/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/010919.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, September 19, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 183 Headlines AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Commences NY Securities Suit AUDIBLE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Indiana District Court Dismisses Securities Suit CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files S.D. NY Securities Suit CONSECO FINANCE: Appeals $26.8M Awarded In Arbitrated SC Credit Cases COVAD COMMUNICATIONS:Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit DATAWORKS CORPORATION: Asks That CA Court Dismiss Securities Suit FLORIDA: Pledges Better Child Care To Settle 11-Year Lawsuit GEMSTAR TV: Commences Settlement Discussions in Antitrust Suit in NY GREAT SOUTHERN: Pursues Settlement Of Sales Practice Suit in N.D. TX GUESS? INC.: Sued By Employees Seeking Overtime Wages in San Diego CA GUESS? INC.: Sued For Securities Acts Violations in DE and CA MADDEN STEVEN: Sued For Securities Act Violations In E.D. NY MEDICALOGIC/MEDSCAPE INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in NY METROMEDIA FIBER: Berger Montague Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit NEOFORMA.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY NEW FOCUS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY NUCENTRIX BROADBAND: Enters Agreement To Settle TX Securities Suits OMEGA HEALTHCARE: New York District Court Dismisses Securities Suit ON POINT: Set To Pay $1 Million To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. CA O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Verbal Agreement To Settle Consumer Suit PALM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Pre-Trial Meeting For Securities Suit Pending ROBOTIC VISION: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in MA SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Kirby McInerney Files Suit in N.D. GA SEGUE SOFTWARE: Pays $200,000 To Settle Massachusetts Securities Suit SERVICE CORPORATION: Still To Resolve Securities Suit in S.D. TX SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit SLAVERY REPARATIONS: Group Considers Reparations Suit For Blacks TERRORIST ATTACK: Congress To Limit Potential Suits Against Airlines THEGLOBE.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witness Testifies In Virginia Cigarette Suit WESTFIELD AMERICA: Enters Agreement In Multiple Securities Suits ********* AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Commences NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Akamai Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKAM) securities between October 28 1999 and June 29, 2001. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are: (1) Akamai, (2) George H. Conrades, (3) Paul Sagan, (4) Arthur H. Bilger, (5) Todd A. Dagres, (6) Thomas Leighton, (7) Daniel M. Lewin, (8) Terrance G. McGuire, (9) Edward W. Scott, (10) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, (11) Donaldson Lufkin & Jennrette Securities Corporation, (12) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and (13) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Akamai's initial public offering of 9 million shares of common stock at $26.00 per share that was completed on or about October 28, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Akamai shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Akamai shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: AKAM@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com AUDIBLE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- On July 2, 2001, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Audible, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADBL) between July 16, 1999 and June 11, 2001. The suit was filed against defendants Audible, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Audible common stock pursuant to the July 16, 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 Audible shares to customers at the IPO price. Allegedly, to receive the allocations at the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of Audible stock rocketed upward was intended to drive Audible's share price up to artificially high levels. This alleged artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices. For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole, Thomas Burt, Michael Miske or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Audible. BRIGHTPOINT INC.: Indiana District Court Dismisses Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against Brightpoint, Inc. for alleged securities act violations. The Company and certain of its executive officers, two of whom are also directors, were named as defendants in the four actions filed in June and July 1999, which were subsequently consolidated. The action involved a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period October 2, 1998 through March 10, 1999. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss the action and the court granted such motion on March 29, 2001, subject to the plaintiffs right to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint before April 26, 2001. The plaintiffs did not file such a motion and the court has entered final judgment dismissing the action. The Company is a global distributor of mobile phones, acting as a middleman between manufacturers and wireless service providers. CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files S.D. NY Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Caliper Technologies Corp. [NASDAQ: CALP] between December 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit was filed against defendants Caliper, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Caliper common stock pursuant to the December 14, 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 Caliper shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations at the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The alleged requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of Caliper stock rocketed upward was intended to drive Caliper's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation allegedly enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices. For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole, Thomas Burt, Michael Miske