/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/011220.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 20, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 248 Headlines BAYCOL LITIGATION: Federal Judge Orders Consolidation of Suits in MN CARRIER1 INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY CORNING INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York CORNING INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY CRACKER BARREL: Incriminating Statements Strengthen Racial Bias Suit D'ANGELO SANDWICH: Chain Sued By Customers Over Hepatitis A Outbreak DIGITAL INSIGHT: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York EMACHINES INC.: State Court Blocks Impending Merger Due To Pending Suit FORD MOTOR: Settles MI Reverse Discrimination Suit For $10.5 Million FORD MOTOR: Couple Recovers $10 Million Compensation In Lemon Law Suit LAJOBI INDUSTRIES: Recalls 400 Cribs Because Of Strangulation Hazard MASSACHUSETTS: Disabled Children Sue Over Medicaid's Weak Coverage NORTEL NETWORKS: Denies Allegations in Pending Securities Suits in NY *NSYNC FANS: IL Court Upholds Suit Filed By Fans Who Missed Concert PT PLN: Consumers Group Sues Over Economic Losses From Power Blackout PUBLIX SUPER: Employees Stop Pursuing Suit After Unfavorable Ruling S1 CORPORATION: GA Court Dismisses Federal Securities Violations Suit SHOPKO STORES: Labels Securities Suits "Without Merit" in Wisconsin STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY UNITED STATES: Mexican Trucking Companies File $4B "Bias" Suit WAL-MART CORPORATION: Settles ADA Violations Suit For $6.8 Million VAN WAGONER: Ademi O'Reilly Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ********* BAYCOL LITIGATION: Federal Judge Orders Consolidation of Suits in MN -------------------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota Federal Judge Michael J. Davies issued an order this week headquartering the administration of federal lawsuits filed against makers of the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol in Minnesota Federal Court, according to a HarrisMartin Publishing report. Judge Davis transferred to Minnesota 36 Baycol lawsuits from 11 districts for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings following an order by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The decision also stated that more than 90 related court actions pending in 51 districts, and any other related actions, will be treated as potential "tag-along" cases and will likely be transferred to Minnesota. Baycol is among a rash of drugs that have recently become the subject of nationwide litigation. People who took Baycol filed dozens of class actions, which names, among others, Bayer Corporation and GlaxoSmithKline as defendants. The majority of suits allege that the drug causes rhabdomyolysis, a degenerative muscle condition that most frequently affects the muscle groups of the calves and lower back and can sometimes lead to failures of the kidneys and other organs. Through the US Food and Drug Administration, Bayer announced it was withdrawing Baycol in August. According to Tuesday's order, all responding parties agreed that centralization was appropriate, but disagreed on which district should host the proceedings. Defendant Bayer Corp. suggested the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Ohio or the Southern District of Texas. GlaxoSmithKline joined with Bayer in suggesting Illinois at oral argument. CARRIER1 INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against purchasers of Carrier1 International S.A. (NASDAQ:CONE) from February 24, 2000 to December 6, 2001, inclusive against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters. The suit alleges that the 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 February 2000, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 9.375 million of its shares of common stock, at an offering price of EURO 87 ($87.4176) or $17.4835 per ADS. 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 Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016 by Phone: 800.575.0735 or by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com CORNING INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Corning, Inc. (NYSE: GLW) common stock or zero coupon convertible debentures pursuant to a prospectus dated November 3, 2000. The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the Company's offering of common stock and debentures in November 2000. Specifically, the suit alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading, among other reasons, because: (1) it stated that demand for the Company's products was robust; (2) it failed to disclose that the Company was amassing hundreds of millions of dollars of obsolete inventory that would have to be written-off; and (3) given the foregoing, the projection of 25% earnings growth in 2001, contained in the prospectus, was lacking in a reasonable basis at all times. In July 2001, Corning announced it was taking a $5.1 billion charge primarily related to two recent acquisitions, that it would also write- off $300 million in excess and obsolete inventory, and that it would cut 1,000 jobs and close three plants. In July 2001, the Company reported a massive second-quarter loss of $4.76 billion, or $5.13 per share. The Company's shares closed that day at $13.77, down 80% from the offering price. For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson by Phone: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1.888.551.9944 (toll-free) by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlawyer.com CORNING INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Corning, Inc. (NYSE: GLW) pursuant to the November 2, 2000 prospectus. The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the Company's offering of common stock and debentures in November 2000. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus was materially false and misleading, among other reasons, because: (1) it stated that demand for the Company's products was robust; (2) it omitted to disclose that the Company was amassing hundreds of millions of dollars of obsolete inventory that would have to be written off; and (3) given the foregoing, the projection of 25% earnings growth in 2001, contained in the prospectus, was lacking in a reasonable basis at all times. In July 2001, Corning announced it was taking a $5.1 billion charge primarily related to two recent acquisitions, that it would also write- off $300 million in excess and obsolete inventory, and that it would cut 1,000 jobs and close three plants. The Company reported a massive second-quarter loss of $4.76 billion, or $5.13 per share. It's shares closed that day at $13.77, down 80% from the offering price. For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1.888.299.7706 (toll free) or 1.610.667.7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com CRACKER BARREL: Incriminating Statements Strengthen Racial Bias Suit -------------------------------------------------------------------- The $100 million racial discrimination class action against the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain pending in Rome, Georgia seems to be gaining momentum. Civil rights law firm Gordon Silberman Wiggins and Childs has documented testimony regarding alleged racism in 175 cities. The suit is the largest civil-rights lawsuit against a restaurant since Denny's 1994 settlement of a $46 million discrimination lawsuit. The suit cites many examples of alleged discrimination. One such allegation states that black customers, at a Grand Rapids-area Cracker Barrel restaurant, were subjected to "racially derogatory remarks." Plaintiffs' attorney David Sanford said, "The descriptions of the treatment endured by African-American customers in these restaurants is appalling.We have enough evidence right now to suggest that Cracker Barrel, to the very highest level, is responsible." Some examples of the growing number of allegations made by some former employees in Michigan: (1) Black customers in Saginaw were segregated; (2) White employees refused to serve black customers in Saginaw; (3) Managers refused to meet with black customers or dismissed their complaints in Saginaw and Port Huron; (4) Employees made racial comments in Saginaw, Roseville and Lansing; (5) White customers were given preferential treatment in Saginaw, Stevensville, Roseville, Port Huron and Lansing; (6) Black customers had to wait longer than white customers for tables in Roseville and Port Huron. Judith Robertson, who is white, responded to complaints made by customers on the company's hot line. In a statement, she said that the company received 300 calls a month claiming discrimination against minority customers. Much of the lawsuit focuses on statements of black customers recounting how they were forced to wait while white customers were promptly seated. Company Chief Executive Donald M. Turner says the charges are false and Cracker Barrel will fight them all the way to court "if it comes to that." Another class action lawsuit, also filed in Rome, Georgia, by Gordon, Silberman, claims blacks were not treated fairly in hiring, promotions and pay. D'ANGELO SANDWICH: Chain Sued By Customers Over Hepatitis A Outbreak -------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed recently, in Fall River Superior Court in Massachusetts, against the D'Angelo Sandwich Shop chain, on behalf of more than 1,700 people who were immunized during a regional outbreak of hepatitis A last month. Massachussetts epidemologists concluded that each of these people might have been exposed to the uncomfortable, but rarely fatal liver condition, The Providence Journal recently reported. Steven P. Sabra, the Somerset lawyer who filed the lawsuit, explained that this potential exposure required painful, humiliating and often inconvenient injections of a special virus-killing serum. "I think what's happened at D'Angelo's has had a tremendous effect on our local community here," Mr. Sabra said. Frank R. Lucca, 48, of Swansea, Massachusetts, the named lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, charges that a D'Angelo food handler transmitted the virus to at least 34 people who fell sick after they ate food from the local franchise in a plaza off Route 6. Mr. Lucca needed the injection because his wife, Kristine Lucca, 49, caught the virus after eating at the restaurant chain. Mr. Sabra said that the lawsuit does not specify the amount of money the plaintiffs are seeking from the sandwich chain, but the lawyer said that he wants to obtain compensation for each person. The lawsuit says that the damages incurred by the plaintiffs include: (1) the "fear of contracting the illness;" (2) the "shame and humiliation of the injection;" and (3) the "pain and economic loss" associated directly with the immunization process. "The issue