/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010827.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 27, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 167
Headlines
AMEDISYS INC.: LeBlanc & Waddell Commences Securities Suit In M.D. LA
ASIA PULP: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit In S.D. New York
ASIA PULP: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Lawsuit In S.D. New York
AUTOBYTEL.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit In S.D New York
CLARENT CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Starts S.D. NY Securities Suit
CLARENT CORPORATION: Expects Securities Suits In NY To Be Consolidated
CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Lawsuit In S.D. NY
DIGITAL RIVER: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit In S.D. New York
DKOOP.COM: Inks TX Securities Suit Settlement for $4.2 Million
DKOOP.COM: Says Underwriters Committed Violations Raised In NY Suits
FERRIDAY TOWN: To Appeal Certification On 1999 'Water Boil Notice' Suit
HEALTHEON/WEBMD: Harvey Greenfield Begins Suit v. IPO Underwriters
IBEAM BROADCASTING: Harvey Greenfield Files Suit v. 3 IPO Underwriters
ILLINOIS STATE: Independent Trust Investors Files New $74 Million Suit
INFOTOPIA INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences N.D. Ohio Securities Suit
KNIGHT TRADING: Court Dismisses NJ 'Improper Trading Practices' Suit
LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Meritorious Defense Exists v. New York Suits
METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In S.D NY
MULTEX.COM: Will File Motion To Dismiss When NY Suits Are Consolidated
NET2PHONE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Raises Securities Suit In S.D. NY
OMNISKY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit
PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Florida Securities Lawsuits
POWERCERV CORPORATION: Settles Florida Lawsuit for Unspecified Amount
PSS WORLD: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit In M.D. Florida
REDBACK NETWORKS: Says It Is Prepared To Refute NY Suits' Allegations
SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs Unfazed, Amend Suit Following Dismissal
SMARTDISK CORPORATION: Calls Suit In New York 'Wholly Without Merit'
UNIGRAPHICS SOLUTIONS: Delaware Securities Suits Have No Legal Basis
VIANT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
WEBMD CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
*********
AMEDISYS INC.: LeBlanc & Waddell Commences Securities Suit In M.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
LeBlanc & Waddell, LLC recently filed a Class Action Complaint against
Amedisys, Inc. (OTCBB:AMED) and certain of its officers alleging they
defrauded shareholders.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana, charges violations of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages on behalf of all
investors who bought Amedisys stock between March 1, 2001 and June 13,
2001.
The class action charges Baton Rouge-based Amedisys and some of its top
executives with knowingly or recklessly disseminating false and
misleading financial statements and press releases about the company's
fourth quarter 2000 and first quarter 2001 earnings.
On March 1, 2001, Amedisys issued a press release touting positive
financial results in connection with its home health nursing services.
The statement announced, among other things, that the company had
reduced its net loss form continuing operations by more than 70% for
the year ended December 31, 2000.
However, on June 13, 2001, Amedisys issued a press release announcing a
restatement of its previously claimed earnings.
The company revealed a negative adjustment to net service revenue of
between $4 million and $7 million. This meant Amedisys was actually
unprofitable, even though it had previously report strong earnings.
As a result of the revelation, Amedisys stock plummeted almost 60% to
close at $4.10 per share on June 13, far below its closing price of
$9.92 per share on June 12.
For more information, contact: Jody E. Anderman, Esq., W. Paul Wilkins,
Esq. or Chad A. Dudley, Esq. by Mail: 5353 Essen Lane, Suite 420, Baton
Rouge LA 70809 by E-mail: janderman@lw-law.net or by Phone: 800/988-
3514
ASIA PULP: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit In S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP filed late last week a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Asia Pulp &
Paper Company, Ltd. (NYSE:PAP) between September 8, 1998 and April 4,
2001, inclusive.
The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against defendants Asia Pulp & Paper, Teguh Ganda
Wijaya and Hendrik Tee.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between September 8, 1998 and April 4, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Asia Pulp & Paper securities.
The complaint also alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Asia Pulp
& Paper issued press releases and filed financial statements that
failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company had entered
into two swap contracts involving Indonesian rupiah/US dollar and
Japanese yen/US dollar swaps.
