/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010822.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 22, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 164 Headlines BAYER CORPORATION: Alfred Yates Brings W.D. PA Baycol/Lipobay Suit CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Labels Securities Suits In New York 'Meritless' CNET NETWORKS: Parties Considering Dropping Case At Sept.11 Hearing E-LOAN INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York ENTRUST INC.: Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Texas Securities Suits EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: To Mount Defense v. Securities Suits In CA FAIRMARKET INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings S.D. NY Securities Suit GLOBALNET FINANCIAL.COM: Milberg Weiss Files Amended Derivative Suit GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY I2 TECHNOLOGIES: To Ask Texas Court To Nix Securities Suits Next Month LIQUID AUDIO: Has Yet To Receive Copies Of Complaints Filed In NY LOUDCLOUD INC.: Rabin & Peckel Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Stockholders Suit RAMBUS INC.: Farrow Bramson Brings Securities Suit In N.D. California STORAGENETWORKS INC.: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY SUSA PARTNERSHIP: Settles Nationwide Lawsuit For Unspecified Amount TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Suits v. Subsidiary Moved To MI UGLY DUCKLING: Delaware Court Consolidates Shareholders Lawsuits US WIRELESS: Savett Frutkin Launches Securities Suit In. ND California ZIFF-DAVIS: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY ********* BAYER CORPORATION: Alfred Yates Brings W.D. PA Baycol/Lipobay Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who were prescribed the drug Cerivastatin, also known as Baycol (Lipobay outside the United States). As alleged in the Complaint, Bayer Corporation, a unit of Bayer AG (OTC Bulletin Board: BAYZY), is named as the defendant in this action due to its responsibility in manufacturing, promoting, marketing, distributing, and selling Baycol and/or Lipobay. For more details, contact: Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq. by Phone: 1-800- 391-5164 (toll free) or 1-412-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Labels Securities Suits In New York 'Meritless' --------------------------------------------------------------------- Caliper Technologies Corporation labels the securities class actions pending in New York as meritless. The Company, in a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, said it will strongly refute the claims alleged in the suit. The suits were brought beginning June this year against Caliper and three of its officers and directors, alleging several violations of federal securities laws. In particular, the suits list violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 of said Act. The suits also name as a defendant one or more of the underwriters of Caliper's December 1999 initial public offering of common stock. Plaintiffs claim one or more of these underwriters charged excessive, undisclosed commissions to investors and entered into improper agreements with investors relating to aftermarket transactions. Caliper believes that the cases will be consolidated and that a single consolidated complaint will be filed after the court appoints a lead plaintiff. The Company's chips incorporate short glass tubes (Caliper's patented "sipper" technology) for extracting samples and internal channels that hold fluids and chemicals for analysis and experimentation. The company primarily targets the pharmaceutical industry. Its customers include Amgen, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, and Hoffman-La Roche. CNET NETWORKS: Parties Considering Dropping Case At Sept.11 Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement hearing to explore possibilities of dissolving the consolidated shareholders suits against CNET Networks, Inc. is scheduled for September 11, a regulatory document says. The document filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed the parties have been in serious negotiations since May, following the consolidation of the two suits filed last year. Stockholders of Ziff-Davis brought the consolidated suits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County, against Ziff-Davis and all of the members of its Board of Directors, as it was constituted in September 1998. The complaints, which were brought as purported direct class actions, allege that Ziff-Davis' non-employee stockholders were harmed by an allegedly improper re-pricing of employee stock options in September 1998. More specifically, the complaint alleges were it not for the improper re-pricing, employees would not have exercised their options, resulting in fewer outstanding shares and therefore the proportional share of proceeds received by non-employee stockholders from the Ziff-Davis/CNET Networks, Inc. merger would have been larger. CNET Networks owns ZDNet, a leading provider of Websites about technology, which has purchased Ziff Davis' 65% stake in joint venture with ZDNet Media (China), a magazine publisher. E-LOAN INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of E-LOAN, Inc. (NASDAQ:EELN) between June 28, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants E-LOAN, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Chris Larsen, Janina Pawlowski and Frank Siskowski. 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 June 28, 1999 E-LOAN commenced an initial public offering of 3,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, E-LOAN 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) Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of E-LOAN shares issued in connection with the E-LOAN IPO; and (2) Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate E-LOAN shares to those customers in the E-LOAN IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional E-LOAN shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: eloancase@milbergny.