here would be what amount would fairly compensate these people for having to get a shot in the butt as a result of this hepatitis A," Mr. Sabra said. He added that several local boards of health also should be compensated for their related expenses. A total of 51 people came down with symptoms from the virus, according to figures provided by state health officials in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Anyone who had close personal contact with these people was urged to have a shot of immunoglobulin serum within two weeks of the exposure. More than 1,700 people received the shot during a two- day clinic at Charlton Memorial Hospital. DIGITAL INSIGHT: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Stull Stull and Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Digital Insight Corporation (NASDAQ: DGIN) from September 30,1999 to December 6,2000, inclusive. 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 September 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering of 3,500,000 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 SEC. The suit 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 further details, contact Stull, Stull & Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017 by Phone: 310.209.2468 by Fax: 310.209.2087 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com EMACHINES INC.: State Court Blocks Impending Merger Due To Pending Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Jefferson County (172nd Judicial District) blocked the impending merger between computer manufacturer eMachines, Inc. and EM Holdings, Inc. due to the pending class action against eMachines, Inc., seeking recovery for alleged defects relating to the floppy disk controllers contained in certain of the Company's computers. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and an order setting December 31, 2001 hearing regarding a preliminary injunction against the merger. The order states that Intervenor Plaintiff John Hock and similarly situated parties would be irreparably injured upon the merger of the two Companies because eMachines would be left with insufficient funds to satisfy the alleged claims of the plaintiffs in the suit. By issuing the order, the Court restrained eMachines, including its officers and directors from "merging with EM Holdings, Inc. and from using the assets of eMachines to pay or satisfy any debts or obligations of another person, including any shareholder or corporation who acquires its stock or whose stock it acquires or who is part of or merges with eMachines or who is in any way related to the transaction with EM Holdings, Inc." The Court also ordered the Intervenor plaintiff to post a bond in the amount of $5,000.00. The temporary restraining order expires on December 28, 2001. eMachines is in the process of reviewing alternatives relating to an appeal or other review of the order. EM Holdings' President, Lap Shun (John) Hui, said "EM Holdings remains committed to the terms of the transaction set forth in our tender offer. We believe the offer is fair to all shareholders and is in the best interest of eMachines and its customers. We intend to vigorously contest the order." FORD MOTOR: Settles MI Reverse Discrimination Suit For $10.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Ford Motor Company agreed to settle for $10.5 million, two class action suits accusing the automobile giant of discriminating against older, white men in the name of diversity in their performance evaluation system, according to an Associated Press report. The suits were commenced early this year in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging the Company committed "reverse race, reverse gender and age discrimination." Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company's Performance Management Process favored younger, so-called "diversity" candidates and that the system was intended to support the diversity initiatives by driving out the older white males. Under the system, employees were graded A, B, or C. Those receiving a C could lose bonuses and raises, and two consecutive C grades could mean dismissal. Initially, at least 10 percent of employees were to be graded C, but that later was lowered to 5 percent. Under the settlement, roughly 620 current and former employees could receive money, plaintiffs' attorneys said. Some will get up to $100,000, minus attorney fees, depending on how long they were employed and other factors. Ford admits no liability in the settlement. Spokesman Joe Laymon said, "The company is pleased to have resolved this difficult situation with our employees and is eager to put it behind." Plaintiff Craig Toepfer, who retired from Ford in August, said he was satisfied with the settlement but added, "It really doesn't make up for the things that really should have happened for us." Both sides are due in court Thursday, where a judge is expected to give preliminary approval. FORD MOTOR: Couple Recovers $10 Million Compensation In Lemon Law Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Fresno County Superior Court ruled in favor of a couple who sued Ford Motor Company under California's Lemon Law recently, awarding them $10 million in punitive damages, the Associated Press reports. The jury ruled in favor of Clovis couple Greg and Jo Ann Johnson, deciding that the Company had violated the Lemon Law by taking back defective vehicles from dissatisfied customers and