Updates On 6 Cases Filed Between 1999-2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CCC Information Services Inc. recently release the following updates on the putative class action lawsuit filed against the Company between October of 1999 and July of 2000: (i) In ALVAREZ-FLORES V. AMERICAN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., ATLANTA CASUALTY CO., AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., NO. 99 CH 15032 (FILED 10/19/99) -- CCC and Atlanta Casualty each filed a motion to dismiss and oral arguments on the motion were held last April 19, 2001. Decision is still pending. (ii) In GIBSON V. ORIONAUTO, GUARANTY NATIONAL INS. CO. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., NO. 99 CH 15082 (FILED 10/20/99) -- The insurance company defendants filed a motion to compel an appraisal and to stay the litigation pending the appraisal. The court granted that motion on May 30, 2000. The appraisal is ongoing and the case remains stayed. (iii) In KEILLER V. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP OF COMPANIES, FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE CO. OF OREGON, AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., NO. 99 CH 15485 (FILED 10/20/99) -- The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on July 6, 2000. (iv) In STEPHENS V. THE PROGRESSIVE CORP., PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INS. CO. AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., NO. 99 CH 15557 (FILED 10/28/99) -- On December 12, 2000, all defendants filed motions to stay or dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. An oral argument on those motions were held last April. Decision is still pending. (v) In MYERS V. TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP., THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., NO. 00 CH 2793 (FILED 2/22/00) -- CCC answered the Second amended complaint and moved for its dismissal. Oral arguments were held last June 14. Decision is still pending. (vi) In LEPIANE V. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST AND CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., NO. 00 CH 10545 (FILED 7/18/00) -- The case was reassigned to another judge on February 26, 2001. A motion to dismiss by the Company has not yet been scheduled for hearing. CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY: 1995 Law Students Of Then Non-ABA School File Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit, brought by approximately 48 former law students of Chapman University, is being heard in Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana, according to a recent report by the Los Angeles Times. The plaintiffs claim that they were "conned" into enrolling, in 1995, in a then-second-rate law school struggling for recognition and accreditation in its first year of operation. The former students, who say they dropped out of the law school halfway through because they feared the experience with the troubled law school -- particularly its failed attempts to win accreditation by the American Bar Association -- would ruin their nascent law careers, are seeking reimbursement for tuition, as well as payment of the hundreds of thousands of dollars they might have earned had they graduated on time, instead of having to transfer to other schools. The suit also claims the school's officials tried to conceal the accreditation problems to prevent students from leaving the school. "The school wasn't friendly in its dealings with students, and it wasn't ethical," said Steven Madison, one of several lawyers representing the former students. "In our state, it's against the law to lie to people to get their money," Madison said. The lawsuit, among other charges, claims the school lied when it promised it would win accreditation easily and claimed that many of its faculty members were among the finest legal scholars and many had been named professor of the year. Plaintiffs in the case declined to speak to a reporter, saying they were so instructed by their attorneys. Some of them have become lawyers; others picked other professions. Law school officials deny these claims. They insist they dealt honestly with the students; that the school graduated the inaugural class on schedule; that it repaid more than $1 million in tuition fees to students who had grown nervous about the school and wanted to quit. Today, the law school has provisional accreditation from the ABA and has an enrollment of more than 200 students. "We believe the court will find no merit in this case," said Ruth Wardell, a university spokeswoman. "It's disheartening, though. Lawsuits are always a blemish. It's particularly difficult to read about it when you are trying to recruit students," he said. CHINADOTCOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities 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 Chinadotcom, Inc. [Nasdaq: CHINA] between July 12, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit listed as defendants Chinadotcom, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The case name and index number are Hsu v. Chinadotcom Corporation et al, (01-CV-6394). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Chinadotcom common stock pursuant to the July 12, 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. For more details, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575- 0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com COMPUBANK: Customers Sue Over Deprivation of Service Without Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- What could have been a promising merger of two Internet Banks is now deep in a class action lawsuit. Customers of CompuBank, the first federally-chartered Internet Bank, and NetBank, an Internet thrift bank, have gone to court after they were allegedly deprived of the two banks' service when they merged. The Houston Business Journal reported that during the transition period following the merger of the banks in March, many customers complained of not being able to use their ATM cards and their debit-credit cards for making purchases while their checks bounced. According to a story in trade publication American Banker, one couple was in the process of closing on the purchase of a house and their mortgage lender needed confirmation that they had $6,000 in closing costs available. The money was in their CompuBank/NetBank account, but when they went online in May to get their account statement, they were denied access to their account. The couple told American Banker they were forced to go to another mortgage lender and pay $400 a month more for their loan. The report said that NetBank flagged thousands of CompuBank accounts that fell