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com ENTRUST INC.: Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Texas Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has recently granted the motion filed by Entrust Inc., seeking the dismissal of a consolidated shareholders suit. The Court also gave plaintiffs 30 days leave to file an amended complaint, according to a Company regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. "We believe this class action is without merit and intend to deny all material allegations and to defend ourselves vigorously," the Company told the SEC. Beginning July 2000, several shareholders who purchased Company common stocks during the period from October 19, 1999 through July 3, 2000 brought class action lawsuits against the Company. The consolidated suit alleges that the Company misrepresented and failed to disclose certain information about its business and prospects. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. There has been no discovery to date, and no trial date has been established. Entrust's security software ensures the privacy of electronic communications and transactions across corporate intranets and the Internet. Its Entrust suite of tools automates the management of digital certificates (electronic passports that identify users) and monitors applications such as remote access and e-mail. The company sells to customers such as Citibank, FedEx, and NASA. EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: To Mount Defense v. Securities Suits In CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- World No.1 web-hosting firm Exodus Communications, Inc. promises to mount a vigorous defense against pending securities class actions lodged in California recently. In a report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company dismissed the suits as meritless. The Company, though, cannot give any assurance that the suits will not have a material adverse effect on its finances and operations. "We anticipate that the complaints pending in federal court will be consolidated into a single proceeding," says the SEC report. "We have not yet responded to any of these lawsuits, and no discovery has been conducted," the Company disclosed. Last July 12, the Company and five of its current and former executive officers were named as defendants in the first of nine identical purported class action lawsuits. These complaints are all brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 30, 2001 and June 20, 2001 and allege essentially identical violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and the individual defendants misrepresented the Company's financial prospects for the second quarter of 2001 to inflate the value of the Company's common stock. The suits await resolution in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Exodus operates more than 40 Internet data centers in the Asia/Pacific region, Europe, and North America. Targeting clients whose businesses are dependent on the Internet, these centers offer managed services, allowing clients to store their servers in secure vaults and outsource the management of their Internet sites. FAIRMARKET INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings S.D. NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed recently 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 FairMarket, Inc. (Nasdaq: FAIM) from March 13, 2000 through December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit is pending against defendants FairMarket, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. On or about March 13, 2000, FairMarket commenced an initial public offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17 per share. In connection therewith, FairMarket 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) Robertson Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Robertson Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of FairMarket shares issued in connection with the FairMarket Corp. IPO; and (2) Robertson Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon had entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson Stephens, Goldman, Merrill Lynch and Salomon agreed to allocate FairMarket shares to those customers in the FairMarket IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional FairMarket shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. 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 GLOBALNET FINANCIAL.COM: Milberg Weiss Files Amended Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed late last week an amended derivative and class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court against the board of directors of internet company Globalnet Financial.com (NASDAQ: GLBN) alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty and insider self-dealing. The initial complaint was filed on August 13, 2001. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the actions of the Globalnet Board "have resulted, and will result, in, inter alia, the waste of Globalnet's assets, transactions that benefit insiders to the detriment of the Company, and the improper obstruction of legitimate bids for Globalnet and/or its assets." Globalnet has lost $120 million over the last 18 months. Its share price has fallen by over 99%, from a high of $57 to a current 35 cents. The suit is being brought by Peter Fuhrman, a Globalnet shareholder. Fuhrman is a shareholder activist who has led a campaign to oust the Globalnet board and management. Named in the lawsuit as defendants, in addition to the current members of the Company's Board of Directors, are two former Globalnet directors, Michael Whitaker and Nicholas Backhouse. Whitaker is Chief Executive Officer of London-based Internet investment company NewMedia Spark PLC (LSE: NMS.L). Whitaker stepped down from the Globalnet board on June 14, 2001, the day before NewMedia Spark launched its offer. On July 18, 2001, NewMedia Spark launched a cash takeover bid for Globalnet at $0.36 per share for each share of Common Stock and $0.036 per share for each share of Class A Common Stock of GlobalNet. The amended complaint alleges that the Tender Offer Documents are materially misleading and fail to provide GlobalNet's public shareholders with essential and meaningful information needed by the shareholders to assess the fairness and reasonableness of the Tender