or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Caliper. CONSECO FINANCE: Appeals $26.8M Awarded In Arbitrated SC Credit Cases --------------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco Finance Corporation appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court the $26.8 million award in two arbitration proceedings. In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company vowed to fight the decision, saying that the arbitrator erred by conducting class action arbitrations without the authority to do so and misapplying South Carolina law when awarding the penalties. The arbitrator earlier allowed the plaintiffs to pursue purported class action claims in arbitration, over the Company's objection. The two purported arbitration classes consist of South Carolina residents who obtained real estate secured credit from the Company's Manufactured Housing Division (Lackey) and Home Improvement Division (Bazzle) in the early and mid 1990s. The two classes did not receive a South Carolina specific disclosure form relating to selection of attorneys in connection with the credit transactions. Conseco Finance is a provider of loans for manufactured homes in the US. The Company also provides its clients with damage and credit insurance, as well as home equity and home improvement loans. COVAD COMMUNICATIONS:Bernstein Liebhard Files S.D. NY Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced on behalf all persons who acquired Covad, Inc. (NASDAQ: COVD) securities between January 22, 1999 to December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are: (1) Covad, (2) Timothy Laehy, (3) Robert Knowling, Jr., (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, (5) Goldman Sachs & Co., and (6) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Covad's initial public offering of 7.8 million shares of common stock at $18.00 per share that was completed on or about January 22, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Covad shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Covad shares in the after-market at pre- determined prices. For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: COVD@bernlieb.com. or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com DATAWORKS CORPORATION: Asks That CA Court Dismiss Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Software provider DataWorks awaits a court decision on its motion to dismiss a pending securities suit filed late 1998 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of DataWorks stock between October 30, 1997 and July 16, 1998. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning DataWorks' acquisition of Interactive Group, Inc. and demand for DataWorks' products. The Company is named as a defendant solely as DataWorks' successor, and is not alleged to have taken part in the alleged misconduct. The action is in the early stages of litigation, no trial date is set, and defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint remains pending. The Company believes there is no merit to this lawsuit and intends to defend against it vigorously. FLORIDA: Pledges Better Child Care To Settle 11-Year Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Florida promised to provide better child care in the settlement of an 11-year-old class action suit accusing the state of inability to provide adequate mental health services for foster children and juvenile offenders. The settlement, which covers at least 45,000 children was given preliminary approval by U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore last June and awaits final approval. Children's advocates had sued the state, saying it wasn't offering adequate resources and attention to the children's needs. Some of the key problems behind the lawsuit still exist today: waiting lists for services, poorly trained social workers, high caseloads and high turnover, said Christina Zawisza, another attorney for the children. Under the settlement, the state has promised to provide access to mental health services within 60 days. Chesterfield Smith, Jr., attorney representing the state says that the proposed settlement is "...fair, adequate and reasonable" and that officials are committed to make the settlement work. A total of 263 foster care and 767 juvenile offender files will be reviewed in May 2002 and 2003 to monitor progress. If the advocacy groups think that the state hasn't done everything it has promised by May 2003, they have the right to reinstate the lawsuit. There was no opposition to the agreement during the Monday settlement hearing. Children's attorney Bob Levenson said that if the agreement is followed, then ``...we'll have a situation where, systemically, the state is doing the right thing for children by May 2003.'' GEMSTAR TV: Commences Settlement Discussions in Antitrust Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gemstar TV Guide International, Inc. has entered settlement discussions with plaintiffs in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. However, both parties notified the Court in a letter dated June 19,2001 that no final settlement has been reached and that the parties need the court's assistance in resolving an issue regarding class-wide notice of the settlement. The suit, brought on behalf of magazine subscribers, names as defendants, the Company, the Magazine Publishers Association, and twelve other publishers of consumer magazines. The suits allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to limit the discounting of magazine subscription prices by means of rules adopted by the MPA and the Audit Bureau of Circulation. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which is pending before the Court. After oral argument was heard on January 10, 2001, the parties commenced settlement discussions. The company invented VCR Plus+ (the technology that lets users record TV programs using a simple code) and has licensed its technology to essentially every TV and VCR maker. Its Gemstar Guide Technology allows users to review onscreen TV listings and use them to program their VCRs or TVs. The company has expanded into the retail arena through its purchase of airline catalog firm SkyMall. GREAT SOUTHERN: Pursues Settlement Of Sales Practice Suit in N.D. TX -------------------------------------------------------------------- Great Southern Life Insurance Company is pursuing the settlement of a sales practice class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Two other subsidiaries, Americo Financial Life and Annuity Insurance Company and Ohio State Life Insurance Company, are also named as defendants. The action asserts claims related to sales practices and premiums charged in connection with certain life insurance products and sales practices in connection with annuity products. The Company and certain subsidiaries, including Americo Financial, also are defendants in a purported class action asserting claims in connection with the marketing and administration of deferred annuity and life insurance products sold to schoolteachers and others. The Company and its subsidiaries named in the pending actions referred to above deny any allegations of wrongdoing and are defending the actions vigorously. The Company is confident that liability arising from the above suits will not have adverse effects on the Company's financial condition. GUESS? INC.: Sued By Employees Seeking Overtime Wages in San Diego CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in a class action suit filed against clothing retailer Guess?, Inc. has been set for November 9, 2001. The suit was filed in in San Diego County Superior Court and purports to be a class action filed on behalf of current and former store management employees in California. Plaintiffs seek overtime wages and parties have stipulated that a limited class composed only of visual co-managers and co-managers should be certified. The Court certified this limited class on March 16, 2001. GUESS? INC.: Sued For Securities Acts Violations in DE and CA ------------------------------------------------------------- Clothing retailer Guess?, Inc. faces multiple securities suits filed in Delaware and California charging the Company with federal securities act violations. On January 30, 2001, the Company, and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in the suit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Seven additional class actions have been filed in the Central District, all directed at the same defendants. All eight complaints purport to state claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suits allege that defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to the Company's inventory and financial condition during different period. In four suits, the class period is February 14, 2000 through January 26, 2001; in the other four, February 14, 2000 through November 9, 2000. On April 25, 2001, the court entered an order consolidating all of the eight class actions and appointed as lead plaintiff, the Policeman and Fireman's Retirement System of the City of Detroit. On July 9, 2001, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint to which the Company is due to respond on August 23, 2001. On March 15, 2001, a complaint was filed by Susan Goldman, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Guess?, Inc. against the following: (1) Bryan Isaacs, (2) Alice Kane, (3) Robert Davis, (4) Armand Marciano, (5) Paul Marciano, (6) Maurice Marciano, (7) Howard Socol and (8) Guess?, Inc. in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware. The complaint alleges misappropriation of corporate information, insider trading and other purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and its Board of Directors. On June 8, 2001, the Company filed their opening brief in support of our motion to dismiss, to which the plaintiffs responded on July 11, 2001. On May 7, 2001, a complaint was filed by Suzanne Bell, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Guess?, Inc. against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges corporate mismanagement, insider trading and other purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company and its Board of Directors. On July 5, 2001, the court stayed the action pursuant to stipulation of the parties pending the outcome of the derivative action. The Company has vowed to defend these actions though they said they "...cannot predict the outcome of these matters." MADDEN STEVEN: Sued For Securities Act Violations In E.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------ Footwear maker Madden Steven, Ltd. Faces several securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suits were filed against the Company, Steven Madden personally, and, in some of the actions, the Company's President and its Chief Financial Officer. On December 8, 2000, the court consolidated these actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the plaintiff as lead counsel. On February 26, 2001, the plaintiff served a consolidated amended complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints allege that the Company issued false and misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse information relating to certain matters and allegations concerning Mr. Madden. On April 19, 2001, all of the defendants served motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file a second amended consolidated complaint by this year. Defendants accordingly will withdraw, without prejudice, their previously filed motions and then have 45 days after service of the new pleading to file their responses. On or about September 26, 2000, a shareholders derivative action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the action, which seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company from Madden's June 20, 2000 indictment and to require him to release certain profits, bonuses and stock option grants he received from the Company. On January 3, 2001, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and on February 2, 2001, both the Company and Madden filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint because of the plaintiff's failure to make a prelitigation demand upon the Company's Board of Directors. Following completion of the briefing on the motions, the Court granted the plaintiff's request to file a second amended complaint by September 17, 2001, which will have the effect of deferring consideration of defendant's pending motions. The Company has vowed to vigorously defend against the above actions and cannot yet determine any resulting liability. MEDICALOGIC/MEDSCAPE INC.: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Medicalogic/Medscape, Inc. will vigorously oppose the federal securities class action suit filed by the law firm of Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz, LLP last August 2,2001. The suit names as defendants the Company, a current director, a prior officer and four underwriters of their initial public offering. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is brought on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between December 13, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the Company's prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose that their lead underwriter required several investors who wanted large allocations of initial public offering securities to pay undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation. The compensation was in the form of increased brokerage commissions and required investors to agree to buy shares after the initial public offering was completed at predetermined prices as a precondition to obtaining initial public offering allocations. The plaintiffs further allege that because of these purchases, the Company's post-initial public offering stock price was artificially inflated. As a result of the alleged omissions and the purported inflation of our stock price, the plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MedicaLogic/Medscape provides electronic medical records software and has shifted its focus to the Web with Logician by Medscape, a subscription-based site that lets doctors store and manage medical records online. The company also provides information to consumers and health-care professionals through sites such as Medscape.com and CBSHealthWatch and offers consumers access to online health records through AboutMyHealth. METROMEDIA FIBER: Berger Montague Commences S.D. NY Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. (Nasdaq:MFNX) securities during the period from January 8, 2001 through July 2, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reason of material misrepresentations and/or omissions in SEC filings and other public statements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants materially misrepresented the terms and status of a purported $350 million credit facility from Citicorp USA, Inc., which would enable Metromedia to complete the construction of an extensive fiber optic network. Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented the amount of funding Metromedia would need to execute its business plan. Defendants' statements were materially false and misleading because defendants' characterization of Citicorp's commitment as being subject only to ``definitive documentation'' failed to disclose that: (1) material terms of the Citicorp credit facility were still being negotiated, and as ultimately amended, the credit facility was only for $62.5 million and was contingent on the receipt of additional commitments from other lenders; and (2) that the $350 million credit facility, even had it been committed, was insufficient to fund the company's business plan. For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Doublas M. Risen or Kimberly A. Walker by Phone: 888-891-2289 or (215) 875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website: www.investorprotect.com NEOFORMA.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired Neoforma.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEOF) securities between January 24, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are: (1) Neoforma (2) Robert J. Zollars, (3) Frederick J. Ruegsegger, (4) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, (5) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., (6) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with Neoforma's initial public offering of 7,000,000 shares of common stock at $13.00 per share that was completed on or about January 24, 2000. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted Neoforma shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Neoforma shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: NEOF@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com NEW FOCUS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf all persons who acquired New Focus, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUFO) securities between May 18, 2000 to June 11, 2001. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and has been assigned docket number 01-CV-5925. Named as defendants in the complaint are: (1) New Focus, (2) Milton Chang, (3) David L. Lee, (4) John Dexheimer, (5) Winston S. Fu, (6) R. Clark Harris, (7) Robert D. Pavey, (8) Kenneth E. Westrick, (9) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, (10) Chase Securities Inc., (11) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc. and (12) CIOBC World Markets Corp. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with New Focus's initial public offering of 5 million shares of common stock at $20.00 per share that was completed on or about May 18, 2000. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the Underwriter Defendants' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted New Focus shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the Underwriter Defendants and certain of its customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase New Focus shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: NUFO@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com NUCENTRIX BROADBAND: Enters Agreement To Settle TX Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nucentrix Broadband Networks have entered a memorandum of agreement to settle two federal class action lawsuits filed against certain former directors and officers of the Company's predecessor, Heartland Wireless Communications, Inc. The suit was filed in Kleburg County, Texas in July 1998 against Heartland, to whom the Company may have indemnity obligations, for alleged federal securities acts violations. In addition, the above defendants were named in a similar securities action filed in U.S. District Court or the Northern District of Texas in February 1998. In June 2000, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in the second lawsuit with prejudice. The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. However, both parties entered into the memorandum of understanding to settle the suits. The parties