/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/011115.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 15, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 224 Headlines BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Deaths Due To Faulty Dialyzers in IL COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued For RICO Violations, Breach Of Contract in FL CREDIT CARDS: Asks Court To Reconsider Antitrust Suit Certification ENRON CORPORATION: Lawyers Say Earnings Restatement Sign of Deceit ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit FAIRMARKET INC.: Underwriters' Practices Draw S.D. NY Securities Suit FISCHER PORTER: $4.5M Pennsylvania Securities Suit Settlement Reached NESCO INC.: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. Oklahoma NETEASE.COM: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York PARTSBASE.COM: Marc S. Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. Florida PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY QUALCOMM INC.: Former Employees Sue For Labor Violations in S.D. CA RACIAL PROFILING: Troopers Respond To ACLU Racial Profiling Billboard RACING CHAMPIONS: Sued For Unfair Trade Practices Law Violations in CA REDBACK NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ROBOTIC VISION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In Massachusetts ROWE.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suits in S.D. New York SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA SECURE COMPUTING: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in N.D. CA TIDEL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Unfair Business Practices In Texas TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Wrapped Up in WV Smokers Suit TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY TYSON FOODS: 10 National Law Firms To Join Grand Lake Pollution Suit UNITED INSURANCE: Stockholders Sue For Securities Act Violations in TX VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Allege Personal Injuries From Phone Use VIADOR INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York WEST CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Suit Due To Ohio Marketing Programs XOMA LTD.: Rosen Law Investigates For Possible Securities Violations ********* BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit In S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Stull Stull and Brody commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of BackWeb Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ:BWEB) between June 8, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against BackWeb, certain of its officers and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated 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 of 5.5 million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $12 per share. In connection therewith, BackWeb filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC, which was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose 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 IPO; and (ii) 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. For more information, contact Tzivia Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll free) or 1-212-687-7230 by Fax: 1-212-490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Deaths Due To Faulty Dialyzers in IL ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth B. Moll and Associates Ltd. filed the first U.S. class action lawsuit against Baxter International Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The suit, filed on behalf of all patients globally who have died using Baxter's dialysis products, also named Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (better known as 3M). 3M produced the fluid used to check the filters for leaks. John Cornwell, a spokesman for St. Paul, Minnesota-based 3M, declined to comment on the litigation. The suit was filed against the Company relating to its October 18 recall of its A and AF series dialyzers, which help cleanse blood toxins in those suffering from kidney failure. The A and AF series were part of the Company's acquisition of Althin Medical AB in March 2000. Another line of dialyzers called AX was discontinued last February. The law firm said 56 people have died following the use of the filters, including: (1) 23 in Croatia, (2) 15 in Spain, (3) 7 in Taiwan, (4) 5 in Germany, (5) 4 in the United States, and (6) 2 in Columbia According to published reports, a total of 23 people died in Croatia, but two deaths were found unrelated to dialysis equipment use. Attorney Kenneth Moll, who filed the suit, said he believes the number of deaths could be much higher. In a Reuters interview, Moll said "One of the driving forces of this lawsuit was to protect foreign consumers as well as American consumers of this product." Baxter spokeswoman Lisa Scheff said that they were fully expecting the suits and that the Company doesn't comment on any details about litigation. The Company has said it has cooperated with all investigations and has said that in many cases it has not received adequate clinical information to complete its investigations. In addition to the October recall, Baxter on Nov. 5 said it planned to stop making the filters, which were produced at its plant in Ronneby, Sweden. A judge must rule on whether cases can be consolidated and receive class-action status. If certified, Moll believes the class may include up to 900,000 plaintiffs. However, last week Baxter said fewer than 10 percent of the recalled series A and AF dialyzers were exposed to the fluid perfluorohydrocarbon, that 3M produces. By those calculations, the total class would be fewer than 90,000. The Baxter spokeswoman said the recall was for a total of 200,000 dialyzers. Separately, in Spain the government of the region of Valencia has asked hospitals to withdraw infusion tubes made by Baxter following the discovery that the rubber on a batch of the tubes in the region had an unusual appearance. The tubes are used to introduce drugs intravenously. A Baxter spokesman said the appearance was due to a reaction among the chemical compounds used in chemotherapy and the rubber made by Baxter. COVENTRY HEALTH: Sued For RICO Violations, Breach Of Contract in