/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/011026.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 26, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 210 Headlines ART TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates C.D. CA Securities Suit ARKANSAS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Decision To Delay Racial Profiling Suit BOEING COMPANY: Judge Certifies Women Employees' Discrimination Suit CLARENT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA COMPAQ COMPUTER: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. Texas COMPAQ COMPUTER: Asks Texas Federal Court To Dismiss Securities Suit COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY DQE INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: TX Suit Dismissed For Lack of Jurisdiction ENRON CORPORATION: Berger Montague Commences S.D. TX Securities Suit ENRON CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. TX ENRON CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. TX Securities Suit ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX FORD MOTOR: Parties Near Settlement Agreement In Faulty Ignition Suit GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Weiss Yourman Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit HAYES LEMMERZ: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI INTELLI-CHECK INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates New Jersey Securities Suit KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY MEMPHIS: Tennessee Supreme Court Lets Commercial Property Levy Stand NETEASE.COM: Revenue Overstatement Draws S.D. NY Securities Suits ONYX SOFTWARE: Keller Rohrback Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA RAILTRACK PLC: Investors Meet To Consider Suit Over Company's Closure SHOPKO STORES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin SPRINT CORPORATION: Sued By IN Customers Over Hidden Service Charges TERADYNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Massachusetts TOBACCO LITIGATION: Trial Proceeds As Judge Refuses WV Suit Dismissal TYSON FOODS: Oklahoma Residents Sue Due To Grand Lake Pollution WESTPOINT STEVENS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D GA ********* ART TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Initiates C.D. CA Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf all persons who acquired Art Technology Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARTG) securities between January 25, 2001 and April 2, 2001. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Chief Executive Officer Jeet Singh and Chairman of the Board Joseph Chung. The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint also alleges that during the class period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading information that materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects. Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make its prior statements not misleading and as a result, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated. For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail at ARTG@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com ARKANSAS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Decision To Delay Racial Profiling Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Joseph Berra of the Los Angeles-based Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said he may appeal the ruling delaying the lawsuit that accuses Rogers, Arkansas police of racial profiling, the Associated Press recently reported. U.S. District Judge Jimm L. Hendren granted Mayor Steve Womack's request to postpone the case because the mayor was called to active duty in Egypt to take part in an international peacekeeping mission on the Sinai Peninsula. His deployment is expected to last six months. Berra, attorney for the plaintiffs, said that since the delay of the lawsuit is based on the mayor's call to military duty, he may drop Womack as defendant and continue the suit. "The broader struggle continues, and it's certainly not the death knell to the case," said Berra. The suit, which seeks class-action status, claims police routinely stop Hispanic motorists without cause, ask them for immigration papers and then detain them until federal immigration officials arrive. In the lawsuit, Miguel and Nora Virginia Lopez say police stopped their vehicle, searched it and asked them to produce immigration papers. The Lopezes were not ticketed, the suit says. BOEING COMPANY: Judge Certifies Women Employees' Discrimination Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman gave class action status to the discrimination suit filed against The Boeing Company by female employees. Twenty eight former and current female workers at the Company's Washington, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri plants filed the suit, saying that the No. 1 plane maker paid women less than men and denied them the same career opportunities as men. The suit seeks equality in pay, promotions and other workplace benefits on behalf of as many as 42,000 of the Company's female employees hired after February 25,1994. Women working in the company's Puget Sound-area plants in Washington can join the class, which lets the workers pool their legal resources; it also saves the Chicago-based company from having to fight off numerous individual suits. However, Pechman denied the women's request to form a broader class representing workers in 27 states, saying that the lawyers for the women had "cast their net too wide." A lawyer representing the women said that the ruling "allows the women to move forward and reform a system that has systematically oppressed them." Company spokesman Ken Mercer expressed disappointment over the judge's decision, saying "We believe the suit doesn't have any merit.right now we're reviewing our options." CLARENT CORPORATION: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull Stull and Brody filed a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Clarent Corporation (NASDAQ:CLRN), common stock between April 19, 2001 and September 4, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, filing with the SEC and reporting to the investing public materially false and misleading financial statements concerning the Company's financial accounting and/or its internal controls for the first and second quarters of this year. The complaint alleges that in September 2001, the Company issued a press release stating, among other things, that it "has discovered information suggesting that the Company's previously reported revenues for the first and second quarters of fiscal 2001 may have been materially overstated." The Company further revealed that its revenues for the second half of fiscal 2001 and for fiscal 2002 will be substantially below previously anticipated levels, and that the related losses will be significantly larger than expected. Trading on the Company's stock was halted in response to the Company's announcement. For more details, contact Marc L. Godino by Phone: 888-388-4605 by E- mail: mgodino@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Website: www.secfraud.com COMPAQ COMPUTER: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Compaq Computer Corporation faces a consolidated securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The suit originally arose from several class action suits filed in 1998 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from July 10,1997 through March 6,1998, alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit alleges the defendants withheld information and made misleading statements about channel inventory and factoring of receivables in order to inflate the market price of the Company's common stock. The suit further alleges that certain individual defendants sold Compaq common stock at the inflated prices. The court entered an order granting class certification, which the Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In July 2001, the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court vacated the federal court's order certifying a class and appointing class representatives and remanded the case to the federal court for further proceedings in accordance with its opinion. In August 2001, the plaintiffs' filed a petition for rehearing before Fifth Circuit Appellate Court. Compaq filed an opposition to the petition and is awaiting a ruling from the court. All discovery on the suit has been stayed. COMPAQ COMPUTER: Asks Texas Federal Court To Dismiss Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Compaq Computer Corporation asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss the second amended securities class action against them. The suit arose from several securities suits filed in 1999 on behalf of purchasers of Compaq common stock between January 27, 1999 and April 9, 1999. The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suit alleges that the defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's prospects in 1999 in order to inflate the market price of its common stock. The suit further alleges that certain individual defendants sold Company common stock at inflated prices. In December 2000, the court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint after finding that it failed to comply with pleading requirements under the law. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in January 2001, which the Company immediately moved to dismiss. COMVERSE TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf all persons who acquired Comverse Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:CMVT) securities between April 3, 2001 and July 10, 2001. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and officers Kobi Alexander and David Kreinberg. The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading information that materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects. Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make its prior statements not misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in 1998 Company issued $250,000,000 worth of Convertible Subordinated Debentures at 4.5% which were due 2005 and callable as early as July 2001. The Debentures were convertible, at the option of the holder, into shares of the Company's common stock or cash. However, by April 2001, the telecom industry had become severely depressed, the federal reserve continued to drop interest rates and the Company's stock price was steadily eroding. Repaying the Company's outstanding debt by converting it into shares rather than paying cash became a paramount concern for defendants. To effectuate this goal, defendants artificially inflated their stock price by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's revenues and new customer wins. Days after announcing record results for the first quarter 2001, the Company called for the redemption of its 4.5% Debentures giving bond holders until July 9, 2001 to convert their debt. A day after the redemption deadline, and in stark contrast to their prior representations, the Company shocked the market by issuing earnings warnings on the next three quarters. The market reacted harshly to the news with shares of the Company dropping 33% on heavy volume, reaching its lowest trading level since March 1999. For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: CMVT@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com DQE INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel filed a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of DQE, Inc. (NYSE:DQE) between December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001, inclusive. The suit, filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, alleges the Company 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 between December 6, 2000 and April 30, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the Company issued positive statements concerning the significant and positive impact that DQE Enterprises, Inc., the Company's investment subsidiary, was having, and would continue to have, on its financial results. During this time, the market for initial public offerings had dramatically slowed down. Accordingly, the ability of the companies in DQE Enterprises' investment portfolio to go public was substantially impaired. The Company, however, issued a stream of positive statements concerning the Company's operations and prospects, but failed to disclose the impaired nature of DQE Enterprises' investments and that the Company would not realize the investment gains that defendants had caused the market to expect. As a result, defendants' estimates, projections and opinions as to the Company's operations, products, earnings and income were knowingly lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. This information finally became publicly known on April 30, 2001, when the Company reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2001 and revised its earnings outlook for the full year, based in part, on the weakened outlook for DQE Enterprises. In response to this negative announcement, when trading resumed on May 1, 2001, the price of the Company's common stock dropped from $30.43 per share to $23.75 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643- 6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: TX Suit Dismissed For Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissed the class action suit against Echostar Communications Corporation for lack of personal jurisdiction. Satellite Dealers Supply, Inc. filed the suit on behalf of a nationwide class of sellers, installers and servicers of satellite equipment who contract with the Company. The suit alleges that the class has been "subject to improper chargebacks." Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company: (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class to professional installers in violation of contractual terms; (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny payments to class members; and (3) misrepresented to class members who own certain equipment related to the provision of satellite television service The plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the court order dismissing the case. ENRON CORPORATION: Berger Montague Commences S.D. TX Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague PC filed a securities class action suit on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) securities during the period from March 30, 2000 through and including October 18, 2001, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and its principal officers and directors. The defendants allegedly violated Section 10(b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of l934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants misled investors: (1) by reporting assets that were overvalued by more than $1 billion, which caused write-downs in that amount and are expected to lead to further write-offs of hundreds of millions of dollars, (2) by concealing facts regarding relationships with a related entity that led to a more than $1 billion reduction of shareholders' equity and a $35 million charge, and (3) by obfuscating or failing to disclose the fact that agreements with other related entities satisfaction of which include obligations that may require the Company to issue large amounts of its shares. This misconduct caused the market prices of Company stock to be artificially inflated during the class period. When facts about these matters were disclosed at the end of the class period, the market price of the Company's per share stock fell from a high of $90 per share during the class period to a low of $15 per share. Securities analysts downgraded their ratings of the Company's stock. Also, Moody's placed the Company's senior debt was placed on notice for possible downgrade. An SEC inquiry into the Company's transactions with related entities was announced. The Company revealed that its Chief Financial Officer, who is one of the Defendants, has taken a "leave of absence" from the Company, and has been replaced. For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick, Arthur Stock, Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 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.bergermontague.com ENRON CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit In S.D. TX ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Enron Corp. (NYSE:ENE) from between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and: (1) Kenneth Lay, (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling and (3) Andrew Fastow 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 defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of statements concerning its business, financial results and operations which failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's Broadband Services Division was experiencing declining demand for bandwidth and the Company's efforts to create a trading market for bandwidth were not meeting with success as many of the market participants were not creditworthy; (ii) that the Company's operating results were materially overstated as a result of the Company failing to timely write- down the value of its investments with certain limited partnerships which were managed by the Company's chief financial officer; and (iii) that the Company was failing to write-down impaired assets on a timely basis in accordance with GAAP On October 16, 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing that the Company was taking non-recurring charges of $1.01 billion after-tax, or ($1.11) loss per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2001, the period ending September 30, 2001. Subsequently, the Company revealed that a