/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010802.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 2 2001, Vol. 3, No. 150 Headlines AKAMAI INC.: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Lawsuit In S.D. NY AMERICAN HOME: "Free Test" Offer Draws Thousands Of Utah Residents ATOFINA CHEMICALS: Non-profit Group Joins The Fray, Files New Suit BANK ONE: Legal Aid Group Awarded Unclaimed Class Action Funds COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit EXXON MOBIL: Lawyers Use Latest Ruling To Bolster Multi-billion Suit F5 NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York FIREPOND INC.: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York FREEMARKETS INC.: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY GENZYME CORPORATION: To Mount Defense Against Biomatrix's Lawsuits ICR SERVICES: Settles Lawsuit Over Federal Law Violations JERSEY CENTRAL: Seeks De-certification Of Service Interruption Lawsuit LANTE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Starts Securities Suit In S.D. NY MARVEL TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY OPENTV CORP.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit ORLANDO CITY: Firefighters Say Doctors Ignored Serious Illnesses PRINCE GEORGE: Settlement Assures 'Homeless Kids' Access To Education SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in N.D. Georgia SOUTH KOREA: Business, Government In Serious Deadlock Over Policy TUCOWS INC.: To Mount Vigorous Defense On 'Illegal Lottery' Lawsuit VIANT CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY ********* AKAMAI INC.: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Lawsuit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed Tuesday a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Akamai, Inc. (Nasdaq:AKAM) between October 28, 1999 and July 30, 2001, inclusive. The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. The action, Pfeiffer v. Akamai, Inc., et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Docket No. 01-CV- 7043 (SAS), and has been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge. The complaint alleges that Akamai, Inc., George H. Conrades, its Chairman and CEO, and Timothy N. Weller, its CFO, violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Akamai common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to investors that at least two of the lead underwriters and one of the other underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead underwriters Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and underwriter Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. allocated Akamai shares to customers at the IPO price of $26.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $26.00, the defendant 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 Akamai stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Akamai's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying Akamai stock at the $26.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $166.00 during its first day of trading. Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact, based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the Akamai offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above. For more information, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP through Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or Christopher J. Gray by Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10110 by Phone: (212) 608-1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: www.lovellstewart.com or contact: Sirota & Sirota, LLP through Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe by Mail: 110 Wall Street New York, New York 10005 by Phone: (212) 425-9055 by E-mail: info@sirotalaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sirotalaw.com AMERICAN HOME: "Free Test" Offer Draws Thousands Of Utah Residents ------------------------------------------------------------------ Utah residents who have responded to ads seeking fen-phen users to join suits over the diet drug has grown to several thousands in the State, the Associated Press reported recently. Accordingly, this huge response is attributable to free tests offered by law firms and other groups. Following approval and subsequent appeal of a $3.75 billion settlement on a class action lawsuit against American Home Products, lawyers have since taken time to gather new clients. The appeal had the effect of extending the "timeline" for new suits. It is estimated that close to 6 million individuals took fen-phen, a prescription that includes American Home Products' Pondimin and Redux, brand name for fenfluramine, in combination with phentermine. A study has linked fenfluramine to potentially fatal heart valve damage. ATOFINA CHEMICALS: Non-profit Group Joins The Fray, Files New Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Another class action suit was filed against Atofina Chemicals, this time by a non-profit organization seeking, among others, to keep the plant closed, the Click on Detroit.com reported recently. The Friends of the Detroit River and residents near the Company's plant that released dangerous levels of methyl mercaptan into the air are upset that it took at least three hours for evacuation to begin. They want the plant closed until the Company can establish proper emergency procedures and provide adequate medical care to residents claiming various illnesses. The explosion rocked the City of Riverview, killed three individuals and injured nine others early morning of July 14. It was caused by a rail car carrying methyl mercaptan that began leaking, caught fire then exploded. According to the July 16 issue of the Class Action Reporter, the blast released dangerous levels of the chemical to the air, causing more than 2,000 people to be evacuated in Riverview and nearby Grosse Ile, Wyandotte and Trenton. Methyl mercaptan is a flammable substance used in pharmaceutical and agricultural products. Atofina Chemicals is a unit of Total Fina Elf, one of the world's largest integrated oil companies that explores for, develops, and produces crude oil and natural gas, refines and markets oil, and trades and transports both crude and finished products. The Atofina unit is a major chemical producer. BANK ONE: Legal Aid Group Awarded Unclaimed Class Action Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- The Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation has been awarded $100,000 in unclaimed funds from a class action lawsuit by a Metro East area law firm against Bank One Corp., according to a recent report in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Joseph R. Bartylak, executive director, said the foundation would use the money to represent needy clients victimized by consumer fraud and predatory lending practices. The class action suit was prosecuted by lawyers Steven A. Katz and Douglas R. Sprong of the firm of Carr, Korein, Tillery, Kunin, Montroy, Cates & Glass, based in Swansea. COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Liftshitz, LLP filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired CommTouch Software Ltd. (NASDAQ: CTCH securities between July 13, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc, Prudential Securities Incorporated, and Warburg Dillon Read LLC, a subsidiary of UBS AG. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with CommTouch's initial public offering of 3,000,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that was completed on or about July 13, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted CommTouch shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the defendants and certain of its customers whereby the defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase CommTouch shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings, including the offerings of VA Linux Systems, Inc., Ariba Inc. and United Parcel Service, Inc. For further information, contact: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP through its Director of Shareholder Relations: Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: CTCH@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com EXXON MOBIL: Lawyers Use Latest Ruling To Bolster Multi-billion Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers preparing a billion-dollar class action against Esso Australia Ltd., a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation, disclosed recently that it will use the recent Victorian court decision to boost their case. According to The Australian, Maurice Blackburn Cashman and Slater & Gordon are preparing a suit on behalf of more than 20,000 businesses and insurers affected by the 1998 gas explosion in the subsidiary's Longford plant. Recently a judge imposed a record $2 million fine on the subsidiary for 11 criminal breaches of the Australian Workplace and Safety Act, which resulted in the fatal gas explosion. He also imposed an extra $50,000 fine on top of the maximum of $250,000 for three charges for failing to adequately train staff. Two workers died, while eight others were seriously injured by the plant explosion on September 25, 1998. It also cut the gas supplies to the State of Victoria for two weeks. In his ruling, the judge said: "Their cause was grievous, foreseeable and avoidable and the consequences grievous, tragic and avoidable." To the lawyers, the above comments can bolster their case. "They have been beaten once in the royal commission, they have lost before a jury, they will lose again," one lawyer said. F5 NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed Tuesday a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of F5 Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:FFIV) between June 4, 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 FleetBoston Robertson Stephens and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about June 4, 1999, F5 Networks commenced an initial public offering of 3,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $10 per share. In connection therewith, F5 Networks 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) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of F5 Networks shares issued in connection with the F5 Networks IPO; and (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate F5 Networks shares to those customers in the F5 Networks IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional F5 Networks 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. For additional 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 E-mail: F5@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com FIREPOND INC.: Milberg Weiss Begins Securities Suit In S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Firepond, Inc. (NASDAQ:FIRE) between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants Firepond, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Klaus P. Besier and Paul K. McDermott. 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. On or about February 3, 2000, Firepond commenced an initial public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $22 per share. In connection therewith, Firepond 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) Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Firepond shares issued in connection with the Firepond IPO; and (ii) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Firepond shares to those customers in the Firepond IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Firepond shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For additional information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800/320-5081 by E-mail: firepond@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com FREEMARKETS INC.: Lovell & Stewart Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed Tuesday a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of FreeMarkets, Inc. (NasdaqNM:FMKT) between December 9, 1999 and July 30, 2001, inclusive. The lawsuit asserts claims under Section 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. Any member of the class may move the Court to be named lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 1, 2001. The action, Kassin v. FreeMarkets, Inc., et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Docket No. 01-CV- 7045 (SAS), and has been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge. The complaint alleges that FreeMarkets, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling FreeMarkets common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to investors that at least two of the lead underwriters and one of the other underwriters of the IPO had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead underwriters The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc. and underwriter FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated FreeMarkets shares to customers at the IPO price of $48.00 per share. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at $48.00, the defendant 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 FreeMarkets stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive FreeMarkets's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both the defendant underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying FreeMarkets stock at the $48.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $293.00 during its first day of trading. Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the IPO, the complaint alleges, the defendant underwriters required their customers to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions. These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her IPO stock allocation. The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory approval for the FreeMarkets offering contained material misstatements regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the IPO and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering" scheme discussed above. For additional details, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP through Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or Christopher J. Gray by Phone: (212) 608-1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: www.lovellstewart.com or contact: Sirota & Sirota, LLP through Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe by Phone: (212) 425-9055 by E-mail: info@sirotalaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sirotalaw.com GENZYME CORPORATION: To Mount Defense Against Biomatrix's Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Genzyme Corporation informed the Securities and Exchange Commission recently that it will vigorously defend the securities suits pending against Biomatrix, a company it acquired in December 2000. According to the Company, the suits are pending in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey. The suits, filed between July and August last year, listed as defendants two of Biomatrix's officers and directors. In these actions, the plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Biomatrix common stock during the period between July 20, 1999 and April 25, 2000. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants failed to accurately disclose information related to Biomatrix's Synvisc- Registered Trademark-viscosupplementation product. They assert causes of action under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under that statute. Genzyme business involves developing a host of medical and surgical products like its gene-based cancer diagnosis and treatment equipment. Its Cerezyme and Ceredase are leading treatments for Gaucher's disease, a rare enzyme-deficiency condition. ICR SERVICES: Settles Lawsuit Over Federal Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- ICR Services, Inc., which has 30,000 independent representatives nationwide, recently settled out of court one of the two class action lawsuits accusing the company and its owners of violating federal law - - The Credit Repair Organizations Act -- with its National Credit Repair subsidiary, according to The Detroit News. The agreement came on the same day ICR was forced to stop charging money before performing credit repair services in Florida, where the suit was filed. The company had told a three-judge panel on Atlanta's 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that it would "be effectively put out of business" if the injunction issued last month by a federal judge in Miami was allowed to take effect. The appeals court removed every state except Florida from the injunction, which would have prohibited ICR from charging money in all states before performing credit repair services. ICR claimed that it does not violate the federal law by receiving monies before performing credit repair services, because such services are rendered free to customers who have paid $409 for a year-long membership in its Customer Advantage series of credit education information. ICR spokesman Todd Renzi said he could not discuss terms of the pact due to a confidentiality agreement. But he confirmed that the Livonia, Michigan-based company will not be shutting down or refunding money to all of its customers. "We are very pleased with the settlement," Renzi said. Lawyers for the plaintiffs were not available for comment. Attorneys who are suing ICR in Birmingham, Alabama expect a federal judge there to hear a motion for partial summary judgment sometime in August. The lawsuit is seeking refunds for all customers who paid for Consumer Advantage after March 30, 1997. JERSEY CENTRAL: Seeks De-certification Of Service Interruption Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jersey Central Power & Light Company, a subsidiary of GPU, Inc., has filed a motion with the New Jersey Superior Court seeking de- certification of the consolidated class action lawsuit. In February this year, an oral argument on the said de-certification was held. The class suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising from the service interruptions of July 1999 in the subsidiary's territory. Discovery is continuing and no trial date has been set. In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic States experienced a severe heat storm that resulted in power outages throughout the service territories of many electric utilities, including the territory of Jersey Central Power. Following these outages, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities initiated an investigation into the causes of the outages and the reliability of the transmission and distribution systems of all four New Jersey electric utilities. This investigation was essentially completed in May 2000, with the issuance of Phase I and Phase II reports and orders from the Board. Both the Phase I and Phase II reports and orders contain, among other things, directions for the Company to undertake certain actions and report back to the Board on the results. Additionally, the Board's Phase II order concluded that there is no prima facie case demonstrating that, overall, the Company provided unsafe, inadequate or improper service to its customers. The GPU defendants named in these suits (i.e., GPU, Inc., JCP&L, GPUS and GPU Generation, Inc.) moved to dismiss or stay the litigation pending the Board's exercise of its primary jurisdiction to investigate the causes of the outages. The trial court denied that motion, and also certified a plaintiff class consisting of the Company's customers and their "dependents, tenants, employees and other intended beneficiaries of customers who suffered damages as a result" of the service interruptions. In January 2000, the New Jersey Appellate Division granted the GPU defendants' motion for leave to take an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision on the issue of primary jurisdiction. On June 14, 2000, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court but determined that the Board's findings in the exercise of its "exclusive jurisdiction" could be "probative...but not determinative" of at least some of the issues in the litigation, and leaving it to the trial court to "decide in the first instance just what weight and validity to give the [NJBPU's] findings and conclusions." In response to the GPU defendants' demand for a statement of damages, the plaintiffs have stated that they are seeking $700 million, subject to the results of pretrial discovery. GPU, Inc. distributes electricity to more than 2 million customers in New Jersey and Pennsylvania through its GPU Energy units. It owns all the outstanding common stock of three domestic electric utilities -- Jersey Central Power & Light Company (JCP&L), Metropolitan Edison Company (Met-Ed) and Pennsylvania Electric Company (Penelec). LANTE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Starts 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 Lante Corporation (Nasdaq: LNTE securities between February 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit names the following as defendants: Lante, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Lante common stock pursuant to the February 10, 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 Lante 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 Lante stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Lante'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. For more information, contact: Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com MARVEL TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed early this week a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Marvel Technology Group, Ltd. (NASDAQ:MRVL) between June 27, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. and Lehman Brothers, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about June 27, 2000, Marvel commenced an initial public offering of 6,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share. In connection therewith, Marvel 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) defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Marvel shares issued in connection with the Marvel IPO; and (ii) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate Marvel shares to those customers in the Marvel IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Marvel 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. For additional information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800/320-5081 by E-mail: marvel@milbergny.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com/marvel/ OPENTV CORP.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 OpenTV Corp. (Nasdaq: OPTV) from November 22, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit names the following as defendants: OpenTV, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Goldman Sachs & Co. On or about November 22, 1999 OpenTV commenced an initial public offering of 7,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $20 per share. In connection therewith, OpenTV 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) Merrill Lynch had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of OpenTV shares issued in connection with the OpenTV IPO; and (ii) Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements with customers whereby Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate OpenTV shares to those customers in the OpenTV IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional OpenTV shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For further details, contact: Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com ORLANDO CITY: Firefighters Say Doctors Ignored Serious Illnesses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eight more Orlando firefighters recently have joined the large group already claiming that the city doctors giving them their annual physicals at the city-run medical clinic did not bother to tell them about the serious medical problems that showed up for years in abnormal test results and the exams themselves -- heart disorders, lung problems, hepatitis infections, among other serious conditions -- according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel. The firefighters' attorneys expect to sign up so many additional clients that they are prepared to ask a judge, next week, to grant them class action status, which would join all the planned suits into one case that could include all city employees who received poor care from the city's clinic. Graphic stories about non-notification of test results, like the one told by Lt. Mike Lojko, age 46, are the rule: He collapsed at his fire station and was rushed to the hospital, where he learned that the wall of his heart had grown dangerously thick. He says that the blood, EKG and blood-pressure tests done at the city clinic from the early 1990s should have alerted the doctors there to the potential problems with his heart. "If someone had told me to go see my own physician about this, I wouldn't be having these problems now," said Lt. Lojko. City officials acknowledge that there is no written policy regarding notification. They say that, nonetheless, it always has been standard procedure for the physicians at the city's clinic to notify patients of any problems uncovered by their annual physicals. Susan Blexrud, a spokeswoman for the Mayor's office, said that, before 1999, notification was usually done by a phone call. But two years ago, after years of complaints by union officials about shoddy care and poor communication, the city turned over operation of the clinic to Orlando Regional Health Care System. Now, the clinic automatically sends a form letter to patients when irregular results are found. Blexrud also said that the medical files of three firefighters who accuse the city of failing to tell them about their elevated liver enzymes -- a sign of potentially fatal hepatitis infection -- had been reviewed, and that all three files contain notations indicating doctors had advised each firefighter of those test results. One of the firefighters is in the terminal stage of the disease that showed up in medical tests as early as 1978. The city has not released the records, citing medical privacy, and the firefighters insist they were never told. "We provide medical coverage for them one way or the other," said Blexrud. "It wouldn't have made sense for us to have covered this up." Meanwhile, in the midst of all these statements, Mayor Glenda Hood recently has directed clinic administrators to evaluate the city's notification procedure. Geoffrey Bichler, one of the attorneys representing the firefighters, said that the increasing number of firefighters making the same allegation of non-notification places the city's denials in doubt. The controversy is earning enough nationwide attention to become troublesome for the Hood administration. NBC's Today Show featured the story recently; and the president of the International Association of Firefighters -- a union representing about 250,000 firefighters across the country -- is expected to travel to Orlando this week. PRINCE GEORGE: Settlement Assures 'Homeless Kids' Access To Education --------------------------------------------------------------------- Scores of homeless kids in Prince George County, Maryland can already hope for better access to the county's school system by October. A class action settlement approved recently provides for significant changes in the county's school system policies, especially with respect to homeless kids, the Prince George's Journal reported