FL ------------------------------------------------------------------- Healthcare provider Coventry Health Care, Inc. (NYSE:CVH) was named as one of the defendants in an amended class action complaint pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The suit was filed by a group of health care providers against the Company and 11 other defendants in the managed care field, alleging multiple violations of: (1) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), (2) prompt pay statutes in certain states, and (3) breaches of contract for failure to pay claims Coventry labeled the suit allegations "without merit" and stated its intent to defend their position vigorously in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. CREDIT CARDS: Asks Court To Reconsider Antitrust Suit Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- Credit card companies, Mastercard International, Inc. and Visa USA, Inc. asked the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing of its decision granting class certification to the consolidated antitrust class action filed against them by major U.S. retailers. The suit arose from several complaints commenced in October 1996 by several U.S. merchants including: (1) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (2) Sears Roebuck & Co., Inc., (3) The Limited Inc. and (4) Safeway, Inc. The suits uniformly challenged MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule (and a similar Visa rule), which ensures universal acceptance for consumers by requiring merchants who accept MasterCard cards to accept for payment every validly presented MasterCard card. Plaintiffs claim violations of U.S. Federal Antitrust Laws because both Companies unlawfully have tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of credit cards. The merchants desire the ability to reject off-line, signature-based debit transactions (for example, MasterCard card transactions) in favor of other payment forms, including on-line, PIN-based debit transactions (for example, Maestro or regional ATM network transactions) which generally impose lower transaction costs for merchants. The suits claim that both companies have conspired to monopolize what they characterize as the point-of-sale debit card market, thereby suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM payment systems. The suits also allege that the plaintiff class has been forced to pay unlawfully high prices for debit and credit card transactions as a result of the alleged tying arrangement and monopolization practices. There are related consumer class actions pending in two state courts that have been stayed pending developments in this matter. In February 2000, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which both Companies subsequently appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Last month, a three-judge panel affirmed the lower court decision by a two-to-one majority. As of this date, argument date for summary judgment and trial date has been not yet been set. ENRON CORPORATION: Lawyers Say Earnings Restatement Sign of Deceit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers suing Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE) for securities violations say the Company's restatement last week of more than four years of earnings is a clear sign that it misled investors. Arthur Stock of Berger and Montague PC says "Enron restating its earnings is certainly going to help our case. It demonstrates that in their opinion their earnings were false when initially published." 10 law firms filed securities suits against the Company, saying it deceived investors by issuing by false and misleading statements or concealing adverse information, causing shares to be artificially inflated. The suits name Enron and these defendants: (1) Kenneth Lay, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, (2) Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO and (3) Andrew Fastow, a former Chief Financial Officer Enron further damaged its reputation with investors last week, when it reduced earnings from 1997 to 2000 by $591 million, and restated its earnings for the first two quarters of 2001. A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Tuesday revealed that Lay could walk away with more than $80 million if the acquisition by Dynegy closes this year. Law firm Cauley Geller Bowman and Coates LLP filed a new lawsuit since Enron restated its results, changing the class period originally January 18,2000 to October 17,2001. The firm expanded the class period to include investors who bought Company stock from January 18,1999 to November 8,2001. The firms says "The effect of the restatement was dramatic.Enron insiders disposed of over $73 million of their personally held Enron common stock to unsuspecting investors." The firm further said selling of Company stock by key executives was "unusual and suspicious given its timing," as Lay sold $11.2 million worth of shares during the period, and Skilling sold $6.41 million. "People who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars are naturally angry," Stock said. "It is expected in this type of situation." ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP expanded the class period in the securities suit filed on behalf of purchasers of Enron Corporation ("Enron") (NYSE:ENE) common stock to include stock purchased between October 19, 1998 and November 7, 2001. The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors and its auditors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants issued favorable but false financial statements and made false and misleading statements about Enron's business. As a result of these allegedly false statements, the Company's stock traded as high as $90.75. Defendants took advantage of this artificial inflation, selling 7.3 million shares of their stock for proceeds of $434 million. It was subsequently revealed that Enron would be incurring losses of $1 billion for certain of its divisions. Last November 8, 2001, prior to the markets opening, the Company announced it was restating its results for 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000, and the first two quarters of 2001 to correct for errors which had inflated its net income by $591 