Offer. On August 7, 2001, an alternative offer was made by AISoftw@re. Under the terms of that offer, AISoftw@re would acquire each outstanding share of the Company in a stock-for-stock exchange pursuant to which holders of GlobalNet common stock would receive ordinary shares of AISoftw@re valued at $0.55 per share, and holders of Company Class A common stock would receive ordinary shares of AISoftw@re valued at $0.055 per share. Despite the obviously superior value of this proposal to the amended NewMedia Spark offer of July 18, 2001, the Board of Directors nevertheless announced that it continued to support and advocate the NewMedia Spark deal. Prior to the expiration of AISoftw@re's offer, it raised and enhanced its offer to acquire each outstanding share of the Company in a stock- for-stock exchange pursuant to which holders of GlobalNet common stock would receive ordinary shares of AISoftw@re valued at $0.60 per share, and holders of Company Class A common stock would receive ordinary shares of AISoftw@re valued at $0.06 per share -- representing an approximately 8% premium over its previous offer. Despite this enhancement, on August 15, 2001, the Board announced that it had rejected AISoftw@re's clearly superior offer in favor of the New Media Spark offer. Later on August 16, 2001, AISoftw@re wrote to the GlobalNet Board amending its earlier offer to a cash tender offer. Under the terms of the amended offer, AISoftw@re would pay $0.45 in cash in exchange for each share of GlobalNet Common Stock and $0.045 in cash in exchange for each share of GlobalNet Class A common stock. This offer represents a 25% premium above the current tender offer by NewMedia Spark. Furthermore, AISoftw@re announced that as part of its tender offer, AISoftw@re "is prepared to provide $2 million in interim financing to Globalnet Financial so that Globalnet Financial can satisfy its obligations during the time it will take to complete the proposed cash- tender offer." For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Benjamin Y. Kaufman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119- 0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: GlobalNetcase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP recently launched a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of GRIC Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: GRIC) securities during the period between December 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants CIBC World Markets Corp., U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., Prudential Securities Inc., GRIC, Dr. Hong Chen and Joseph M. Zaelit with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On or about December 14, 1999, GRIC commenced an initial public offering of 4.6 million 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 more 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 free0 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com I2 TECHNOLOGIES: To Ask Texas Court To Nix Securities Suits Next Month ---------------------------------------------------------------------- i2 Technologies, Inc. will ask the federal court in Texas to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint filed against it in March this year. According to a latest regulatory filing, the Company is planning to file its motion to dismiss next month. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently consolidated the complaints. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These violations were allegedly incurred when the Company made purportedly false and misleading statements concerning the characteristics and implementation of certain of its software products. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period between May 4, 2000 and February 26, 2001. "We intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit," the Company said. The company creates software that not only helps manufacturers plan and schedule production and related operations such as raw materials procurement and product delivery, but also enables companies to create electronic marketplaces that link employees, customers, suppliers, and trading partners. i2 serves customers (including IBM, General Motors, and 3M) in a variety of industries, including automotive, software, and semiconductors. LIQUID AUDIO: Has Yet To Receive Copies Of Complaints Filed In NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liquid Audio, Inc. says it has yet to be served with any notice of the announced securities suits filed against it by various law firms. As of the filing of its SEC regulatory report, the Company said it has not received any copies of the complaints allegedly docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Class Action Reporter carried the announcements of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP and Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP in its July 24 and August 8 issues, respectively. The Company filed its regulatory report August 14. The complaints name the Company, certain of its former and current officers and directors, Lehman Brothers Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. as defendants. Plaintiffs allege violation of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Company's software lets consumers download, listen to, and buy digital songs off the Web. Unlike MP3, Liquid Audio has won favor among record companies, which can sell copyright-protected music through the company's network of online retailers. LOUDCLOUD INC.: Rabin & Peckel Launches Securities Suit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rabin & Peckel, LLP lodged recently a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ: LDCL) common stock in its initial public offering, declared effective by the SEC on March 8, 2001. The complaint was brought against defendants Loudcloud, certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing and selling Loudcloud common stock pursuant to the March 8, 2001 initial public offering without disclosing to investors: (1) Loudcloud's plans to substantially reduce its workforce and to restructure itself shortly after the public offering; (2) that the public offering was not raising funds sufficient to enable the Company to reach profitability and accomplish the planned expansion described in the prospectus; (3) the imminent cancellation of a major contract to which one of the underwriters was a party; and (4) that in order to enable the public offering to go forward, undisclosed sales of shares were made to insiders and the selling price of the offering was artificially maintained by the undisclosed sale of part of the offering to insiders. For more details, contact: Rekha M. Carozza or Maurice Pesso by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.rabinlaw.com LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP lodged a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Loudeye Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:LOUD) between March 15, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants Loudeye, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Martin G. Tobias and Larry Culver. 