/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/011030.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 30, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 212 Headlines AMERICA ONLINE: Chat Room Hosts Sue For Back Pay and Overtime Wages ARKANSAS: Women Sue Over Child Support Checks' Delay and Mishandling ASK JEEVES: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY CANADA: Quebec Sued For Welfare Payment Age Discrimination CARESCIENCE INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in E.D.PA CIPRO LITIGATION: Bayer Defends Self, Insists Patent "Beyond Doubt" COSCO INC.: Cook County Judge Certifies Defective Crib Suit ENRON CORPORATION: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. TX ENRON CORPORATION: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX EXCHANGE APPLICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY INDONESIA: Displaced Citizens Sue Government Over "Clean Up" Program INTRAWARE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY IXL ENTERPRISES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY JOHNSON JOHNSON: Inks Settlement With Acuvue Users in New Jersey Suit NUMERICAL TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Weiss Yourman Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA SULZER MEDICA: Proposes $783M Faulty Implants Suit Settlement TELECOM CORPORATION: ISP Files Suit After Company Cuts Service THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY:Forges Landmark Settlement In Landowners' Suit VIGNETTE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY ********* AMERICA ONLINE: Chat Room Hosts Sue For Back Pay and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- America Online faces a class action filed by chat room volunteers seeking back pay and interest on behalf of an estimated 5,000 current and former AOL Chat room hosts in California. Parent company AOL Time Warner, Inc. was named as codefendant. Three former California chat room volunteers filed the suit, alleging the Company violated state and federal labor laws by not paying them wages. The Company allegedly required the volunteers to work a minimum number of hours, usually four-hour shifts, three or four days a week in exchange for free Internet service. Mark R. Thierman, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said " You are given a schedule, an assignment.it's everything but a paycheck." The plaintiffs seek four years of back pay at $6.25 per hour, which is California's minimum wage rate, and premium pay for any time worked in excess of eight hours a day. The Company declined to comment on the suit, saying that it has not yet been served. ARKANSAS: Women Sue Over Child Support Checks' Delay and Mishandling -------------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas State's handling of the distribution system for non-custodial child support checks has resulted in a lawsuit. Individual county clerk offices used to run the system. Several women filed the suit, The Commercial Appeal of Memphis, Tennessee reported recently. The plaintiffs claim that ever since the state's take-over they have endured months of delayed checks, which have left some women in desperate straits. They are seeking class-action status and interest on an estimated $32 million in delayed payments. Lawyers for the mothers called a number of them as witnesses at a recent hearing seeking a federal court injunction to force the state of Arkansas to comply with federal rules governing the enforcement of child support orders. Clark Lee Shaw, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, told the judge the state hasn't distributed checks within the required two days, even though the condition that there was sufficient information to match money with the recipient was satisfied. Shaw also said that the state was illegally withholding support checks to recover losses that occur when a check from a non-custodial parent bounces and that the state was failing to give proper notice to recipients of their rights in disputed cases. The confusion over child-support checks and the consequent lawsuit evolved out of the July 1 takeover by the state of the clearinghouse that distributes support payments from non-custodial parents to those who have custody. The federal government ordered the takeover. After the state child support office converted to a new computer system and took over more than 50,000 child support cases from the county clerks, thousands of child-support checks were delayed as long as six weeks. State Assistant Attorney Mark Hagemeier argued, at the injunction hearing, that the suit was too vague and that the state could not be sued, but the judge denied the state's request to dismiss the case. Dan McDonald, administrator for the state child support office, testified at the same hearing that the state was following the rules. ASK JEEVES: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Ask Jeeves, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASKJ) common stock between June 30, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (3) Robert W. Wrubel, and (4) Roger A. Strauch. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In June 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 3,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate Company shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional Company shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. This action is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee of In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS). By Order, dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin appointed the following firms to serve as the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee: (a) Berstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, (b) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, (c) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, (d) Sirota & Sirota LLP, (e) Stull, Stull & Brody and (f) Wolf Haldenstein Freeman & Herz LLP The Court vested the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee with the responsibility for the prosecution of the IPO securities litigation. For further details, 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com CANADA: Quebec Sued For Welfare Payment Age Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- The Province of Quebec faces a class action lawsuit in the Canada Supreme Court alleging that the city's welfare rules in the late 1980's discriminated against young people. Montreal resident Louise Gosselin filed the suit, challenging welfare rules from 1985 to 1989 that slashed welfare payments to $163 for able- bodied Quebecers under 30 who refused to take job training. Normally, welfare payments amount to $448. The suit, first filed in Quebec Superior Court in 1987, seeks $313 million and could have an impact in all the provinces implementing special rules providing for young people and welfare. The court will hear the suit on Monday. CARESCIENCE INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in E.D.PA --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of CareScience, Inc. (NASDAQ:CARE) common stock from June 29, 2000 through November 1, 2000, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements concerning its prospectus and registration statement. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because, it misrepresented and omitted to disclose material facts concerning two of the Company's products. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus highlighted Careleader.com and Caresense.com, which were expected to significantly contribute to the Company's future performance, and provided detailed descriptions of their features, including an anticipated rollout date in 2001. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that, given the environment for Internet-based health applications, the Company's Careleader.com and Caresense.com products, which were in development and not complete, would no longer be economically feasible to continue developing. Accordingly, the further development of those products would have to be abandoned and the sales the Company expected from those products would not be realized. On November 1, 2000, the Company announced that it was revising its revenue estimates for 2001, in part, because of its decision to discontinue its Careleader.com and Caresense.com products. In response to this announcement, the price of the Company's common stock dropped to $1.6875 per share. For more details, 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com CIPRO LITIGATION: Bayer Defends Self, Insists Patent "Beyond Doubt" ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmaceutical giant Bayer AG denies allegations that it conspired with three generic firms to keep cheaper versions of the anthrax treatment drug Cipro off the market. The alleged conspiracy has fostered a class action lawsuit. Last week, the Prescription Access Litigation filed the suit in the U.S. District court for the Eastern District of New York saying the agreements the Company had with three generic firms was "illegal." The three generic firms are: (1) Barr Laboratories, (2) Rugby, a division of Watson Laboratories, (3) Hoeschst-Marion-roussel, a subsidiary of Aventis. The Company reportedly paid $200 million to the companies who had been seeking to bring generic versions of Cipro to the market. Barr and Bayer were set to go to trial over the Cipro patent in 1997, but reached an out-of-court settlement in which Barr receives $30 million a year from the Company. The Company holds the patent on Cipro until the end of 2003. The pharmaceutical giant reiterated that it was "of the opinion that the Cipro patent in the United States is beyond doubt" and asserted that it had enjoyed "repeatedly confirmed patent protection." The Company also agreed last week to sell 100 million Cipro pills to the US government at 95 cents each, lower than their original price of $1.77 per pill. Barr spokeswoman Carol Cox also defended the company's agreement Thursday, saying the agreement allows for a generic version to be sold starting in July 2003, before the patent expires in December 2003. The German company said its patent rights had subsequently been confirmed by the U.S. patent office. COSCO INC.: Cook County Judge Certifies Defective Crib Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Indiana-based baby furniture manufacturer Cosco, Inc. faces a class action lawsuit in Cook County state court over a defective crib, which has caused several baby injuries and even deaths. The court gave class certification last week to the suit brought by thousands of Americans who bought the crib, model 10-M84, sold at Kmart and Montgomery ward stores, among others. The 10-M84 already has a history of problems due to the 10 spindles that support the mattress platform. These spindles were 5 inches apart which is big enough to let a child slip through feet first. Joliet toddler Jamie Ross died in June 1998 of asphyxiation after falling through the crib. His body and shoulders slipped through the slats, but his head would not fit - trapping him. The Company settled the case out-of-court for an undisclosed amount. However, Ross' death and the lawsuit helped focus national attention on the cribs, which led the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission investigated the crib. This resulted in the Company's recall of 62,000 mattresses sold as a set with the crib after the commission reported that the 4-inch mattress could be pushed between the platform bars if a child stood on it. Joliet attorney Steve Haney is now working on the suit and looking for potential class members. "The nature of a class action is you have a lot of people, all of whom on an individual basis have relatively small claims. If they pursued individually, practically speaking, no one would pursue it. Everyone must group together," he explained. Haney further asserted that there might be more unsuspecting parents who still use the defective cribs, as cribs often are used by more than one child and are usually sold in garage sales or given to friends or relatives. In response, the Company has begun manufacturing crib bottoms with 18 spindles to close the dangerous gap and make the cribs safer. Haney says that the cribs aren't stamped with the model number or the maker's name but are fairly easy to identify. He advises looking for a crib stamped with the Cosco name and with a mattress platform with 10 spindles each 5 inches apart. ENRON CORPORATION: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit In S.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Weiss and Yourman commenced a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE: ENE) securities between January 18, 2000 and October 17, 2001. The suit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The suit alleges the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose material information about the Company, causing its common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. 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 generally accepted accounting principles. In October 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, Enron revealed that it would be eliminating more than $1 billion in shareholder equity as a result of its unwinding of the investments with certain limited partnerships in which its chief financial officer held large interests. 