On April 4, 2001, Asia Pulp & Paper finally disclosed that it was in
default of $220 million of swap contracts that had not been disclosed
on its financial statements for fiscal years 1997 to 2000.
The stunning announcement followed a steady stream of news reports that
Asia Pulp & Paper was facing a strong decline in its business and, as a
result, was unable to service its debt.
During the Class Period, Asia Pulp & Paper was able to raise hundreds
of millions of dollars in much needed capital through the issuance of
bonds and a secondary offering of its American Depositary Shares.
For more 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: AsiaPulpandPaperCase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com
ASIA PULP: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Lawsuit In S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP filed a Class Action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York recently, on behalf of all
persons who bought securities of Asia Pulp & Paper Company, Ltd during
the period January 1, 1997 through April 4, 2001, inclusive.
The Complaint charges Asia Pulp and certain of its officers with
misrepresenting its cash funding needs, violating Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
For more details, contact: Katherine Varoukas by Mail: 212 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or (212) 889-3700
by Fax: 212) 684-5191 by E-mail: kvaroukas@abbeygardy.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.abbeygardy.com
AUTOBYTEL.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit In S.D New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York recently, on behalf of purchasers of Autobytel.com, Inc.
[NASDAQ: ABTL] securities between March 26, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants Autobytel, certain of its
officers and directors, and its underwriters.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Autobytel common stock pursuant to the
March 26, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Autobytel 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 Autobytel stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Autobytel'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 additional information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner,
Esq., Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com
CLARENT CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Starts S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer, LLP filed last week a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Clarent
Corporation (Nasdaq: CLRN) between July 1, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The action is pending against defendants Clarent and certain of its
officers and directors, and its underwriters Credit Suisse First Boston
Corp., and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, 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 July 1, 1999, Clarent commenced an initial public offering
of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15
per share.
In connection therewith, Clarent 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 Clarent shares issued in
connection with the Clarent IPO; and
(2) defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby
defendants agreed to allocate Clarent shares to those
customers in the Clarent IPO in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional Clarent 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: Shareholder Relations Department:
Patricia Guiteau by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New
York 10022 by E-mail: pguiteau@whhf.com or by Phone: 877-935-7400 (Toll
Free)
CLARENT CORPORATION: Expects Securities Suits In NY To Be Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarent Corporation expects that the securities class action suits
pending in a federal court in New York will be consolidated into one
action, a Company report to the Securities and Exchange Commission
says.
The Class Action Reporter knows of at least six such suits that are
currently lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
In the report, the Company said it intends to mount a vigorous defense
against these suits.
The suit were filed beginning July 12, 2001, by a number of
stockholders against several of the Company's officers and directors,
including certain underwriters of its initial public offering.
These lawsuits are essentially identical and purport to bring suit on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 1,
1999 and December 6, 2000 or July 2, 2001.
The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus, incorporated in the
Registration Statement by the Company with the SEC was materially false
and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that
certain underwriters:
(i) allegedly required several investors who wanted large
allocations of public offering securities to pay undisclosed
and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of
increased brokerage commissions and
(ii) allegedly required investors to agree to buy shares of the
Company's securities after the public offering was completed
at predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining public
offering allocations.
As a result of the alleged omissions in said prospectus, the plaintiffs
claim violations of Sections 11, 15 and 20 of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
Clarent makes Internet-based telephony systems that integrate voice,
data, and fax transmissions for communications service providers.
Clarent's Gateway integrated hardware and software platform uses packet
switched technology, which is more efficient because it takes up
network space only during transmission, not for the duration of the
call.
CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Lawsuit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP launched recently a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Cybersource Corp.
(NASDAQ: CYBS) securities between June 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants Cybersource, certain of its
officers and directors, and its underwriters.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Cybersource common stock pursuant to the
June 23, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Cybersource 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 Cybersource stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Cybersource'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 further information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com
DIGITAL RIVER: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit In S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint captioned Whalen v. Digital River, Inc. et al. was filed in
New York recently against Digital River, Inc., bares a Company report
filed recently with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The action, filed last August 8, purports to bring suit on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 11, 1998
and December 6, 2000.
