/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/020902.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 2, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 173 Headlines AOL TIME: Employees File Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA in C.D. CA AT&T CORPORATION: Consumers Sue Over "Electronic Redlining" Practice BABYLISS PRO: Voluntarily Recalls 23,000 Hairdryers For Injury Hazard BELLSOUTH CORP.: Loses Motion To Recuse Judge, Must Switch Counsel CONSECO INC.: Must Pay For Green Tree Corporation's Consumer Violations DUKE ENERGY: Faces Barrage Of Securities Suits Due To Roundtrip Trades FORD MOTOR: Cleveland Files Suit Over Unsafe Crown Victoria Police Cars GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Mediation To Resolve TN Tips Suit GEVITY HR: Continues Talks For Securities Suit Settlement in FL Court HARO BICYCLE: Recalls 1,100 BMX Freestyle Bicycles Over Injury Hazard JUNIPER NETWORKS: Numerous Underwriter-related Suits Cropping Up in NY JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. CA LEIFHEIT INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 31,000 Apple Slicers For Injury Hazard MENORAH GARDENS: Judge Weighing Desecration Evidence to Decide Status NEW CENTURY: Third Amended Consumer Fraud Suit Filed in S.D. OH NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal in CA NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Move To Strike Class Allegations in MA Suit NEW CENTURY: Reaches Overtime Wage Settlement in S.D. CA Suit NEW CENTURY: Asks Court To Dismiss Consumer Laws Violations Suit in IL PIONEER HI-BRED: Reaches Pact To Settle Suit Over Severance Benefits PITTSBURGH STEELERS: PA Court Reinstates Season Ticket-holder Lawsuit PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Appeal of Class Certification Denial Blocked RAYTHEON COMPANY: Appeal Likely After Court's Refusal to Dismiss Suit TENFOLD CORPORATION: Negotiates For UT Securities Fraud Suit Settlement UNITED STATES: CA Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed By Mexican Braceros VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in IL HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in AL HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA MERCK & COMPANY: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in NJ MSC INDUSTRIAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY SALOMON SMITH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY WALT DISNEY: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY XCEL ENERGY: Chestnut & Cambronne Commences Securities Suit in MN Court ********* AOL TIME: Employees File Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA in C.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------------- AOL Time Warner, Inc. faces a class action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The suit also names as defendants: (1) Warner Communications, Inc., (2) Warner/Elektra/Atlantic Corporation, (2) WEA Manufacturing Inc., (3) Warner Bros. Records, (4) Atlantic Recording Corporation, (5) various pension plans sponsored by the companies and (6) the administrative committees of those plans. Plaintiffs allege that defendants miscalculated the proper amount of pension benefits owed to them and other class members as required under the plans in violation of ERISA. The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. Due to its preliminary status, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the case or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. AT&T CORPORATION: Consumers Sue Over "Electronic Redlining" Practice -------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action suit filed in the Southern District of United States Federal Court on Monday, August 26, 2002, on behalf of Gwen Hudson and Cynthia Martin accuses AT&T and its Broadband Division of engaging in the practice known as "electronic redlining" in minority neighborhoods, as well as overcharging for services in other areas. Christopher Larmoyeux, partner in the law firm of Larmoyeux and Bone, PL, is leading a consortium of attorneys who will represent Hudson's and Martin's claim, as well as other members of the "redlined or overcharged/underserved" classes. "Electronic redlining" is a practice used by telecommunications firms which intentionally limits access to high-speed broadband services in minority or poor neighborhoods. It purportedly occurs when telecommunications firms bypass poor neighborhoods while offering new telecommunications technologies to more affluent areas, in order to give the appearance of inflated profitability. As a result of this practice, the lawsuit seeks national status charging that the plaintiffs, as well as other members of the class, have been denied access to advance telecommunications technology that has been provided to non-minority and higher income housing areas. The lawsuit alleges that this fact is clearly illustrated in Broward County, Florida, where AT&T Broadband Services holds several franchises in which only one percent of eligible African American households have access to high-speed broadband Internet service as opposed to 100 percent of eligible white households. In accordance with the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, both of which prohibit discrimination practices in providing communications services, AT&T has an obligation under federal law to build out and provide equal service to all areas of the population, regardless of race or income. In order to comply with these acts, AT&T would have had to expend billions of dollars of infrastructure to completely build out their system to include predominately minority neighborhoods. In an effort to improve the appearance of profitability prior to the completion of its sale of the Broadband Division to Comcast, it is alleged that AT&T has intentionally failed to build the infrastructure as required by federal law in these affected minority areas. The suit also charges that AT&T has overcharged for services, billed for services not rendered and failed to meet the consumer service requirements of its franchise contracts. In addition to demanding monetary damages and immediate compliance requiring a complete build-out of broadband services in compliance with the Federal Communications Act of 1934 and Telecommunications Act of 1996, the suit seeks to block the sale or transfer of any subsidiaries, affiliates or franchises of AT&T Broadband until this occurs. This will halt the proposed sale of AT&T's Broadband Division services to Comcast scheduled for October 2002. For more information, contact Mary Wickwire or Kyle Zimmer of Waters, Pelton, Ostroff & Associates by Phone: 561-310-2111 or 561-626-0026 BABYLISS PRO: Voluntarily Recalls 23,000 Hairdryers For Injury Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------------- Babyliss Pro is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 23,000 hairdryers. The hairdryers do not have an immersion protection device on the power cord and could present a serious electrocution hazard if exposed to water. The Company has yet to receive any reports of incidents. This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries. The recalled hairdryers have the model number BAB2002BLX, are rated at 1875 watts, and are pistol-shaped. The model number is printed on the barrel of the hairdryer and a label on the side reads, "BABYLISS 2002BLX." The hairdryer also has a hangtag that reads in part, "FOR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY, DESIGNED EXCLUSIVELY FOR LICENSED COSMETOLOGISTS. THIS UNIT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH AN ALCI OR GFCI DEVICE...WARNING - KEEP AWAY FROM WATER." These hairdryers were manufactured in China. Duane Reede Drug Stores in the metropolitan New York area, Metro Beauty in Miami, Fla. and Bu-Ba Beauty in Reseda, Calif. sold these hairdryers between December 2000 and January 2002 for about $50. These hairdryers were intended for professional use, but could have been sold to consumers for personal use. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 800-726-4202 between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday. BELLSOUTH CORP.: Loses Motion To Recuse Judge, Must Switch Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------ A ruling in a racial discrimination lawsuit against BellSouth Corporation could curb what some have called "judge shopping" by defendants in an Alabama federal court, says a report by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Judge UW Clemon, the only African-American on the bench of the US District Court in Birmingham, will remain on the case. Judge Clemon's nephew, hired by the Company 11 days after the lawsuit was randomly assigned to Judge Clemon, will not. As the ruling stands, the Atlanta Company will have to hire another Birmingham lawyer to work its case. The racial discrimination class action was filed in late April by five former and current African- American employees. The Company says it will appeal the ruling by Judge Lynwood Smith, who shares the bench with Judge Clemon. In his ruling, Judge Smith tallied more than a dozen cases, originally assigned to Judge Clemon, that had been reassigned after his nephew's law firm was hired by a defendant. The Company has hired Judge Clemon's nephew Terry Price, several times during the past eight years. In some cases, Mr. Price's representation has required Judge Clemon to withdraw. In one of those cases, a sex-discrimination lawsuit, Mr. Price helped the Company's thwart employees' request for class action status. Judge Smith said, "the stratagem of retaining Terry Price or the law firms with which he has practiced as a means of forcing Chief Judge Clemon's recusal has a long and unfortunate history" in the Birmingham federal court. The practice has been noted by other federal judges, including Judge Clemon, and by the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals. Joseph Sellers is among a handful of attorneys representing the five African-American who have sued the Company, alleging the Company used "unvalidated tests" and other discriminatory practices to hinder their attempts at promotion. Mr. Sellers called Judge Smith's ruling "a victory for the judicial system.(Judge Smith) indicated the court would not abide judge-shopping." Other lawyers representing the employees include Johnnie Cochran and Cyrus Mehri, who was part of a record $192.5 million settlement from a racial discrimination lawsuit filed against Coca-Cola in 1999. If class action status is granted the lawsuit, it could expand to include about 20,000 African-Americans who work for the Company across its nine-state Southeast territory. CONSECO INC.: Must Pay For Green Tree Corporation's Consumer Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco Inc. must pay nearly US$27 million for violations of consumer- protection laws by a company that it later acquired, after the South Carolina Supreme court upheld an arbitrator's order, The Wall Street Journal reports. The court recently issued this order in a case affecting 3,739 South Carolina customers with home-improvement or mobile-home loans, made in the mid-1990s, by what was then Green Tree Financial Corp. The Company, a Carmel, Indiana, finance and insurance company, bought Green Tree in 1998, two years after the dispute between Green Tree and its customers began. An arbitrator to the dispute ruled in July 2000 that Green Tree failed to tell customers they could choose their own lawyers and insurance companies when getting their loans. Company attorneys argued that arbitrator Thomas J. Ervin exceeded his authority by hearing the cases as class actions and appealed the decision twice to South Carolina Circuit Court judges but both appeals failed. The Company could not be reached for comment, the Wall Street Journal reports. DUKE ENERGY: Faces Barrage Of Securities Suits Due To Roundtrip Trades ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation faces sixteen shareholder class actions, thirteen pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and three in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Some of the lawsuits also name as co-defendants some Company executives, the Company's independent external auditor and various investment banking firms. In addition, the Company has received a shareholder's derivative notice demanding that it commence litigation against named executives and directors of the Company for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and insider trading. The Company has also received a second similar shareholder's derivative notice demanding litigation against named executives and directors for alleged failure to prevent damages caused to the Company arising from trades involving simultaneous purchases and sales of power and gas at the same price ("round-trip" trading). The Company's response date to the first derivative demand has been extended to after the first of the year 2003. The Company is also negotiating a similar agreement with respect to the second derivative demand. The class actions and the threatened shareholder derivative claims arise out of allegations that the Company improperly engaged in the so- called "round trip" trades which resulted in an alleged overstatement of revenues over a three-year period of approximately $1 billion. In one of the lawsuits, the plaintiffs assert a common law fraud claim and seek, in addition to compensatory damages, disgorgement and punitive damages. These matters are in their earliest stages. The Company is currently evaluating these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself. FORD MOTOR: Cleveland Files Suit Over Unsafe Crown Victoria Police Cars ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The city of Cleveland, filed a class action in federal court recently, on behalf of law enforcement agencies across Ohio that accuses Ford Motor Co. of selling unsafe police cars, the Associated Press Newswires reports. Similar lawsuits have been filed in Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Florida, concerning the potential for fuel tank fires in Ford-made Crown Victoria police cars, a city official said. The