million in those years and that audit reports for those years should not be relied upon. The impact of the restatement was enormous. Upon these disclosures, Company stock dropped to as low as $8.20 before closing at $8.41 on November 8, 2001, some 91% below the Class Period high of $90.75. For more information, contact William Lerach, Steven Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 800/320-5081 by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or Enroncase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com ENRON CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP has filed a new securities fraud class action against Enron Corporation (NYSE:ENE), three of its officers and Arthur Andersen, the auditors for Enron. The action is pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Enron's common stock during the period from October 22, 1998 through November 8, 2001, inclusive. This action expands the class period alleged in a previous complaint filed by Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP and names Arthur Andersen, the Company's outside auditors, as an additional defendant. The expansion of the class action litigation is based upon Enron's disclosure on November 8 that it was restating its financial statements for the years 1997 through 2000 and the first two quarters of 2001, and that the previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that defendants' wrongful conduct artificially inflated the price of Company common stock during the class period. For more information, contact Thomas G. Shapiro or Liz Hutton by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134 or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com. FAIRMARKET INC.: Underwriters' Practices Draw S.D. NY Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet software provider FairMarket, Inc. (NASDAQ:FAIM) faces several class action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit names as defendants: (1) Scott Randall, (2) John Belchers, (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., (4) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. and (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of FairMarket's common stock between March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000. The suits allege that certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering solicited and received excessive and undisclosed fees and commissions in connection with that offering. The lawsuits further allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a registration statement and prospectus in connection with the initial public offering which failed to accurately disclose the amount and nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter defendants. FairMarket said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is reviewing the allegations in the complaints. FISCHER PORTER: $4.5M Pennsylvania Securities Suit Settlement Reached --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fischer and Porter, Inc. agreed to settle for $4.5 million a securities class action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, Pennsylvania on behalf of the Company's shareholders at the close of its business in September 30,1993. The suit names as defendants, Fischer and Porter, and two of its former Class B stockholders, who were also Directors and Executive Officers, Jay H. Tolson and E. Joseph Hochreiter. The suit challenged the validity of the warrants issued to the two named individuals in connection with their conversion of Class B Stock into Common Stock. In March 1994, Fischer and Porter was informed that the plaintiff would file an amended complaint asserting a class action and a derivative claim against the individual defendants. Under the amended complaint, the Company would be named only as a nominal defendant on the derivative claims and no claim will be asserted against it for any wrongdoings alleged in this action. A hearing is set for December 13, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. before Judge Alan M. Rubenstein to determine: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the class action for $4,500,000 in cash plus accrued interest should be approved by the court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the application of plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (3) whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice. NESCO INC.: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin and Peckel LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Nesco, Inc. common stock (NASDAQ:NESC) between April 26, 2000 and August 16, 2001, inclusive. The suit is pending in in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against the Company and: (1) Eddy L. Patterson, (2) James Howell, and (3) Larry Johnson The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements about the Company's quarterly and annual financial results for 2000 and its quarterly financial results for the first quarter of 2001. At the close of the class period, Nesco restated its revenues for 2000 and the first quarter of 2001 to adjust for $3.65 million in overbooked sales. The overbooked sales, which were the result of accounting irregularities, forced the company to reduce its earnings for 2000 to $588,000, or 6 cents a share, from the previously reported $2.85 million, or 31 cents per share. The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements the price of Nesco common stock was artificially inflated throughout the class period. For more information, contact Maurice Pesso or Eric Belfi by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.rabinlaw.com NETEASE.COM: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of NetEase.com, Inc. ("NetEase") (NASDAQ:NTESE) from between July 3, 2000 and August 31, 2001, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and defendants: (1) King F. Lai, (2) William Lei Ding, (3) Helen Haiwen He, (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. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) 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 promulgated thereunder. The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between July 3, 2000 and August 31, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Nesco's common stock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, on May 8, 2001, the Company disclosed that it had discovered that $1 million in contracts had been improperly reported as revenue and as a result, it would delay announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2001. Subsequently, on June 11, 2001, Nesco 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, on August 31, 2001, 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 the Nesco's 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. For further details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com PARTSBASE.COM: Marc S. Henzel Begins Securities Suit In S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of PartsBase.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRTS) publicly traded common stock during the period from the Initial Public Offering on March 22, 2000 through April 25, 2000. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges that the IPO prospectus filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and distributed to investors was false and misleading. The prospectus allegedly failed to disclose, among other things, the fact that PartsBase had approximately 3,000 paying members. The complaint alleges that the Company misled investors by representing in the prospectus that it had more than 13,000 paying members. The complaint also alleges that this misrepresentation, along with others specified in the complaint, allowed the Company to inflate the price of the stock in the IPO well beyond its true value 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 PREVIEW SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Initiates S.D. New York Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf all persons who acquired Preview Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVW) securities between December 7, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, names as defendants the Company and: (1) Vincent Pluvinage, (2) G. Bradford Solso, (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (4) Dain Rauscher Incorporated, and (5) Soundview Technology Group, Inc. The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a registration statement and prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The prospectus was issued in connection with Preview's initial public offering of 3,800,000 shares of common stock at $21.00 per share that was completed on or about December 7, 1999. The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the underwriters' agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its customers whereby the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase Company shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. 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 PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Psi Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSIT) securities between March 16, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against PSI, certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling Company common stock pursuant to the March 16, 2000 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in exchange for the excessive commissions, defendants allocated PSI shares to customers at the IPO price. To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at the IPO price, the underwriters' brokerage customers allegedly had to agree to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices. The alleged requirement that customers make additional purchases at progressively higher prices as the price of PSI stock rocketed upward was intended to drive the Company's share price up to artificially high levels. This artificial price inflation enabled both the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying stock at the IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at inflated aftermarket prices. For more 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 QUALCOMM INC.: Former Employees Sue For Labor Violations in S.D. CA ------------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunications company Qualcomm Inc. faces a putative class action now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Four former employees initially filed the suit in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of themselves and other former Company employees who were terminated in April 1999. The suit states several causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) age discrimination, (3) violation of Labor Code Section 200, (4) violation of Labor Code Section 970, (5) unfair business practices, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (9) declaratory relief, and (10) undue influence In June 2000, the case was transferred from Los Angeles County Superior Court to San Diego County Superior Court. In July 2000, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and discovery commenced. In May 2001, the court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims except for claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court granted conditional class certification on the remaining claims in July 2001, to be revisited by the court at the end of the discovery period. QualComm asserts that virtually all of the purported class of plaintiffs received severance packages at the time of the termination of their employment, in exchange for a release of claims, other than federal age discrimination claims, against them. The Company cannot assure that an unfavorable outcome of the dispute would not have a material adverse effect on its operating results, liquidity or financial position. QualComm also asserted that the claims are without merit and stated its intention to vigorously defend against the action. RACIAL PROFILING: Troopers Respond To ACLU Racial Profiling Billboard --------------------------------------------------------------------- Responding to an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) billboard that seeks plaintiffs for racial profiling cases, state troopers put up their own highway signs listing a toll-free number for motorists to cite helpful troopers. Last month, the ACLU put up a billboard on the New Jersey Turnpike's southbound spur showing a photograph of two minority men