/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010820.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 20, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 162
Headlines
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: CEO Sued In CA On Alleged Securities Fraud
ASHFORD.COM: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
BAYER CORPORATION: Girard & Green Files Lawsuit Over Baycol Product
CLARENT CORPORATION: Lovell and Sirota Firms File S.D. NY Suit
CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit
CREDIT SUISSE: Inks Agreement To Settle Shareholders Suit In Delaware
E-LOAN INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
F5 NETWORKS: Wechsler Harwood Raises Securities Suit In S.D. New York
FARGO ELECTRONICS: Sued For Directors' Alleged Breach Of Duties
FREEMARKETS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
IOMEGA CORPORATION: Settlement Offer Gets Final Court Approval
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Involving Subsidiary LifeScan Moved To Nov.
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Lovell and Sirota Firms Files Securities Suit In SD NY
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Sixth Circuit Reverses Decision, Sustains Lawsuit
KNIGHT-RIDDER: Certification Undecided Even After NY Times Resolution
MCDATA CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Raises Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MICHAELS STORES: CA Suit Over Back Wages, Overtime Pay Now Expanded
NETSILICON INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NIKU CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins SD NY Securities Suit
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In SD NY
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Files Motion To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
ROBOTIC VISION: Plaintiffs Move For Securities Suits Consolidation
ROWECOM INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
STARMEDIA NETWORK: Wechsler Harwood Launches S.D. NY Securities Suit
TALARIAN CORPORATION: To Mount Defense Against Securities Suits In NY
TRANSITIONAL HOSPITALS: '99 Plaintiffs' Appeal Still Undecided
ZIFF-DAVIS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
*********
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: CEO Sued In CA On Alleged Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange
Commission recently that it has received a notice of a pending lawsuit
against it for alleged securities violations.
The suit, filed August 9, names company Chief Executive Officer Joseph
Cook as defendant.
It is lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.
"Amylin is aware of a second lawsuit in which the company, Mr. Cook and
Mr. Daniel M. Bradbury, Amylin's Executive Vice President, have been
sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California for alleged federal securities law violations," a SEC
regulatory document revealed.
"It is possible that additional lawsuits may be filed alleging similar
claims," the document said.
"Amylin believes that the assertions in the above-referenced lawsuits
are without merit and it intends to defend vigorously the claims
against the company, Mr. Cook and Mr. Bradbury set forth therein," the
Company said.
ASHFORD.COM: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently commenced a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Ashford.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASFD) securities
during the period between September 22, 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) Ashford.com
(2) Goldman Sachs & Co.,
(3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,
(4) Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, and
(5) E*Offering Corp.
On or about September 22, 1999, Ashford.com commenced an initial
public offering of 6.25 million of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $13.00 per share.
In connection therewith, Ashford.com 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 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
Ashford.com shares issued in connection with the Ashford.com
IPO; and
(ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Ashford.com shares to those customers in the
Ashford.com IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional Ashford.com shares in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices.
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
BAYER CORPORATION: Girard & Green Files Lawsuit Over Baycol Product
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco law firm of Girard & Green, LLP, in association with
a co-counsel, has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against
Bayer A.G. and Bayer Corporation, who manufacture Baycol, Bayer's
cholesterol-lowering drug.
The complaint alleges that certain users of Baycol suffer a potentially
fatal muscle reaction that involves muscle breakdown and release of the
contents of muscle cells into a user's bloodstream.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently announced that it
received reports of 31 deaths associated with the use of Baycol.
Bayer has recently decided to withdraw Baycol from the U.S. market.
For more information, contact: Girard & Green, LLP through Robert S.
Green by Phone: 415/981-4800 or by E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com
CLARENT CORPORATION: Lovell and Sirota Firms File S.D. NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed
late last week a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Clarent Corp. (NasdaqNM:CLRN) between July 1, 1999 and
August 15, 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. Clarent Corp. is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and has been assigned to
the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge.
The complaint alleges that Clarent and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling
Clarent common stock pursuant to the initial public offering without
disclosing to investors that at least two of the lead underwriters of
the IPO and secondary offering had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.
In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, co-
lead underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. and FleetBoston
Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated Clarent shares to customers at the
IPO price of $15.00 per share.
To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$15.00, 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 purchasesat
progressively higher prices as the price of Clarent stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Clarent'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 Clarent stock at the $15.00 IPO price and then selling it
later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high
as $32.75 during Clarent's first day of trading.