The plaintiffs allege that the Company's prospectus, incorporated in
the Registration Statement with the SEC in connection with the
Company's IPO, was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose that certain of the underwriters:
(i) received excessive commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which they allegedly allocated to those investors
material portions of the stock offering; and
(ii) agreed to allocate shares to certain investors in exchange for
which the investors agreed to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at predetermined prices.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages including, but not limited to,
damages suffered as a result of defendants' alleged violation of the
federal securities laws, and recission or recissionary damages to
members of the purported class who no longer hold stock in the Company.
The suit is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
"The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
allegations and intends to vigorously defend against them," SEC report
says.
Digital River develops and hosts e-commerce Web sites and implements
transaction systems for some 8,000 clients.
In addition, the company offers site development and hosting, order
fulfillment and inventory services (through third-party contractors),
marketing services, system integration, fraud screening, and customer
relationship services.
DKOOP.COM: Inks TX Securities Suit Settlement for $4.2 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dkoop.com, Inc. informed the Securities and Exchange Commission lately
that it recently reached an understanding with plaintiffs in a
securities suit to end the matter.
In a regulatory filing, the Company said it offered to pay the
plaintiffs $4.25 million cash in exchange for the dropping of the case.
A memorandum of understanding to this effect was inked last June, the
Company report says.
The settlement deal also includes the issuance of 4,000,000 7-year
warrants with an exercise price of $2.50 per share, the report adds.
The settlement is subject to execution of a definitive settlement
agreement and approval from the U.S. District Court of the Western
District of Texas.
DKOOP.COM: Says Underwriters Committed Violations Raised In NY Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dkoop.com, Inc., meanwhile, claims that the securities suits filed
recently in New York should have been directed to the Company's IPO
underwriters, instead.
According to the Company, the violations alleged in the suits were
primarily committed by the underwriters.
The Company dismissed the issues raised in the suits relating to it as
meritless.
"The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously," says a recent
Company disclosure to the SEC.
The complaints allege that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing and selling common stock pursuant to the Company's
initial public offering without disclosing to investors that some of
the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received undisclosed and excessive commissions from
certain investors.
The suits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District Court of New York.
FERRIDAY TOWN: To Appeal Certification On 1999 'Water Boil Notice' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Town of Ferriday, Louisiana, along with a co-defendant, will appeal
a recent certification ruling on a suit seeking compensation for water
users resulting from a 1999 boil water notice.
In a recent report by The Natchez Democrat, lawyer Stacy Auzenne, who
represents the Ferriday, said he plans to appeal the July 26 ruling of
the Seventh Judicial District Court.
According to Auzenne and Stephen Wilson, lawyer for engineering firm
Owen & White, they will cite error in the judge's decision.
Ferriday resident and restaurant owner Gloria Martello filed suit Oct.
25, 1999, against Ferriday and Owen and White.
U.S. Filter, maker of Ferriday's water plant, was later added as a
defendant.
A trial date has not yet been set in the case, according to the report.
The suit represents thousands of individuals who used Ferriday water
from Aug. 20, 1999 through Dec. 22, 1999 and suffered damages as a
result.
That includes all who were residents of Ferriday, operated or worked at
businesses in Ferriday, leased property in the town, were students at
Ferriday schools or were patients in health care facilities in the town
during that time.
The recent certification ruling was based on the following findings:
(1) About 4,500 people received Ferriday water at their homes and
businesses during the boil water notice -- too many claims for
the court to handle individually.
(2) Testimony from water customers showed that they had similar
claims in common, that those claims had a common cause, and
that those claims are typical of those of other Ferriday water
users.
(3) The class can be objectively defined. In this case, any person
who was a resident, business owner or employee, property
lessor, student or health care patient in Ferriday during the
time of the boil water notice is part of the class.
HEALTHEON/WEBMD: Harvey Greenfield Begins Suit v. IPO Underwriters
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Of Harvey Greenfield raised a class action lawsuit
recently in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of all persons who acquired common stock of
Healtheon Corporation or WebMD Corporation (NASDAQ: HLTH) between
February 10, 1999 and December 6, 2000.
On November 15, 1999, Healtheon changed its name to Healtheon/WebMD
Corporation, and effective September 15, 2000, the Company changed its
name to WebMD Corporation.
The lawsuit names as defendants Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated and
Goldman Sachs & Co., the two lead underwriters of the initial public
offering of Healtheon common stock.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading
misrepresentations and/or omissions, thereby deceiving the investing
public in order to artificially inflate and maintain the market price
of the Company's common stock.
