/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/011008.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 8, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 196 Headlines AMEDISYS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in M.D. LA AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Berman DeValerio Initiates OH Securities Suit ASIA PULP: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Cohen Milstein Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA COMFORT WOMEN: Judge Dismisses WWII Sex Slavery Suit Against Japan EAGLE GLOBAL: Settlement With EEOC Does Not Resolve Private Suit EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit HAYES LAMMERZ: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in VA i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates N.D. TX Securities Suit INTRENET INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY MARCONI PLC: Marc Henzel Commences W.D. Pennsylvania Securities Suit MERANT PLC: Court Grants CA Securities Suit Class Certification NEW FOCUS: Kirby McInerney Appointed Lead Counsel In N.D. CA Suit PSS WORLD MEDICAL: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in FL RAYTHEON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in MA SAN DIEGO: City Appeals Judge's Ruling On "Red Light Camera" Tickets SOUTH KOREA: Government To Set Criteria For Filing Securities Suits STEVE MADDEN: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY TPST TECHNOLOGIES: Alleged Noisy Plant Operations Spur Couple's Suit UNILAB CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue Relating To 1999 Recapitalization VARI-L CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in CO WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in NY ********* AMEDISYS INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in M.D. LA --------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull and Brody initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Amedisys, Inc. (OTCBB:AMED) from between March 1, 2001 and June 13, 2001, inclusive. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, against defendants: (1) Amedisys, Inc. (2) William F. Borne, (3) Larry R. Graham, and (4) John M. Joffrion The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues and earnings. During the Class Period, the Company touted positive financial results and profitable net service revenue in connection with its home health nursing services. Shareholders purport, however, that Amedisys improperly recognized net services revenue in the fourth quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001 in violation of GAAP. On June 13, 2001, Amedisys issued a press release announcing that its previously announced financial results were incorrect. Specifically, the Company announced that discrepancies in the Medicare Prospective Payment System resulted in a negative adjustment to net services revenue of between $4 and $7 million. As a result, the Company's stock price plummeted almost 60% to close at $4.10 per share on June 13, 2001. For more information, contact Tzivia Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll-free) by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com by Fax: 212/490-2022 or by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Berman DeValerio Initiates OH Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a class action suit against American Electric Power Company, Inc. pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The action seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased AEP common stock between July 25, 1997 and June 25, 1999. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint charges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the impaired condition of its D.C. Cook nuclear power plant and the adverse affect that the problems had, and would have, on the company's business and its financial results. As a result, the complaint alleges that the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. By order of the Court, dated September 26, 2000, all related cases have been consolidated and Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel were appointed. For more information, contact Michael Lange by Mail: One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-1194 or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com ASIA PULP: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rabin and Peckel LLP commenced a class action complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Asia Pulp & Paper Co. Ltd. (NYSE:PAP) OTC APUUY) common stock during the period from December 17, 1998 through and including April 4, 2001, both dates inclusive. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's publicly reported earnings, net income, and receivables. The Company failed to disclose its exposure and loss on a derivative swap contract and failed to disclose related party and uncollectible receivables. Asia Pulp was delisted from the NYSE on July 5, 2001. For more information, contact Rekha M. Carozza or Maurice Pesso by Mail: Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E- mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.rabinlaw.com CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Cohen Milstein Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of purchasers of California Amplifier Inc. (Nasdaq:CAMP) during the period between April 6, 2000 and March 28, 2001, inclusive. The complaint accuses California Amplifier and a top corporate officer of knowingly using improper accounting procedures that skewed financial statements - illegally reducing expenses and boosting earnings - and inflated the company's stock price. In March, the company announced that its comptroller had resigned after making certain adjustments to the company's accounting records that could force it to restate fiscal 2000 results to reduce net income by as much as $2.2 million. The company's investigation triggered a decline in its stock price. Nasdaq officials