and the words "Stopped or searched by the New Jersey State Police?" The sign continues "They admit to racial profiling. You might win money damages" and includes the ACLU's toll-free number. The ACLU intensified its campaign after the state released records showing that nearly half the drivers stopped by troopers on the turnpike were minorities. The report also stated that Blacks and Hispanics accounted for over 70% of those arrested. The ACLU has said that they mounted the advertising campaign to "stop racial profiling once and for all" and that the ads are meant to find potential racial profiling victims and bring new lawsuits against police. The ACLU is currently representing 16 plaintiffs in two lawsuits, one filed in state court in 1997 and the other filed in federal court in 1999. The ACLU lost a bid to certify the state court lawsuit as a class action while a federal judge in Camden is considering the bid to certify the 1999 lawsuit. The campaign angered the New Jersey State Troopers. Dennis Hallion, president of the union representing non-commissioned officers says, "We are not overly thrilled with the ACLU's campaign, but we chose to take the high road, rather than the low road." The first billboard was put up Tuesday near the ACLU sign while a second billboard will be put up in Bordentown, about ten miles down the turnpike. Both signs say "Have you ever been helped by a New Jersey State Trooper?" and list an existing state police department hotline for motorists to report on trooper conduct. The goal is to collect as many positive reports as possible "so we can use them to help us in making our organization a better place to work," Hallion said. Since 1999, the state has had a program to reform the state police and end racial profiling. RACING CHAMPIONS: Sued For Unfair Trade Practices Law Violations in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Racing Champions South, Inc. faces a consumer class action filed last August 2000 in California state court. The suit names several other sport cards manufacturers as defendants and purports to include all US residents who purchased sports cards manufactured, licensed, marketed, sold or distributed by any defendant within a time period of up to four years. The suit alleges that the defendants violated the California unfair trade practices and consumer protection laws by selling packs of sports trading cards containing random assortments of varying values. In May 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The defendants promptly asked the California Supreme Court for permission to appeal the decision, but the court denied this in September 2001. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend its position, although no assurance can be given as to the outcome of this matter. The Company produces various recreational toys such as die-cast replicas of cars and trucks that are three to eight inches in length, Ertl agricultural vehicles (such as tractors), and American Muscle vintage cars and trucks. It also makes action figures, model kits, apparel and trading cards REDBACK NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Redback Networks Inc. (NASDAQ: RBAK) between May 17, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The suit, pending in in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, names as defendants: (1) Redback Networks, Inc., (2) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., (4) Lehman Brothers Inc., (5) Dennis L. Barsema, and (6) Geoffrey C. Darby. 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 May 1999, Redback commenced an initial public offering of 2,500,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $23 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC. The complaint further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that: (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 IPO; and (ii) 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. 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 ROBOTIC VISION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit In Massachusetts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROBV) common stock between January 27, 2000 and May 15, 2001. The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges that RVS and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit alleges that during the class period, the Company reported materially false and misleading financial results for fiscal year 2000 in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. In May 2001, before the market opened, RVS announced that it would be restating its financial results for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2000 and for the three month period ended December 31, 2000 to correct certain accounting errors involving the recognition of revenue at its Acuity CiMatrix division. As a result of defendants' alleged fraud, the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated levels throughout the class period. In response to the shocking news that RVS' financial statements required restatement, stock price lost almost 15% of its value in one day. 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 ROWE.COM: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suits in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on behalf all persons who acquired Rowe.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: ROWE) securities between March 9, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Richard Rowe, (2) Louis Hernandez, Jr., (3) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., (4) CIBC Oppenheimer Corp. and (5) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company, LLC The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a registration statement and prospectus that contained materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information. The prospectus was issued in connection with Rowe.com's initial public offering of 3.1 million shares of common stock at $16.00 per share that was completed on or about March 9, 1999. The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading because it failed to disclose: (i) the underwriters agreement with certain investors to provide them with significant amounts of restricted shares in the IPO in exchange for exorbitant and undisclosed commissions; and (ii) the agreement between the underwriters and certain of its customers whereby the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase shares in the after-market at pre- determined prices. 