material portion of the charge related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited partnerships was controlled by their chief financial officer. The Company also revealed that it would be eliminating more than $1 billion in shareholder equity as a result of its unwinding of the investments. As this news began to be assimilated by the market, the price of the Company's common stock dropped significantly. During the class period, Company insiders disposed of over $73 million of their personally held common stock to unsuspecting investors. For more information, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll-free) by Fax: (212) 490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com ENRON CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges S.D. TX Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf all persons who acquired Enron Corp. (NYSE: ENE) securities between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and the following officers and/or directors of the Company: (1) Kenneth L. Lay, (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling and (3) Andrew S. Fastow The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading information that materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects. Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make its prior statements not misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of statements concerning its business, financial results and operations which failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's Broadband Services Division was experiencing declining demand for bandwidth and the Company's efforts to create a trading market for bandwidth were not meeting with success as many of the market participants were not creditworthy; (ii) that the Company's operating results were materially overstated as result of the Company failing to timely write- down the value of its investments with certain limited partnerships which were managed by the Company's chief financial officer; and (iii) that the Company was failing to write-down impaired assets on a timely basis in accordance with GAAP On October 16, 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing that the it was taking non-recurring charges of $1.01 billion after- tax, or ($1.11) loss per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2001, the period ending September 30, 2001. Subsequently, the Company revealed that a material portion of the charge related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited partnerships was controlled by Enron's Chief Financial Officer. The Company further revealed that it would be eliminating more than $1 billion in shareholder equity as a result of its unwinding of the investments. As this news began to be assimilated by the market, the price of the Company's common stock dropped significantly. During the class period, Company insiders disposed of over $73 million of their personally held common stock to unsuspecting investors. For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: ENE@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Enron Corp. (NYSE: ENE) between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division against the Company and: (1) Kenneth Lay, (2) Jeffrey K. Skilling and (3) Andrew Fastow 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 defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of statements concerning its business, financial results and operations which failed to disclose: (i) that the Company's Broadband Services Division was experiencing declining demand for bandwidth and the Company's efforts to create a trading market for bandwidth were not meeting with success as many of the market participants were not creditworthy; (ii) that the Company's operating results were materially overstated as a result of the Company failing to timely write- down the value of its investments with certain limited partnerships which were managed by the Company's chief financial officer; and (iii) that the Company was failing to write-down impaired assets on a timely basis in accordance with GAAP. On October 16, 2001, the Company surprised the market by announcing that it was taking non-recurring charges of $1.01 billion after-tax, or ($1.11) loss per diluted share, in the third quarter of 2001, the period ending September 30, 2001. Subsequently, the Company revealed that a material portion of the charge related to the unwinding of investments with certain limited partnerships was controlled by Enron's Chief Financial Officer. Enron further revealed that the Company would be eliminating more than $1 billion in shareholder equity as a result of its unwinding of the investments. As this news began to be assimilated by the market, the price of the Enron's common stock dropped significantly. During the class period, Company insiders disposed of over $73 million of their personally held common stock to unsuspecting investors. For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: Enroncase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com FORD MOTOR: Parties Near Settlement Agreement In Faulty Ignition Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company and lawyers for car owners may reveal a settlement in the class action suit over faulty ignitions when they return to Alameda County Superior Court this week. Both sides are scheduled to appear before Judge Michael Ballachey, to try to hammer out a deal before a new jury trial in the case starts in February 2002. The suit arose from the Thick Film Ignition (TFI) module that Ford installed in over an estimated 22 million cars and trucks from 1983 to 1995. The suit alleges that the TFI, which carries electricity to the distributor that in turn carries it to the spark plugs, was placed too close to the engine. The module allegedly caused vehicles to stall in dangerous situations, such as on highways and crossing railroad