anticipate executing a settlement agreement incorporating the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, which will be submitted to the court in Kleberg County for approval. All amounts payable by the former directors and officers of Heartland in the settlement will be covered by the proceeds from the Company's primary directors' and officers' liability insurance policy. The Company began as a wireless cable TV provider using Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) technology. The company plans to focus on its Internet services. OMEGA HEALTHCARE: New York District Court Dismisses Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the securities class action filed against Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. The Court first issued the order dismissing the case without prejudice on May 29, 2001 and gave the plaintiffs leave to file a new complaint on or before July 20,2001. Plaintiffs did not re-file the case, resulting in a complete resolution in favor of the Company. Omega Healthcare Investors is a real estate investment trust (REIT). ON POINT: Set To Pay $1 Million To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Point Technology Systems, Inc. is gearing up to pay a total of $1 million in shares and cash to settle a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Under the settlement agreement, the Company will be permitted to issue shares worth $950,000 on the date the shares are required to be issued to the class, which would occur within twelve months. The refrigeration and service industry machine maker will also pay $50,000 cash. The Company emphasized in a regulatory filing that it has not admitted any liability in the case but entered into the settlement because it was "...in the best interests of the Company." The consolidated complaint arose from suits filed in the same court in 2000 against the Company and certain officers and directors. The suit alleged that the Company violated federal securities laws by the dissemination of materially false and misleading financial statements. The court has preliminarily approved the amended settlement agreements. O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Reaches Verbal Agreement To Settle Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. subsidiary Hi-Lo Auto Supply has reached a positive verbal agreement to settle the consumer action suit filed in the Jefferson County District Court. The suit, filed against the Company in May 1997, sought to certify a class action entities in Texas, Louisiana and California who purchased a battery from the Company since May 1990. The complaint alleges that the Company offered and sold "old," "used" and "out of warranty" batteries as new, resulting in the following claims: (1) deceptive trade practices, (2) breach of contract, (3) negligence, (4) fraud, (5) negligent misrepresentation, and (6) breach of warranty. On July 27, 1998, the Trial Court certified this class. The Company then appealed the decision to certify the class in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas. On February 25, 1999, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the Trial Court's decision to certify the class, which the Company appealed by seeking a written order overriding the lower court's ruling, from the Supreme Court of Texas. On June 6, 2000, the Supreme Court of Texas denied the Company's appeal. The settlement documents are currently being prepared and will be subject to the approval of the Trial Court. O'Reilly Automotive sells aftermarket parts, automotive tools, professional service equipment and accessories. PALM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Palm, Inc. (NASDAQ: PALM) between March 2, 2000 and March 28, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed against defendants Palm, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Palm common stock pursuant to the March 2, 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 Palm shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations at the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers allegedly had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The alleged requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of Palm stock rocketed upward was intended to drive Palm's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices. For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole, Thomas Burt, Michael Miske or George Peters by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Palm. PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Pre-Trial Meeting For Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Florida District Court has set a pre-trial conference this month on several securities class action suits filed against Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. The suits commenced in February 1999 against the Company and three of its principal officers in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all open market purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 31, 1997, and various dates through and including April 2, 1999. They claim that during that period, the Company violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements concerning its billing practices and results of operations. The plaintiff class has been certified, and the case is now in the discovery stage but no trial date has yet been set. Efforts to engage in mediation have been unsuccessful. The Company has instructed their counsel to vigorously oppose the actions, as they believe that the claims are without merit. Pediatrix Medical Group provides contract management for hospital-based neonatal and pediatric intensive care units. The company manages, staffs, and administers units and handles billing and reimbursement. Pediatrix also staffs and manages perinatal practices, which provide care for women with high-risk pregnancies. ROBOTIC VISION: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in MA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a securities class action lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who acquired Robotic Vision Systems common stock between January 27, 2000 and May 15, 2001. The complaint charges Robotic Vision Systems Inc. (NASDAQ:ROBV) and two of its top officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Robotic Systems