halted trading at $5.03, more than 90% off the Class Period high of $ 59.25. For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or Robert Smits by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a securities class action suit against Commtouch Software Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common stock between April 19, 2000 and February 13, 2001. The complaint accuses the Company and two of its top officers of inflating the Company's stock price by issuing false and misleading financial statements for the first three quarters of 2000. In February 2001, the Company announced that it would restate its financial statements for the first three quarters of 2000 because of improper accounting. The Company also reported that, subject to the completion of the 2000 audit, it expects to restate its revenues and net loss for the first three quarters of 2000. In total, the Company will adjust its revenues by $4.4 million. The net loss for the first three quarters of 2000 will be $9.1 million, $10.8 million and $10.2 million, respectively, compared to the previously announced net loss of $8.5 million, $9.9 million and $7.6 million. For more information, contact Sara B. Davis by Mail: One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-1194 or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com COMFORT WOMEN: Judge Dismisses WWII Sex Slavery Suit Against Japan ------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Federal Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. dismissed the class action suit filed against Japan by Asian women seeking compensation and an apology for being forced into sexual slavery during World War II. The 15 named plaintiffs in the suit were among some 200,000 women from the Korean Peninsula, China, the Philippines and Taiwan who were forced by the Japanese military into sexual slavery during the 1930s and 1940s. The military camps where the slavery occurred were called "comfort stations" and the slaves were known as "comfort women." Kennedy acknowledged the suffering of the so-called "comfort women", however he emphasized that the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction because Japan still had sovereign immunity from prosecution. The sexual slavery occurred when sovereigns, including the emperor of Japan, enjoyed absolute immunity from prosecution in the United States. "Under that law, Japan is immune from suit," the U.S. brief said. The plaintiffs had earlier argued that a U.S. court was the proper place for their case and that Japan had waived sovereign immunity in agreements signed after World War Two. Judge Kennedy rejected these arguments, saying that the claims of the "comfort women" should be addressed directly between governments. "There is no question that this court is not the appropriate forum in which plaintiffs may seek to reopen those discussions nearly a half- century later," Judge Kennedy wrote. The ruling's conclusion referred again to the need for compensation for the women: ``For the foregoing reasons, this court is unable to provide plaintiffs the redress they seek and surely deserve.'' Lawyers for the women filed an immediate appeal and said they planned to ask for an expedited hearing in the case. Attorney Michael Hausfeld said in a statement, "Today's decision, if permitted to stand, will allow any country, anywhere, to commit crimes against humanity without accountability." EAGLE GLOBAL: Settlement With EEOC Does Not Resolve Private Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the private class action suit against Eagle Global Logistics re-asserted their claims, despite the $9 million settlement between Eagle Global Logistics and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The settlement with the EEOC purports to resolve the government's suit known as Dube et al. v. Eagle Global Logistics, alleging that the Company engaged in gross widespread discrimination on the basis of race, gender and national origin. The plaintiffs assert that press releases announcing the settlement fail to make clear ".that a private class action against the freight carrier and at least one additional federal court suit is still pending." The suits allege that the Company engaged in unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Equal Pay Act by: (1) failing and/or refusing to recruit and/or hire Blacks, Hispanics, and females into professional, managerial and sales positions because of their race, national origin, sex and age; (2) failing and/or refusing to promote Blacks, Hispanics and females into managerial and sales positions because of their race, national origin, sex and age; (3) failing and/or refusing to recruit and/or hire Blacks and females into warehouse, delivery and truck driver positions because of their race, national origin and sex; (4) demoting females from managerial positions because of their sex and disparate imposition of discipline because of sex (female), race (Black) and national origin (Hispanic); (5) maintaining a hostile working environment against Blacks, Hispanics and females with respect to terms, conditions and privileges of employment because of their race and national origin and sex; (6) failing to properly investigate incidents of sexual harassment, failing to discipline wrongdoers and failing to protect employees from sexual harassment; (7) failing to maintain proper record regarding the hiring of employees; and (8) failing to file accurate EEO-1 Reports. They have also called on Judge Lynn Hughes to provide for full and open public review of the settlement, that they claimed was tainted by ".Eagle's false statements to the Court, and the EEOC's highly irregular readiness to exclude plaintiffs and their representatives from all settlement discussions." In May 2000, the EEOC issued a 104-page Determination finding that the Company had broadly discriminated against employees, based on the plaintiff's claims. In December of that year, the EEOC joined