reselling them without notifying the next buyer of the vehicle's history. "The point of the entire lawsuit was to try to change Ford's practices of reselling alleged lemons or cars that owners claimed were lemons, without disclosing the history," said William Krieg, the Johnsons' lawyer. The original owner of the Johnsons' Ford Taurus bought the new car in 1997, but after running into problems with the car's transmission, he returned it in exchange for a $1,500 credit toward another purchase. The dealership, Decker Ford in Fresno County, resold the car to the Johnsons in 1998, according to court documents. Only after encountering several problems with the car's transmission, including two replacements, did Greg Johnson learn of the vehicle's history of repairs. Mr. Krieg said the lawyers for both sides would be returning to court to discuss expanding the lawsuit into a class action. He wants restitution for anyone who bought a vehicle that had previously been returned in exchange for an "Owner Appreciation Certificate." He said that the Company's policy simply entices consumers not to report the bad car as a lemon. Calls to the Company and its lawyers were not immediately returned, according to an Associated Press report. LAJOBI INDUSTRIES: Recalls 400 Cribs Because Of Strangulation Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------------- LaJobi Industries is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 400 "Molly" and "Betsy" style wooden cribs. These cribs have cut-outs in the end panels that allow young children to get their heads entrapped, resulting in strangulation. The cribs fail to meet CPSC standards. The Company has not received any reports of injuries involving these cribs but in the past there have been deaths reported in other cribs with end panel cut-outs. This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injury. Both cribs have openings on each end panel. The end panels on the "Molly" style cribs are made of solid wood with openings on both sides. The end panels on the "Betsy" style cribs are constructed with wood slats. The model numbers are printed inside the headboard at the bottom. The numbers are: (1) Molly 0101327 02 (Natural), (2) Molly 0101327 11 (Antique Green), (3) Molly 0101327 12 (Antique White), (4) Betsy 0101257 02 (Natural), (5) Betsy 0101257 11 (Antique Green), (6) Betsy 0101257 12 (Antique White) Juvenile specialty stores nationwide sold the cribs between May 2000 through September 2001 for about $700 for the Molly model and $650 for the Betsy model. For further details, contact the Company by Phone: 888.266.2848 (between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday) or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bonavita-cribs.com. MASSACHUSETTS: Disabled Children Sue Over Medicaid's Weak Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------------ The State of Massachusetts faces a class action filed in Boston Federal Court by five children with severe disabilities accusing the state of abandoning its obligation to 500 children and young adults who are entitled to private duty nurses under Medicaid. The suit alleges that MassHealth, the state agency that administers the program for children who qualify for home nursing care under Medicaid, has made it impossible for the children and others like them to get help because it doesn't pay competitive nursing wages or overtime. The suit, which names as defendants acting Governor Jane Swift and other administration officials, cites a survey conducted last year by the state Department of Public Health indicated that 20 to 30 percent of the nursing shifts needed by the families of severely disabled children went unfilled. Bethany Sabbag, one of the plaintiffs, couldn't find enough nurses to come to her Medford home next week, meaning a sleepless holiday for her mother, Cindy Sabbag, who is legally blind, works part time and lives alone with her daughter. She will have to tend her daughter's feeding tubes and various medication pumps around the clock for six of the seven days next week. Mrs. Sabbag told the Boston Globe, "I'm very able to do Bethany's care and willing to do it, but she needs 24-hour care.The stress comes from getting tired and the fear of making a mistake." Attorney for the plaintiffs Tim Sindelar asserts, "There's no question about these children being eligible for this service.But then there is an inability to meet that need because the system doesn't work well enough." Sarah Barth, a spokesman for the state Division of Medical Assistance, declined to comment on pending litigation, but provided a letter from her office that indicated MassHealth had increased rates for private duty nurses by 13 percent last December. However, officials from two agencies contracted by the state to provide home care nurses to the families of severely disabled children said the increase is inadequate. MassHealth mandates that private duty nurses hired to care for severely disabled children under the Medicaid program receive a minimum of $24.92 per hour, which includes the cost of providing health benefits and liability insurance. The state reimburses the nursing service agencies at a rate of $34.92 an hour to cover both wages and benefits, according to officials, according to a Boston Globe report. Bernadette Bosco, area Vice President of Gentiva Health Services, which provides nurses to some of the families that are suing the state, said the