made false and misleading statements in its news releases and public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission about its revenues and net income for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000. In news releases issued during the Class Period, Robotic Systems touted its sequential growth in revenues for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2000 and a turnaround in which it posted net income in each quarter compared with quarterly losses for the corresponding periods in fiscal year 1999. On May 15, 2001, however, Robotic Systems announced that it would restate its financial results for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000 and for the three month period ended December 31, 2000 to correct "accounting errors" tied to revenue recognition at Acuity CiMatrix division. At the time of the announcement, Robotic Systems said that the restatement would reduce revenue for the fiscal 2000 year to an estimated $223.5 million, or 1.9% less than had been reported previously, and decrease net income to $10.9 million, or 10.6% less than had been reported previously. In response to the announcement, Robotic Systems' stock price dropped approximately 15% in one day on heavy trading volume. For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah Gross by Mail: 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: 866-561-3600(toll free) 800-849-3120(toll free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernardmgross.com SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Kirby McInerney Files Suit in N.D. GA -------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all purchasers of Scientific-Atlanta Incorporated (NYSE: SFA) common stock between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 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. The suit alleges that the Company issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Scientific-Atlanta securities. On July 19, 2001, defendants reported Scientific-Atlanta's financial results for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2001 and shocked the market by reporting a 21% decline in bookings from the previous year's fourth quarter. This decline in bookings was attributable to, among other things, a surplus in customer inventory levels, which, the lawsuit alleges, defendants knew, or should have known. In reaction to this announcement shares of Scientific-Atlanta plummeted by more than 34%, or $12.08, to close at $23 per share, on heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Ira Press or Melissa Fleming 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: mflemm@kmslaw.com SEGUE SOFTWARE: Pays $200,000 To Settle Massachusetts Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Segue Software, Inc. paid $200,000 to settle a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, following preliminary approval of the settlement. The consolidated complaint came from two suits filed in April and May 1999 against Segue, its Chief Executive Officer and a former Chief Financial Officer of Segue. The suits alleged the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in certain public disclosures from October 13, 1998 through April 9, 1999. The public disclosures related to Segue's past and future financial performance and results. These cases were consolidated under the caption and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 27, 1999 alleging a class period of July 14, 1998 through April 9, 1999, inclusive. On November 8, 1999 each of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action, which the Court granted on July 26,2000. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the First Circuit, but the appeal was still pending in December 2000 when the parties and Segue's insurers reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. Segue's Directors' and Officers' insurance contributed a substantial portion of the settlement amount which has been placed in escrow. The settlement is still subject to final court approval and shareholder approval. Segue Software provides software and services that help businesses engaged in online transactions build, test, and manage their e-business systems. SERVICE CORPORATION: Still To Resolve Securities Suit in S.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities class action suit against Service Corporation International remains unresolved even after a meeting early this year to discuss resolution of the case. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division indicated that it would cousider consider the Company's pending motion to dismiss after allowing the parties to supplement their briefs. The consolidated lawsuit includes 21 class action lawsuits that were filed in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas, two originally filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas by an individual who sold his funeral home to the Company. The consolidated suit names as defendants the Company and three of the Company's current or former executive officers or directors: (1) Robert L. Waltrip, (2) L. William Heiligbrodt, and (3) George R. Champagne. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information concerning the Company's prearranged funeral business. The Consolidated Lawsuit has been brought on behalf of all persons and entities who: (i) acquired shares of Company common stock in the merger of a wholly owned subsidiary of Company into Equity Corporation International (ECI); (ii) purchased shares of Company common stock in the open market during the period from July 17, 1998, through January 26, 1999 (the Class Period); (iii) purchased Company call options in the open market during the Class Period; (iv) sold Company put options in the open market during the Class Period; (v) held employee stock options in ECI that became options to purchase Company common stock pursuant to the merger, and (vi) held Company employee stock options to purchase Company common stock under a stock plan during the Class Period. Excluded from the foregoing categories are the Individual Defendants, the members of their immediate families and all other persons who were directors or executive officers of the Company or its affiliated entities at any time during the Class Period. Judge Hughes has certified the Consolidated