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 Mark D. Smilow, David C. Katz or James E. Tullman by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com ENRON CORPORATION: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. TX -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz and Nobel PC filed a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) common stock between March 30, 2000 and October 18, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and three of its senior officers. The suit alleges that the defendants misled the investing public during the class period by reporting assets that were grossly overvalued, which has since resulted in write-downs of $1 billion and is expected to require further write-downs of hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition, the failure to disclose the full details of transactions between the Company and two limited partnerships, in which its chief financial officer had a significant interest. Ultimately, this led Enron to announce after trading on October 16, 2001, that it was taking a charge of $35 million and would be canceling 55 million shares, causing a $1.2 billion reduction in shareholders' equity. By October 19, the price of Company stock closed at $26.05 per share, down 27% for the week, and well below its class period high of $90 per share. For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S. Nobel, Patrick A. Klingman or Deborah M. Taylor by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E- mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: www.snlaw.net EXCHANGE APPLICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Exchange Applications, Inc. (NASDAQ: EXAP) securities between December 8, 1998 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) BT Alex Brown, Inc., (2) Hambrecht & Quist, LLC, (3) Adams, Harkness & Hill, Inc., (4) Sound-View Technology Group, Inc., (5) Andrew J. Frawley, (6) John G. O'Brien, (7) Jeffrey Horing, (8) Ramanan Raghavendran, (9) David G. Mcfarlane, (10) Michael D. McGonagle, (11) Patrick A. Mchugh, and (12) N. Wayne Townsend The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In December 1998, the Company commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 3,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $11 per share. In June 1999 the Company and its officers commenced a secondary public offering of 3,000,000 of of common stock, at an offering price of $22 per share. The Company filed registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the offerings, each of which incorporated a prospectus. The complaint further alleges that the prospectuses were materially false and misleading because each failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares issued in connection with the initial and secondary offerings; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate Company shares to those customers in the offerings in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. 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: EXAP@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com INDONESIA: Displaced Citizens Sue Government Over "Clean Up" Program -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Jakarta City government faces a class-action lawsuit alleging that the government's clean-up program for the city has left thousands of residents jobless and homeless. A Strait Times Report says that the government program left many street vendors, becak drivers, traffic wardens and others jobless and homeless. The Jakarta administration wants to get rid of people and activities which it feels are clogging its streets, and export its poverty to other cities or the countryside, said Ms. Wardah Hafidz from the Urban Poor Consortium. She said the program had caused at least 80,000 of Jakarta's poorest people, who had become becak drivers or hawkers in the wake of the Asian economic crisis, to become unemployed. "Jakarta wants to beautify Jakarta and wants to free Jakarta from the poor because they are a liability," said Ms. Wardah Hafidz. Ridding the city of the poor would allow its administration to attract more investors, and, in turn, have more revenue to run itself under the new decentralization law, she added. Cities, such as Cirebon in West Java, are already feeling the effects of the crackdown as becak drivers flood in. Sociologists have warned of an ensuing public unrest; parliamentarians have criticized the violent clean-up program and say they will use their power over regional government to protest against it. INTRAWARE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers Intraware, Inc. (NASDAQ:ITRA) securities between February 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and its underwriters. The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In February 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 4 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $16 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (1) the underwriters on the offering had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which those underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of IPO shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices This action is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee of In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS). By Order, dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin appointed these firms to serve as the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee: (i) Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, (ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, (iii) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, (iv) Sirota & Sirota LLP, (v) Stull, Stull & Brody LLP, and (vi) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E- mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Intraware IXL ENTERPRISES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of IXL Enterprises, Inc. (NASDAQ:IIXL) common stock between June 2, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (3) Bear Stearns & Co, Inc., (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, (5) U. Bertram Ellis, Jr., and (6) M. Wayne Boylston The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In June 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 4,800,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate Company shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. This action is being prosecuted by the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee of In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS). By Order, dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin appointed the following firms to serve as the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee: (a) Berstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP, (b) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, (c) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, (d) Sirota & Sirota LLP, (e) Stull, Stull & Brody and (f) Wolf Haldenstein Freeman & Herz LLP The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee has been vested by the court with the responsibility for the prosecution of the IPO securities litigation. 