company pays nurses in the Boston area $21 an hour for days; $22.50 for nights; and $23 an hour for weekends, plus benefits. Hospitals in the area pay between $26 and $35 an hour, she said. She adds, "Medicaid has said they don't think throwing money at the problem is a solution.I say it will help because there are nurses who would prefer to take care of patients in their homes, but they have to put bread on their table." David Schildmeier, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Nurses Association, said legislation was filed earlier this year that would authorize the state to hire nurses directly to provide home care to severely disabled children. The Joint Committee on Human Services and Elderly Affairs is currently studying the bill. NORTEL NETWORKS: Denies Allegations in Pending Securities Suits in NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Nortel Networks Corporation faces several class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Brampton, Ontario-based Company issued "a series of false and misleading statements and engaged in a variety of accounting manipulations" that overstated the company's financial results in the final two quarters of fiscal 2000, The Globe and Mail, Canada recently reported. The plaintiffs say they are acting on behalf of themselves and anybody who was a Company shareholder between October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001. The suits allege that Nortel's behavior was designed to prop up its share price, as the critical US market for its telecommunications equipment and its key competitors, Cisco Systems Inc. and Lucent Technologies Inc., showed obvious signs of weakness. That share price, the plaintiffs argue, was critical to maintaining the Company's ability to make acquisitions with its stock. The suit contends, "These positive statements caused Nortel's stock price to rise to, and remain at, artificially inflated levels so that Nortel could continue, for so long as possible, its strategy of acquiring other Internet- or telecommunications-related companies, using its share price as a takeover currency." Company spokeswoman Tina Warren said none of the allegations has been proved, and they are without foundation, "We believe the case is without merit, and we will vigorously defend ourselves." A US analyst said the class action suit has little or no effect on his analysis of the Company's prospects. "Generally, I don't take a lot of those too seriously," said Steve Kamman, a technology analyst at CIBC World Markets in New York. Class-action suits are usually designed only to "extort" money from the companies, he added. The Company, like its competitors, has had a miserable year as key customers have slashed their capital spending and many dot-coms have closed their doors. The result has been that Canada's largest technology company has, this year, fired more than half of its employees, vacated more than 200 buildings and reduced its product line. *NSYNC FANS: IL Court Upholds Suit Filed By Fans Who Missed Concert ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois has ruled in favor of *NSYNC fans who missed most, if not all, of the band's concert last year in Joliet, Illinois. The ruling may prove significant for concertgoers who have trouble accessing venues without adequate traffic control and parking. The suit was brought by a Northbrook, Illinois resident, asserting a breach of contract claim brought last year by concertgoers who could not access the venue for an August 1, 2000, performance of *NSYNC at the Route 66 Raceway in Joliet, Illinois. The plaintiff claims that it took her more than 5 hours to reach the venue, with her 11-year old daughter and friends in tow, because the site was ill-equipped to handle the crowd estimated at 60,000. Specifically, she claims that unpaved parking lots, inadequate traffic control, narrow access roads and the venue's design caused her, and thousands of other fans, to miss most or all of *NSYNC's performance. Law enforcement personnel acknowledged that it took more than three hours just for patrons to get out of the Route 66 facility after the show was over. In a decision that could enable patrons of concerts and sporting events to sue promoters, venues and event organizers for similar problems, Judge Lester D. Foreman ruled that the obligation of the ticket seller does not end at the ticket window, rejecting the notion that a ticket is merely a "claim check" to a seat, noting that the event's organizers must be fair to fans who it knows may have trouble reaching the venue. Judge Foreman ruled that concerts are not desert island displays to which patrons are required to traverse inordinate courses irrespective of impediments in order to get what the ticket purportedly offers. The Court placed the obligation on organizers to evaluate the feasibility of a large event in relation to the performance site and available accommodations. The seller and those associated with the seller are required to investigate and evaluate the location of the performance site in relation to its position in consideration of the massive attendees, the vastness of their number, and the accommodations being provided both inside and outside the venue. The court concluded that there is a contractual obligation on the part of the ticket seller to make any information it may have regarding possible difficulty accessing the venue available to the purchaser. The plaintiff's attorney, Clinton Krislov, said, "Rock fans have a right to be treated fairly and decently, with reasonable access so they can enjoy the concerts they're charged so much for." For more information, contact Clinton A. Krislov of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. by Phone: 1.312.606.0500 by Fax: 1.312.606.0207 or by E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com PT PLN: Consumers Group Sues Over Economic Losses From Power Blackout --------------------------------------------------------------------- The local chapter of the Foundation of Indonesian Consumers and 69 lawyers have recently filed a class action lawsuit against the PT PLN Electric Company in Kupang District Court over losses incurred because of the blackout, according to the Jakarta Post. Nixon Bunga, Chair of the legal team that submitted the suit, asserts "PLN must pay compensation for any material losses local consumers have suffered from the blackout." said Nixon Bunga, chair of the legal team that submitted the lawsuit. The losses have been many and of various kinds. For example, Muslims and Christians in Kupang and South Timor Tengah will probably not be able to celebrate Idul Fitri and Christmas because the state-owned electricity company has yet to restore power in the two regencies. A local Muslim resident, Abdul Harris, voiced his dismay that Muslims could not participate in religious gatherings and prayers in their mosques because of power shortage. Eris MT Gultom, Chief of the Company's local office, said the rotating blackout would continue until next June if the power generators could not be repaired by January. "PLN management apologizes to all people in the two regencies because of the inconveniences triggered by the blackout," he said, expressing regret that the situation will affect people during the holiday season. All sub-districts in the two regencies and Kpang city have been supplied electricity on an alternating basis since August. The Company's responsibility to compensate the citizenry for their losses and discomforts are being expressed. Abdul Harris, a local Muslim resident, said that "It is not enough for PLN to apologize. The company should compensate their consumers if it fails to complete the repair work as soon as possible." Gulielmus Beribe, a legislator for the local chapter of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) asserts "PLN should be held responsible for material losses caused by the blackout." PUBLIX SUPER: Employees Stop Pursuing Suit After Unfavorable Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------- Six Hispanic employees have stopped pursuing their class action discrimination suit pending in the US District Court in Miami against Publix Super Markets, the Associated Press recently reported. The plaintiffs, employees of the Company's Miami warehouse, claimed that they were passed up for promotions because they are Hispanic and filed the suit to represent all Hispanic employees at the Company's warehouses in Florida and Georgia. Judge Patricia Seitz, in October, dismissed the plaintiffs' class- action claims, ruling that the employees had not provided enough evidence that the Company had uniformly discriminated against Hispanic employees. Judge Seitz gave the employees time to change the lawsuit and apply again for class-action status. However, the judge's criticism was so strong that the plaintiffs decided to give up, said Doug Lyons, a lawyer for the six employees. Three of the plaintiffs are suing the Company individually. A Company spokesman declined comment Monday, citing the company's policy of not answering questions about ongoing litigation, according to an Associated Press report. S1 CORPORATION: GA Court Dismisses Federal Securities Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- S1 Corporation (NASDAQ: SONE) prevailed as the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed a securities class action filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of S1 Corporation (NASDAQ:SONE) between November 2, 1999 and May 2, 2000, inclusive. The suit charges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements during the class period concerning, among other things, the Company's acquisitions of FICS, Edify, and VerticalOne. Defendants are alleged to have misled investors by misrepresenting that the new acquisitions would "complement S1's product strategy." As a result of these misrepresentations, shareholders claim, the Company's stock price was artificially inflated during the class period. The day after the truth was finally revealed, the stock dropped more than $17.87, to close at $41.50, less than one-third of the class period high of $133.375 per share. CEO Jaime Ellertson hailed the decision, saying in a press statement, "We are pleased with the dismissal of the class action suit. Throughout the process, we have remained focused on the many business opportunities of the emerging Enterprise eFinance market place, and we will continue to execute on our strategies that are in the best interest of our shareholders, employees and customers." The Company provides more than 2,600 banks, credit unions, insurance providers, and investment firms enterprise software solutions that turn customer interactions into profits. SHOPKO STORES: Labels Securities Suits "Without Merit" in Wisconsin -------------------------------------------------------------------- Shopko Stores, Inc. faces