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 March 15, 2000, Loudeye commenced an initial public offering of 4,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, Loudeye 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) Robertson Stephens had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Robertson Stephens allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Loudeye shares issued in connection with the Loudeye IPO; and (2) Robertson Stephens had entered into agreements with customers whereby Robertson Stephens agreed to allocate Loudeye shares to those customers in the Loudeye IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Loudeye shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800/320-5081 by E-mail: loudeyecase@milbergny.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP began a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nuance Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUAN) between April 12, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against defendants Nuance, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Ronald Croen, Graham Smith and Dr. Yogen Dalal. 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 April 12, 2000, Nuance commenced an initial public offering of 4,500,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $17 per share. In connection therewith, Nuance 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) Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Nuance shares issued in connection with the Nuance IPO; and (2) Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch had entered into agreements with customers whereby Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch agreed to allocate Nuance shares to those customers in the Nuance IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Nuance shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. As alleged in the complaint, the SEC is investigating underwriting practices in connection with several other initial public offerings. For additional information, contact: Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119- 0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: Nuancecase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Stockholders Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Leading U.S. credit card outfit Providian Financial Corporation disclosed in a latest SEC report that its motion to dismiss a consolidated stockholder suit was denied recently. The Company said the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion in a ruling last June. According to the Company, discovery has since begun following the denial of the motion. The suit filed in 1999 consolidates several putative class actions purporting to represent individuals or entities that acquired the Company's stock between January 15, 1999 and May 26, 1999. The suit alleges unfair business practices and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, in addition to pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company is one of the top 10 credit card outfits in the United States and issues mainly secured credit cards to more than 16 million customers, many of whom have spotty credit histories. RAMBUS INC.: Farrow Bramson Brings Securities Suit In N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Farrow, Bramson, Baskin & Plutzik, LLP filed recently a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California charging Rambus, Inc. (NASDAQ: RMBS) with securities fraud. The suit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Rambus, Inc. common stock between February 11, 2000 through and including May 9, 2001. The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading information about the Company, and that Rambus falsely promoted its patents and technologies relating to SDRAM technology during the class period. After the first Complaint was filed, various law firms filed a series of identical class action complaints. All of these cases will likely be consolidated by the Court, which will appoint a lead plaintiff and counsel to prosecute the lawsuits. The filed class actions seek to recover the damages caused by the securities law violations described above. For more information, contact: Alan R. Plutzik or Kathryn A. Schofield by Mail: 2125 Oak Grove Road, Ste. 120, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 or by Phone: 925-945-0200 STORAGENETWORKS INC.: Cauley Geller Files 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 StorageNetworks, Inc. (Nasdaq: STOR) securities during the period between June 30, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. 