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 SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Scientific-Atlanta, Incorporated (NYSE: SFA) between April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001, inclusive. The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia against the Company, Wallace G. Haislip and James F. McDonald. 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 April 19, 2001 and July 19, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading information with regard to the financial results of its third fiscal quarter. For example, in a May Form 10-Q that was filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, defendants reported their financial results and highlighted an increase in production capacity of set-tops. In July 2001, defendants reported the Company's financial results for the fiscal fourth quarter of 2001 and shocked the market by reporting a 21% decline in bookings from the previous year's fourth quarter. This decline in bookings was attributable to, among other things, a surplus in customer inventory levels, which defendants knew, or should have known, at the time they filed the Company's Form 10-Q, making the representations in the Form 10-Q regarding production capacity materially false and misleading. Additionally, the Company announced that it was revising its earnings estimates for the first quarter of fiscal 2002. The market reaction to this announcement was immediate and punitive, as Company shares plummeted by more than 34%, or $12.08, to close at $23 per share, on heavy trading volume. 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 SECURE COMPUTING: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in N.D. CA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class action filed against Secure Computing Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit arose from several class actions commenced in April 1999 against SCC and certain or its present and former directors and officers. The suits were filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities from November 10,1998 to March 31,1999. The suits uniformly allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, because the defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements about the Company's business condition and prospects. The court later consolidated these actions. SCC also filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit, which the court denied in August 2001. Trial in the suit will commence on June 23,2003. SCC believes that it has meritorious defenses to he suit and intends to defend them vigorously. TIDEL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Tidel Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ATMS) common stock during the period between April 6, 2000 and February 8, 2001, inclusive. The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, charges Tidel and certain of its officers and directors of violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 6, 2000 and February 8, 2001, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company falsely touted its sales of automated teller machines (ATMs) at a "record" pace. These materially false and misleading statements allowed Tidel to begin trading on the Nasdaq national trading system, which would have been impossible without the Company's false and misleading statements and the consequent artificial inflation of the Company's stock price. When the Company finally disclosed that its largest customer's orders would be at "substantially reduced levels for the quarter ending March 31, 2001," Company stock price declined precipitously. The lawsuit alleges that Tidel knew during the time period, but did not disclose, that its largest customer was in the process of switching to a competitor and reducing orders. For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: www.classlawyer.com TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Unfair Business Practices In Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet software provider Tippingpoint Technologies faces a consumer class action lawsuit filed in Texas state court in Travis County, Texas last July 2001. The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased an Internet appliance from the Company and subscribed to the Company's related Internet service. The complaint charges Tippingpoint with: (1) disseminating false and misleading advertisements; (2) engaging in unauthorized billing practices; and (3) failing to provide adequate technical and customer support and service with respect to the Company's Internet appliance and service business. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses available to defend the suit vigorously. Tippingpoint, however, said that in the event of an adverse outcome in the suit, their financial position and prospects could be harmed. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Wrapped Up in WV Smokers Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Closing arguments in the unprecedented class action filed by healthy West Virginia smokers against four major tobacco companies will commence today. The suit was filed against RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown and Williamson and Lorillard, accusing them of creating a "defective product" and not exerting enough effort to create a safer cigarette. The suit names as members of the class smokers who consume the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes a day for at least five years and have not been diagnosed with any smoking-related illness. The suit alleges that cigarettes are a defective product that increased their risk of developing serious diseases such as lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and emphysema. They accused the Companies of "wanton and willful" disregard for public health and want them to pay for a medical monitoring program that would earlier detect the above smoking-related diseases. The tests include a lung function test called