According to the complaint, the investment banks secretly allocated IPO
shares to their preferred investors who agreed to buy more shares later
on at higher prices, creating an artificial demand for the stock, and
some investors who received IPO shares also agreed to pay inflated
commissions on the transactions with the investment banks.
Plaintiff claims that the companies and banks did not disclose these
facts to investors.
For more information, contact: Harvey Greenfield, Esq. by Mail: 60 East
42nd Street, Suite 2001, New York, NY 10165 by Phone: 212-949-5500, or
877-949-5500 (toll free) by Fax: 212-949-0049 or by E-mail:
harvey.greenfield@verizon.net
IBEAM BROADCASTING: Harvey Greenfield Files Suit v. 3 IPO Underwriters
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Of Harvey Greenfield launched recently a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of all persons who acquired common stock of
iBeam Broadcasting Corporation (Nasdaq: IBEM) between May 17, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.
The lawsuit names as defendants Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated,
Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., all
underwriters of the initial public offering of iBeam common stock.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading
misrepresentations and/or omissions, thereby deceiving the investing
public in order to artificially inflate and maintain the market price
of iBeam common stock.
According to the complaint, the investment banks secretly allocated IPO
shares to their preferred investors who agreed to buy more shares later
on at higher prices, creating an artificial demand for the stock, and
some investors who received IPO shares also agreed to pay inflated
commissions on the transactions with the investment banks.
Plaintiff claims that the companies and banks did not disclose these
facts to investors.
For more information, contact: Harvey Greenfield, Esq. by Mail: 60 East
42nd Street, Suite 2001, New York, NY 10165 by Phone: 212-949-5500 or
877-949-5500 (toll free) by Fax: 212-949-0049 or by E-mail:
harvey.greenfield@verizon.net
ILLINOIS STATE: Independent Trust Investors Files New $74 Million Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Banks and Real Estate in Illinois has been slapped anew
with a class action by Independent Trust investors, the Chicago Sun-
Times reports.
According to the investors, the state agency has known for years the
problems that ultimately led to the disappearance of $68.1 million of
investor money but did little to stop them.
The 24 investors from California, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin
filed the suit last week in the Illinois Court of Claims in Chicago.
They accused the agency that regulated the failed Independent Trust
Corporation of "extraordinary negligence."
They seek $74 million in damages.
Earlier in March this year, two investors also sued the same agency for
$90 million.
It was in April last year that the agency shut down the operations of
Independent Trust, after learning that $68.1 million could not be
accounted by the firm.
The new suit contends that the agency knew as early as 1994 that
Independent Trust had transferred illegally some investor funds to an
affiliated company, Intercounty Title Co. of Illinois, but did nothing
about them.
Accordingly, the transfers dated back to 1990.
The suit says that although the agency in 1994 directed Independent
Trust to discontinue its unlawful practices, the latter would ignore
this directive and the agency repeatedly failed to enforce its orders.
The lawsuit claims the losses could have been less if the agency had
acted earlier.
The Office of Banks and Real Estate said it did what it could, the
report says.
INFOTOPIA INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences N.D. Ohio Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP filed a recent suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
Infotopia, Inc. and four members of the company's senior management for
stock fraud.
The plaintiffs, twenty-six stockholders of Infotopia, are seeking a
minimum of $5 million in damages and have asserted a claim for punitive
damages.
Named in the suit, aside from Infotopia (OTCBB:IFTP), are Daniel Hoyng,
Infotopia's chief executive officer and chairman of the board, Ernest
Zavoral, the company's president and a director, Marek Lozowicki, an
officer and a director, and Clinton Smith, an attorney who is also a
director.
Infotopia, located in Canfield, Ohio, is in the direct marketing
business and sells various products through televised infomercials.
The products include home exercise equipment, a line of herbal
formulas, and a kitchen device.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were induced through a series
of false and misleading statements made by the company's senior
management between June and September 2000 to exercise warrants to
purchase Infotopia stock.
The stockholders exercised their warrants in mid-September by
surrendering promissory notes issued by Infotopia that provided for the
return of principal within 270 days together with 10% interest.
The stockholders claim that they relied on statements by Hoyng and
other officers and directors that the "Torso Tiger" sales "will
continue for many years to come" and that earnings of 20 cents per
share could be "safely projected" "for this fiscal year."