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com JOHNSON JOHNSON: Inks Settlement With Acuvue Users in New Jersey Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson and Johnson reached a settlement in the class action suit accusing the Company of misleading advertisements for Acuvue, its top- selling contact lenses. New Jersey Superior Court Judge John A. Fratto approved the settlement, whose terms were not disclosed. Company spokesman Marc Monseau said in an interview with AP online, "It's unknown what the final settlement costs will be" as some customers probably won't file a settlement claim. Peter Masnik, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, also declined to discuss the case. The suit was filed in 1996 against the Company's subsidiary Vistakon, alleging that it misled customers by advertising its "1-Day Acuvue" lenses as best worn for just a day and then discarded. The plaintiffs alleged that the lenses were the same as the Company's 14-day Acuvue lenses, a claim that the Company denied. However, the Company agreed to change package labeling and marketing materials so as not to suggest that 1-Day Acuvue lenses could not be worn for more than a day. According to the settlement, the Company will pay purchasers of the lenses between $3 in cash or credit for each box they purchased, plus $1 toward the cost of an eye examination. Monseau expressed confidence that the settlement will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company's operations or financial position. NUMERICAL TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Numerical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NMTC) securities between April 7, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, (2) Chase Securities, Inc., and (3) SG Cowen Securities Corporation The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In April 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $14 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate Company shares to those customers in the Company IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. 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: NMTC@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files NY Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Prodigy Communications Corp. (NASDAQ: PRGY) securities between February 10, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Bear Stearns & Co., (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (3) ING Barings Furman Selz LLC, (4) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company, LLC, (5) Wit Capital Corporation, (6) Samer F. Salameh, and (7) David R. Henkel The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Last February 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $15 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares issued in connection with the IPO; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. 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: PRGY@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: www.bernlieb.com PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Weiss Yourman Commences N.D. CA Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Weiss and Yourman filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Providian Financial Corporation (NYSE:PVN) securities between June 6, 2001 and October 11, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and Company executives: (1) David Alvarez, (2) James Rowe and (3) Shailesh J. Mehta The defendants allegedly violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting: (i) that the Company would continue to sustain revenue and Earnings Per Share (EPS) growth; and (ii) that the Company would post another quarter of sequential EPS growth, despite having knowledge that the Company's financial condition was actually eroding During this same time, company insiders sold nearly $22 million worth of their own shares at prices artificially inflated by these misrepresentations. On October 11, 2001, the Company revealed that, contrary to defendants' prior positive statements, it would post no EPS growth and that its EPS would in fact be only a small fraction of what defendants had led the market to believe. This stunning disclosure shocked the market, causing Company stock to plummet to less than $13 per share before closing at $13.45 on October 12, 2001, a decline of over 75% from its class period high of $59.95. For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Phone: (800) 437- 7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website: www.wyca.com PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers Providian Financial Corporation (NYSE:PVN) common stock from June 6, 2001 through October 18, 2001, inclusive. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The defendants allegedly issued false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and misleading statements concerning the Company's operations and prospects for 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2001. In late June 2001, the Company changed the way it processes its bankruptcy filings and thus changed when it recognizes losses and deferred the recognition of approximately $30 million of charge-offs from June (and 2nd Quarter 2001) into July. The Company allegedly manipulated its financial statements for 2nd Quarter 2001 and shaved 40 basis points off its managed net charge-off rate of 10.3% and boosted reported EPS by $0.06. Without this change, the loss rate would have been 10.7%. This is well above defendants' guidance of 9.5%-10%. The defendants made no mention of this change on the conference call or in the Company's 2nd Quarter 2001 10-Q form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In fact, management only admitted this change after they came under pressure from analysts following a flood of calls to their investor relations department in late August 2001. During the class period, taking advantage of the inflation in the Company's stock, company insiders sold almost $22 million worth of their own stock at artificially inflated prices of as much as $49.30 per share. These sales were out of line with their prior trading history. For more details, 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 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com SULZER MEDICA: Proposes $783M Faulty