as intervenor in federal court case against the Company. In response, the Company asserted in a regulatory filing that the EEOC's finding was not supported by "credible evidence" and claimed that the EEOC was biased against them due to their "vigorous defense of this matter." The Company further claimed that the EEOC ".maliciously targeted EGL because the company has chosen to aggressively defend itself rather than surrender to allegations it knows to be untrue." As a result, the Court ordered the EEOC to make a settlement offer to the Company. Despite confirming that the Company had made false statements to the Court preceding the settlement offer, the EEOC refused call these statements to the court's attention. Instead, the EEOC proceeded to engage in settlement talks with Eagle from which Plaintiffs and their counsel were excluded. Moreover, the EEOC acquiesced in a settlement that may require the plaintiffs in the private case to give up meritorious claims of discrimination, which the government did not directly address and resolve as a condition of accepting any compensation under it. The plaintiffs believe there is enough evidentiary basis that the Company violated equal opportunity and civil rights laws. Employees of Eagle who have faced race, gender, or national origin discrimination and need more information about the Dube litigation can contact the Washington, DC office of Provost and Umphrey at 202-466- 0900, counsel to Plaintiffs in the litigation. EXODUS COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Lodges N.D. CA Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Exodus Communications, Inc. from March 30, 2001 through June 20, 2001, inclusive. The suit alleges that the defendants Exodus and certain of its officers and directors issued false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants were alarmed by the dramatic decline in the Company's share price, which had declined from over $28 per share in late January to $10 per share by mid-March 2001. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that defendants then formulated a plan to not only halt the erosion of the Company's share price, but reinflate it as well. The Company's high stock price was dependent upon the appearance of its phenomenal growth rate. However, by March 2001, the complaint claims that defendants were aware that the Company was falling victim both to the general economic slowdown and the bursting of the Internet bubble. Realizing that the public disclosure of the Company's slowing growth rate would cause their stock price to decline, it is alleged that defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements designed to keep their stock price high while certain defendants sold over 441,667 shares of common stock for proceeds of over $4.1 million. On June 20, 2001, the complaint alleges that the Company revealed that its revenue would be significantly below expectations due to: (1) a decrease in the rate of new customer installations, (2) an increase in the rate of cancellations, (3) reduction of orders from existing customers and (4) an increase in reserves related to Internet company failures This revelation shocked the market, causing Company stock to plummet over 30% to $1.59 per share the following trading day on record volume of more than 185 million shares. For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com HAYES LAMMERZ: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Marc S. Henzel commenced a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Hayes Lammerz International, Inc. (NYSE: HAZ) between June 8, 2000 and September 5, 2001. The complaint alleges that the company violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market concerning its financial results for fiscal 2000 and the first quarter of fiscal 2001. Specifically, the reported net loss of $41.8 million for fiscal 2000 was understated by at least 31% and was actually $56.4 million for that fiscal year period. Net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 2001, which was previously reported as $7.6 million, was understated by a staggering 350% and was actually $34.7 million for the quarter. The Company stated that its investigation relating to these financial misrepresentations would continue and that additional restatements or adjustments may be necessary. Also, as a result of these restatements, the Company revealed that it was in breach of certain financial covenants under its senior credit facility. On September 5, 2001, when this adverse information was disclosed, the stock was halted from trading and opened the following day at $2.10 per share. This represented a 50% decline from the prior day's trading price of $4.15 per share and more than a 90% decline from the $20 per share Hayes stock had been trading at during the class period. For more information, contact The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 215.625.9999 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 215.440.9475 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in VA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC commenced a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of Humphrey Hospitality Trust, Inc. (Nasdaq:HUMP) during the period between November 14, 2000 and March 29, 2001, inclusive. 