tracks. The Company has denied that the module was defective, saying that there was no evidence of safety problems. Earlier, Ballachey ordered the Company to recall up to two million trucks and cars with the TFI part - a move that shocked the auto industry and that could cost $300 million. The recall is on hold pending the outcome of the settlement negotiations. Neither party has revealed whether an agreement has been reached, however they have come close to one in the past few months. The Company reportedly made an offer in August but that agreement failed to come through, causing Ballachey to set a February jury trial while the two sides were trying to reach a compromise. According to a Reuters report, Company executives would rather enter a deal than face Ballachey, who has been sharply critical of the Company, saying that it produced "a blizzard of unpersuasive statistical evidence" in its effort to show that the TFI was not defective or unsafe. The two parties have remained mum on the amount on any proposed deal but lawyers for the car owners said any final agreement could cost as much as $1 billion. Reaching a settlement would allow the Company to put one of the stormiest periods in its 98-year-old history, which saw the Company deal with problems on faulty ignitions and tires. In the past year, the Company recalled 19.5 million Firestone tires, which have been linked to accidents causing about 200 deaths and 700 injuries. It has also seen its U.S. market share wilt under pressure from foreign automakers and has faced a number of quality problems from recalls to low scores on industry quality surveys. GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Weiss Yourman Lodges C.D. CA Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Weiss and Yourman filed a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (NASDAQ:GENI) securities between December 21, 1999 and September 25,2001. The suit was filed against the Company and certain individuals associated with the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint also alleges that defendants concocted a scheme to provide financial favors to financial analysts in exchange for analysts issuing false positive reports to the public regarding the Company. These reports allegedly led the plaintiffs and other members of the class to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. For further details, contact Weiss and Yourman by Phone: (800) 427-7918 or visit the firm's Website: www.wyca.com HAYES LEMMERZ: Berman DeValerio Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MI -------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo commenced a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. (NYSE:HAZ) stock from June 8,2000 to September 5,2001. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Company and two of its top officers. The suit alleges the defendants: (1) improperly recognized revenue, (2) overstated earnings, (3) understated net losses, and (4) issued false and misleading financial results throughout fiscal 2000 and for the first quarter of fiscal 2001 News of the alleged violations came to light on September 5, 2001, when the Company announced that it was postponing the release of its 2nd Quarter 2001 earnings report and a related conference call. Later that day, the Company issued a news release saying it would restate its financial results for fiscal 2001 and the first quarter of 2001 "to correct certain accounting errors." In the news release, John S. Rodewig, chairman of the board of directors' audit committee, attributed the errors to "a failure within certain parts of the Company to comply with sound and well-established accounting policies." The news release said the audit committee had undertaken an investigation with assistance from a law firm and outside accountants, and that the Company expected the investigation would result in increased losses and decreased earnings during the class period. Finally, the Company said that financial statements for the class period "should not be relied upon." The New York Stock Exchange quickly suspended trading of the Company's shares. When trading resumed on September 6, 2001, the stock lost more than half its value, falling to $1.80 a share from the $4.15 a share it had fetched prior to the announcement. For more information, contact Steven Morris 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 INTELLI-CHECK INC.: Marc Henzel Initiates New Jersey Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf of short-sellers of the securities of Intelli-Check, Inc., (AMEX: IDN) between January 1, 2001 and the present. The suit, filed lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for New Jersey, is pending against the Company and defendants: (1) Frank Mandlebaum, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, (2) Kevin Messina, Director, (3) Paul Cohen, Director, (4) Edward Winiarz, Director and Chief Financial Officer, and (5) W. Robert Holloway, Senior Executive Vice President The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The defendants allegedly issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market during the class period concerning its supposedly strong and growing sales thereby artificially inflating the value of the Company's stock price. In fact, sequential sales from the 4th Quarter 2000 to 1st and 2nd Quarters 2001 have substantially decreased. Specifically, during the class period defendants reported materially inflated revenue for the Company by: (i) manipulating the reporting of sales and revenue in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in its press releases; and (ii) failing to disclose significant competition having a material impact on the Company and the sale of its products The Defendants announced significant increases in revenue for the second consecutive quarter on May 9, 2001, when in fact shipments and sales of products had actually