Implants Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Sulzer Medica is proposing a $783 million settlement to the class action suit filed against them over faulty hip and knee implants made by their Austin-based orthopedics unit. More than 1,600 lawsuits were filed against the Company after it recalled 40,000 hip implants last year after reports of patients suffering severe pain and slipping. Five months later, the company withdrew some knee implants from the market, though it did not issue a formal recall. The implants allegedly were not bonding properly to their bones. Later, the Company determined that oil residue on the hip and knee implants caused the problem. Under the settlement, the company will pay patients who needed surgery after receiving the faulty hip or knee implants between $57,500 and $97,500 in cash and stock. About 440 people have had surgery to remove the faulty knee implants; about 2,500 hip implants have been replaced. Last Saturday, federal judge Kathleen O'Malley also decided to include about 1,600 faulty knee implants in the proposed settlement. These patients who received faulty knee implants were originally included in the settlement, but O'Malley removed the cases from the settlement because she had no jurisdiction over them. She received that authority earlier this month. She also placed a temporary injunction on state cases while the federal class-action settlement process continues. Fairness hearing on the settlement is set March 2002. TELECOM CORPORATION: ISP Files Suit After Company Cuts Service -------------------------------------------------------------- Telecom Corporation of New Zealand faces a class action suit after it disconnected internet and electronic mail services from ISP provider Lloyd Group Holdings. Lloyd Group head, Lloyd Gallagher, slapped the Company with a lawsuit after the disconnection left up to 300 of their corporate clients without electronic mail and internet services for more than a week. The Company has not commented on the suit, but spokesperson Mary Parker said they reluctantly disconnected Lloyd Group due to non-payment of its account amounting to more than $220,000. Gallagher alleges that the Company had been charging him for circuits that did not exist. He had refused to pay for the disputed circuits but said he had continued to pay for what he did use. He added that he has talked to 18 of the Company's account managers but has not reached any solution to the dispute. Gallagher says he was putting together his case that could involve his firm's 300 customers, and refused to disclose the amount of damages he was seeking, only saying the amount would be "large." In a statement posted on his Website, he said, "We have the proof and the paper work to prove Telecom acted unjustly and intend to bring a class action suit against them for all our clients affected by this situation." This was not the first time the two companies faced off legally - in fact, in 1999 Gallagher complained about the Company to the Commerce Commission claiming it was being anti-competitive. The complaint centered on the company's inability to obtain a circuit from Telecom to allow it access to a central Auckland cyber cafe. Telecom said Lloyd Group's equipment did not have a permit. The commission decided not to pursue the case and Gallagher followed up with a submission to the Telecommunications Inquiry. THOROUGHBRED TECHNOLOGY:Forges Landmark Settlement In Landowners' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An Indianapolis federal judge approved a "landmark" settlement in the class action suit filed against Norfolk Southern Railroad subsidiary Thoroughbred Technology & Telecommunications. The Company is installing fiber optic communication lines along the railroad tracks in states east of the Mississippi. An estimated 58,000 landowners along Norfolk Southern's right of way will receive cash payments ranging from $6,000 to $31,875 per mile. In addition to the cash payments, qualified landowners will also receive one share of Class Corridor LLC for every 10 feet of frontage. Class Corridor was created to develop and market telecommunications services along the Norfolk Southern right of way. Timothy Elzinga, the Lake County Farmer who spearheaded the suit, says that until now, companies putting in lines along transportation corridors usually just paid adjacent landowners up-front. The unique settlement is the first of its kind and Elzinga asserts "the whole telecommunications industry is watching this." Elzinga filed the suit after a representative of a Company contractor asked his permission to install cable along his land adjacent to the railroad right of way. He asserts, "Railroads have had the right to run through one's property for over 100 years, but that doesn't give them the right to put anything they want in there." He expressed satisfaction at the decision, saying "it's not a windfall.but the revenue will carry on for years." Another property owner that stands to get money in the settlement is the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, but district attorney Bjarne Henderson declined to comment on the case. "We will have an opportunity to review the settlement before we determine an appropriate course of action," he said. VIGNETTE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Vignette Corporation (NASDAQ: VIGN) securities between February 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, (2) Hambrecht & Quist, LLC, (3) Dain Rauscher Wessels, (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., (5) Ross B. Garber, (6) Neil Webber, (7) William R. Daniel, (8) Michael J. Vollman, (9) Gregory A. Peters, (10) Jack F. Lynch and (11) Joel G. Katz The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Last February 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering (IPO) of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $19 per share. In December 1999 the Company also commenced a secondary public offering of 2,900,000 shares of common stock, at an offering price of $139.875 per share. The Company filed registration statements with the SEC in connection with the offerings, each of which incorporated a prospectus. The complaint further alleges that the prospectuses were materially false and misleading because each failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for which they allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of Company shares issued in connection with the offerings; and (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate Company shares to those customers in the offerings in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. 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: VIGN@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 * * *