short of NetBank's application approval standards and put many of them on "administrative hold." The accounts were allegedly frozen without notification to account- holders. The report did not say where the case is filed. CREDIT SUISSE:To Mount Vigorous Defense v. Securities, Antitrust Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Credit Suisse First Boston USA, Inc. said it would mount a vigorous defense against several putative class suits naming it as defendant, along with other investment banks. The bank admitted that beginning January this year, it received several suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. All suits generally allege various violations of the federal securities laws resulting from alleged material omissions and misstatements in registration statements and prospectuses for the initial public offerings and with respect to transactions in the aftermarket. These lawsuits contain allegations that the registration statement and prospectus either omitted or misrepresented material information about commissions paid to CSFB Corp. or the other investment banks and aftermarket transactions by certain customers that received allocations of shares in the initial public offerings. Since March 2001, CSFB Corp. and several other investment banks were named as defendants in several putative class actions filed with the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey, alleging violation of the federal antitrust laws in connection with alleged practices in the allocation of shares in initial public offerings in which such investment banks were a lead or co-managing underwriter. The lawsuits allege that the underwriter defendants have engaged in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to require customers, in exchange for initial public offering allocations, to pay undisclosed and excessive commissions, in amounts equaling approximately 33% of the customers' profits from a given initial public offering allocation. The complaint also alleges that the underwriter defendants conspired to require customers, in exchange for initial public offering allocations, to agree to make aftermarket purchases of the initial public offering securities at a price higher than the offering price, as a precondition to receiving an allocation. These alleged "tie-in" arrangements are further alleged to have artificially inflated the market price for the securities. DELHAIZE BROTHERS: Shareholders Suit Settled, Awaits Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Belgian food retailer Delhaize Brothers & Co. reported recently it has reached a settlement deal with the shareholders of its American subsidiary, Delhaize America. In a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company said the "share exchange ratio", which was primarily the reason for the shareholders suit, has already been increased to the benefit of both parties. In September last year, eight lawsuits seeking class certification were filed against the Belgian company and the directors of its American operations. The main contention was the offer received by Delhaize America on September 6, 2000 from the mother company with respect to the share exchange scheme forged by the two. The plaintiffs claim that the offer in the share exchange scheme was unfair and inadequate and that the directors of Delhaize American breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders. A subsequent settlement, however, settled the dispute when the share exchange was increased from a ratio of 0.35 Delhaize Group (mother company) shares for each Delhaize America share to a ratio of 0.40. In addition, the plaintiffs' attorneys may request the court to award them no more than US$975,000 in attorneys' fees, which, if awarded, would be payable by Delhaize America. The agreement was heard by the North Carolina Business Court last June 29. Final approval is pending. Delhaize Group operates in 10 countries and on three continents. As of December last year, it had a sales network of 2,310 stores and employed approximately 152,000 people. The principal activity of Delhaize Group is the operation of food supermarkets in North America, Europe and Southeast Asia. ETOYS INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP filed last week a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of eToys, Inc. (Nasdaq: ETYS) between May 19, 1999 and May 26, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Edward C. Lenk and Steven J. Schoch. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For further details, contact: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP through its Shareholder Relations Department: David Leifer (E-mail: Dleifer@whhf.com) by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022 or by Phone: 877-935-7400 (toll free) EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Suit In N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Exodus Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ:EXDS) securities during the period between March 30, 2001 and June 20, 2001. The complaint charges Exodus and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint further alleges that the defendants were alarmed by the dramatic decline in Exodus' share price, which had declined from over $28 per share in late January to $10 per share by mid-March 2001. The complaint alleges that defendants then formulated a plan to not only halt the erosion of Exodus' share price, but re-inflate it as well. Exodus' high stock price was dependent upon the appearance of its phenomenal growth rate. However, by March 2001, the complaint claims that defendants were aware that Exodus' business was falling victim both to the general economic slowdown and the bursting of the Internet bubble. Realizing that the public disclosure of Exodus' slowing growth rate would cause Exodus' stock price to decline, it is alleged that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements designed to keep Exodus' stock price high while certain defendants sold over 441,667 shares of Exodus common stock for proceeds of over $4.1 million. On June 20, 2001, the complaint alleges that Exodus revealed that, contrary to defendants' prior statements regarding the Company's results for the second quarter 2001 and for the 2001 fiscal year, its revenue would be significantly below expectations (and actually declined sequentially) due to a decrease in the rate of new customer installations, an increase in the rate of cancellations, reduction of orders from existing customers and an increase in reserves related to Internet company failures. This revelation shocked the market, causing Exodus' stock to plummet over 30% to $1.59 per share the following