recently. Among the major changes that will be effected in October are the following: (i) students can stay at the school they attended before losing their home; (ii) they can also transfer to the school serving the area where they are temporarily housed; (iii) the school system should also provide transportation to every homeless student who decides to stay at his original school if it is no more than 35 miles away from the student's temporary home; (iv) also, if the school is more than 35 miles away from the student's temporary home, the school system must give transportation if feasible. It was in April this year that the Public Justice Center filed the suit against the county school board and schools superintendent Iris T. Metts in Federal Court, the Journal said. The non-profit public interest law center contended that the federal Homeless Assistance Act ensures the proper and continuous education of homeless children despite the transient nature of homeless families. The Maryland State Department of Education recorded more than 1,200 school-aged children living in Prince George County who became homeless last year. SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of purchasers of Scientific-Atlanta, Incorporated (NASDAQ:SFA) common stock between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants Scientific-Atlanta, Wallace G. Haislip and James F. McDonald 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 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Scientific-Atlanta securities. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, the complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading information with regard to the financial results of its fiscal third quarter. For example, the complaint alleges that on May 11, 2001, in a Form 10-Q that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company reported its financial results and highlighted an increase in production capacity of set-tops. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that on July 19, 2001, Scientific- Atlanta reported its financial results for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2001 and shocked the market by reporting a 21% decline in bookings from the previous year's fourth quarter. The complaint alleges that this decline in bookings was attributable to, among other things, a surplus in customer inventory levels, which defendants knew, or should have known, at the time they filed the Company's Form 10-Q on May 11, 2001, making the representations in the Form 10-Q regarding production capacity materially false and misleading. Additionally, the complaint alleges that when the Company announced that it was revising its earnings estimates for the first quarter of fiscal 2002, the market reaction to this announcement was immediate and severe in that shares of Scientific-Atlanta plummeted by more than 34%, or $12.08, to close at $23 per share, on heavy trading volume. For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. 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. SOUTH KOREA: Business, Government In Serious Deadlock Over Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- South Korea and the Chaebol are currently in a serious deadlock over the plan to include the "class action" litigation concept into the country's legal framework by next year, the Chosun newspaper reported. The government is offering to relax its regulation on the top 30 conglomerates or the Chaebol if it yields to the plan. According to finance vice minister Kim Jin-pyo, the government is willing to overhaul its ranking system used in determining the top 30 companies subject to restrictions. He hinted that the restriction may even be applied only to companies belonging to the top 4 or 10. In South Korea, under its Fair Trade Law, the thirty largest conglomerates are restricted from making equity investments and providing payment guarantees. The government is planning to introduce the "class action suit" concept next year to improve management transparency in companies like those belonging to the Chaebol. But since the announcement of the plan a few months ago, it has only divided the business community and even government itself. "The introduction of the class action suit will only hurt companies, even healthy companies such as Samsung and SK," remarked SK Chairman Sohn Kil-seung. The Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy agrees to amending or lifting the Fair Trade Law governing thirty largest conglomerates, but opposes the introduction of class action suit. "The US government does not restrict General Electric, which has hundreds of affiliates with regulations," remarked Commerce, Industry and Energy Director Kim Jong-gap, who opposes class action suits. But the country's Fair Trade Commission is reportedly firm on its stand that the lifting of the ranking system for the Chaebol is out of the question, as doing so will make it difficult for the government to prevent conglomerates from reckless expansion, the Chosun reported. Accordingly, unless transparency is improved in these top 30 companies -- hopefully through the introduction of "class action" -- lifting the regulations would make it difficult for government to check them. TUCOWS INC.: To Mount Vigorous Defense On 'Illegal Lottery' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tucows, Inc. promised to mount a vigorous defense against the class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in California, according to its latest Securities and Exchange Commission report. The class action lawsuit was filed on July 23, 2001 against ICANN, NeuLevel, Inc., which is the registry for the .biz generic top-level domain and over 60 other defendants, including Tucows. It claims that the defendants are engaged in unfair competition under state laws because they are conducting an illegal lottery enterprise through the pre-registration of .biz generic top-level domains. It seeks a refund of the fees paid to the defendants, additional damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction to stop the pre- registrations. VIANT CORPORATION: 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 Viant Corporation [Nasdaq: VIAN] securities between June 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit names the following as defendants: Viant, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Viant common stock pursuant to the June 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 Viant shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations 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 Viant stock rocketed upward was intended to drive Viant'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. For more details, contact: Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com ********* 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 * * *