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 defendant allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants conditioned the market to believe in the strength of Company's financial condition, and that the Company's conservative fiscal policies meant that its dividend was secure. The complaint further alleges that on March 29, 2001, the Company shocked the market by announcing that its Lessee advised: (1) that, without a substantial reduction in the rent, it would be unable to lease and operate the hotels; and (2) that the Board of Directors had established "a committee of independent directors" to "explore alternatives available to the Company" The Company also announced that its dividend would be reduced for monthly payments subsequent to dividends payable to shareholders of record on March 30, 2001. Humphrey common stock opened at $7.0938 per share on March 29, 2001 and closed that day at $4.7812 that day on volume of 217,200 shares, approximately seven times its average volume. For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or Robert Smits by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.com i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates N.D. TX Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP lodged a class action lawsuit against i2 Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ITWO) on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of i2 during the period between January 18, 2001 through February 26, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and names as defendants, the Company's Founder, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer-Sanjiv S. Sidh, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer-William M. Beecher. The Complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading information about the Company's business operations and financial condition. As a result of these false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. As alleged in the Complaint, but unbeknownst to investors, Nike, Inc., one of i2's material customers who purchased i2's software products and services for use in its footware division, was experiencing problems with its implementation of i2's software. Nevertheless, i2 issued a series of materially false and misleading statements, which failed to disclose that i2 was experiencing software implementation difficulties and that these problems were material and severe. In particular, i2 issued a Press Release announcing "record" revenues for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2000, emphasizing customer satisfaction with its products and touting its "tremendous heritage of executing and delivering value." Thereafter, Nike issued a statement, after the close of the market, revising its third quarter and fiscal 2001 earnings due to, among other things, "complications arising from the impact of implementing [its] new demand and supply planning systems" which were developed by i2. Specifically, Nike was forced to reduce its shoe sales by $80-$100 million because of problems that it had implementing a new i2 supply chain management system which caused shortages of some products and overstocking of others. On February 27, 2001 in an interview with CNN, defendant Sanjiv S. Sidhu stated that "[t]he fault for that is not Nike, it is i2's. We are the experts. We are the doctors. We are to tell the patient this is exactly what you need to do. And I think we've recognized our fall and we're working with Nike to overcome that." Following Nike's statement and defendant Sidhu's admission of responsibility, i2's stock closed at $27.56 on February 27, 2001, down 22% from its close on February 26, 2001 at $35.50. During the Class Period, i2 common stock traded as high as $61.00 on January 24, 2001. For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-4-POMLAW (888-476-6529) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.pomlaw.com Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. INTRENET INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. OH -------------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a securities class action suit against Intrenet, Inc. (Nasdaq: INETE) and two of the Company's senior executives. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from February 19, 1999 through October 13, 2000, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Intrenet and its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by providing materially false and misleading information about the Company's financial condition. As a result of these false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. As alleged in the Complaint, Intrenet's statements regarding the Company's 1998 and 1999 financial results and earnings per share were materially false and misleading since the Company's reported financial results and growth were attributable to improper accounting practices which resulted in an overstatement of income in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. It is further alleged that Intrenet's earnings were lower than had been represented by the Company because defendants had improperly inflated net income by approximately $1.3 million, in violation of GAAP. In October 2000 trading in Intrenet common stock was halted. Thereafter, the Company's Board of Directors abruptly announced that the Company would cease operations effective immediately due to a lack of funding. For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 1-888-4-POMLAW (1-888-476-6529) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and voice telephonic number LOUDCLOUD INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Marc S. Henzel lodged a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf all persons who acquired Loudcloud, Inc. (NASDAQ: LDCL) securities between March 8, 2001 and May 1, 2001. The suit names as defendants: (1) Loudcloud, Inc; (2) Marc L. Andreessen; (3) Benjamin A. Horowitz; (4) Roderick M. Sherwood III; (5) William V. Campbell; (6) Michael S. Ovitz; (7) Andrew S. Rechleff; (8) Goldman, Sachs & Co.; (9) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated; (10) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC; (11) Epoch Securities, Inc.; (12) Allen & Company Incorporated; (13) CIBC World Markets Corp.; (14) Dain Rauscher Incorporated; (15) Raymond James & Associates, Inc.; (16) Robertson Stephens, Inc.; and (17) Wit SoundView Corporation The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 for issuing a registration statement and prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information. The prospectus was issued in connection with Loudcloud's initial public offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock at $6.00 per share that was commenced on or about March 8, 2001. The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) Loudcloud's plans to substantially reduce its workforce and to restructure itself shortly after the public offering; (ii) that the public offering was not raising funds sufficient to enable the Company to reach profitability and accomplish the planned expansion described in the prospectus; (iii) the imminent cancellation of a major contract to which one of the underwriters was a party; and (iv) that in order to enable the public offering to go forward, undisclosed sales of shares were made to insiders and the selling price of the offering was artificially maintained by the undisclosed sale of part of the offering to insiders. For more information, the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 215.625.9999 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 215.440.9475 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 MARCONI PLC: Marc Henzel Commences W.D. Pennsylvania Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Marconi, PLC (Nasdaq: MONI) American Deposit Receipts (ADRs) during the period of April 11, 2001 through July 4, 2001, inclusive. The complaint charges Marconi, PLC and two of its principal officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allegedly, the defendants falsely reassured investors that its revenues would rise this year, claiming that its geographic and business mix left it relatively immune from the economic downturn, and that it saw no need to change its guidance. The Defendants also allegedly falsely assured the investing community that the Company did not need to change its earning guidance because ``the end demand is still there.'' However, less than three months later, the Company belatedly issued a profit warning, finally disclosing that tougher trading conditions in the three months to June meant that sales for the year would be 15 percent lower than last year. In addition, operating profit would be down by 50 percent for the year ending March 2002. The disclosure of the Company's true financial condition was devastating to shareholders. Their ADR's, which hit a class period high of $12.50 on May 2, 2001, and had closed at $7.03 on July 3, 2001, dropped by over fifty percent when trading resumed, and closed on July 5, 2001 at only $3.35 per share. For more information, contact The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Philadelphia, PA 19106 by Phone: 215.625.9999 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 215.440.9475 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 MERANT PLC: Court Grants CA Securities Suit Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted class certification to the consolidated suit filed against Merant PLC for federal securities act violations. The suit arose from seven class action suits originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's American Depositary Shares from June 17, 1998 to November 12, 1998. The class includes former shareholders of Intersolv, Inc. who acquired American Depositary Shares of the Company in connection with the merger involving the two companies. The court ordered the seven cases consolidated and pursuant to the order, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges various violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged failure to disclose material nonpublic information concerning the Company's business condition and prospects. In May 1999, the Company filed a motion to transfer the matter to the Northern District of California, which the court granted in December 1999. After the action was transferred to California, plaintiffs again amended their complaint alleging the same claims as described in the prior amended complaint but without the 1934 Act claims or the class period. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the newly-amended complaint in June 2000, which the Court granted in part. The Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' allegations, with the exception of certain allegations that defendants misled the market regarding the company's plans for its Y2K business. Because of the Court's ruling, the mandatory discovery stay of the Reform Act is no longer in effect. The plaintiffs have served document requests on the Company and document production has begun on a rolling schedule. In June, the court certified that the suit could proceed as a class action while preserving the defendants' rights to challenge, at a later date, the propriety of this action proceeding as a class action, the definition of the class, and the class representatives. The Company labels the allegations as "without merit". NEW FOCUS: Kirby McInerney Appointed Lead Counsel In N.D. CA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP was appointed as co-lead counsel in a securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased New Focus, Inc. (NASDAQ: NUFO) common stock between January 30, 2001 and March 5, 2001. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and on asserts claims for violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The suit names as defendants: (1) New Focus Inc.; (2) Milton M. Chang, Chairman; (3) Kenneth E. Westrick, Chief Executive Officer and President; (4) Nicola Pignati, Chief Operating Officer; (5) John A. Dexheimer, director, (6) R. Clark Harris, director, (7) Robert A. Marsland, Vice President, Focused Research Division, (8) George Yule, Vice President, Supply Chain Management, (9) Bao-Tong Ma, Vice President and General Manager, The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially false and misleading financial guidance concerning fiscal 2001 revenues. In January 2001, defendants issued a press release dramatically raising fiscal 2001 expected revenues from $150 million to $240 million. As the stock price immediately and sharply rose to over $60 per share in