decreased. On August 13, 2001 the Defendants announced that revenues for the second quarter of 2001 increased nearly 15 fold from the second quarter of 2000 and 10 fold for the first six months compared with the year ago period. The defendants failed to disclose a possible change in the method of accounting for distributor sales impact on revenue and deferred revenues reported in its financial statements. It is also alleged that the misleading disclosures have materially and artificially inflated the price of the Company's shares thereby allowing certain of the defendants to sell shares at substantial gains and allowing the shares to close at or above $10.50 per share since September 24, 2001. At all times relevant defendants benefited, by virtue of substantial ownership interests, through sales and otherwise, from the artificially inflated stock price and rights offering, all to the detriment of the class of short-sellers. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643- 6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of KeySpan Corp. (NYSE:KSE) from April 26, 2000 through July 17, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants are liable as participants in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's common stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The scheme: (1) deceived the investing public regarding the Company's business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its common stock; (2) enabled the Individual Defendants to sell their personally- held shares of stock reaping proceeds of more than $29 million; and (3) caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com MEMPHIS: Tennessee Supreme Court Lets Commercial Property Levy Stand -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Tennessee Supreme Court recently refused to hear Memphis property owners' challenge of the Center City Commission's (CCC) special property assessment, ending a three-year challenge of the agency's primary funding source, The Commercial Appeal reported recently. The Court's ruling denied the application for appeal in the the class action lawsuits brought by developer Henry Turley, Union Planters National Bank and other commercial property owners. The suit contends that a special levy on commercial property in the central business district was illegal and had not been properly assessed. They sought refunds of amounts paid since 1997. Some members of the CCC's nonprofit boards had feared that the lawsuits could cripple efforts to boost downtown redevelopment. "We're pleased by the state Supreme Court's decision," CCC president Jeff Sanford said. "It is consistent with two lower court decisions and our own belief that the .assessment fee on downtown commercial properties has been correctly established and fairly administered." NETEASE.COM: Revenue Overstatement Draws S.D. NY Securities Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- NetEase.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:NTESE) will vigorously oppose the class action suits filed against them in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's American Depositary Shares between July 3, 2000 and August 31, 2001. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Mr. William Lei Ding, founder and Chief Architect, (2) Mr. King F. Lai, former Chief Executive Officer and director, (3) Ms. Helen Haiwen He, former Chief Financial Officer and director, (4) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, (5) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., (6) Chase Securities, Inc., (7) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and (8) UBS Warburg LLC In May 2001, the Company discovered that $1 million in contracts had been improperly reported as revenue, which would delay announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2001. In June 2001, the Company announced that the revenue overstatement appeared to affect its full year 2000 financial statements and the amount of the overstatement would be approximately $3 million. Then, in August, the Company finally revealed the full extent of the overstatement and announced that it would be restating all of its year 2000 financial statements because $4.3 million in revenue had been overstated. The complaint alleges that the prospectus and registration statement issued in connection with the initial public offering of NetEase.com ADSs were materially false and misleading because they contained artificially inflated financial results for the first quarter of 2000. Following the IPO, defendants issued press releases announcing the Company's quarterly 2000 and full year 2000 financial results which were materially false and misleading because they overstated the Company's financial performance. The law firms handling the suits are Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP and Cauley Geller Bowman and Coates LLP. For more information, visit the firms' Websites: www.milberg.com or www.classlawyer.com ONYX SOFTWARE: Keller Rohrback Commences Securities Suit in W.D. WA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Keller Rohrback LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Onyx Software Corp. (NASDAQ:ONXS) common stock between January 10, 2001 and July 24, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Shareholders allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements and omitted facts. Specifically, it is asserted that the defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Company's reported revenue and earnings were attributable to the improper recognition of revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. In fact, the Company later admitted in its restatement of the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2000 financial results that the financial results cited throughout public filings and announcements included the recognition of revenues from transactions involving