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: (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 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. For further 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 SUSA PARTNERSHIP: Settles Nationwide Lawsuit For Unspecified Amount ------------------------------------------------------------------- A nationwide class action filed against Susa Partnership L.P. is now history as both sides recently executed a stipulation discontinuing the action with prejudice. In a recent SEC regulatory filing, the Company admitted it offered a settlement package, but declined to disclose the terms, which it labeled "confidential." The suit was filed in November 1999, seeking the recovery of certain late and administrative fees paid by tenants and an injunction against similar fees. The suit was lodged in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Ulster County. TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Suits v. Subsidiary Moved To MI --------------------------------------------------------------------- The securities suits lodged against Interface Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Tumbleweed Communications Corporation, have been transferred to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan. The suits were originally docketed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The pending motions filed by Interface in September last year, consequently, will now be decided by the new court, a SEC report says. These motions include: (1) a motion to strike or dismiss for failure to meet the certification requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and (2) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, The suits were brought in July last year by David H. Zimmer, Congressional Securities, Inc. and other plaintiffs against Interface and various additional defendants, including Interface's President and Chief Executive Officer, Robert A. Nero and Fiserv Correspondent Services, Inc. The complaints seek relief under the federal securities laws on behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased, held, or sold shares of Interface stock, and under various other causes of action. Tumbleweed created the Integrated Messaging Exchange software, which enables secure electronic messaging (including electronic bill statements and customer service inquiries) primarily for telecom service providers, financial institutions, and government agencies. Its Messaging Management System lets businesses filter, monitor, and archive e-mail sent and received by both employees and trading partners, distributors, and suppliers. UGLY DUCKLING: Delaware Court Consolidates Shareholders Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Chancery Court in New Castle recently consolidated the shareholders suits against top used-car seller Ugly Duckling Corporation, a SEC report filed by the Company says. The report said the court ordered the consolidation in June. "We intend to vigorously defend against the plaintiff's allegations and believe that the actions are without merit," the Company said in the report. The consolidated suit stems from an offer made by Company chairman and primary shareholder Ernest Garcia II to buy all outstanding shares of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs allege that Ugly Duckling, and its directors, breached fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition. The complaints seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition by Garcia and to recover compensatory damages caused by the proposed acquisition and the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Ugly Duckling is a leading used-car dealership chain, primarily targeting low-income customers and those with credit problems. To cater to these sub-prime customers, the company is a "buy here-pay here" dealer, meaning it finances and services car loans rather than using outside lenders. Interest rates ranges from 20%-30%. Ugly Duckling operates about 80 dealerships in metropolitan areas in eight states. Cars average about $8,600 and usually are between four and seven years old. US WIRELESS: Savett Frutkin Launches Securities Suit In. ND California ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Savett Frutkin Podell & Ryan, P.C. filed a class action complaint recently on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the securities of U.S. Wireless Corporation (NASDAQ: USWC, USWCE) between June 29, 1999 and May 25, 2001 and who were damaged thereby. The complaint was filed against U.S. Wireless and its former chairman and CEO, Oliver Hilsenrath, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused the Company to falsely report its results for fiscal 2000 through improper characterization of the benefit and the beneficiaries of the issuance of shares of the Company's stock. As a result of this mischaracterization, the company's net loss attributable to common shareholders was understated by $6.2 million, or 35%. Ultimately, U.S. Wireless revealed that its results for fiscal 2000 were in error and would be restated to record the share issuances at fair market value and record a loss of $5.3 million for the shares and $0.9 million for certain tax effects. Absent defendants' improper accounting, the Company would have reported much less favorable fiscal 2000 earnings. On May 29, 2001 Nasdaq suspended trading of U.S. Wireless Corporation. As a result, U.S. Wireless was halted from trading at $2.91, 88% lower than the Class Period high of $24.50. For more information, contact: Savett Frutkin Podell & RYAN, P.C. through Robert P. Frutkin, Esq., Barbara A. Podell, Esq. or Renee C. Nixon, Paralegal by Phone: 215/923-5400 or 800/993-3233 by E-mail: mail@savettlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.savettlaw.com ZIFF-DAVIS: Schiffrin & Barroway Brings Securities Suit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced a class action lawsuit recently in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Ziff-Davis, Inc. (NYSE: ZDZ) from March 30, 1999 through December 12, 2000, inclusive. The suit is pending against defendants 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: Hippeau and Timothy C. O'Brien. The complaint also names Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant, who was one of the lead underwriters of Ziff-Davis' initial public offering. On or about March 30, 1999, Ziff-Davis commenced an initial public offering of 8,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $19.00 per share. In connection therewith, Ziff-Davis 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 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 (2) 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: 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 ********* 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 * * *