trading day on record volume of more than 185 million shares. For more information, contact: William Lerach or Darren Robbins of Milberg Weiss at 800/449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com G&L REALTY: Faces Suits Over Top Officials' Stock Acquisition Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ A number of stockholder class actions have been filed against G&L Realty Corporation and its directors, arising out of the proposal by its CEO and President to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stocks not currently owned by them. In a recent disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company revealed that at least four cases were filed against it since December last year. The cases are as follows: (i) Lukoff v. G & L Realty Corp. et al., case number BC 241251, was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on December 4, 2000; (ii) Abrons v. G & L Realty Corp. et al., case number 24-C-00- 006109, was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on December 14, 2000. * This suit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 7, 2001, although Abrons re-filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, case number BC 251479, on May 31, 2001. (iii) Morse v. G & L Realty Corp. et al., case number 221719-V, was filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, on May 17, 2001. (iv) Harbor Finance Partners v. Daniel M. Gottlieb et al., case number BC 251593, was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on June 1, 2001 Daniel M. Gottlieb is the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Steven D. Lebowitz is its President. All of the above actions assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seek, among other things, compensatory damages and/or to enjoin the transaction. Defendants deny the claims, although it is premature to predict the outcome of these actions. GRETNA CITY: Water Contamination Brings Dilemmas, Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- In Gretna, Louisiana, where at least two class action lawsuits have been filed after a broken water station pump resulted in the contamination of the water supply, resolution of the city's water woes remains a dilemma. First, the citizens of this small city were not informed for 24 hours that their water supply was contaminated. Second, at an overflow meeting held recently at the City Hall to give information to the residents, Mayor Ronnie Harris explained that a special commission is investigating the incident and monitoring activities at the water plant. But Mayor Harris said that he cannot discuss the commission's findings because of the pending litigation of the class action lawsuits. Mayor Harris said the city would issue rebates to compensate water customers for the inconvenience and would institute a system that would call each household and leave a recorded message informing them of such problems in the future. Additionally, the citizens were informed that the City Council has transferred $400,000, earmarked for park improvements, to a fund to make immediate upgrades to the water plant that was built in 1933. But Mayor Harris acknowledged that this might not be enough money. There are additional reasons for continued lack of public confidence in their water supply such as recent disclosures that the water supply violated federal standard three times before the most recent contamination occurred. Providing safe drinking water for a relatively poor community like Gretna will not happen easily, where increasing residents' water bills to upgrade a water plant may not be feasible. Some commentators have suggested purchasing water from Jefferson Parish. Meanwhile, in the throes of this dilemma, the class action suits wind their way through the courts and, at some point, some form of resolution/settlement must be worked out. MARCONI PLC: Charles Piven Files Securities Lawsuit Over 2001 ADRs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed a private securities action against Marconi PLC (Nasdaq: MONI) on behalf of all entities who purchased the Company's American Deposit Receipts during the period from April 11, 2001 through and including July 4, 2001. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by E-mail: pivenlaw1@erols.com or by Phone: 410/986-0036. MASSACHUSETTS STATE: $35M Settlement Reached Over Placement,Services -------------------------------------------------------------------- A trust fund company investing in Massachusetts revealed that the State has settled a class action brought by persons with mental retardation living in nursing homes seeking community placements and services. A court has approved a settlement agreement entered into by the parties, which will provide certain benefits to nursing home residents with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities over the next seven years. The Department of Mental Retardation of the State estimates that the agreement will cost approximately $5 million per fiscal year for the next seven years. MEDIA ARTS: Securities Suit Dropped After Acquisition Plan Rescinded -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the securities class action suit against Media Arts Group, Inc. has voluntarily dropped his charges. This after a stocks acquisition plan, which James Boerma challenged in the suit, was nixed. Thomas Kinkade offered to buy all the outstanding shares of the Company not already owned by him or his affiliates at a price of $6.25 per share in cash. Thereafter, Boerma sued the Company and its board of directors for breach of fiduciary duty in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Kinkade, however, withdrew his proposal in March citing current economic uncertainties and the difficult lending environment. MOTOR CAR: Seriously Pursuing Settlement of Securities Suit For $7.5M --------------------------------------------------------------------- Motor Car Parts & Accessories, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is seriously pursuing a $7.5 million settlement with its shareholders who are plaintiffs in a pending securities class action. According to its SEC report recently, $6,000,000 will paid out of the Company's directors and officers' insurance. Meanwhile, company founder Mel Marks will finance the $1.5 million difference by buying 1.5 million common stocks of the company at $1.00 each. The valuation firm that the Company engaged to evaluate the fairness of the transaction concluded that this price per share is fair to the Company's shareholders, from a financial point of view. Despite positive indications, the Company does not discount possibilities that the settlement may not push through or the court may not approve it. In such a situation, the suit will have an adverse material effect on it operations, the Company admitted. The suit is currently pending in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. It alleges that, over a three-year period, the Company misstated earnings in violation of securities laws. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of all investors who purchased common stock of the Company from August 1, 1996 to July 30, 1999. MUSE TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Begins Securities Suit In New Mexico ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody filed last week a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, on behalf of purchasers of Muse Technologies, Inc. (OTC BB:MUZE.OB) common stock between January 24, 2000 and February 21, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants Muse Technologies, Inc., Curtiz J. Gangi and Brian R. Clark violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false and misleading statements about the Company's business, earnings growth and financial condition during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull & Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. NAVARRE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Elevate Suit To Appellate Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The almost two-year old securities suits filed against Navarre Corporation will have to continue despite its dismissal in June this year. The plaintiffs in the two separate suits have filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and schedule shows several activities lined up until September. Plaintiffs are appealing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissing their claims with prejudice last June 20. The appellate court has set a schedule for the appeal process, which requires, among other things, that Plaintiffs'/Appellants' Brief and Appendix be filed by August 15, 2001, and that the Company and its directors file their Response Brief by September 14, 2001. Daniel Chen and Judy Poucher each filed a securities suit in December 1999 and January 2000, respectively. Both alleged, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and violation of Section 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. NETCENTIVES INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Netcentives, Inc. (Nasdaq: NCNT) from October 14, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive. For further 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 REDBACK NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities 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 Redback Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: RBAK) between May 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. Named as defendants were Redback, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The case name and index number are Hsu v. Redback Networks Inc. et al, (01-CV-6401). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Redback common stock pursuant to the May 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. For more information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Beatie & Osborn Files Suit In S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rhythms Netconnections, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased its common stocks between April 6, 1999 and June 25, 2001. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Beatie And Osborn LLP. The suit alleges that Rhythms violated federal securities laws by issuing and selling the company's common stock during its initial public offering, without disclosing that its lead underwriters solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. The underwriters were Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Salomon Smith Barney Inc. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Englewood-based Rhythms, which provides DSL service, has faced numerous financial problems this year. The company was de-listed from the Nasdaq stock market in late May. SLAVE REPARATION: Movement for American Slave Reparations Gains Steam --------------------------------------------------------------------- The concept of compensation or reparations paid to African-Americans for the wrongs committed by the institution of slavery, has become a movement which is gaining strength. The idea has been something of a non-starter in Congress, where every year since 1989 Representative John Conyers, Jr., Democrat from Michigan, has introduced legislation seeking a study of reparations, which every year is stalled in committee. But the subject has taken on momentum on social and legal fronts, where the idea of simple justice has interfaced with the pragmatics of who pays? Beyond the efforts by these various social and legal groups to design programs for some form of government restitution, there is a new focus on obtaining reparations from companies that once profited from slavery, according to a recent report in The New York Times. In the same newspaper report, Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, an attorney, says she started researching "the possibility of a lawsuit against the government but then turned to corporations, after finding how difficult it would be to win a claim against the government, given sovereign immunity, the statute of limitations and an opinion by a relatively liberal court rejecting the idea. "If you can show a company made immoral gains by profiting from slavery, you can file an action for unjust enrichment," she said. Historians say that slavery was so central to the economy in America's early days that almost every business benefited from it. This theme, according to the same report, has gained momentum on many fronts. In California, a law in effect this year requires every insurance company licensed in the state to research its past business, and that of its predecessor companies, and report to the state whether it ever sold policies insuring slave owners against the loss of their slave property, and to whom. Influenced by the California legislation, New York Life Insurance Company is now researching its archives to discover to what extent the company may have sold policies to slave owners. Farmer-Paellmann found, in a 1906 history of New York Life, a reference that said that "among the first 1,000 policies issued, 339 were upon the lives of Negro slaves in Maryland and Virginia." Aetna formally apologized for having written policies for slave owners on the lives of their slaves. Subsequent to the apology, The Hartford Courant, which had run a front- page article about Aetna's apology, made its own apology for having run advertisements for the sale and