Company has been trying to determine how to prevent gas tank fires and explosions following rear-end collisions in its police car version of the Crown Victoria. In June, the Company agreed to set up two study panels to study the situation. The automaker is considering making foam-filled bladders surrounding the gas tank to block fuel from leaking in a collision. The city of Cleveland's lawsuit, filed in US District Court, lists seven separate fuel tank fires during 2000 and 2001, all of which led to injuries or deaths. None of the examples involved an Ohio police car. R. Eric Kennedy, the city's attorney, said, "this lawsuit is trying to prevent deaths from happening." The lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount sought for damages but alleges that compensatory and punitive damages are appropriate, as are restitution and attorney fees. Cleveland has 481 Ford Crown Victoria police cars, along with Mayor Jane Campbell's city car. GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Enters Mediation To Resolve TN Tips Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Gaylord Entertainment Company entered mediation to resolve a class action pending against it in the Second Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee related to the manner in which Gaylord Opryland distributes service and delivery charges to certain employees. The state of Tennessee has a "tip" statute that requires a business to pay tips shown on statements over to its employee or employees who have served the customer. The Company believes that it has paid its employees amounts in excess of what the statute requires, and the Company intends to file a motion for summary judgment while vigorously contesting this matter. On June 12, 2002, counsel for the Company and counsel for the plaintiff class attended a mediation session and some progress was made toward case resolution. GEVITY HR: Continues Talks For Securities Suit Settlement in FL Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gevity HR is continuing negotiations for a settlement of a securities class action pending against it and certain of its directors in the Twelfth Judicial Division, Manatee County, Florida. The suit alleges that the directors and senior officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by failing to pursue a proposal from Paribas Principal Partners to acquire the Company in order to entrench themselves in the management of the Company. Defendants and counsel for the putative plaintiff class reached a preliminary agreement on the general terms of a settlement, following mediation. Discussions continue in an effort to finalize a definitive settlement. Once finalized, any agreed upon settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the putative class. Management does not expect any settlement to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. HARO BICYCLE: Recalls 1,100 BMX Freestyle Bicycles Over Injury Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------------- Haro Bicycle Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,100 BMX freestyle bicycles. The length of the crank arm in the 2003 model fails to allow sufficient space between the rider's foot and the front wheel, when the front wheel is turned backwards. The rider's foot could come in contact with the front wheel, causing the rider to lose control, fall and possibly suffer serious injury. The Company has not received any reports of incidents or injuries. This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injury. The recall includes the 2003 Haro BMX freestyle bicycles. The models involved are the F2 and the Backtrail XO. The model names are printed on the top and down tube of the F2, and on the top tube of the Backtrail XO. Independent bicycle shops nationwide sold these bicycles from May 2002 through August 2002 for between $190 and $200. For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-289-4276 between 9 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.harobikes.com. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Numerous Underwriter-related Suits Cropping Up in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Juniper Networks, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's officers and directors and: (1) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, (3) Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc., (4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels), (5) SG Cowen Securities Corporation, (6) UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC), (7) Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC), (8) JP Morgan Chase & Co., (9) Lehman Brothers, Inc., (10) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., (11) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the Company's initial public offering in June 1999 and its secondary offering in September 1999, alleges that the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial public offering and its subsequent secondary offering contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the Company's underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations. The Company believes the claim is without merit. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the securities class actions pending against Juniper Networks, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed an amended consolidated suit, on behalf of those who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In April 2002, the judge granted the defendants' motion to consolidate all of these purported federal class actions into one. In May 2002, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel. An amended complaint was filed in July 2002. The Company believes the claims are unfounded. LEIFHEIT INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 31,000 Apple Slicers For Injury Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Leifheit International USA Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 31,000 apple slicers/corers. The cutting blade can separate from the center- coring ring during use causing cuts to consumers' hands and fingers. The Company has received two reports of the blades separating, resulting in minor cuts to the user's fingers. The recall includes Pro Line apple slicers/corers. The slicers/corers are made of shiny chrome metal with two handles. "Leifheit" is printed on the top of one handle. A symbol code on the underside of the slicer/corer shows a number and dot sequence indicating the date of manufacture. Any product with a "1" or those with a "2" accompanied by one or two dots are included in the recall. Houseware and gourmet cooking stores sold the slicers/corers nationwide from January 2001 to July 2002 for about $18. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 866-695-3434 between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit the Firm's Website: http://www.leifheitusa.com MENORAH GARDENS: Judge Weighing Desecration Evidence to Decide Status --------------------------------------------------------------------- Broward Circuit Judge J. Leonard Fleet is hearing evidence to determine whether families should be allowed to pursue their claims as a group in a class action against Florida cemetery Menorah Gardens, Associated Press Newswires reports. The lawsuit accuses Menorah Gardens of jamming corpses together in marked and unmarked graves and removing bodies and gravestones in order to keep selling plots. Service Corporation International (SCI) has denied any knowledge of grave desecrations, blaming former employees. The Palm Beach cemetery opened in 1976 and was bought by SCI in 1995. SCI is the world's largest burial provider and is being sued as the owner of Menorah Gardens cemeteries in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. The judge must find that sufficient bodies were wrongfully moved and/or removed, in order to warrant pursuing the case as a class action. The judge skipped testimony from a forensic anthropologist who examined photos of bones of bones found at the cemetery, after SCI attorneys acknowledged they were human. The plaintiffs brought forward a quantity of evidence to indicate that many bodies were moved from their original resting places, coffins stacked on one another, and other dispositions made. Fern Panzer, a company funeral director said that she checked the cemetery grave by grave for actual burial places and documented her work in 1996. A total of 352 people who owned plots for future burial in one of seven sections of the Palm Beach cemetery would have had to be reassigned because space was not available, she said. Former plot salesman William Richmond said the cemetery manager was present when a man's body was removed to make way for a woman he had contracted to bury, casting doubt on SCI's claim that they knew nothing about desecrations, that the alleged acts were committed under an earlier, different ownership. Claude Etienne, a Haitian immigrant who worked at Menorah Gardens in Palm Beach County, testified that he remembered cracked cement vaults holding caskets that had been buried as an everyday occurrence when he worked at the Palm Beach cemetery. Family attorney Ervin Gonzalez estimates the lawsuit may cover as many as 20,000 relatives of people buried at the cemeteries, and calls have been received from family members as distant as Prague and Paris. Outside court, SCI attorney Barry Davidson said he thought Mr. Etienne's testimony was exaggerated. "We have a different story to tell," said Mr. Davidson. NEW CENTURY: Third Amended Consumer Fraud Suit Filed in S.D. OH --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the consumer class action against New Century Mortgage Corporation filed a third amended consolidated suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Central Mortgage, (2) Equibanc Mortgage Corporation, (3) Century 21 Home Improvements, and (4) Incredible Exteriors The suit, filed on behalf of consumers located in the State of Ohio whose credit transaction was brokered by Equibanc and Central Mortgage, alleges breaches of: (1) Federal Fair Housing Act, (2) Equal Credit Opportunity Act, (3) Truth in Lending Act (TILA), (4) gender discrimination, (5) fraud, (6) unconscionability, (7) civil conspiracy, and (8) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) The plaintiffs later moved to withdraw class allegations, which was granted in January 2002. The plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint on June 24, 2002, to add another individual plaintiff, Ginny Sweitzer. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit. NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal in CA ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in the consumer class action pending against New Century Mortgage Corporation filed a notice of appeal relating to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division's decision dismissing one of the claims in the suit. The suit was commenced in June 2001 by Richard L. Grimes and Rosa L. Grimes, alleging a violation of TILA and Business Professions Code 17200. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company gave the borrowers the required three-day notice of their right to rescind before the loan transaction had technically been consummated. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted in January 2002. The court held that the Company had not violated TILA and dismissed the 17200 claim without prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and their opening brief was filed on July 1, 2002. The Company's responsive brief will be filed in mid- August, 2002. The Company labels the suit "without merit" and intends to vigorously defend against it. NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Move To Strike Class Allegations in MA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts filed an unopposed motion to strike class allegations in July 2002. The suit, which also names Noreast Mortgage Company, Inc. as a defendant, alleges that certain payments made to mortgage brokers, sometimes referred to as yield spread premiums, violate the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The complaint also alleges that the Company induced mortgage brokers to breach their fiduciary duties to borrowers. NEW CENTURY: Reaches Overtime Wage Settlement in S.D. CA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- New Century Financial Corporation reached a settlement in the class action filed against it and New Century Mortgage Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in Santa Ana. The suit, commenced in August 2001 on behalf of the Company's loan officers, alleges unpaid overtime, penalties and damages. Notices to potential class members were sent in early 2002, approximately 50 individuals timely opted in to join the class action. The case was later resolved at mediation on July 26, 2002. The Company expects that the court will approve the settlement, and believes that the amount of the proposed settlement will not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations or financial position. NEW CENTURY: Asks Court To Dismiss Consumer Laws Violations Suit in IL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- New Century Mortgage Corporation asked the Circuit Court in Cook County, Chicago, Illinois to dismiss the class action charging it with the unauthorized practice of law and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The suit allege these violations were due to the performance of document preparation services for a fee by non-lawyers, and seeks to recover the fees charged for the document preparation, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2002, the case was then consolidated with other similar cases filed against other lenders. The Company's motion was heard on July 24, 2002, with a ruling expected in late August 2002. PIONEER HI-BRED: Reaches Pact To Settle Suit Over Severance Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------------- Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and its parent company, DuPont, have settled a class action over severance benefits filed by current and former managers, Associated Press Newswires reports. The companies agreed to pay $7.5 million to about a dozen managers. The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Pioneer managers who claimed the Company reneged on the terms of a severance plan after DuPont bought the Des Moines-based seed company. The severance plan provided managers with a lump-sum cash payment worth three times their annual compensation and gave participants health, dental and life insurance coverage for a year after they quit. In a ruling released recently in Des Moines, Iowa, US District Judge Robert Pratt ordered the two Companies to pay the employees' attorneys nearly $3.7 million in fees and expenses. The attorneys were seeking about $28 million in fees. PITTSBURGH STEELERS: PA Court Reinstates Season Ticket-holder Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania reinstated a lawsuit filed by dissatisfied Pittsburgh Steelers season ticket holders, meaning the case can go to trial and may become a multimillion-dollar class action, the Associated Press Newswires reports. A three-justice panel ruled recently that Allegheny County Judge Robert Horgo erred when he dismissed the suit in December. Attorney W.J. Helzlsouer of Dravosburg sued the Steelers and the Sports and Exhibition Authority, a city-county agency that owns Heinz Field and leases it to the team, on behalf of four ticket buyers. Mr. Helzlsouer contends that his clients were misled by an October 1998 sales brochure given to people who were asked to make a down payment on seats before the stadium was built. In 1999, the team required additional payments and made ticket buyers sign a contract. By then, the team had expanded the higher-priced sections to include seats originally depicted in the brochure as being in the cheaper sections. "When they sent in their application with their nonrefundable deposit, there was a contract established and any changes the Steelers made later were unilateral and not binding," Mr. Helzelsouer said. As a result, some ticket buyers paid higher-than-expected seat license fees and ticket prices, or they received seats that were not as good as they anticipated, the suit said. Heinz Field opened last seasons. Judge Horgos had dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the final contract the ticket buyers signed clearly spelled out the seat locations and prices. However, the Commonwealth Court ruled that the seat locations and prices in the 1998 brochure were binding because the ticket buyers had to pay a 33 percent deposit at that time, and were told that they would lose the deposit if they did not sign the final, more specific, contract. The Steelers and the Sports & Exhibition Authorities, which owns the stadium and leases it to the team, are the defendants in the lawsuit. PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Appeal of Class Certification Denial Blocked ------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow plaintiffs in the securities class action against Philips International Realty Corporation's to appeal a New York federal court's decision refusing class certification for the suit. The suit was commenced in October 2000 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its directors. The complaint alleged a number of improprieties concerning the pending plan of liquidation of the Company. In November 2000, the federal court, ruling from the bench, denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. This bench ruling was followed by a written order dated November 30, 2000 wherein the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate either that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its case or that there were sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its case to make it fair ground for litigation. In February 2002, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification. The plaintiff may elect to proceed with that claim on its own now that class certification has been denied. The plaintiff also has asserted derivative claims for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. On February 28, 2002, the plaintiff sought permission from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to appeal the denial of class certification. In order for plaintiff to have obtained permission to appeal, it had to demonstrate that the denial of class certification effectively terminated the litigation and that the district court's decision was an abuse of its discretion. The Company opposed plaintiff's application. If the Court of Appeals granted plaintiff's request, plaintiff would then have been able to appeal the district court's denial of class certification. On May 28, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordered that the plaintiff's petition to appeal the district court's denial of class certification also be denied. The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit. RAYTHEON COMPANY: Appeal Likely After Court's Refusal to Dismiss Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Raytheon Company asked the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to accept its appeal of the United States District Court in Idaho's decision refusing to dismiss a securities class action filed against them on behalf of all purchasers of common stock or senior notes of Washington Group, International (WGI) during the period April 17, 2000 through March 1, 2001. The putative plaintiff class claims to have suffered harm by purchasing WGI securities because the Company and certain of its officers allegedly violated federal securities laws by purportedly misrepresenting the true financial condition of Raytheon Engineers & Constructors (RE&C) in order to sell RE&C stock to WGI at an artificially inflated price. An amended complaint was filed on October 1, 2001 alleging similar claims. The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion seeking to dismiss the action in mid-November 2001. On April 30, 2002, the Court denied the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion with the district court requesting permission to seek an immediate appeal of the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which the district court granted on July 1, 2002. The Company's and the individual defendants' motion asking the Ninth Circuit to accept their immediate appeal is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant and members of its Board of Directors and several current and former officers are named as defendants in another purported shareholder derivative action in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. The derivative complaint contains allegations similar to those included in federal suit, and further alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Company and purportedly failed to maintain systems necessary for prudent management and control of the Company's operations. On June 28, 2002, all of the defendants in the derivative suit filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which has not been heard by the Court. TENFOLD CORPORATION: Negotiates For UT Securities Fraud Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tenfold Corporation is currently in negotiations to settle the consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of its officers in the United States District Court of Utah. The suit alleges that: (1) the Company improperly recognized revenues on some of the Company's projects; (2) the Company failed to maintain sufficient accounting reserves to cover the risk of contract disputes or cancellations; (3) the Company issued falsely optimistic statements that did not disclose these accounting issues; and (4) the Company insiders sold stock in early calendar year 2000 while knowing about these issues. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June 2001, which the court granted, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to make a motion to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to amend their complaint and the Company has filed a written response. The court has heard oral arguments on this motion on August 20, 2002. The parties are currently in discussions to settle the dispute. Based on negotiations, the Company believes that a loss is probable, but believes that its insurance policy covers damages that may arise in the dispute. An unfavorable outcome in the matter may have a material adverse impact on the Company's business, results of operations, financial position, or liquidity, the Company revealed in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. UNITED STATES: CA Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Filed By Mexican Braceros ------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge, on Wednesday, granted requests by the United States and Mexican governments and Wells Fargo Bank, to dismiss the class action brought by Mexican laborers who had hoped to claim money they said was owed them for working on American farms and railroads more than 50 years ago, according to a report by the Associated Press Newswires. The workers were among more than 300,000 Mexicans who came to the United States between 1942 and 1949, to harvest crops and maintain railroad tracks as guest workers. Dubbed braceros, after the Spanish word for arm, they came under an agreement between the United States and Mexico, aimed at filling labor shortages, caused by World War II, as American men marched off to war. Under the agreement, 10 percent of each worker's wage was to be withheld and transferred, via US and Mexican banks, to individual savings funds set up for each bracero. However, many braceros say they never received that money when they returned to Mexico. In March 2001, a group of former braceros who worked in the United States between 1942 and 1949, filed a class action in San Francisco against the US and Mexican governments, Wells Fargo Bank and three Mexican banks. The braceros sought repayment of the money deducted from their paychecks, plus interest. While they did not specify the amount owed, advocates estimated it at $500 million. US District Court Judge Charles Breyer wrote that he did "not doubt that many of the laborers, called braceros, never received savings fund withholdings to which they were entitled. The court is sympathetic to the braceros situation." However, he concluded that the braceros were not entitled to any relief from the Mexican or American governments, or Wells Fargo, in a United States court of law. Jonathan Rothstein, an attorney for the braceros, said he had not yet finished reviewing the decision. "We are studying the opinion and will decide how to proceed," he said. The US government argued that Judge Breyer should dismiss the case because the braceros' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Mexican government asked for dismissal, saying the case should not be tried in the United States, because the court lacks jurisdiction over Mexico and Mexican banks. Rather, the court should refer the issue to the Mexican Congress and the president, because it is "ultimately a question of Mexican public policy," said attorneys for the Mexican government in their court documents. Wells Fargo said its role in the braceros program was extremely limited. VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Vitria Technology, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a securities class action pending against it and certain of its officers and directors. The plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO), violated the federal securities laws because the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters. The suit is similar to other lawsuits filed in the same court since in January 2001 against numerous public companies that first sold their common stock publicly since the mid-1990s. On August 8, 2001, all of these IPO-related lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York. Judge Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on September 7, 2001, at which time she ordered, among other things, that the time for all defendants to respond to any complaint be postponed until further order of the Court. Thus, neither the Company nor any of its officers or directors has been required to answer the complaint, and no discovery has been served on the Company. In accordance with Judge Scheindlin's orders at further status conferences in March and April 2002, appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel filed amended, consolidated complaints in these IPO-related lawsuits on April 19, 2002. Defendants then filed a global motion to dismiss the IPO-related lawsuits on July 15, 2002, as to which the court does not expect to issue a decision unit at least November 2002. The Company believes that this lawsuit is unfounded. New Securities Fraud Cases BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in IL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Baxter International, Inc. (NYSE: BAX) securities between January 24, 2002 and July 18, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against the Company and: (1) Harry M. Jansen Kraemer, Jr., CEO and Chairman and (2) Brian P. Anderson, CFO The complaint 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 materially false and misleading statements to the market between January 24, 2002 and July 18, 2002. Among other things, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period, the Company issued press releases representing that its BioScience and Renal divisions would grow their earnings by percentages in the high-teens and high-single-digits, respectively, in 2002. The complaint further alleges that these, and other, representations were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing serious problems with its BioScience and Renal divisions. Given these, and other undisclosed problems, defendants' repeated class period assurances of continued growth in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis when made, according to the complaint. On July 18, 2002, the Company issued a press release regarding its results for the second quarter of 2002, announcing disappointing sales growth for the BioScience division and a decline in sales for the Renal division. In addition, the