In fact, according to the complaint, Infotopia discontinued the sale of
this product as of December 31, 2000 and the company reported a loss of
over $16 million dollars for the three months ending November 30, 2000
and a loss of over $26 million for the ten months ended December 31,
2000.
Other false and misleading statements alleged in the complaint relate
to an announced Letter of Agreement for a $20 million financing package
that was characterized in an August 4, 2000 press release as a "real
home run for our company."
In a letter to the shareholders on September 28, 2000 Hoyng disclosed
that the Letter of Agreement was in fact only a letter of intent that
never materialized into any financing for Infotopia.
The stockholders further assert that the false and misleading
statements had the effect of causing the stock price to rise from 12
cents per share on August 23, 2000 to $1.12 per share on September 12,
2000.
Several of the insiders sold hundreds of thousands of shares through
September 20 realizing substantial profits.
The suing stockholders' stock was not registered by the company until
over a month later when the stock price had dropped to the 20 cent per
share range.
Adjusted for a recent 200:1 reverse split, the stock is currently
trading at less than a half a cent per share.
For more information, contact: Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
through Mark S. Arisohn, Esq. by Phone: 212/907-0840 or by E-mail:
arisohm@glrs.com
KNIGHT TRADING: Court Dismisses NJ 'Improper Trading Practices' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted recently
the motion filed by Knight Trading Group, Inc. seeking the dismissal of
a suit alleging improper trading practices.
According to a recent SEC disclosure filed by the Company, the court
dismissed the suit with prejudice last July 17.
Plaintiffs were given 30 days to appeal the order, the report says.
The Class Action Reporter does not have any information on whether or
not plaintiffs appealed this suit on or before August 17.
The Prager v. Knight Trading Group, Inc. et al. suit accused the
Company of improperly trading securities for its own account in advance
of trading securities for broker/dealer clients.
Knight Trading Group (formerly Knight/Trimark Group) is the leading
market maker in the US via its Knight Securities subsidiary, which
regulates trading for Nasdaq and OTC stocks.
Its Knight Capital Markets unit (previously Trimark Securities) does
the same thing for other exchange-listed securities.
Knight's customers include brokerage houses, institutional investors,
and online brokerages.
LOUDEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Meritorious Defense Exists v. New York Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Technologies, Inc. disclosed recently that it has meritorious
defense against the securities lawsuits recently filed in a federal
court in New York.
According to a SEC report, the Company finds the suits as meritless,
promising to contests them vigorously in court.
Beginning July 26, several purported class action lawsuits were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, its present and former officers and directors.
Its IPO underwriters that handled the March 15, 2000 offering of common
stocks were also named in the suit.
The plaintiffs purport to represent persons who purchased common stocks
during the time period beginning on March 15, 1999 and ending on
December 6, 2000.
The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the assertion that
there was undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters in
connection to the public offering.
"We are not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if
any, related to the lawsuit, although we do not believe it will have a
material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of
operations," the Company says.
The Company manufactures software that lets users convert audio and
video media for Web publishing, convert images and sound into streaming
slide shows, and syndicate streaming media online.
METROMEDIA FIBER: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In S.D NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced lately a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all purchasers of Metromedia Fiber Network,
Incorporated (NYSE: MFNX) common stock between January 8, 2001 and July
2, 2001.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 8, 2001 and July 2, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Metromedia securities.
During the Class Period, defendants announced Metromedia's receipt of a
$350 million credit facility from Citicorp USA, Inc.
However, defendants failed to disclose that the Citicorp credit
facility was contingent on the receipt of additional commitments from
other lenders, which Metromedia was experiencing difficulty in
obtaining; as a result the further development of the Company's fiber
optic network would be significantly delayed.
On July 2, 2001, Metromedia revealed for the first time that the
commitment letter from Citicorp was subject to the receipt of
commitments from other lenders.
For more details, contact: Ira Press, Esq. or Melissa Fleming,
Paralegal by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll free) or by E-
Mail: mfleming@kmslaw.com
MULTEX.COM: Will File Motion To Dismiss When NY Suits Are Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multex.com, Inc. disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with the SEC
that it is just waiting for the consolidation of the securities suits
in New York before it files a motion to dismiss them.
