/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010809.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 9 2001, Vol. 3, No. 155 Headlines AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files S.D. NY Securities Suit DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Sued For Illegally Reselling 'Buyback' Cars In Ohio DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit FREEMARKETS INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY GPU ENERGY: Judge Refuses To Decertify 1999 Power Outage Lawsuit IMANAGE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY ITXC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY KANA SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY KANSAS STATE: Law Enforcement Officers Sue to Join Better Pension Plan MICROTUNE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit In S.D. NY MORGAN STANLEY: Faces New 'Improper Conduct' Charge Over Stocks Advice NETSILICON INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY NIKU CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY SATX INC.: Agrees To Settle California Suit For 4 Million Warrants SPECIAL T: Settles 'Unsolicited Fax Advertisements' Suit For $550,000 STORAGENETWORKS: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. New York TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Says Securities Suits in NY, CA Are Meritless TUT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In N.D. California WASHINGTON STATE: $500M In Damages Requested In Discrimination Suit ********* AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files 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 Airspan Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: AIRN) from July 19, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive. The defendants in the suit include Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and Lehman Brothers Inc. On or about July 19, 2000, Airspan commenced an initial public offering of 5,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share. In connection therewith, Airspan 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: (1) 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 Airspan shares issued in connection with the Airspan IPO; and (2) Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby Defendants agreed to allocate Airspan shares to those customers in the Airspan IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Airspan 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: 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 DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Sued For Illegally Reselling 'Buyback' Cars In Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------------- Automaker DaimlerChrysler is facing a class action suit in Ohio for disposing "buyback" cars in the State without making the necessary disclosure to its customers, The Beacon Journal reported. The law firm of Young & McDowall, in filing the suit, accused the car maker of reselling 970 buyback cars in Ohio from 1997 to 1999 without telling its customers about the true condition of the cars. "Ohio law requires all manufacturers to disclose in writing that a vehicle is a repurchased lemon prior to the resale of the vehicle and to provide to the consumer a supplemental warranty," the report said. "With this lawsuit we hope to get Chrysler to live up to its duty to disclose...There is law out there to protect consumers if only Chrysler would abide by that law," the newspaper quoted plaintiff lawyer Dean Young as saying. Young said the Company has been engaged in this type of business venture since 1996 and has raked in $650 million in revenues, reselling used cars nationwide. The suit is pending in Stark County Common Pleas Court. DELANO TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP filed recently a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Delano Technology Corporation (NASDAQ: DTEC) securities between February 8, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are Delano and the following executive officers of Delano: John Foresi and Thomas Hearne. The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of Delano's initial public offering: FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and 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 Delano's initial public offering of 5,000,000 shares of common stock at $18.00 per share that was completed on or about February 10, 2000. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Delano shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Delano shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorneys' Office are investigating underwriting practices in connection with numerous initial public offerings that were completed in 1999 and 2000. For additional information, contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: DTEC@bernlieb.com FREEMARKETS INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Commenced recently a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of FreeMarkets, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMKT) securities between December 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. FreeMarkets, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters were named as defendants of the suit. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling FreeMarkets common stock pursuant to the December 9, 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 FreeMarkets 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 FreeMarkets stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive FreeMarkets' 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 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., Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com GPU ENERGY: Judge Refuses To Decertify 1999 Power Outage Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Superior Court judge in Monmouth County turned down a bid by GPU Energy to decertify a class action filed by some 480,000 customers, The Express-Times reported. Plaintiffs' lawyer Frank Gaudio found the decision sound since allowing the case to go further through individual suits would be impractical and costly for the Company. Company counsel Walter Frankowski, however, believes the suit does not qualify as class action. "Our whole reason for the motion to decertify the class is that GPU did not believe this is applicable in this type of case...there were so many outages spread across our New Jersey territory," Frankowski said. "Class-action suits normally involve one event." But Gaudio says the reason for the many brownouts was the failure of the Company to properly maintain its infrastructure -- a valid cause of action for a class suit. In July 1999, widespread power interruptions and outages affected Monmouth, Warren and Hunterdon counties in New Jersey for four days when GPU transformers in Monmouth substation failed. The suit seeks monetary damages for losses such as spoiled food