Company took a $51 million charge in connection with an acquisition and a $70 million impairment charge reflecting a decline in the value of certain of the Company's investments. In response to the announcement, the price of Company stock plummeted by 36.5%, falling from a $43.41 per share close on July 17, 2002, to close at $32 per share on July 18, on extremely heavy trading volume. During the class period, Company insiders sold a total of 435,700 Company shares, reaping gross proceeds in excess of $23.7 million. For more details, contact Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: BAX@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com. HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in AL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Healthsouth Corporation (NYSE: HRC) between January 14, 2002 and August 27, 2002 inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against the Company and: (1) Richard M. Scrushy, CEO, Chairman, (2) Weston L. Smith, CFO, Executive VP, (3) William Owens, Chief Operating Officer and (4) George Strong, director The complaint 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 materially false and misleading statements to the market between January 14, 2002 and August 27, 2002. According to the complaint, throughout the class period, the Company issued press releases and filed reports with the SEC announcing impressive revenue and earnings growth and repeatedly assuring the market that the Company was well on its way to meeting its financial targets for the year 2002 and that its fundamentals were strong. According to the complaint, these and other statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) had issued directives reclassifying certain categories of reimbursements, which would have a materially negative impact on the Company's business. The suit further alleges that defendants failed to disclose these facts, which had been known to them for many months, in order to allow Mr. Scrushy and Mr. Strong to sell (collectively) millions of shares of the Company's stock at artificially inflated prices and so that the Company could commence a $998 million note exchange/offer on more favorable terms than if the truth regarding the CMS directives and their impact on the Company was known publicly. The note exchange/offering was commenced on August 27, 2002, one-day before the Company disclosed the negative developments for the first time. According to the complaint, on August 27, 2002, the Company shocked the market by issuing a press release announcing that CMS directives issued on July 1, 2002 concerning reimbursements may result in a $175 million shortfall in EBITDA from previously issued financial guidance for 2002 and that it could not provide further guidance for 2002 and 2003 because of uncertainties posed by the directives. In addition, the Company announced that it would spin-off its surgery- center division as part of a massive restructuring undertaken to deal with the developments and that Mr. Scrushy would be replaced as CEO by Mr. Owens. In response to this disclosure, Company stock plummeted by over 43% to close at $6.71 per share in a single day on extremely high trading volume. For more details, 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 contact Kenneth J. Vianale by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: 561-361-5000 by E-mail: healthsouthcase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities class action against HPL Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:HPLA), in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common stock from July 31, 2001 through July 18, 2002. According to the lawsuit, the Company issued a series of false and misleading financial statements to the public during the class period, which led investors to believe that the San Jose-based company had generated millions of dollars more revenue than it actually had. The Company's accounting woes began to surface on July 19, 2002 when it announced that its audit committee was investigating financial and accounting irregularities involving purported sales to an international distributor. In its news release, the Company also said it had fired its chairman and chief executive officer. The complaint says Company stock fell 72% on the news, dropping from the previous day's closing price of $14.10 to a low of $4 before Nasdaq halted trading in its stock. Trading has not yet resumed. According to the lawsuit, the Company later revealed during a July 22, 2002 conference call with investors that $11 million of the $13.7 million in revenue it had reported in the quarter ended March 31, 2002 was based on "fictitious transactions that were supported by a trail of falsified documentation." According to the complaint, all the fictitious transactions were reported as sales to the Company's distributor. In fact, the distributor never agreed to enter into those transactions, the complaint says. In the conference call, the Company admitted that similar transactions may have been booked in prior quarters and that the company would have to restate its financial results for fiscal 2002 and possibly for 2001. The lawsuit also accuses some company executives of taking personal advantage of the inflated stock price they allegedly helped to create by selling 85,500 shares of their individual holdings during the class period. For more details, contact Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. by Mail: 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone: 415-433-3200 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bermanesq.com. MERCK & COMPANY: Finkelstein Thompson Commences Securities Suit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action against Merck & Co. Inc. (NYSE: MRK) and certain of its principal officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock between July 23, 1999 and July 3, 2002. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's common stock. Specifically, the complaint alleges, that during the class period defendants overstated Company revenues. The Company's operations are comprised of two reportable segments: Merck Pharmaceutical and Merck's wholly owned subsidiary, Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC. Since Merck acquired Merck-Medco in 1993, and throughout the class period, Merck and Merck-Medco have falsely inflated their reported revenues by billions of dollars as a result of including consumer co- payments for prescription drugs in revenue, contrary to the revenue recognition practices of two of Merck-Medco's biggest competitors and concealing these facts in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). During the class period, Merck-Medco's revenues have made up over 50% of Merck's total revenues. Merck-Medco revenues are purportedly derived from filling prescriptions and managing health management programs. Consumers who are members of pharmacy benefits plans and purchase prescriptions must make a co-payment directly to the pharmacy. To artificially boost Merck-Medco's apparent sales, defendants included consumer co-payments for prescription drugs in its revenues, contrary to the revenue recognition practices of two of Merck-Medco's biggest competitors and in violation of GAAP. As a result, Merck-Medco and Merck overstated the companies' total economic activity, making Merck look more successful than it was in reality. According to a June 21, 2002 article in The Wall Street Journal, neither company bills for the co-payments or gets billed for them. The Wall Street Journal reported that Merck has not disclosed the actual co-payments charged and estimated that Merck and Merck-Medco may have artificially inflated their 2001 revenues by as much as $4.6 billion. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, investors were damaged by purchasing Merck's common stock at artificially inflated prices during the class period. For more details, contact Adam T. Savett or Shannon P. Keniry by Phone: 202-337-8000 by E-mail: ats@ftllaw.com or spk@ftllaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ftllaw.com MSC INDUSTRIAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Gardy, LLP, initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. (NYSE:MSM) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Company securities during the period from November 4, 1999 to August 5, 2002, inclusive. 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, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by Phone: 800-889-3701 or 212-889-3700 or by E-mail: nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com. SALOMON SMITH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased securities of Winstar Communications, Inc. (Pink Sheets:WCIIO) (Pink Sheets:WCIIP) between August 13, 1999 through April 16, 2001, both dates inclusive. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and Jack Grubman are named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action arises as a result of the issuance by the defendants of analyst reports regarding Salomon, which recommended the purchase of Winstar common stock and which set price targets for Winstar common stock, without any reasonable factual basis. The suit alleges that when issuing their Winstar reports, the defendants failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest which they had, in light of their use of Mr. Grubman's reputation and his Winstar analyst reports, to obtain investment banking business for Salomon. Furthermore, in issuing their Winstar reports, in which they recommended the purchase of Winstar stock, the defendants failed to disclose material, non-public, adverse information which they possessed about Winstar as well as their true opinion about Winstar's financial prospects and viability as an entity going forward. The suit further alleges that throughout the class period, Mr. Grubman maintained a "buy" recommendation on Winstar in order to obtain and support lucrative financial deals for Salomon. Unbeknownst to the investing public, Salomon was seeking to be retained as a financial adviser for other telecommunication companies. Such investment banking engagements were worth millions of dollars in fees to Salomon. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee 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: http://www.rabinlaw.com WALT DISNEY: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of the Walt Disney Co. (NYSE:DIS) between August 15, 1997 and May 15, 2002, inclusive. The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the existence, details, and potential effects of a pending lawsuit over merchandising rights for products bearing the likeness of Winnie the Pooh characters caused Company stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. For eleven years, the Company has been involved in a bitterly contested lawsuit with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, but throughout they have never advised their stockholders of its existence. After the Company first disclosed the potential effects of the litigation on May 15, 2002, its stock price fell, reaching $13.77 on August 13, 2002, a decline of more than 40%. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com. VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging Vivendi Universal, S.A. (NYSE:V) misled shareholders about its business and financial condition. The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and/or the Securities Act of 1933) on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities between April 23, 2001 and July 2, 2002. The complaint alleges that the Company's false statements artificially inflated Vivendi ADRs to as high as $68.80 per ADR. Defendants reported favorable, but misleading, financial results to the market and represented that Vivendi was not as susceptible to economic problems as competitors and that the Company had the "highest resiliency and lowest sensitivity to recessionary environment." The defendants also represented that Vivendi was successfully implementing recent mergers which were being reorganized quickly to generate synergies. These positive but false statements allowed the Company to complete additional acquisitions in its $100 billion buying spree between 1998 and 2001. In late June 2002, news leaked from Vivendi that its debt was at alarming levels, causing Vivendi's ADRs to decline in price from $28 to $20. Vivendi's ordinary shares declined in similar fashion. Nonetheless, Vivendi's CEO reassured the market that liquidity was not a problem and the ADRs did not totally collapse. However, as ratings agencies continued to downgrade the Company's debt, the ADRs continued to decline. On July 2,2002, Vivendi's debt was downgraded again and the Company was in danger of default. On July 3,2002, Vivendi's CEO was forced to resign. Vivendi ADRs collapsed upon these revelations, falling to $15-21/32 on huge volume of 8 million shares. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. XCEL ENERGY: Chestnut & Cambronne Commences Securities Suit in MN Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Chestnut & Cambronne, PA initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against Xcel Energy, Inc. (NYSE:XEL), on behalf of Chips Investments and all others who purchased the Company's common stock during the period of January 31, 2001 to July 26, 2002. The complaint states that defendants violated the federal securities laws in a variety of ways including primarily not telling investors that the financial problems of the NRG subsidiary could directly impact both the Company's ability to borrow and the Company's dividend because of cross-defendant provisions in NRG's and the Company's loan agreements. For more details, contact Jack L. Chestnut, Karl L. Cambronne or Jeffrey D. Bores by Mail: 3700 Piper Jaffray Tower, 222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 by Phone: 612-339-7300 by E-mail: jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com, kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com or jbores@chestnutcambronne.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 2002. 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 * * *