Lawsuit as a class action. On May 10, 2000, Judge Hughes signed an order amending the class definition to include James P. Hunter, III as a class member. Hunter was Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of ECI at the time of its merger with a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Hunter and a related family trust filed a separate lawsuit in state court in Angelina County, Texas, which is discussed below. The plaintiffs and the Company have swapped motions regarding the dismissal of the suit which are yet to be considered by the Court. Service Corporation International is a provider of funeral and cemetery services, operating 3,385 funeral service locations, 506 cemeteries and 185 crematoria located in 17 countries on four continents. SILVERSTREAM SOFTWARE: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired SilverStream Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: SSSW) securities between August 16, 1999 and May 23, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are: (1) SilverStream (2) David R. Skok, (3) David A. Litwack, (4) Craig A. Dynes, (5) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Inc., and (6) Fleet Boston Robertson Stephens, Inc. Morgan Stanley and Fleet Boston are co-lead underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of 3,000,000 shares of common stock at $16.00 per share on August 16, 1999. 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. The suit alleges the Company issued a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions. The Prospectus was issued in connection with the SilverStream IPO. The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the Underwriter Defendants, allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of SilverStream shares issued in connection with the SilverStream IPO; and (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate SilverStream shares to those customers in the SilverStream IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional SilverStream shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: SSSW@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com SLAVERY REPARATIONS: Group Considers Reparations Suit For Blacks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Debate marks the question of whether the United States should provide reparations to its black population for making them slaves years ago. The Reparations Assessment Group, led by Charles Ogletree, a Harvard Law School professor, has said it is exploring a possible class action suit on the reparations front. However, it has not been clear what kind of legal underpinning it would have or who exactly would be named as defendants. Yet proponents of the idea say they are encouraged by the very fact that the guilt- and justice-driven idea is being talked about more frequently. Still, very few believe it will ever result in the government writing checks to individual descendants of those slaves. University of Tulsa law professor Paul Finkelman says: ``Before one can imagine reparations for slavery ... you first must have a national recognition that there was a great wrong done and that there was a kind of national complicity in that wrong." He said the United States has yet to reach that level. Activists and academics involved with the issue say if there is a payout in the years to come, it would more likely be societal redress to help close the educational, economic, social and health gap between U.S. whites and blacks. Adjoa Aiyetoro, a co-founder of the National Commission of Blacks for Reparations in America says that the country needs "...to develop programs such as educational funding, university-administered scholarships, community development funds." While an argument can be made for individual payments, ``the structural changes may be the most long lasting'' of the various remedies, she added. Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in the United States 138 years ago. The emancipation of slaves did not live up to expectations. Of the estimated 12 million Africans who were uprooted from their land from the 15th to the 19th centuries, only 5 percent wound up in the United States and the colonies that preceded it. Some of their descendants remained enslaved for decades. TERRORIST ATTACK: Congress To Limit Potential Suits Against Airlines -------------------------------------------------------------------- Congress moved to limit class action lawsuits that may be filed against American and United Airlines in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks on the country. Four commercial airliners, two operated by United Airlines and two by American Air, were hijacked on Tuesday. Two crashed into the World Trade Center, demolishing them, a third slammed into the Pentagon outside Washington, and the fourth crashed into a field near Pittsburgh. Lawmakers and aides said legislation limiting the companies' liability could come to the floor of both the House of Representatives and the Senate in coming days. Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, is drafting a proposal that would limit class-action lawsuits, as well as restricting legal action by people who were not on board the hijacked planes. That would include thousands of people injured in the World Trade Center or by falling debris. Aides stressed that the families of those who died aboard the flights could still file suit under the proposed legislation. A top Senate aide said quick action was needed because a rush of lawsuits could potentially ``bankrupt'' the nation's two largest airlines. ``This was an act of war, so it's obvious the airlines should have some protection,'' the aide added. White House budget director Mitch Daniels said the administration had yet to ``settle on a position'' on the proposed legislation. Soon after the attacks, representatives of the two airlines approached key lawmakers with legislative language that would provide American and United with sweeping protection from liability. McCain, however, called the airlines' proposals "...a great overreach", saying that they sought almost blanket protection from legislators. An estimated 266 passengers and flight crew died when the four airliners crashed on Tuesday. Overall, the attacks left about 5,000 people either dead or missing at New York's World Trade Center and close to 200 people either killed or unaccounted for at the Pentagon. UAL did not answer calls seeking comment, and AMR was not immediately available for comment. THEGLOBE.COM: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf all persons who acquired TheGlobe.com, Inc. (OTC BB: TGLO) securities between November 12, 1998 and December 6, 2000 The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named as defendants in the complaint are: (1) TheGlobe.com, (2) Michael Egan, (3) Todd Krizelman, (4) Stephan Paternot, (5) Frank Joyce, (6) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., one of the lead underwriters of TheGlobe.com's initial public offering. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The Prospectus was issued in connection with TheGlobe.com's initial public offering of 5.9 million shares of common stock at $17.00 per share that was commenced on or about December 13, 1999. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) Bear Stearns' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of TheGlobe.com shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between Bear Stearns and certain of its customers whereby Bear Stearns would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase TheGlobe.com shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices. For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: TGLO@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com TOBACCO LITIGATION: Witness Testifies In Virginia Cigarette Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consultant from Bethesda, Maryland testified Monday in the landmark class action suit brought against tobacco companies by 250,000 healthy West Virginia smokers. Jack Henningfield reportedly has studied smoking for decades and testified that regular cigarettes, and those touted as "light", are essentially the same, and that low-tar cigarettes are no safer than any other kind. Earlier, tobacco companies refuted the suit's allegations that they failed to make their products safer when confronted with the evidence of health risks. Manufacturers reiterated that they have never wavered in looking for ways to produce a safer cigarette and pointed out that tar levels in cigarettes have dropped 70 percent since the 1960s. But Henningfield said the machines the Federal Trade Commission uses to measure tar levels are inadequate, and record only about one-tenth of the tar in a typical cigarette. Defense lawyer Jeff Furr, however, got Henningfield to agree with two key tenets of the tobacco companies' defense: There is no such thing as a ``safe'' cigarette, and smokers concerned about their future health should just quit. Henningfield was the first witness in the suit seeking free medical tests from tobacco companies to predict illnesses and help the plaintiffs get more effective treatment. The lawsuit against R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Philip Morris and Lorillard includes people who have smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for at least five years, but who have not yet developed symptoms of a tobacco-related illness. The first attempt to try the case ended in a mistrial in January after witnesses referred to addiction and nicotine, which involves individual smoking behaviors. WESTFIELD AMERICA: Enters Agreement In Multiple Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Westfield America, Inc. entered into a memorandum of agreement with plaintiffs in the multiple securities suits filed in California and Missouri. The suits arose out of a merger agreement signed early this year by the Company with Westfield America Management Limited (WAM). In the agreement, WAM offered to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company not already owned by WAM for cash consideration of $16.25 per share. Three actions were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, which have been consolidated into a single action. Two actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which were also consolidated (which have been consolidated into a single action. Three actions were brought in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri The plaintiffs in these cases purport to represent a class of the minority shareholders whose stock in the Company was purchased for $16.25 in cash per share in connection with the merger. While the allegations contained in each complaint are not identical, the complaints generally assert that the $16.25 per share price is inadequate and does not reflect the value of the assets and future prospects of the Company. The complaints also generally allege that the director defendants engaged in self-dealing without regard to conflicts of interest and that they breached their fiduciary duties in the Merger Agreement. The plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri filed an Amended Complaint on March 19, 2001 in which they reallege claims substantially similar to those set forth in the complaints previously filed. They also added claims for violation of: (1) Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14e-3(a) promulgated thereunder; and (2) a declaration as to the applicability of Missouri's Business Combination Statute to the transaction. The Company moved to transfer the actions filed in the Missouri federal court to the Central District of California, which was granted on April 27, 2001, and effected on May 21, 2001. The plaintiffs in the Central District of California filed an Amended Complaint on April 26, 2001 in which they reallege claims substantially similar to those set forth in the complaints previously filed. They also added a claim for violation of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14e-3(a) promulgated thereunder. The memorandum of understanding does not provide for the payment of damages by the Company in connection with resolution of the lawsuits. The Company believes that neither the settlement nor the litigation will have a material effect on its business. The settlement agreement has yet to be submitted to the District Court for approval. Westfield America is a real estate investment trust (REIT) specializing in large shopping centers in major US metropolitan areas. ********* 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, Aurora Fatima Antonio 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 * * *