But the Company said it is prepared to mount a strong defense should
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants
due course to the suits.
The law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP; Cauley
Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP; and Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed the
lawsuits beginning May 8 this year.
The suits name as defendants the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and a number of investment banks,
including some of its IPO underwriters.
The lawsuits assert claims pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate
stock in the IPO to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make
additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.
They also allege that the prospectus for IPO was false and misleading
in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.
The Company provides research reports on more than 28,000 companies
culled from brokerage firms, investment banks, and independent
researchers.
The company's subscription and pay-per-view services, MultexNET and
MultexNET On-Demand, serve investment professionals, while its Multex
Investor sites offer resources to individual investors.
Multex distributes its information through its own Web sites and
through alliances with Bloomberg, Reuters, and AOL Time Warner.
NET2PHONE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Raises Securities Suit In S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Net2Phone, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTOP)
securities between July 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants Net2Phone, certain of its
officers and directors, and its underwriters.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling Net2Phone common stock pursuant to the July
29, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated Net2Phone 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 Net2Phone stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive Net2Phone'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., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com
OMNISKY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP commenced lately a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of OmniSky Corp.
(NASDAQ:OMNY) securities between September 20, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants OmniSky, certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling OmniSky common stock pursuant to the
September 20, 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 OmniSky 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 OmniSky stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive OmniSky'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., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com
PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Court Consolidates Florida Securities Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action suits pending in Florida against Pinnacle
Holdings, Inc. have been consolidated into one action, says a Company
report filed with the SEC recently.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action include all
those persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period between June 29, 1999 and March 17, 2001.
The plaintiffs allege that Pinnacle, the directors, the underwriters,
and the Company's Chief Operating Officer Steven R. Day and former
Chief Executive Officer Robert J. Wolsey violated Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.
The defendants allegedly did this by permitting the publication and
dissemination of the prospectus for the January 18, 2000 secondary
offering.
The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus contained various
misrepresentations concerning, among other things, the value of the
towers that Pinnacle had previously acquired and its due diligent
investigation relating to the Motorola Antenna Site Acquisition.
The plaintiffs have also alleged that the directors, Wolsey and Day are
vicariously liable pursuant to Section 15 of the Securities Act for
Pinnacle's alleged violation of Section 11.
Section 15 of the Securities Act makes those persons who control a
"primary violator" vicariously liable for the primary violator's
violation of Section 11.
The plaintiffs further allege that Pinnacle, Wolsey and former Chief
Financial Officer Jeffrey J. Card, and the other named defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The above legal provisions were allegedly committed when defendants
made various misleading statements relating to certain of the Company's
financial statements, the Motorola Antenna Site Acquisition, the nature
of the SEC's investigation concerning its accounting practices and its
relationship with its former accountants, and other matters, in various
press releases and filings with the SEC.
The plaintiffs have also alleged that Day, Wolsey, and Card violated
Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act, which imposes vicarious
liability on those persons who control a primary violator of Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiffs have requested compensatory damages, interest, costs and
expenses incurred in the action including attorneys' and experts' fees,
and other relief.
The suit also names as defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, the
Company's former accountant.
The consolidated suit is pending in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, in Tampa.
"We intend to respond appropriately and in the best interests of
Pinnacle to the consolidated action; however we cannot assure you that
we will prevail in such litigation," the Company said.
Pinnacle, a real estate investment trust, owns more than 2,500 towers
and has marketing rights to space on an equal number of towers owned by
third parties.
The towers are located throughout the US and Canada with a
concentration in the southeastern US.
Pinnacle leases space on its towers to nearly 4,000 tenants, including
such wireless wonders as Nextel and Sprint PCS as well as the FBI and
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
POWERCERV CORPORATION: Settles Florida Lawsuit for Unspecified Amount
---------------------------------------------------------------------
PowerCerv Corporation (OTCBB:PCRV) announced last week that the parties
to the class action suit, which has been pending in the United States
District Court, Middle District of Florida, since mid-1997, (Lifsey v.
Ross, et al.) have agreed to settle the matter.
With no admission of liability, and subject to the court's final
approval, the defendant's insurer will pay a settlement in exchange for
which the plaintiffs will dismiss the case with prejudice.