several securities suits pending since October 2001 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of Robert Farer, an alleged shareholder of the Company and other purchasers of Company securities. The claims are lodged against the Company and William J. Podany, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, for alleged violations of federal securities laws. The suits allege that the Company and Mr. Podany made various misrepresentations and omissions in public disclosures concerning the Company between March 9, 2000 and November 9, 2000. Specifically, it is alleged that the Company failed to disclose that it was experiencing significant shipping and inventory control problems at the Pamida division Lebanon, Indiana distribution facility. The complaints request, among other things, that the court declare that the action is a proper class action and award compensatory monetary damages, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes the actions to be totally without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter. The Company however cannot ensure a positive outcome with regard to the outcome of the actions. STARMEDIA NETWORKS: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague PC filed a securities class action on behalf of an investor against StarMedia Network, Inc. (NASDAQ:STRME) and its principal officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased StarMedia stock from April 11, 2000 through November 19, 2001. The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 11, 2000 and November 19, 2001 concerning the Company's financial performance. The suit further alleges that the Company reported artificially inflated financial results in press releases and filings made with the SEC by improperly recognizing revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Specifically, the suit alleges that two of the Company's primary subsidiaries, AdNet S.A. de C.V. and StarMedia Mexico, S.A. de C.V, had engaged in improper accounting practices which had the effect of materially overstating the Company's reported revenues and earnings by at least $10 million. On November 19, 2001, as alleged in the complaint, the Company issued a press release announcing that based on the "preliminary" results of an internal investigation into its accounting practices, it expects to restate its financial statements for fiscal year 2000 and the first two quarters of 2001 and that those financial statements should not be relied upon. The Company further reported that its Chief Financial Officer had "resigned." Immediately following the announcement of the restatement, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted trading in Company stock, pending the receipt of additional information from the Company. The Company's stock last traded at $0.38 per share, which is 98.5% less than the Class Period high of $25.50, reached on April 11, 2000. For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas M. Risen or Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888.891.2289 or 215.875.3000 by Fax: 215.875.5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bm.net UNITED STATES: Mexican Trucking Companies File $4B "Bias" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States government faces a $4 billion class action filed by eleven Mexican trucking companies in the United States District Court in Brownsville, Texas, alleging that the government illegally denied them access to US markets, conflicting with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The suit, filed on behalf of at least 185 Mexican trucking concerns, asserts that federal agencies, including the Department of Transportation, violated NAFTA by denying them permits to operate within the US interior. The suit further alleges that the government discriminated against Mexican nationals by denying Mexican truckers the ability to invest in, own or control trucking companies based in the United States and allowing Canadian firms more access than Mexican companies. The companies that filed the suit: (1) Guillermo Berriochoa Lopez, (2) Transportes Intermex, S.A de C.V., (3) S'Antonio Transportes, S.A. de C.V., (4) Jose Silvino Magana Lopez, (5) Jose Alfredo Magana Lopez, (6) Miguel Angel De La Rosa Sanchez, (7) Servicio Tecnico Automotriz Perisur, S.A. de C.V., (8) Tomas De La Rosa Parra, (9) Ernesto Vallet Haces, (10) Max E. Barton, and (11) Carlos Berriochoa Attorney for the plaintiffs Kent M. Henderson told the Associated Press in an interview, "It's inconsistent with NAFTA, and additionally, they've continued to use an application that requires the applicant to state whether he is of Mexican national origin, and those applications for companies of Mexican national origin have never been acted on." He also added that the suit was filed in Brownsville because it is the source of much of the truck traffic between United States and Mexico. The suit asserts business and profits lost since 1995. Fernando Chavez, eldest son of the late labor leader Cesar Chavez, is the lead attorney for the lawsuit. He also told the AP that he believes ".NAFTA was implemented with the intent of opening up commerce and trade between the three nations.There is no problem when trade is coming back and forth across the border. What causes the problem is when an individual who's Mexican is bringing it across." According to the Associated Press report, a spokesman for the Transportation