capture of slaves. Government also benefited: Slaves were used by the builders, and other kinds of "contractors" who owned them, to help build the United States Capitol. Their owners received five dollars per month for the slave labor. Although no lawsuits have been filed, some old-line companies, reportedly, have begun to be concerned about their vulnerability. Owen Pell, a New York lawyer who represented several companies in Holocaust-related litigation, has spoken informally with several companies about the possibility and potential shape of claims related to African slavery. Ultimately, stated The New York Times report, some lawyers say that insurance companies may not be the most important defendants. The ripest potential defendants may be municipal governments, which do not have the same sovereign immunity as the federal government, as well as tobacco companies and railroads, even those that declared bankruptcy after the Civil War, since the bankruptcy code of that time did not wipe out debts and liabilities that were not specifically declared. Farmer-Paellmann has developed still another view of who may be sued, without discarding the value to the reparations movement of the insurance companies. Companies built on the profits from slavery, she said, may become strong advocates for reparations from the government. "My interest in this," she said, "to get these corporations, once they are aware of their own connections, to be our chief lobbyists in Washington for other forms of restitution. "Apologies aren't enough," she said. SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities 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 Sycamore Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCMR) between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. Listed as defendants were Sycamore, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The case name and index number are Chin v. Sycamore Networks, Inc. et al, (01-CV-6400). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Sycamore common stock pursuant to the October 21, 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. For more details, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575- 0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com TELSTRA CORPORATION: 300 Customers To File Suit Over Poor Net Service --------------------------------------------------------------------- Three hundred customers of Telstra Corporation Limited (NYSE: TLS) have signified their intention to join a class action against the carrier after experiencing problems with its high-speed Internet service. Lawyer Michael King who will represent the would be plaintiffs said many customers have complained that the Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) has been unavailable for more than 300 hours during the past two months. King said he had been "swamped" with messages from disappointed customers, receiving up to 50 calls each day. Telstra has denied that the service, which was introduced in August 2000, had been unavailable for anything close to the period claimed. "I'm in the process of properly identifying those claimants and putting them in various categories to best put our case to Telstra," King told Ninemsn News. He said once that process was complete, papers were likely to be filed in the Federal Court. TICKETS.COM: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit In S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed Monday a class action lawsuit, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Tickets.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIXX) between November 3, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Tickets.com, Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Online, Inc., W. Thomas Gimple, John M. Markovich, Michael R. Rodriguez and C. Ian Sym-Smith. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. For more details, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by Email: Ticketscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com U.S. NAVY: Large Citizens Group To Join Jet Noise Suit In Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------------ Virginia Beach and Chesapeake homeowners got a boost from the Citizens Concerned About Jet Noise, a grass roots citizen's group, in its bid to hold the U.S. Navy and the federal government liable for damages. The board of directors of CCAJN lifted last week its ban over its leaders and members to join a pending federal lawsuit. According to a report in Pilot Online, the homeowners claim that noise from Navy jet operations at Oceana Naval Air Station and Fentress Airfield has lowered their property values and lessened their quality of life. About 2,100 Hampton Roads residents have since signed up to join the homeowners' suit if a judge grants it class action status, according to the report. CCAJN has nine board members and 5,000 members. Officials of the group explained that the original policy was created to allow the group to continue working with the city of Virginia Beach and the Navy to seek potential solutions to noise concerns. U.S. WIRELESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Suit In N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of U.S. Wireless Corporation (Nasdaq: USWCE) from June 29, 1999 through May 25, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges U.S. Wireless and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. For more 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 UTAH STATE: 150 Female Inmates To Sue For Inequality In Program Access ---------------------------------------------------------------------- More than 150 female inmates at the Utah State Prison are planning to file a class action lawsuit against the State, Gov. Mike Leavitt and other state officials. These inmates claim they have been denied access to the prison's best- paying jobs and are shut out of some college courses, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. The Utah State Prison offers programs that allow inmates to acquire skills on the belief that after their release they will less likely revert to crime. Model prisoners can also enroll in vocational programs that teach computer-aided design and on-the-job training for print or sign shops. The female inmates, though, represent only a small fraction in the state prison. Only 260 women inmates are currently serving sentence in the 3,300 prisoner-filled facility. According to the report, during a recent face-to-face conversation with six female prisoners, Deputy Warden Jerry Pope conceded the playing field for male and female inmates is not level. ********* 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 * * *