the week following the press release, a number of Company insiders sold their shareholdings, receiving over $8.25 million. In the following week, the Company Focus used its appreciating share price to consummate the acquisition of Globe Y. Technology, Inc. by paying for Globe with the recently appreciating shares of Company stock. However, only five weeks after raising their revenue guidance for 2001, the defendants lowered fiscal 2001 revenue guidance to $170- $190 million. The sudden reversal of the company's purported outlook caused the share price to drop to below $19 per share - a decline of almost 70% from the high of more than $60 per share hit by New Focus stock in the immediate aftermath of the January 30, 2001 announcement. For more information, contact Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (212) 371-6600 or (888) 529-4787 (toll-free) by Fax: (212) 751-2540 or visit the firm's Website: www.kmslaw.com PSS WORLD MEDICAL: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in FL ------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a class action suit against PSS World Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSSI) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The suit was filed on behalf of all investors who bought PSS World Medical stock between October 26, 1999 and September 1, 2000. The class action charges Jacksonville-based PSS World Medical and two of its top executives with making false and misleading statements about its net income and business operations that resulted in an artificially inflated stock price. The complaint focuses on an aborted merger with another medical products company, Fisher Scientific International, Inc. The company announced the proposed merger agreement with fanfare on June 2000, when it released its financial results for the quarter and year ended March 2000. Though the results fell short of analysts' expectations, news of the anticipated merger announcement cushioned the blow to the company's stock - especially since it was contingent on PSS World Medical meeting an earnings threshold for the quarter ended June 30, 2000. In early August, PSS announced that it had exceeded the threshold. But a few weeks later, the company said the merger was off. Unbeknownst to investors, Fisher's due-diligence investigation had revealed material deficiencies in PSS World Medical's accounting practices - deficiencies that, if corrected, would have reduced quarterly earnings below the minimum required by the merger agreement. The public didn't learn about the problems until June 2001, when the company said that it would restate its results for the quarter in question and two others. For more details, contact Patrick T. Egan or Jeffrey C. Block by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800)516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com RAYTHEON CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in MA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action suit against Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN/A and NYSE: RTN/B) and two of the Company's senior officers. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all those who purchased the Class A or Class B common stock of Raytheon Company during the period between March 30, 1998 and October 11, 1999, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Raytheon violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period in order to conceal negative trends in the Company's business. The Company also allegedly omitted to disclose that the Company was behind schedule and experiencing cost overruns on several fixed-price defense contracts. This led to the Company taking a significantly higher material charge against 1999 third quarter earnings than was previously announced. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company omitted to disclose in its financial statements that it was violating generally accepted accounting principles by prematurely recording revenue on contingent sales contracts prior to actual performance. The Company allegedly made these false and misleading statements in order to artificially inflate the price of its stock to support the company's acquisition of several companies using company stock as consideration. As a result of defendants false and misleading statements, the price of Company common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. The market first learned of the Company's misrepresentations and omissions during several disclosures on October 12, 1999. The market reaction to the news was disastrous. The price of Company Class A stock lost more than 46% of its value; the price of Company Class B stock lost more than 44% of its value, erasing almost $4.5 billion in market value. For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 1-888-4-POMLAW (1-888-476-6529) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com. Those who inquire by e- mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and voice telephone number. SAN DIEGO: City Appeals Judge's Ruling On "Red Light Camera" Tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- The City of San Diego appealed a judge's ruling that threw out 260 traffic tickets issued by the city's "red light camera" system last month. In a decision about a month ago, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn ruled that evidence gathered by the city's red light camera system was not admissible in court. He further said that City officials relied too heavily on Lockheed Martin, a private, for-profit company, to administer the cameras. The city reportedly split a $140 fine for every ticket with Lockheed Martin, creating a "conflict of interest" - as a result, the Company did not have a stake in fixing problems with the system that might result in unjust citations. Styn ruled that evidence from red-light cameras were "untrustworthy and unreliable" and should not be used to convict people of running the red light. "We