The complaint further alleges that Clarent was able to price its
secondary offering at the artificially high price of $85.00 per share
due to the continuing effects of the foregoing violations.
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 Prospectuses distributed to investors and the
Registration Statements filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the Clarent offerings contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters derived from the IPO
and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering"
scheme discussed above.
For more information, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York through
Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or Christopher J. Gray by Phone:
212/608-1900 or by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or contact: Sirota &
Sirota, LLP, New York through Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe by Phone:
212/425-9055 or by E-mail: info@sirotalaw.com
CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Concur Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: CNQR) securities between December 16, 1998 and December
6, 2000, inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants Concur, certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Concur common stock pursuant to the
December 16, 1998 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 Concur 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 Concur stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Concur'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
CREDIT SUISSE: Inks Agreement To Settle Shareholders Suit In Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse First Boston USA, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding that provides for a settlement of a pending shareholders
suit in Delaware.
In a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Bank disclosed that the agreement was reached last July
10.
There are at least 10 suits comprising "In re CSFB Direct Tracking
Stock Shareholders Litigation," which is pending in the Delaware
Chancery Court.
These suits were brought by the public shareholders of CSFB common
stock, who alleged that the proposed offer of the Bank to acquire all
of the publicly owned CSFB common stock for $4 per share was unfair.
E-LOAN INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP lodged a securities class action
lawsuit recently on behalf of all persons who acquired E-Loan, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EELN) securities between June 28, 1999 and August 10, 2001.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
Named as defendants in the complaint are E-Loan executive officers of
E-Loan, Christian A. Larsen, Janina Pawlowski and Frank Siskowski.
The complaint also names as defendants underwriters of E-Loan' initial
public offering, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated.
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 E-Loan's initial public
offering of 3,500,000 shares of common stock at $14.00 per share that
was commenced on or about June 28, 1999.
The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose that:
(1) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors
to provide them with significant amounts of restricted E-Loan
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 E-Loan shares in the
after-market at pre-determined prices.
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:
EELN@bernlieb.com
F5 NETWORKS: Wechsler Harwood Raises Securities Suit In S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer, LLP lodged a class action lawsuit
recently in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, 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 against defendants F5 Networks and certain of its
officers and directors, 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:
(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 F5 Networks shares issued
in connection with the F5 Networks IPO; and
(2) 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 information, contact: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer
LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 or
by Phone: 877-935-7400 (Toll Free)
FARGO ELECTRONICS: Sued For Directors' Alleged Breach Of Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint was recently filed in District Court, Fourth Judicial
District, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota on August 13, 2001
against Fargo, members of the Fargo Board and Zebra.
The complaint purports to be filed by a stockholder of Fargo and
includes a request for a declaration that the action be maintained as a
class action.
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and
unspecified damages and fees of attorneys and experts.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that Fargo's directors have
breached their fiduciary duties owed to Fargo's stockholders by, among
other things,
(1) agreeing to sell the company to Zebra without implementing an
adequate sales process designed to maximize stockholder value;
(2) agreeing to certain provisions in the Acquisition Agreement
which effectively preclude a competing bid;
(3) disseminating materially misleading tender offer materials to
Fargo's stockholders; and
(4) agreeing to certain provisions in the Stockholder Agreements
with Zebra which discourage Fargo's directors from pursuing
a superior offer.
The complaint also alleges that Zebra has knowingly aided and abetted
the Fargo directors' breaches of fiduciary duty.
Fargo believes that the complaint against it is without merit and
intends to vigorously contest the lawsuit.
Zebra believes that the claim that it has knowingly aided and abetted
the alleged breaches by the Fargo directors of their fiduciary duties
is without merit and intends to vigorously contest such claim.
FREEMARKETS INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP recently initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired FreeMarkets,
Inc. (NASDAQ: FMKT) securities between December 9, 1999 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 FreeMarkets and the following
executive officers of FreeMarkets:
(1) Glen T. Meakem
(2) Joan S. Hooper
(3) Goldman Sachs & Co., and
(4) Morgan Stanley & Co., 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 FreeMarkets' initial
public offering of 3,600,000 shares of common stock at $48.00 per share
that was completed on or about December 9, 1999.
The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose that:
(i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors
to provide them with significant amounts of restricted
FreeMarkets shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and
undisclosed commissions; and
(ii) 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 FreeMarkets shares in the
after-market at pre-determined prices.
For further 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: FMKT@bernlieb.com
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP lodged last week a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of GRIC
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: GRIC) between December 14, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The action is pending against defendants CIBC World Markets Corp., U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., Prudential Securities Inc., GRIC, Dr. Hong
Chen and Joseph M. Zaelit and is pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York.
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 December 14, 1999 GRIC commenced an initial public offering
of 4,600,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$14.00 per share.
In connection therewith, GRIC 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:
(1) the Underwriter Defendants 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
GRIC shares issued in connection with the GRIC IPO; and
(2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate GRIC shares to those customers in the GRIC IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
GRIC shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
For additional information, 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: griccase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.milberg.com
IOMEGA CORPORATION: Settlement Offer Gets Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement offer consisting of rebates and a $1 million charitable
donation by Iomega Corporation recently received final approval from
the Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County.
One plaintiff, however, objected to the terms of the settlement and
filed an appeal last July 23.
The appellate court has yet to set a briefing schedule for this appeal.
Pursuant to the agreement, class members who have not opted out of the
settlement will release the Company from all claims that were or which
could have been raised in the litigation.
For its part, the Company promised to issue rebates ranging between $5
and $40 to class members who submit a proof of claim.
The rebates will remain available for six months and will be valid for
the purchase of certain Zip drive products and/or disks.
The level of the rebate will depend on whether the class members' Zip
drive manifested a clicking problem.
In addition, the Company will offer a secondary rebate of $4-15 on Zip
disks to those class members who make a qualified purchase under the
initial rebate program.
The Company will also provide dedicated technical assistance personnel
for addressing, free of charge, customer inquiries regarding clicking
Zip drives.
It will also make a charitable donation of Zip drives and related
software, disks and service, with a total retail value of $1 million.
Finally, counsel for the class applied to the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $4.7 million.
Meanwhile, formal litigation of a related suit in Texas has not
commenced yet, the Company said.
The Texas suit demands relief of $150 for each Zip drive purchased by a
class member, $100 for mental anguish damages to each class member and
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Delaware suit, on the other hand, was filed in September 1998 by a
group of customers who alleged defects in the Company's Zip drives that
causes an abnormal clicking noise that may indicate damage to the Zip
drive or disks.
The plaintiffs sought relief pursuant to claims of breach of warranty,
violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, negligent design and
manufacture, and failure to warn.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Trial Involving Subsidiary LifeScan Moved To Nov.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson informed the Securities and Exchange Commission
recently that the trial of the case involving its subsidiary LifeScan
has been moved to November this year.
A regulatory document filed by the Company recently did not state any
reason of the change of the trial date, which was originally scheduled
for September this year.
Purchasers of SureStep blood glucose meters and strips lodged the suit
against LifeScan in 1998, alleging economic harm due to undisclosed
harm the above products contained.
In late 2000, LifeScan pleaded guilty in a federal court in California
to three misdemeanors and paid a total of $60 million in fines and
civil costs to resolve an investigation related to those same alleged
defects.
In one of the federal class actions, a nationwide class was certified
by the district court last year and trial is now scheduled to begin
this November.
"The Company and LifeScan believe these claims are without merit and
are vigorously defending these actions," said the regulatory document.
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Lovell and Sirota Firms Files Securities Suit In SD NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell & Stewart, LLP and Sirota & Sirota, LLP filed
late last week a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Keynote Systems, Inc. (NasdaqNM:KEYN) between September
24, 1999 and August 15, 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, Kassin v. Keynote Systems, Inc., is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been
assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S. District Judge.
The complaint alleges that Keynote Systems and Umang Gupta and John
Flavio, its CEO and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, at the time
of Keynote's IPO and secondary offering, violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling Keynote Systems common stock
pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to investors
that at least one of the lead underwriters of the IPO and secondary
offering had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors.
In exchange for the excessive commissions, the complaint alleges, lead
underwriter FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated Keynote
Systems shares to customers at the IPO price of $14.00 per share.
To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$14.00, 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 Keynote Systems stock
rocketed upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was
intended to (and did) drive Keynote'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 Keynote Systems stock at the $14.00 IPO price and then
selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices, which
rose as high as $28.00 during Keynote's first day of trading.
The complaint further alleges that Keynote was able to price its
secondary offering at the artificially high price of $105.00 per share
due to the continuing effects of the foregoing violations.
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 Prospectuses distributed to investors and the
Registration Statements filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the Keynote offerings contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters derived from the IPO
and failed to disclose the additional commissions and "laddering"
scheme discussed above.