The Company's insurer will, at no cost to the Company, fund the
settlement.
Marc Fratello, President and CEO of PowerCerv, said, "We are satisfied
with the conditions of this settlement - particularly in that PowerCerv
assumes no liability in the matter. I'm confident that the suit would
have been dismissed a second time had the insurer not agreed to settle.
"The ordeal has repressed the Company for some time, often impeding our
ability to gain new investors, partners and even clients," Fratello
said.
"Now that the lawsuit is behind us, I look forward to capitalizing on
new opportunities that were not afforded us while beneath this dark
cloud," he said.
The parties have filed a memorandum of understanding with the court,
and are presently preparing the final settlement papers for submission
to the court for approval.
PowerCerv provides Integrated Enterprise Response to small-to-midsize
manufacturers and distributors.
Featuring fully integrated enterprise applications with innovative e-
business capabilities, PowerCerv solutions enable companies to
completely integrate and extend the management of front-office and
back-office operations.
PSS WORLD: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit In M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit against PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSSI), the Company's
President and Chief Financial Officer-David A. Smith, and the Company's
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer-Patrick C. Kelly.
The suit purports to represent all those persons or entities that
purchased the securities of PSSI during the period between October 26,
1999 and September 1, 2000, inclusive.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.
The Complaint alleges that PSS World Medical, a specialty marketer and
distributor of medical products, and two of its top officials violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading financial statements and press
releases concerning the Company's net income and business operations.
As a result, the market price of the Company's securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period.
On June 22, 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing its
financial results for its fiscal fourth quarter and year ended March
31, 2000, and the fact that it had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Fisher Scientific International, Inc.
One of the key terms of the merger was that PSSI had to report EBITDA
in excess of $23 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2000 in order
for the merger to be consummated.
In an August 8, 2000 press release, PSSI announced that they were in
compliance with this provision of the merger agreement and that the
merger was expected to proceed.
However, on September 1, 2000, the Company shocked the market when it
announced that the merger agreement had been terminated.
In response, the market reevaluated the true value of PSSI shares,
which had been buoyed by the potential exchange value of Fisher stock
during the Class Period.
As a result, shares of PSSI stock, which had closed at $6.37 prior to
the announcement of the merger termination, dropped dramatically on an
inordinate trading volume of 5,730,200 shares upon dissemination of the
news.
As the sell-off continued, the price of the Company's stock settled
into the range of approximately $2.75-$3.75.
On June 27, 2001, PSSI filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2001 and disclosed, for the first time, the Company's
internal controls over inventory, accounts payable, sales, and accounts
receivable were, at all relevant times, materially deficient and that
the Company had previously issued financial statements for the quarter
ended June 30, 2000 which were materially misleading.
As a result, PSSI would be forced to restate its previous financial
data, and would also cause the Company's EBITDA for the June 30, 2000
quarter to be reduced, below the threshold that would hav3e allowed the
merger to be completed.
For more information, contact: Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. by Phone: 888-476-
6529 or [(888) 4-POMLAW) toll free] or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com
REDBACK NETWORKS: Says It Is Prepared To Refute NY Suits' Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Leading DSL provider Redback Networks, Inc. said it is prepared to
contest the allegations made by several stockholders in securities
suits presently pending in New York.
According to the Company, the allegations have no merits and it intends
to vigorously defend itself before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, where the suits are lodged.
The suits were filed against the Company between July and July 29,
2001, which also name its lead IPO underwriters and two of its former
officers and directors as defendants.
The complaints accused the defendants of violating federal securities
laws by making material false and misleading statements in the
Company's prospectus incorporated in its registration statement on Form
S-1 filed with the SEC in May 1999.
The complaints are generally related to the alleged receipt of
excessive and undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection
with the allocation of shares of common stock in the Company's initial
public offering.
The complaints are currently in the process of being consolidated into
a single action.
Redback Networks' equipment lets telecommunications companies and
Internet service providers such as BellSouth, France Telecom, Verizon,
Singapore Telecom, and SBC Communications manage the services and
accounts of their broadband subscribers.
Its Subscriber Management Systems connect and manage large numbers of
subscribers so companies can deploy high-speed broadband (primarily
digital subscriber line) access to the Internet.
SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs Unfazed, Amend Suit Following Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leading casual footwear maker Skechers USA, Inc. revealed recently that
the plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit have filed an amended
complaint, following its dismissal last June 20.
According to the Company, the plaintiffs lodged the amended complaint
last August 3 before the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.
The consolidated complaint named as defendants the Company, two of its
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.
The class allegedly consists of all persons who purchased securities
in, or traceable to, the Company's IPO of its Class A common stock on
June 9, 1999 or thereafter on the open market prior to June 15, 1999.
"Since these matters are still in the pleading stage and no discovery
has been conducted, neither the Company nor Company counsel is able to
conclude as to the potential likelihood of an unfavorable outcome," the
Company said in recent SEC disclosure.
"In any event, the Company is vigorously defending the claims and
believes that its defenses are meritorious. The Company also maintains
insurance that it believes covers all the matters alleged in the
consolidated complaint as currently pled," the report adds .
Skechers markets trendy casual footwear (oxfords, boots, sneakers,
sandals, and semi-dressy shoes) geared toward 12- to 25-year-olds.
It also operates about 50 retail and outlet stores. Its products are
sold in more than 100 countries and territories.
SMARTDISK CORPORATION: Calls Suit In New York 'Wholly Without Merit'
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"We consider this claim to be wholly without merit and we will
vigorously defend against such claim."
So said SmartDisk Corporation in a recent regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Last July 26, the Company was served with a securities class action,
naming the following executive officers and directors as defendants:
(1) Addison M. Fischer,
(2) Michael S. Battaglia,
(3) Michael R. Mattingly,
(4) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
(5) Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and
(6) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.
The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired our common
stock between October 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000.
The complaint charges 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), for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.
The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading
because it failed to disclose that:
(i) the agreements between BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.
and certain investors to provide them with significant amounts
of restricted SmartDisk shares in the IPO in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions; and
(ii) the agreements between BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,
Hambrecht & Quist LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.
and certain customers under which the underwriters would
allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for
the customers' agreement to purchase SmartDisk shares in the
after-market at pre-determined prices.
The Company develops products that let data be shared among electronic
devices and PCs.
SmartDisk's FlashPath, shaped like an ordinary 3.5-in. floppy, is used
mainly to transfer digital camera images to PCs, but it also lets users
perform digitized audio exchanges.
SmartDisk also offers USB- and FireWire-based personal storage systems,
including portable hard and floppy disk drives for desktop and notebook
PCs, as well as expansion bay drives for notebooks.
UNIGRAPHICS SOLUTIONS: Delaware Securities Suits Have No Legal Basis
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Unigraphics Solutions, Inc. says there are no legal grounds for the
consolidated securities class action suit currently pending in
Delaware.
Nonetheless, the Company says, it will mount a strong defense.
The suit filed in May this year awaits resolution from the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
It names the Company, its majority shareholder EDS, and certain present
and past members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants.
The plaintiffs allege, among other allegations, that EDS' announced
intent to purchase the outstanding common shares of the Company that it
does not presently own for a price of $27.00 per share, is not fair to
the minority shareholders of the Company and that certain defendants
have breached and are breaching their fiduciary duties to the members
of the class.
VIANT CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP filed a recent class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Viant Corporation (Nasdaq: VIAN) securities
during the period between June 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.
The complaint charges defendants Viant, and Goldman Sachs & Co., Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, Lehman Brothers Inc., and Salomon
Smith Barney Inc. 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 June 17, 1999, Viant commenced an initial public offering
of 3 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$16.00 per share.
In connection therewith, Viant 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
Viant shares issued in connection with the Viant IPO; and
(2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with
customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to
allocate Viant shares to those customers in the Viant IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
Viant 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 free) or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com
WEBMD CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Begins Securities Suit In S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of WebMD Corp. (NASDAQ:HLTH),
formerly known as Healtheon Corp., securities between February 10, 1999
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.
The suit is pending against defendants WebMD, certain of its officers
and directors, and its underwriters.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling WebMD common stock pursuant to the February
10, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive
commissions, defendants allocated WebMD 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 WebMD stock rocketed upward
(a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to (and
did) drive WebMD'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 further information, contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 (Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.,
Michael Miske, or George Peters) by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, Larri-Nil
Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2001. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For
subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 301/951-6400.
* * * End of Transmission * * *