and lost labor, the report said. IMANAGE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced recently a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of iManage, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMAN) securities between November 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The defendants in the suit include iManage, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling iManage common stock pursuant to the November 17, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated iManage 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 iManage stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive iManage'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: 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., Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com ITXC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed recently a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of ITXC Corp. (Nasdaq: ITXC) securities during the period between September 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder: (1) ITXC, (2) Lehman Brothers Inc., (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and (4) Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. On or about September 27, 1999, ITXC commenced an initial public offering of 6.25 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12.00 per share. In connection therewith, ITXC filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriter Defendants (Lehman Brothers, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch) had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of ITXC shares issued in connection with the ITXC IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate ITXC shares to those customers in the ITXC IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional ITXC shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For additional information, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com KANA SOFTWARE: Wolf Haldenstein Commences 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 Kana Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: KANA) securities between September 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit names as defendants: Kana, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Kana common stock pursuant to the September 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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated Kana 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 Kana stock rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and did) drive Kana'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: 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., Gregory Nespole, Esq., Thomas Burt, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com KANSAS STATE: Law Enforcement Officers Sue to Join Better Pension Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An attorney for 54 law enforcement officers from five different state agencies recently filed a lawsuit in Shawnee County District Court, asking the judge to rule that all law enforcement officers employed by the state must be permitted to join the Kansas Police and Firemen's Pension Fund (KPF), the Associated Press reported. No date has been set for hearing the lawsuit. As more law enforcement officers continue signing on to join the lawsuit, the Kansas Association of Public Employees (KAPE) expects the case will soon become a class action, covering the 290 officers it believes should be able to join KPF. KAPE, the largest union for state government employees and the sponsor of the lawsuit, wants to pressure the state legislators to enact legislation permitting all state law enforcement officers to join the special pension plan for police and firefighters. In fact, KAPE spokeswoman Lisa Worley said the lawsuit also was designed to put pressure on the legislators, who will convene in January. Most state employees participate in the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS), as do many local government employees and public school teachers. These number about 150,000 active workers, with another 51,000 retirees receiving benefits. This is the pension plan to which the law enforcement officers not eligible for joining KPF belong. KPF is a separate pension plan created in 1968 for certified police officers and firemen. The Kansas state legislature, from time to time, has authorized the enrollment of certain other law enforcement officers: Bureau of Investigation agents; Highway Patrol Troopers; and police officers at state universities. KPF has about 6,600 active participants and provides benefits to another 3,100 retirees. KAPE argues that the state is a single employer, and once it elected to allow any of its other certified law enforcement officers to join -- Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents, for example -- to join KPF, it has to allow all certified law enforcement officials to join. Bruce Bertwell of Olathe, a certified law enforcement conservation officer with the state Department of Wildlife and Parks, argued that it's unfair to exclude officers like himself from the police and fire plan. There are many good reasons why officers would prefer to be in KFI. First, the benefits are greater, because the formula used to calculate pensions is more generous to the employee than the KPERS formula. Second, KPF members can retire with full pension at age 55. KPERS members retire with full pension at age 65, or when a person's age and years of service add to 85. In addition, Jack Hawn, KPERS' assistant executive director, commented that disabled officers in KPF can receive benefits if their injuries prevent them from working in law enforcement. For KPERS participants, the disability has to prevent them from working at all. MICROTUNE INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Starts Securities Suit In S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP lodged recently a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Microtune, Inc. (NASDAQ: TUNE) securities between August 4, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are the following underwriters of Microtune's initial public offering: Goldman, Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns & Co, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. 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 Microtune's initial public offering of four million shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that was commenced on or about August 4, 2000. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Microtune shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Microtune shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorney's Office are investigating underwriting practices in connection with several initial public offerings completed in 1999 and 2000. For more details, contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: TUNE@bernlieb.com MORGAN STANLEY: Faces New 'Improper Conduct' Charge Over Stocks Advice ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Barely two weeks after being named in two class action suits, investment bank Morgan Stanley and web analyst Mary Meeker are once more embroiled in a suit for like charges, news agency Reuters reported Tuesday. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP sued the bank for not disclosing its real ties with Meeker. Meeker stands accused of breaking the "Chinese Wall" -- the solid separation that is supposed to exist and be maintained between analysts and investment bankers, the report said. The same law firm also filed similar suits a few weeks earlier on behalf of individuals who purchased the stocks of Amazon.com and eBay, Inc. This new suit involves investors who acquired AOL shares. Meeker has admitted to making stock recommendations based not on objective analysis, but on her desire to retain AOL as a Morgan Stanley banking client. The firm assailed the practice as improper. Morgan Stanley called the new suit a "stunt". "While we have not seen the complaint, based upon media reports, we believe the claims against Morgan Stanley and Mary Meeker are totally meritless," the firm said in a statement. "Morgan Stanley's research is thorough and objective. Ms. Meeker, whose integrity is beyond reproach, is one of the most respected analysts on Wall Street. Naming her in this suit is nothing more than a publicity stunt to mask a flawed complaint," the firm said. NETSILICON INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced recently a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired NETsilicon, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSIL) securities between September 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York located. Named as defendants in the complaint are NETsilicon, and NETsilicon executive officers, Cornelius Peterson VIII and Daniel J. Sullivan. The complaint also names as defendants Osicom Technologies, Inc., the Company's sole shareholder prior to its initial public offering and the following underwriters of NETsilicon's initial public offering: CIBC World Markets Corp. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and 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 NETsilicon's initial public offering of 5.25 million shares of common stock at $7.00 per share that was commenced on or about September 15, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of NETsilicon shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase NETsilicon shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorneys' Office are investigating underwriting practices in connection with numerous initial public offerings that were completed in 1999 and 2000. For further information, contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: NSIL@bernlieb.com NIKU CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP recently lodged a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Niku Corp. (NASDAQ: NIKU) securities between February 25, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants in the complaint are Niku, and Niku executive officers, Farzad Dibachi and Mark Nelson. The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of Niku's initial public offering: Goldman Sachs & Co., Dain Rauscher Incorporated, Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and 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 Niku's initial public offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock at $24.00 per share that was completed on or about February 25, 2000. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Niku shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Niku shares in the after- market at pre-determined prices. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorneys' Office are investigating underwriting practices in connection with numerous initial public offerings that were completed in 1999 and 2000. For more details, contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: NIKU@bernlieb.com PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP recently lodged a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired Preview Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVW) securities between December 7, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York located. Defendants in the complaint are Preview Systems and Preview Systems executive officers, Vincent Pluvinage and G. Bradford Solso. The complaint also names as defendants the following underwriters of Preview Systems' initial public offering: BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Dain Rauscher Incorporated, and Soundview Technology Group, Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and 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 Preview Systems's initial public offering of 3,800,000 shares of common stock at $21.00 per share that was completed on or about December 7, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Preview Systems shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (2) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Preview Systems 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 more information, contact: Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 or by E-mail: PRVW@bernlieb.com SATX INC.: Agrees To Settle California Suit For 4 Million Warrants ------------------------------------------------------------------ SATX, Inc. has agreed to settle a 1997 class action suit currently pending in California, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reported. According to the report, the settlement agreement reached by the parties involves the issuance by the Company of 4 million warrants to be distributed to members of the class. These warrants are exercisable at $1 over a four-year period. The Company has also agreed to deposit $100,000 in an escrow account to cover the "printing cost" of the lawsuit, the report said. "SATX admits no guilt in making this settlement, but feels that this is an equitable, no cash settlement that allows members of the class to participate in the growth and future success of the company," said the report. The agreement needs final approval from the Los Angeles Superior Court. SATX specializes in technology acquisition, market development and licensing. SPECIAL T: Settles 'Unsolicited Fax Advertisements' Suit For $550,000 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Florida-based Special T Travel Services, Inc. has agreed to pay $550,000 in settlement fees and promised to never again send unsolicited fax advertisements, reports the Fort Madison Daily Democrat recently. About 2,000 potential victims in Florida are in line to share $450,000 of the fee, while the remaining $100,000 will be awarded as attorney's fees. Unsolicited fax offers are banned by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which also regulates telemarketing calls, the report said. The