Department made no immediate comment. Rob Black, spokesman for the Teamsters union, which represents more than 120,000 U.S. truck drivers, called the suit "baseless," saying Canada has infrastructure in place to guarantee trucks' safety while Mexico does not. Part of the NAFTA agreement allowed trucks to travel first throughout Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas by December 1995 and throughout the United States by January 2000. Then President Bill Clinton allowed Canadian trucks to enter the country, but delayed the implementation of the agreement for Mexican trucks. A compromise was approved earlier this month that will require US inspectors to conduct safety examinations of Mexican trucking companies, their vehicles, and to verify driver's licenses. However, implementing those rules is expected to take months. WAL-MART CORPORATION: Settles ADA Violations Suit For $6.8 Million ------------------------------------------------------------------ Retail giant Wal-mart Corporation forged an agreement to settle for $6.8 million the class action brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Sacramento Federal Court alleging unfair treatment of disabled employees and job applicants. The agreement sets the stage for resolution of 12 other EEOC lawsuits against the Company in 11 states. The settlement, according to the Sacramento Bee, is one of the most sweeping settlements between the government and a corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act. In addition to the payments, the Company will also revise its policies regarding people with disabilities. The suit focused on the alleged unlawful medical inquiries directed at people seeking jobs with the Company. The EEOC contends that a form with disability-related questions was "an illegal screening device.not established to be.required by business necessity." Companies are prohibited by the ADA from asking such questions and conducting medical examinations before making a conditional job offer. At a brief hearing Monday in Sacramento, EEOC attorney Mary Jo O'Neill told US District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. that Wal-Mart will pay $3.8 million to 21 individuals subjected to disability discrimination. The consent decree in Sacramento accounts for three of those people, and 18 others are covered by EEOC suits in another district of California, and in Ohio, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, Illinois, New York, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri and Texas. Ms. O'Neill said that a national fund will be set up with the remaining $3 million, out of which will come payments to people who were victims of the illegal screening. Those same people will be given preferential treatment in hiring by Wal-Mart. Potential claimants will be notified through postings at Wal-Mart facilities and on the Internet, and via advertisements in three national magazines and 50 metropolitan newspapers, including The Bee. "Wal-Mart's willingness to enter into this global settlement, which includes significant nationwide training on the ADA and job offers, clearly demonstrates the company's commitment to future compliance with the act," O'Neill said after the hearing. Wal-Mart had no comment, according to the report. VAN WAGONER: Ademi O'Reilly Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of shares of the Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:VWEGX) between April 28, 2000 and June 30, 2001, inclusive in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company and defendants: (1) Van Wagoner Capital Management, Inc., (2) Sunstone Financial Group, Inc., (3) Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund, (4) Garrett R. Van Wagoner, (5) Larry P. Arnold, and (6) Robert S. Colman The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and misleading registration statements and prospectuses. As alleged in the Complaint, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the Fund's net asset value (NAV) and performance. These statements were materially false and misleading because: (i) the NAV of the Fund was materially overstated as the Fund had overvalued a material portion of their holdings of certain private placement investments; (ii) the Fund's performance was materially overstated as those figures were based on the Fund's NAV, which figures were materially overstated because the Fund had materially overstated NAV; and (iii) the risk of investing in the Fund was materially understated as the Fund had failed to disclose the true risk attendant to its portfolio securities and specifically the private placement investments. Accordingly, defendants' statements about the risks associated with investing in the Fund were not meaningful because they failed to advise investors that it was materially overstating its NAV. On June 30, 2001, defendants' gross overvaluation of the private placement investments was disclosed when defendants revalued nine such private placement investments originally valued at $28.6 million on December 31, 2000 to a total of $9.00 and marked down an additional 2 holdings by precisely 50% or 75%. During the class period, the Fund's value decreased by approximately 75%. For further details, contact Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP by Phone: 866.264.3995 (toll-free) by Fax: 414.482.8001 or by E-mail: vanwagoner@ademilaw.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 * * *