spirometry and spiral computed tomography scans. When closing arguments are completed, six Ohio County jurors will be asked to decide the fate of the first medical monitoring class action lawsuit against "Big Tobacco" to make it to trial in the country. Plaintiffs must satisfy the "burden of proof" involving four allegations: (1) the companies acted in a tortious manner in the design, manufacturing and marketing of a defective product (the cigarette); (2) smoking cigarettes put class members at risk of developing serious, latent diseases; (3) risk necessitates periodic medical testing; and (4) the medical monitoring program proposed by the plaintiffs makes the early detection of certain diseases possible. The jury must agree with all four points in order to find in favor of the plaintiff, using as their guide evidence presented at their disposal and the 33-page document from Ohio County Circuit Judge Arthur M. Recht that explains the jury's responsibilities. In his closing argument, Charleston attorney, Scott Segal said the defendants did not conduct their businesses as responsible companies should. He primarily alleged that the Companies "denied that smoking causes disease and denied any responsibility for the illnesses and deaths that are the result of cigarette smoking." He also explained that in order to detect diseases early, medical testing must be periodic and that experts agreed it is better to find a disease at its earliest stages. Lawyers for the defendants uniformly emphasized that the Companies weren't negligent because cigarettes were "inherently risky" and that the public has always been aware of the risks of smoking. They also contended that the industry has done everything possible to create a safer cigarette and pointed to several "safer" brands that failed because "the public wouldn't buy them." Lorillard attorney Bill Newbold asserted, "Mr. Segal said we tried to 'deny, deny, deny,' but no one in this case was ever misled. West Virginians have known for a long time that cigarettes are dangerous." RJ Reynolds lawyer Jeff Furr said the case is "all about medical monitoring" but there has been a "complete failure of proof by the plaintiffs on medical monitoring." He said qualified physicians and public health organizations do not find the plaintiffs' medical monitoring program to be "medically necessary" and spirometry and spiral CT standing alone do not make the early detection of lung cancer and COPD/emphysema possible. He said a big issue only jurors can decide lies in the quality of the expert witnesses, saying "The plaintiffs didn't bring a single doctor who is going to tell you this program is in keeping with the standards of care." He also reiterated, "If you quit smoking before COPD is detected, you'll never get it from smoking. (Experts) said no matter what the result of spirometry is, you always say `stop smoking,' and you don't need spirometry to say that." Segal will present a rebuttal from the plaintiffs before the jury can begin its deliberations. TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commences a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of Turnstone Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: TSTN) common stock between January 31, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against Turnstone, certain of its officers and its underwriters. 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 January 2000, Turnstone commenced an initial public offering of 3,000,000 of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of $29 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC, which was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose 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 IPO; and (ii) 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. 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 TYSON FOODS: 10 National Law Firms To Join Grand Lake Pollution Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 national law firms, including Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Waterkeeper Alliance, will assist Oklahoma property owners in the environmental class action against Tyson Foods. The owners accuse the Company of discharging millions of gallons of wastewater from its Missouri processing plant directly into Elk River, which flows from Missouri into Oklahoma and Grand Lake. The owners also allege that the Company leached waste into the lake after being used as fertilizer for farmers who contract with it to grow chickens. The resulting pollution brought foul odors, pieces of poultry, waste, oil slicks, white foam and scum forming along the shoreline instead of pristine and clear water. The suit also states that property values in the area has been reduced by 5% to 10% and the quality of life has deterioriated. Chuck Shipley, counsel for the homeowners, welcomed the news, saying "It's going to mean they can't outspend us.bringing in the legal heavy hitters also means more depth in legal research." Kennedy's Waterkeeper Alliance is a White Plains, N.Y., environmental group that specializes in the protection and restoration of waterways. His firm and nine others will enter their appearances in the case on Tuesday, Shipley said. Conner and Winters, along with the law firm of Senate President Pro Tempore Stratton Taylor (D-Claremore) will represent Tyson. Taylor said he could not comment on the allegations against Tyson, referring questions to Conner & Winters. UNITED INSURANCE: Stockholders Sue For Securities Act Violations in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------------- United Insurance Companies, Inc. has until November 25,2001 to file an answer to the securities class action suit pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The consolidated suits arose from three complaints filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February 10,1999 through December 9, 1999. The suit charges the Company and certain of its executive officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suits allege that the defendants filed disclosures with the Securities and Exchange Commission that contained untrue statements of material facts and/or failed to disclose all material facts relating to the condition of the Company's credit card business. In June 12, 2000, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, amending, consolidating and supplementing the allegations made in the original cases. Last month, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the case, The Company expects the discovery phase of the litigation to commence shortly. The Company has labeled the suit "without merit" and and intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations in the suit. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Allege Personal Injuries From Phone Use --------------------------------------------------------------------- Verizon Communications, Inc. faces several class actions along with other telecommunications companies alleging personal injuries, including brain cancer, from wireless phone use. The suits include the following: (1) Christopher Newman, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., pending in U.S. District Court in Maryland, (2) Gibb Brower, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., pending in California Superior Court, San Diego, California, (3) Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., pending in Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, (4) Gilliam, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., pending in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, (5) Pinney, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., pending in Maryland Circuit Court, Baltimore County, and (6) Gimpelson et al. v. Nokia Inc., et al., Georgia Superior Court, Fulton County. The suits, all of which have been removed to federal court, claim that wireless phones were defective and unreasonably dangerous because the defendants: (i) failed to include a proper warning about alleged adverse health effects; (ii) failed to encourage the use of a headset; and (iii) failed to include a headset with the phone. Verizon believes it has strong defenses to assert in the proceedings and that it is entitled to indemnification by handset manufacturers in connection with these claims. The Company, however, believes that an adverse outcome in the suits could have a material effect on its results of operations, financial conditions and prospects. VIADOR INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Viador Inc. (NASDAQ: VIAD.OB) between October 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against Viador and defendants: (1) Stan X. Wang, CEO, President and director, (2) Raja H. Venkatesh, CFO, (3) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., (4) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and (5) Salomon Smith Barney Inc. 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 October 25, 1999, Viador commenced an initial public offering of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $9 per share. In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC, which 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 the Underwriter Defendants 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. 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 or visit the firm's Website: www.milberg.com WEST CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Suit Due To Ohio Marketing Programs -------------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunications company West Corporation (NASDAQ:WSTC) faces an amended consumer class action commenced in January 2001 in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Brandy L. Ritt filed the suit initially against two of the Company's clients in connection with the marketing of certain membership programs offered by the Company's clients. The suit alleges violations of: (1) Ohio's customer protection laws' (2) negligent misrepresentation, (3) fraud, (4) breach of contract, (5) unjust enrichment, and (6) civil conspiracy West was only added as defendant when the suit was amended for the third time in July 2001. The class has not been certified to date. The Company has denied the allegations in the suit and will mount a vigorous defense against it. Formerly West TeleServices, the company provides outsourced teleservices, with 28 call centers and seven automated voice and data centers. It also offers computerized call processing services and Web- based services. XOMA LTD.: Rosen Law Investigates For Possible Securities Violations -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm is investigating federal securities laws claims on behalf of purchasers of XOMA Ltd. (Nasdaq: XOMA) common stock during the period May 24, 2001 through October 4, 2001 including those persons who purchased shares in or traceable to the Company's June 26, 2001 public offering of 3 million shares. The Rosen Law Firm is investigating whether Xoma violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of alleged material misrepresentations to the market concerning the expected filing date for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of its psoriasis drug Xanelim. Specifically, beginning on May 24, 2001 and continuing throughout the class period, the Company claimed that it expected to submit a licensing application to the FDA by year-end or in the first quarter of 2002. On October 4, 2001, Xoma disclosed that the FDA wanted it to conduct additional tests to confirm that mass-produced Xanelim would be equivalent to the drug used in clinical trials in light of the fact that modifications had been made in the manufacturing process for the material. The requested additional tests have pushed back the expected FDA filing date for Xanelim until at least Summer of 2002. By leading the market to believe that it would file for FDA approval for Xanelim no later than first quarter 2002, the Company was able to sell over $43.0 million of stock to investors in a secondary public offering on June 26, 2001. When news of this setback hit the market, Company shares plunged from their class period high of $17.06 to as low as $6.40 on October 5, 2001. Investors who purchased Xoma shares during the class period have thus suffered substantial losses in their investment. For more information, contact Laurence Rosen by Phone: 866-767-3653 (toll-free) or by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.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 * * *