settlement agreement still needs court approval. STORAGENETWORKS: Cauley Geller Brings Securities Suit In S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of StorageNetworks, Inc. (Nasdaq: STOR) securities during the period between June 30, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges the following defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder: (1) Goldman Sachs & Co., (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and (3) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. On or about June 30, 2000, StorageNetworks commenced an initial public offering of 9 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share. In connection therewith, StorageNetworks 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 StorageNetworks shares issued in connection with the StorageNetworks IPO; and (2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby defendants agreed to allocate StorageNetworks shares to those customers in the StorageNetworks IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional StorageNetworks 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 more details, contact: CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES, LLP through its Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Charlie Gastineau by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Says Securities Suits in NY, CA Are Meritless -------------------------------------------------------------------- Microprocessor maker Transmeta Corporation dismissed recently the securities class actions pending against it in New York as meritless. In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company also said that it "intends to challenge the complaints and defend the actions vigorously." The report also revealed that there are at least eight suits lodged against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These suits were filed between June 25 and August 3 this year, naming as defendants the Company, its directors, and certain of its officers. The report also noted a similar securities suit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. "These complaints purport to be class actions filed on behalf of all persons, other than the individual defendants and the other officers of Transmeta, who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period from November 7, 2000 to June 20, 2001," the report said. "These complaints allege various violations of federal securities law, including violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933," the report added. All of the complaints allege that the defendants made materially misleading statements or material omissions in various contexts, including the prospectus and registration statement for the initial public offering of the Company's common stock on November 7, 2000. The complaints also allege that certain individual defendants intentionally engaged in this conduct in order to inflate the value of the Company's common stock and thereby obtain alleged illegal insider trading proceeds. "Transmeta currently expects that all of these actions will be consolidated into one action and that a consolidated amended complaint will be filed after the appointment of lead plaintiff," the Company said in the report. The Company has not yet made any responsive filings, and discovery has not commenced, the report said. TUT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Begins Securities Suit In N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Marc S. Henzel commenced recently a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Tut Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: TUTS) securities during the period between July 20, 2000 and Jan. 31, 2001. The complaint charges Tut and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges defendants misrepresented the revenues that Tut was deriving from its sales to small competitive local exchange carriers which were not able to pay for the products purchased from Tut, causing Tut's sales to be inflated and its stock price to be artificially inflated to a Class Period high of $120.37 on August 29, 2000. This upsurge in Tut's stock caused by defendants' false and misleading statements enabled the individual defendants to sell 87,100 shares of their Tut stock for proceeds of $8.1 million. By late November, analysts learned that Tut's 4thQ 00 sales would be well below previously forecasted levels, causing the stock to decline. On November 30, Tut revealed to the public that it was in fact suffering a huge decline in revenues, was not posting smaller negative earnings per share growth, and contrary to defendants' repeated assurances, Tut was forced to reveal the problems it had been experiencing during the Class Period in attempting to grow its business. This announcement caused the stock to drop to below $10 per share but the stock continued to trade at artificially inflated levels as defendants concealed the large amount of uncollectible receivables on Tut's books. Then on January 31 this year Tut announced huge write-offs of uncollectible accounts receivable and inventory, that its 4thQ 00 revenues had dropped to less than $6 million compared to more than $10 million in the 4thQ 99, and that it was laying off 10% of its workforce. This announcement caused its stock price to drop to as low as $5.84, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class. For more information, contact: The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (215) 625-9999 by Fax: (215) 440-9475 by E- mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 WASHINGTON STATE: $500M In Damages Requested In Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Pacific Northwest chapter of the National Black Chamber of Commerce filed suit recently in federal court against the State, King County and the City of Seattle, alleging violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. The group claims the defendants committed various forms of racial discrimination in awarding of contracts, loans and grants. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status and an award of $500 million in damages, the Associated Press reported recently. The lawsuit names Governor Gary Locke, King County Executive Ron Sims and Mayor Paul Schell in addition to the governments they head. In addition to monetary damages, the lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the state, county and city to adopt a nondiscrimination agreement that "sets time tables and establishes a viable pool for African-American business people's participation in all programs" as long as the governments involved receive federal financial assistance. The Black Chamber of Commerce is described as a nonprofit business trade organization dedicated to the development of African-American business. The lawsuit states the chapter's members have been directly affected by the actions alleged. ********* 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 * * *