For further information, contact: Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York
through Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or Christopher J. Gray by
Phone: 212/608-1900 or E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or contact:
Sirota & Sirota, LLP through Howard B. Sirota or Saul Roffe by Phone:
212/425-9055 or by E-mail: info@sirotalaw.com
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Sixth Circuit Reverses Decision, Sustains Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has reversed its
earlier decision to nix a securities class action filed against Kindred
Healthcare, Inc., according to a Company report to the SEC.
The appellate court, sitting en banc, made the complete turnaround last
May, barely a year after it dismissed the suit for failure to state
claims.
The Company said it will continue to vigorously defend against the
suit.
The suit was filed in December 1997 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky.
It alleges that the Company, Ventas, Inc. and certain current and
former executive officers of the Company and Ventas during a specified
time frame violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by,
among other things, issuing to the investing public a series of false
and misleading statements concerning Ventas' then current operations
and the inherent value of its common stock.
The complaint further alleges that as a result of these purported false
and misleading statements concerning Ventas' revenues and successful
acquisitions, the price of the common stock was artificially inflated.
In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued false
and misleading financial statements during the first, second and
third calendar quarters of 1997 which misrepresented and understated
the impact that changes in Medicare reimbursement policies would have
on Ventas' core services and profitability.
The complaint further alleges that the defendants issued a series of
materially false statements concerning the purportedly successful
integration of Ventas' acquisitions and prospective earnings per share
for 1997 and 1998 which the defendants knew lacked any reasonable basis
and were not being achieved.
In December 1998, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.
The court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment and granted summary judgment as to all defendants.
The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.
On April 24, 2000, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the action on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
On July 14, 2000, the Sixth Circuit granted the plaintiff's petition
for a rehearing en banc.
On May 31, 2001, the Sixth Circuit issued its en banc decision
reversing the trial court's dismissal of the complaint.
Kindred Healthcare operates about 55 acute care hospitals and more than
300 skilled nursing facilities providing such health services as
respiratory, rehabilitation, and chronic care.
It also operates institutional pharmacies.
Struggling with plunging profits, lower reimbursements, and problems
with lenders, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
and has emerged under a plan of reorganization worked out with Ventas.
KNIGHT-RIDDER: Certification Undecided Even After NY Times Resolution
---------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been no action yet on the request for certification by a
group of plaintiffs who have brought a class action suit against
Knight-Ridder, Inc. over copyright infringements.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already handed down a decision in the
landmark case against New York Times Company.
The suit against Knight-Ridder was stayed pending resolution of the New
York Times suit, which involves substantially the same issues.
"In re Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation" was
brought late last year by the Authors Guild, Inc. in behalf of
freelance authors who allege that the Company has infringed copyrights
by making plaintiffs' works available on databases operated by the
defendants in the case.
On June 25, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the New York Times did
not have a privilege under Section 201 of the Copyright Act to
republish articles previously appearing in print publications absent
the author's separate permission for electronic republication.
Plaintiffs seek actual damages, statutory damages and injunctive
relief, among other remedies.
The Company intends to contest liability and vigorously defend its
position in the litigation, including opposing class certification.
MCDATA CORPORATION: Weiss & Yourman Raises Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman filed recently a class action lawsuit against McData
Corporation (NASDAQ:MCDT), certain officers and directors of McData and
the lead underwriters of McData's public offering in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The suit was allegedly brought on behalf of investors who purchased
McData securities between August 9, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The complaint charges violations of Sections 11, 12 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 August 9, 2000, McData commenced an initial public offering
of $12.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$28 per share.
The complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
filed in connection with the IPO 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 McData shares issued in
connection with the IPO; and
(2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
defendants agreed to allocate McData shares to those customers
in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional McData shares in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.
For more information, contact: James E. Tullman, David C. Katz, or Mark
D. Smilow by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com or by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York, New York 10176
MICHAELS STORES: CA Suit Over Back Wages, Overtime Pay Now Expanded
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A former assistant manager of Aaron Brothers, Inc., a subsidiary of
Michaels Stores, Inc., filed recently an amended complaint, expanding
the purported class seeking back wages and overtime compensation.
Suzanne Collins who brought the suit more than three years ago filed
the amended complaint June 25.
The purported class she allegedly represents now includes all current
salaried store managers, assistant store managers, and managers-in-
training based in California.
She also added a new plaintiff as a class representative and two
additional causes of action for injunctive and declaratory relief.
The Court has set a hearing date during the fourth quarter of fiscal
2001 to determine whether the case should proceed as a class action
lawsuit.
A trial date has not yet been scheduled. The case is currently in the
discovery phase.
Collins filed the initial suit in April 1999 in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, California and alleges that Aaron Brothers violated
various California laws by erroneously treating its store managers,
assistant store managers, and managers-in-training as "exempt"
employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation.
Based on these allegations, the Collins Complaint asserts that Aaron
Brothers:
(1) violated various California Labor Codes;
(2) violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code; and
(3) engaged in conversion
Collins seeks back wages, interest, penalties, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.
NETSILICON INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of NETsilicon, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIL) securities
during the period between September 15, 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) NETsilicon,
(2) CIBC World Markets Corp.,
(3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,
(4) Cornelius Peterson and
(5) Daniel J. Sullivan
On or about September 15, 1999, NETsilicon commenced an initial public
offering of 5.25 million of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $7.00 per share.
In connection therewith, NETsilicon filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.
The complaint further alleges the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:
(i) the Underwriter Defendants (CIBC World Markets and Piper
Jaffray) 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 NETsilicon shares issued
in connection with the NETsilicon IPO; and
(ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate NETsilicon shares to those customers in the
NETsilicon IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to
purchase additional NETsilicon shares in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices.
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
NIKU CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Begins SD NY Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP recently 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 Niku Corporation
(Nasdaq: NIKU) from February 28, 2000 through December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants Niku, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc.,
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens.
On or about February 28, 2000, Niku commenced an initial public
offering of 8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $24 per share.
In connection therewith, Niku 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) Goldman, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors in exchange for which Goldman, Bear Stearns and
Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material
portions of the restricted number of Niku shares issued in
connection with the Niku Corp. IPO; and
(2) Goldman, Bear Stearns and Robertson Stephens had entered into
agreements with customers whereby Goldman, Bear Stearns and
Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Niku shares to those
customers in the Niku IPO in exchange for which the customers
agreed to purchase additional Niku shares in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices.
For more details, contact: Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP through Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East,
Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit In SD NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer, LLP filed recently a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Nuance Communications, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NUAN) securities between April 12, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The action is pending against defendants Nuance and certain of its
officers and directors, as well as Goldman, Sachs & Co., Thomas Weisel
Partners LLC, Wit SoundView Group Inc., Dain Rauscher, Inc., and
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Nuance common stock pursuant to the April
12, 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 Nuance 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 Nuance stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Nuance'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: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer, LLP
by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by
Phone: 877-935-7400 (Toll Free) or contact: Patricia Guiteau,
Shareholder Relations Department by E-mail: pguiteau@whhf.com
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Files Motion To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. filed recently a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action pending against it in Oklahoma,
says an SEC report filed by the Company.
The motion, according to the report, was filed by the Company July 24
and remains undecided by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.
Discovery has been stayed momentarily pending the resolution of the
motion.
The suit charges the Company with issuing false and misleading
financial information, primarily related to the method the Company uses
to account for commission advance receivables from sales associates.
"While the outcome of these cases is uncertain, the Company believes
these actions are without merit and will vigorously defend against
these actions," the report said.
Pre-Paid Legal Services develops and markets legal service plans across
North America.
The plans provide for legal service benefits, including unlimited
attorney consultation, will preparation, traffic violation defense,
automobile-related criminal charges defense, letter writing, document
preparation and review and a general trial defense benefit.
Last May, the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of
Corporation Finance announced that the Company's accounting for
commission advance receivables does not conform to generally accepted
accounting principles.
ROBOTIC VISION: Plaintiffs Move For Securities Suits Consolidation
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for consolidation of several securities class actions into one
suit against Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. is currently pending in a
federal court in Massachusetts, the Company said in a recent SEC
report.
According to the Company, the motion was filed by two plaintiffs, which
also asked for the appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of lead
plaintiffs' choice of counsel.
No decision has been rendered yet on the motion.
"This case remains at a preliminary stage and no discovery proceedings
have taken place. The Company believes that these claims are without
merit and intends to defend vigorously against them," the report said.
ROWECOM INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP recently 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 RoweCom, Inc. (Nasdaq:
ROWE) from March 9, 1999 through December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
On or about March 9, 1999, RoweCom commenced an initial public offering
of 3,100,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16
per share.
In connection therewith, RoweCom 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 RoweCom shares issued in
connection with the RoweCom IPO; and
(2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
defendants agreed to allocate RoweCom shares to those
customers in the RoweCom IPO in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional RoweCom shares in the
aftermarket at pre- determined prices.
As alleged in the complaint, the SEC and other regulatory agencies and
organizations are investigating the underwriting practices of
defendants, among others, in connection with several other initial
public offerings.
For further 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
STARMEDIA NETWORK: Wechsler Harwood Launches S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer, LLP launched a class action lawsuit
recently in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of StarMedia
Network, Inc. (Nasdaq: STRM) between May 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The action is pending against defendants StarMedia Network and certain
of its officers and directors, as well as Goldman Sachs & Co., Fleet
Boston Robertson Stephens, Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc., and Morgan Stanley &
Co., Incorporated.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On or about May 25, 1999, StarMedia commenced an initial public
offering of 7,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering
price of $15.00 per share.
In connection therewith, StarMedia filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus, with the SEC.
The complaint further alleges 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 StarMedia shares issued
in connection with the StarMedia IPO; and
(2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
defendants agreed to allocate StarMedia shares to those
customers in the StarMedia IPO in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional StarMedia 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 information, contact: Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP
by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by
Phone: 877-935-7400 (Toll Free) or contact: David Leifer, Shareholder
Relations Department by E-mail: dleifer@whhf.com
TALARIAN CORPORATION: To Mount Defense Against Securities Suits In NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Talarian Corporation will mount a vigorous defense against several
securities suit currently pending in a federal court in New York, a
Company report filed recently with the SEC said.
The Company dismissed the lawsuits, saying they are without merit, but
said it cannot assure whether or not they will have a material adverse
effect on its finances and operations.
According to the SEC report, the first suit was filed last August 10,
2001 by a stockholder who claims to represent a class of purchasers who
acquired the Company's common stock between July 20, 2000 and December
6, 2000.
The Company has not yet responded to these suits pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP; Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP;
and Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP have so far filed similar suits.
The complaints generally allege that the Company and the individual
defendants have violated the federal securities laws by issuing and
selling common stock in initial public offerings without disclosing to
investors that certain of the underwriters in the offering allegedly
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.
TRANSITIONAL HOSPITALS: '99 Plaintiffs' Appeal Still Undecided
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is still no word as to when the Ninth Circuit appellate court
will resolve the plaintiffs' appeal to reverse a decision by the U.S.
District Court in Nevada, dismissing their securities class action
against Transitional Hospitals Corporation.
In a report to the SEC recently, the Company said the appeal has been
languishing in the appellate court since 1999.
Be that as it may, the Company said it will vigorously defend itself
against the suit, should an adverse decision be handed down by the
court.
The suit was filed in June 1997, purporting to represent a class of all
persons who sold shares of Transitional Hospitals Corporation common
stock during the period from February 26, 1997 through May 4, 1997,
inclusive.
The complaint alleges that Transitional purchased shares of its common
stock from members of the investing public after it had received a
written offer to acquire all of the Transitional common stock and
without making the required disclosure that such an offer had been
made.
The complaint further alleges that defendants disclosed that there were
"expressions of interest" in acquiring Transitional when, in fact, at
that time, the negotiations had reached an advanced stage with actual
firm offers at substantial premiums to the trading price of
Transitional's stock having been made which were actively being
considered by Transitional's Board of Directors.
The complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 10(b), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and common law principles of negligent
misrepresentation and names as defendants Transitional as well as
certain former senior executives and directors of Transitional.
In June 1998, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with
leave to amend the Section 10(b) claim and the state law claims for
misrepresentation.
The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the Section 14(e) and
Section 20(a) claims, after which the Company filed a motion for
reconsideration.
On March 23, 1999, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
all remaining claims and the case was dismissed.
ZIFF-DAVIS: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP launched recently a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired Ziff-Davis, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ZDZ) securities between March 30, 1999 and December 12, 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 Ziff-Davis, CNET Networks,
Inc., which acquired Ziff-Davis in a stock swap on October 17, 2000,
and the following executive officers of Ziff-Davis and IPO underwriter:
(1) Hippeau
(2) Timothy C. O'Brien.
(3) Goldman, Sachs & Co.
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 Ziff-Davis's initial
public offering of 8,000,000 shares of common stock at $19.00 per share
that was commenced on or about March 30, 1999.
The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose that:
(i) Goldman Sachs' agreement with certain investors to provide
them with significant amounts of restricted Ziff-Davis shares
in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed
commissions; and
(ii) the agreement between Goldman Sachs and certain of its
customers whereby Goldman Sachs would allocate shares in the
IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers'
agreement to purchase Ziff-Davis shares in the after-market at
pre-determined prices.
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: ZDZ@bernlieb.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 * * *