unauthorized side letters. On July 24, 2001, the Company announced that it had discovered an unauthorized side-letter "which related to an approximately $500,000 licensing transaction completed in the Fourth Quarter of 2000 [which] potentially affects the revenue recognized in that transaction." For more information, contact Jen Veitengruber, Lynn Sarko, Juli Farris or Elizabeth Leland by Phone: (800) 776-6044 (toll-free) by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit the firm's Website: www.SeattleClassAction.com RAILTRACK PLC: Investors Meet To Consider Suit Over Company's Closure --------------------------------------------------------------------- Private investors in Railtrack PLC met in London recently to discuss recovering their investments through a class action in the courts, the Financial Times recently reported. The Company, who operates UK national rail infrastructure system, was badly affected troubles started when two commuter trains collided in 1999, killing 31 passengers. Last year, a train derailed, killing four people. Consequently, Railtrack incurred huge losses. The Company finally closed after Transportation Secretary Stephen Byers refused to give the company further state funding and placed it under administration. The company's investors are now seeking ways to recoup their investment losses. Edwin Coe is acting for up to 1,000 private shareholders through the Private Railtrack Shareholders Action Group. Class Law is representing 3,500 private investors from the Railtrack Action Group. David Greene, speaking for shareholders represented by Edwin Coe, said the first step is to meet with Transport Secretary, Stephen Byers. If matters cannot be resolved through him, said Greene, the group will sue the government. A six-member committee to head the action group was formed during the discussion at the London meeting. The committee includes Andrew Ripley, an accountant who teaches people how to read companies' financial statements and a former England rugby player. Ripley invested 70,000 pounds in Railtrack two days before it collapsed. Ripley said, "It is just amazing that the government can break its agreement, break its word and be so deceitful." Stephen Alexander of Class Law said the group had yet to decide whether or not to take a similar course of action. SHOPKO STORES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel lodged a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ShopKo Stores, Inc. (NYSE: SKO) between March 9, 2000 and November 9, 2000, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and Chief Executive Officer William J. Podany. The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between March 9, 2000 and November 9, 2000, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued statements concerning the integration of Pamida Holding Corp., the Company's financial results and the Company's prospects. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was experiencing significant shipping and inventory control problems at Pamida's distributions centers. On November 9, 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing its earnings for the third quarter of 2000 reporting a loss of ($0.23) per share - far below the $.02 to $.07 per share previously represented by the Company. The Company further revealed that it was experiencing problems at Pamida's distribution centers and that those problems accounted for the Company's reduced earnings. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643-6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 SPRINT CORPORATION: Sued By IN Customers Over Hidden Service Charges -------------------------------------------------------------------- Fifteen of Sprint Corporation's customers recently filed a lawsuit in Marion Superior Court, Indiana, claiming the Company has been charging unknowing customers with an optional service and failing to itemize the charge on their bills, according to a recent Associated Press report. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of residents from Trafalgar, Nineveh and Franklin in Johnson County, Indiana, alleges that the Company charged customers a monthly fee of $4.45 to repair inside wire malfunctions and used misleading billing statements by including the charge under "local services," which confused customers about the optional nature of the service. "Sprint's efforts to enroll its customers and charge them, without their consent, is deceptive and malicious, and shows a reckless indifference for their rights," Peter Kovacs, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement. The Company, whose business name in the state is United Telephone Co. of Indiana, began offering the optional service in the mid-1980s. The lawsuit seeks class-action status in order to represent the Company's 250,000 residential and small business local service customers in Indiana who have been wrongfully charged for the service. "Even though $4.45 per month doesn't seem like a lot of money, it is to the elderly on a fixed income," plaintiff Robert Young of Trafalgar said in a news release. Chris Harris, senior manager of Sprint corporate communications for Indiana, said that the company was not aware of the lawsuit. Company officials plan to review the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission order that deregulated inside wire maintenance more than 10 years ago, Harris said. "We will confirm that we've followed the initial procedures that were outlined at the time by the commission," she said. "We need to review this order, we need to review this complaint, and we're taking this very seriously. Beyond that, we will not comment on pending litigation." Sprint is Indiana's third largest local exchange company. Its main office is in Indianapolis. TERADYNE INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Teradyne, Inc. (NYSE:TER) between July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, inclusive. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is pending against the Company, George Chamillard and Michael A. Bradley. 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 defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between July 14, 2000 and October 17, 2000, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. The complaint alleges that Teradyne was experiencing declining orders in its semiconductors testing systems division, which would cause its growth rate to slow from historical levels. Defendants concealed this adverse fact from investors, so that the Company could complete the acquisition of Herco Technology Corporation and Perception Laminates, Inc., d/b/a/ Synthane Taylor, using artificially inflated common stock as currency. When the truth about the Company's business was revealed to the public, the price of the Company's common stock dropped precipitously. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 660-8000 or (888) 643- 6735 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 TOBACCO LITIGATION: Trial Proceeds As Judge Refuses WV Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur Recht refused to dismiss the class action suit against the nation's tobacco giants, saying that the plaintiffs had sufficient evidence to send the case to a jury. Tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown and Williamson and Lorillard filed motions to dismiss the suit last Wednesday, saying the smokers failed to prove key points in their case. Around 250,000 healthy West Virginia smokers filed the suit, seeking the creation of an industry-funded medical monitoring program that would provide free tests for healthy smokers. The class in the suit includes people who have smoked a pack a day for at least five years but do not show signs of smoking-related diseases yet. The suit alleges that the Companies did not exert effort to produce a safer cigarette and accused them of "wanton and willful" disregard for public health. The tobacco companies have countered that smoking was an "inherently risky" practice and that the best way to prevent disease was to quit smoking. It is the first medical monitoring case of its kind to go to trial in the United States, forcing the tobacco companies to defend what is essentially a product liability claim. The jury will return on Thursday, when the defense is scheduled to present its first witness. TYSON FOODS: Oklahoma Residents Sue Due To Grand Lake Pollution --------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma lakefront property owners filed a class action suit against poultry company Tyson Foods, alleging that the Company dumped wastewater containing chicken parts and blood into Grand Lake. The suit was filed in Mayes County court where 15% of the lake is located. The suit alleges that the Company discharges millions of gallons of wastewater into Elk River, which flows from Missouri into Oklahoma and into Grand Lake. As a result, Grand Lake homeowners face foul odors, pieces of poultry, waste, oil slicks, white foam and scum forming along the shoreline instead of pristine and clear water. The plaintiffs also allege that local landowners contracted by Tyson to grow chickens deposit poultry waste directly on the land. This exposes the waste to rainwater runoff that could transport the waste into Grand Lake, said Charles Shipley, an attorney for the property owners. The plaintiffs say that property values have been reduced by 5% to 10% and the quality of life has deteriorated. Wastewater discharge at Elk River now contain elevated levels of ammonia, phosphorous, nitrates and algae, according to a water quality report issued last year by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Tyson spokesman Ed Nicholson declined comment on the issue, saying that company officials haven't seen the lawsuit. He also said Tyson has not been fined within the past two years. Shipley said the plaintiffs could number into the thousands. R. Lynn and Deborah Sue Thompson, the named plaintiffs representing the property owners, declined comment. "We don't want to tie a dollar figure to the suit," Shipley said. "Our job is to show a jury the property values have been reduced between 5 and 10 percent." WESTPOINT STEVENS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in N.D GA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz initiated a securities class action on behalf all persons who acquired WestPoint Stevens, Inc. (NYSE: WXS) securities between February 10, 1999 and October 10, 2000. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Company and officers and/or directors: (1) Holcombe T. Green, Jr., (2) William F. Crumley, (3) Thomas J. Ward, (4) Morgan M. Schuessler, (5) Charles W. Mccall, (6) Dale G. Williams, and (7) Gerard B. Mitchell The complaint charges defendants with violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading information that materially misstated the Company's condition and prospects. Moreover, the Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make its prior statements not misleading. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company improperly recognized revenue by prematurely shipping products to customers and failed to disclose and timely account for excess inventory, thereby misrepresenting the Company's condition and prospects. The complaint alleges that defendants were motivated to artificially inflate the price of the stock so that Green, the Company's Chairman, could secure $250 million in loans to a company he controls using his WestPoint shares as collateral. Furthermore, defendants took advantage of the inflated stock price to sell over 248,000 of their own shares for proceeds of $6.24 million. For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: WXS@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, 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 * * *