just disagree with him," Deputy City Attorney Steve Hansen said Thursday. "He thought the evidence was unreliable. And we thought the evidence was reliable." Meanwhile, the city has suspended use of the 19 cameras spread throughout San Diego. It also has commissioned an audit, asking an independent company to evaluate the system and offer recommendations for changes that could make evidence gathered by the cameras admissible in court. Christopher Plourd, one of the attorneys representing the defendants in the case, speculated that the appeal is a delay tactic being used by the city. "There's no public support for this system the way it was being operated," Plourd said. "So they are going to have to make a really strong case with the city council to get this back on line." While the criminal cases are on appeal, several civil cases have been filed in connection with the cameras. Nearly 600 claimants joined a class-action lawsuit filed a month ago accusing Lockheed Martin of unfair business practices in operating the system. The complaint alleges Lockheed Martin abused the process of the courts by allowing false evidence to be used to convict motorists. SOUTH KOREA: Government To Set Criteria For Filing Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------- An official of South Korea's Ministry of Finance and Economy recently announced that the government will require at least 50 persons claiming injury to join together to file a class action suit against companies for the alleged commission of stock-related irregularities, according to a recent Asia Pulse report. The official said the government believed that setting minimum criteria will prevent abuse of the system. Other criteria appearing in the government's draft version are: (1) The number of representations any one person may make in a class action will be limited. (2) Class actions may be filed only against companies with at least two trillion won ($1.5 billion) in assets. (3) Only cases of stock price manipulation, window-dressing of financial statements and false public notification are subject to class action suits. (4) Persons who hold stock in a company may not represent plaintiffs in a suit against such company. The government draft, soon to be presented to the current session of the National Assembly, also allows the courts to actively collect information and evidence before they make their decisions as to whether the cases applying to be heard actually meet the requirements for filing class action suits. STEVE MADDEN: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class action suit against Steven Madden Ltd. (NASDAQ: SHOO) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action seeks damages for violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between November 3, 1999 through and including June 20, 2000. The lawsuit charges the Company and several of its officers with violations of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition during the Class Period. The suit names as defendants: (1) Steven Madden, Ltd.; (2) Steve Madden, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; (3) Rhonda Brown, the Company's Chief Operating Officer, Director and President; and (4) Arvind Dharia, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director On February 26, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint that extends the class period beyond November 3, 1999. Accordingly, the action now seeks damages on behalf of purchasers of Steve Madden common stock between June 21, 1997 and June 20, 2000 for violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. For more information, contact Alicia M. Duff by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542- 1194 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com TPST TECHNOLOGIES: Alleged Noisy Plant Operations Spur Couple's Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- A Baltimore couple sued TPS Technologies, Inc., an environmental clean- up business, for allegedly ruining their neighborhood by creating noise and vibrations in their soil sterilizing plant in Rosedale. Marion and Nancy Benner filed the suit in Baltimore County Circuit Court against the Company and its subsidiary, TPST Soil Recyclers, saying, "It's unbelievable what this community has endured." Vibrations from the plant allegedly shake the foundations of the neighborhood's houses, "rattling their window panes, cracking porches, steps, sidewalks, foundation walls, causing windows to break, and causing furnishings to fall from the wall and shelves and break." According to the complaint, the noise generally degraded the quality of the Benners' lives by making it impossible for them and their neighbors ".to sleep while the plant is in operation." Attorney Edward L. Blanton Jr., who represents the Benners, said yesterday he has received statements by "40 to 50" neighbors complaining of similar nuisances. The complaint asks the court to declare the case a class action and permit residents within a one-mile radius of the plant to join the suit. The suit also asks the court to close the plant and compensate the plaintiffs for their losses. State and company officials assert that they recently made efforts to curtail noise in the plant, which uses jet engine-powered boilers to sterilize soil contaminated by gasoline and oil spills. Company spokesman Blair Dominak said the companies have spent "well over $100,000 " to correct noise and vibration problems and have cut the hours of operation at the plant, which employs about 10 workers. Modifications included extending the smokestack by about 20 feet and replacing liners in about 60 feet of the stack with softer, more sound- absorbent liners, and putting up a sound barrier on the edge of the property. The company also ceased operations at the plant between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily, and ceased Sunday operations altogether. But Nancy Benner is unconvinced saying that the Company reduced hours to appease them and ". Eventually that is going to go back." Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) manager George Harman concedes that the plant's operations are noisy. He explained that the plant receives contaminated soil from places such as old gas stations and moves it around with front-end loaders and conveyor belts. The soil is tumbled in a rotary drum to break up clumps and dry the soil preliminarily, a process Harman said was noisy, as gravel and rocks "bang" inside the drum. The soil then gets heated to 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit, a heat that can't be reached using an ordinary burner, Harman said. Instead, a jet engine at one end of the drum dries the soil, while the vaporized fumes are burned inside a second jet engine. "It's almost like two small jet engines operating out in the back yard," Harman said. The MDE entered into a voluntary compliance agreement with TPS Technologies and TPST Soil Recyclers about 18 months ago, when area residents complained about the noise and vibrations. The changes under the agreement are the modifications that TPS spokesman Dominak discussed, and MDE plans to begin testing the site next week to see if the modifications have worked. UNILAB CORPORATION: Shareholders Sue Relating To 1999 Recapitalization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Unilab Corporation faces a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for federal securities violations. Two former stockholders filed the suit against the Company and their board of directors relating to the November 1999 Company recapitalization. The complaint alleges: (1) that the proxy statement relating to the Company's recapitalization contained material misrepresentations and omissions in violation of the federal proxy rules; (2) that approval of the terms of the recapitalization amounted to a breach of the fiduciary duties owed to the Company's stockholders by the Company's directors. Both parties earlier negotiated a settlement in principle of the action, subject to completion of confirmatory discovery and definitive documentation relating to the settlement and court approval. However, in November 2000, plaintiffs announced they would not agree to consummate the settlement. Last month, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, adding as defendant BT Alex Brown, the investment banker that delivered a fairness opinion in connection with the recapitalization. The complaint asserts additional claims, including that the defendants brought the company private in order to obtain large profits for themselves and others, to the detriment of the public shareholders. The Company labeled the allegations "without merit" but could not give the assurance of a favorable outcome because the case is still in the early stages of litigation. VARI-L CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in CO -------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a securities class action against Vari-L Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: VARL) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The action was brought on behalf of all investors who purchased Vari-L common stock between December 17, 1997 through and including July 6, 2000. The lawsuit charges the Company and certain of its officers, with violations of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading financial statements. The Company, on May 17, 2000, revealed that it would be restating its previously reported financial results for the period ended December 31, 1997, and potentially other periods as well. In addition, during the Class Period, insiders sold massive amounts of stock, reaping substantial proceeds as a result of the inflated value of Company's stock. After the Company's announcement, Company shares fell roughly $5 per share from their May 16 close of $16.188, to close at $11.25 on May 22, 2000, a drop of roughly 35%, as the market fully absorbed the impact of these disclosures. For more details, contact Patrick Egan by Mail: One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (617) 542-8300 by Fax: (617) 542-1194 by E- mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bermanesq.com WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Winstar Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:WCIEQ) securities during the period between August 2, 2000 and April 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. The Company allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of Winstar securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning the company's business performance throughout the class period. According to the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants repeatedly assured investors that the company was performing well, that the company was enjoying strong growth, and that it was well-funded to follow its growth-oriented business plan through the first quarter of 2002. At the same time, however, the complaint alleges that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Winstar was overstating its revenues and assets. On April 2, 2001, the Company disclosed that it would be filing its annual Report on Form 10-K late. On April 5, 2001, contrary to prior representations, Winstar announced that it was halting its expansion plans and laying off 2,000 employees. The decline in the value of Winstar common stock has been extraordinary, with the stock closing at $0.40 per share on April 6, 2001. The stock traded as high as $32.00 per share during the Class Period. The Company is now in bankruptcy. For more details, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Robert Smits by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail address: afriedman@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: www.cmht.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, 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 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *