/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/021219.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 19, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 251 Headlines ARV ASSISTED: Faces Five Suits Over Prometheus Offer To Acquire Shares AUSTRALIA: Tour Firms Considers Lawsuit V. Dredger Over Customer Loss BANK OF NEW YORK: NY Court Dismisses Second Amended Inkombank Lawsuit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Expects Securities Lawsuits To Be Consolidated CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in MO Court CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in DE Court FEDEX CORP: Employees Sue Over Race, Gender Discrimination In CA Courts INDONESIA: Support Mustered For Suit Over Victims of Floods, Mudslides LUMENIS LTD.: To Ask NY Court To Consolidate Securities Fraud Lawsuits LUMENIS LTD.: Has Yet to Receive Copy of Securities Fraud Complaint LUMENIS LTD.: Plaintiffs Seek To Move Consumer Suit To TX State Court PARTSBASE INC.: Finalizes Settlement of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit PARTSBASE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in FL State Court SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Settles Consumer Suit Over Vacation Intervals in TX SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Agrees To Settle Bonus Time Privileges Suit in TX SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Denies Allegations In TX "Vacation Intervals" Suit SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Couple Files Consumer Fraud Suit in TX State Court TENFOLD CORPORATION: UT Court Hears Pleas For Final Settlement Approval TENFOLD CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit TURBODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in CA UNITED KINGDOM: Railtrack Shareholders Raise Funds to Launch Lawsuit UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Policyholder Files Insurance Policies Suit US LIQUIDS: Securities Fraud Suit Trial To Start April 2003 in TX Court UTAH: Hispanic Group Accuses Institutions of Racial Discrimination VIROPHARMA INC.: Asks PAC Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Securities Fraud Suit WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NY Court XCEL ENERGY: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in MN Court XCEL ENERGY: Employees File Two Suits Alleging ERISA Violations in CO New Securities Fraud Cases ANSWERTHINK INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL BROADWING INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY EFUNDS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in WI NASH FINCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court ********* ARV ASSISTED: Faces Five Suits Over Prometheus Offer To Acquire Shares ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ARV Assisted Living, Inc. faces five class actions filed in DE and CA courts following delivery to the Company of an unsolicited letter from Prometheus Assisted Living LLC, an affiliate of Lazard Freres & Co. LLC, in which Prometheus stated that it had decided to propose a transaction to acquire for cash all of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company not currently owned by Prometheus or its affiliates. Four of the suits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, while one was filed in Orange County Superior Court in the State of California against the Company and the directors of the Company. The suits, filed on behalf of all Company shareholders asserting causes of action based upon alleged self dealing and breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company and its directors in connection with the receipt of the Prometheus proposal letter. The Company and the directors have retained counsel to defend against the actions. While the Company cannot predict the results with certainty, it does not believe that any liability from the lawsuits or other matters will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity. AUSTRALIA: Tour Firms Considers Lawsuit V. Dredger Over Customer Loss --------------------------------------------------------------------- Port Phillip Bay tourism operators are considering launching a class action against the Company hired to dredge shipping channels, because the results of the dredging are driving away customer, The Age reports. The operators claim that the dredging, which began about two weeks ago, has caused the water to become so murky that it is impossible and unsafe to take people scuba diving, fishing or swimming with marine life. The owner of Portsea Dive Victoria, Peter Fear, said he had sought legal advice about taking action against Westham Dredging, the company contracted by Victorian Channels Authority. "That advice said that a class action would probably succeed," Mr. Fear said. With dredging in the bay to continue until January 13, 2003, Mr. Fear said bay tourism operators face huge financial losses by not being able to take clients out to enjoy the usual bay recreational activities. "We have had to pull people out of the water and cancel dives; visibility has gone from 25 metres to virtually nil," said Mr. Fear. Victorian Channels Authority manager of marine operations, Timothy Muir, said that dredging had to be done because silt levels had reached unsafe levels for incoming vessels. BANK OF NEW YORK: NY Court Dismisses Second Amended Inkombank Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the second amended class action filed against the Bank of New York Company, Inc. and the Bank of New York by six alleged depositors of Joint Stock Bank Inkombank (Inkombank), a Russian bank. The Company and the Bank believe that the allegations made in this action are without merit. The suit, filed on behalf of all depositors of Inkombank who lost their deposits when that bank collapsed in 1998, alleges that the Company and the Bank and their senior officers knew about, and aided and abetted the looting of Inkombank by its principals and participated in a scheme to transfer cash improperly from Russia to various off-shore accounts and to avoid Russian customs, currency and tax laws. The amended complaint asserts causes of action for conversion and aiding and abetting conversion under New York law, and also states a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). In March 2001, the court dismissed the second amended complaint without leave to replead. On January 14, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the second amended suit because it disagreed with one ground of the district court's dismissal, and remanded the case to the lower court to consider alternate bases for dismissal. On October 16, 2002, the court again dismissed the second amended complaint without leave to replead and gave plaintiffs until November 25, 2002 to seek appellate review of the dismissal. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Expects Securities Lawsuits To Be Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc. expects that the fourteen securities class actions pending against them and certain of its former and present officers and directors in various jurisdictions will be consolidated. The suits were filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July 17 or July 18, 2002. In general, the lawsuits allege that the Company utilized misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning its operations and prospects. In October 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the federal suits to a single forum. The Company denies the allegations in the suits. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in MO Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc., certain of its current directors and its former auditors face a shareholder derivative lawsuit pending in Missouri state court, alleging that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to establish and maintain adequate internal controls and procedures. Unspecified damages, allegedly on behalf of the Company, are sought by the plaintiffs. The Company labeled the suit "without merit" but cannot give any assurance of a verdict by the court in favor of the Company. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in DE Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc. faces six putative class actions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by participating or acquiescing in a purported and threatened attempt by defendant Paul Allen to purchase shares and assets of the Company at an unfair price. The lawsuits were brought on behalf of the securities holders of the Company as of July 29, 2002, and seek unspecified damages and possible injunctive relief. The suit is in preliminary stages and no dispositive motions have been filed. The Company denies the lawsuits' allegations. FEDEX CORP: Employees Sue Over Race, Gender Discrimination In CA Courts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for 26 current and former employees of Memphis-based FedEx Corporation challenged the company's minority-friendly image by filing a racial and gender discrimination class action in a California court, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN) reports. Filed in Alameda County Superior Court, the lawsuit names as defendants FedEx, FedEx Express and 15 of the overnight express air unit's managerial employees. Right now, the class action is limited to FedEx Express employees in California, but the plaintiffs' attorneys hope to move the case to federal court because they believe the discrimination within FedEx is "widespread" and "deep-rooted." If the suit becomes a federal class action, any minority handler, courier or manager at FedEx Express could be a member of the class without having to prove individual claims of discrimination, said Waukeen Q. McCoy of San Francisco, one of the lead plaintiffs' attorneys. The lawsuit alleges "an alarming pattern of discrimination and harassment based on race" within the $21 billion global transportation company's express air operations in Northern California. In addition to racial discrimination and racial harassment, the lawsuit also seeks damages under: (1) California law for gender-based discrimination, (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (3) retaliation, (4) infliction of emotional distress, (5) fraud, (6) violation of the California Equal Pay Act and (7) injunctive relief Twenty of the plaintiffs are black. A separate gender-based discrimination lawsuit also is a possibility, since at least 12 of the 26 plaintiffs are women. The plaintiffs' lawyers said the lawsuit, if successful, could result in a financial judgment worth several hundred million dollars, making it one of the largest discrimination cases in United States history. However, two or three years could pass before the lawsuit is either settled or resolved in court, according to the attorneys. The 189-page petition documents such alleged claims of discrimination as, among other things: (i) FedEx routinely hires minority employees for entry-level positions and routinely provides little opportunity for advancement; (ii) FedEx employees routinely receive less pay than white employees in similar jobs at the same facility, even when, at a given time, the minority employee has comparable or more seniority, responsibilities or experience; (iii) FedEx managers routinely do not allow minority employees to congregate because of a "racist fear of gangs;" (iv) FedEx routinely assigns the most dangerous and difficult working conditions to minorities, such as sending minorities to unsafe neighborhoods to make deliveries. Waukeen McCoy litigated a similar case against the maker of WonderBread two years ago, but has described the FedEx lawsuit as his "most egregious" case. Mr. McCoy's description contrasts with FedEx's reputation, the firm having made Fortune magazine's list of "50 Best Companies for Asians, Blacks and Hispanics" in 1999, 2000 and 2001. FedEx also has been named in Fortune's top 100 best companies to work for in America since 1998. Mr. McCoy said, however, during a recent media teleconference, that FedEx's public image of diversity is not the "lived reality" of its minority employees. Mr. McCoy said, "FedEx treats its minorities as though the Civil Rights movement never happened." The lawsuit, he said, is intended to send "an unequivocal message to corporate America that racial discrimination in the workplace will not be tolerated whatsoever." FedEx becomes the latest major corporation to face a racial discrimination lawsuit, joining others like Texaco, Coca-Cola and Ford Motor Co. INDONESIA: Support Mustered For Suit Over Victims of Floods, Mudslides ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thirty-two officers of the state-owned forestry company PT Perhutani have been questioned following floods and mudslides that killed at least 26 people in East Java, and support for class action against Perhutani grows, the newspaper Antara reports. East Java's regional police chief Inspector General Susanto said that the company's officers "have been questioned so far as witnesses." Meanwhile, a political party leader, Rodjil Gufron, chairman of the National Awakening Party faction in the parliament, said that some human agency had to be held responsible for the tragic event. "This must serve as a lesson and a party has to be held responsible for it so that nature will not always be blamed for disasters," said Rodjil Gufron. "According to the information I received it seems Perhutani has to be held responsible for it (the incident)," he said during his visit to the scene of the occurrence. Rodjil Gufron said he supported efforts by some non-governmental organizations to bring a class action against the state-owned forestry company, Perhutani. He said further that he planned to raise the matter at the parliament's working meeting. LUMENIS LTD.: To Ask NY Court To Consolidate Securities Fraud Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Lumenis Ltd. intends to ask the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to consolidated the eight securities class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between January 2 and February 28, 2002. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Jacob Frenkel, (2) Yacha Sutton, (3) Sagi Genger and (4) Asif Adil The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated US 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 securities. The suits allege that throughout the class period, defendants discounted and disputed marketplace rumors about the Company's operations even as the Company knew it was being investigated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and that its distributors had been contacted by the SEC. The Company has been served with a summons and complaint in some but not all of these actions. There is currently pending before the court a motion by plaintiffs to appoint a lead plaintiff and for approval of selection of lead counsel. Upon the disposition of this motion, it is anticipated that a consolidated complaint will be filed. The Company's time to respond to the complaints has been extended, and it is anticipated that, following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and approval of lead class counsel, and subject to review and evaluation of any consolidated complaint that is filed, the Company will file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. LUMENIS LTD.: Has Yet to Receive Copy of Securities Fraud Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------- Lumenis Ltd. faces a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between August 2, 2001 and May 7, 2002. In addition to the Company, the named defendants include certain present and former officers and directors of the Company, including: (1) Jacob Frenkel, (2) Yacha Sutton, (3) Sagi Genger and (4) Asif Adil The complaint alleges that the defendants violated US federal securities laws by making a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the extended class period regarding the Company's financial performance, successful execution of its business plan and strong demand for the Company's products, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. The Company has not been served with a summons and complaint in this action. The Company believes that all the allegations and claims in the suit are baseless. LUMENIS LTD.: Plaintiffs Seek To Move Consumer Suit To TX State Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Lumenis, Ltd. and a Texas leasing company asked for the suit to be moved to Harris County State Court from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The suit alleges: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of express and implied warranties, (3) fraud, (4) misrepresentation, (5) conversion, (6) product liability, (7) violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Securities Act, and (8) lender liability and unconscionable conduct In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint to dismiss the class action and securities allegations and to add several new plaintiffs and in June 2002, the motion was granted. The Company denies the allegations. However, no assessment of likelihood of outcome or likely damages, if any, can be made at this time. PARTSBASE INC.: Finalizes Settlement of Consolidated Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Partsbase, Inc. settled the consolidated securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against it, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering of securities. The consolidated suit alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and alleged the Company's March 2000 registration statement misrepresented and failed to disclose matters related to the Company's business operations and membership sales. The complaint alleged damages of nearly $42 million. The court certified a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the offering during the period from March 22, 2000 through April 25, 2000. May 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of the consolidated suit. The plaintiffs in the case and the defendants, entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining the general terms of the proposed settlement. The memorandum of understanding provided for, among other things, a settlement amount of $1.5 million in cash, plus interest, payable to the class under an insurance policy and for the plaintiffs' dismissal of the suit with prejudice as well as a broad form of release in favor of the Company and the other defendants in the suit which, among other things, will have the effect of barring all claims by the plaintiffs and the members of the class other than those who opt out, arising out of the purchase and sale of the Company's common stock in the Company's initial public offering of securities. In September 2002, the matter was settled and final judgment was entered by the court dismissing the case with prejudice and otherwise confirming the settlement terms contained in the memorandum of understanding. The settlement releases the directors, management personnel, underwriters and securities firms named as defendants in the litigation from further liability relating to the IPO. However, stockholders of 119,000 Company shares opted out of the settlement, and one such stockholder has filed a lawsuit in California State Court. The Company believes that the allegations contained in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material impact upon the Company's financial results or operations. PARTSBASE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in FL State Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Partsbase, Inc. agreed to settle several class actions pending in the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida against it and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Four lawsuits, two of which were filed in the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida and the other two which were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, were filed in the first quarter of 2002. The suits allege the directors have breached their fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs and the purported class and seek to enjoin the Company from entering into a proposed going-private transaction by the Company's Chairman and a related limited partnership and to recover unspecified damages resulting from the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The two lawsuits filed in Delaware have been informally stayed pending the resolution of the lawsuits filed in Florida. In October 2002, the Florida Court approved consolidation of the two lawsuits filed in Florida as a single action. In October 2002, the parties to the Florida lawsuits entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which provides for an agreement-in-principle to settle the suits. The Memorandum of Understanding provides for the parties to enter a joint stipulation and such other documentation as may be required to obtain final approval of the Florida Court. The Company believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material impact upon the Company's consolidated financial statements, results of operations or cash flows. SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Settles Consumer Suit Over Vacation Intervals in TX ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. settled a class action filed on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs made up of persons who purchased Vacation Intervals from the Company between 1995 and 1999, in the United States District Court in The suit alleges violations of the federal truth in lending statutes. The asserted claims involved an alleged inconsistency between the way a certain handling and recording fee was described in the contract signed by each alleged class member and the form of the settlement statement utilized by the Company to close the sales. While the Company believes that the case was without merit and that it would have been successful in defending the action in court, the Company determined that it would be less expensive to settle the matter than to defend it. The Company and the named Plaintiffs settled the claim through mediation. The court later approved by the settlement. Except for the costs of setting aside sales of approximately fifteen Vacation Intervals and a $75,000 lump sum payment to named Plaintiffs, the Company paid no money. However, the Company did agree to certification of a class so that it could receive a release in a form which bound the entire class concerning the allegations raised in the complaint. The Company believes that the value of the recovered Vacation Intervals essentially offset the payments made to the twenty- seven named plaintiffs. Additionally, the Company granted upgrade credits ranging from $20 to $350 per Vacation Interval to class members to upgrade their Vacation Interval to a higher price interval. The upgrade credits may not be used for any other purpose and are non-transferable, non-assignable and expire if unused in 2002. The Company also paid the legal fees of the counsel for the named plaintiffs in an amount of approximately $514,000. SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Agrees To Settle Bonus Time Privileges Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------------- Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. agreed to settle a class action filed in state district court in Texas in March 2000 on behalf of a purported class of persons who owned a Vacation Interval, with Bonus Time Privileges. The plaintiffs asserted various claims against the Company based primarily on the Company's sale of Vacation Intervals with Bonus Time Program benefits. The plaintiffs asserted there were various misrepresentations regarding the limitations on the use of the Bonus Time, as well as other similar allegations. The Company believes it had substantial defenses to the claims asserted by the Plaintiffs and had made more than adequate written disclosures as well as signed acknowledgments from each purported class member regarding the limitations of the Bonus Time Program, which would have prevented any recovery under the various theories relied upon. In addition, the Company believes that the court would not have certified the case as a class action because there were too many fact issues applicable to each putative class member. The case was successfully submitted to mediation and a Mediation Settlement Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the parties. This out of court settlement was subsequently approved by the court. All members of the class, including the named plaintiffs, released the Company and the Silverleaf Club from any and all claims they held in regards to the suit. In return, the Company and Silverleaf Club released the named plaintiffs, and Silverleaf Club provided all class members with one Preferred Guest Reservation Certificate. These certificates allow the holder to receive a five night and six day reservation (Sunday through Thursday and during white or blue color times only) at one of the Company's resorts during a four year period, so long as the holder is current on their dues and note payable obligations. Each Certificate is guaranteed by the Company but only to the extent of $100 per Certificate if the reservation cannot be fulfilled. In addition to the Certificates the Company and the Silverleaf Club, agreed to make various changes to its sales, operating and marketing procedures, including changes to its Bonus Time Program which the Company implemented in 2001. As part of the settlement, the Company also paid the class representatives $8,000 for each time share week owned for a total of $120,000 and set aside fifteen Vacation Interval sales to the class representatives. Finally, in order to facilitate a prompt conclusion to this matter on grounds deemed to be favorable, the Company paid $1,000,000 in attorneys' fees, plus court costs. The Company also paid Plaintiff's counsel $30,000 for all expenses. SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Denies Allegations In TX "Vacation Intervals" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. faces a class action filed in state district court in Texas against the Company by plaintiffs who each purchased Vacation Intervals from the Company, alleging violations of: (1) the Texas Timeshare Act, (2) the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and (3) the Texas Timeshare Act The Company allegedly failed to deliver to them complete copies of the contracts for the purchase of the Vacation Intervals as they did not receive a complete legal description of the Hill Country Resort as attached to the Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants and Conditions of the Resort. The Plaintiffs also claim that the Company violated various provisions of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act with respect to the maintenance fees charged by the Company to its Vacation Interval owners. The Company believes it has valid defenses to the claims. Discovery with regard to the plaintiffs' claims is still at the preliminary stage. The Company was only recently served with this action and has not yet fully assessed the claims. SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Couple Files Consumer Fraud Suit in TX State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. faces a class action filed in state district court against it by a couple who purchased a Vacation Interval from the Company. The Plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the Texas Government Code by charging a document preparation fee in regard to instruments affecting title to real estate. Alternatively, the Plaintiffs allege that the document preparation fee constituted a partial prepayment that should have been credited against their note and additionally seek a declaratory judgment. The petition asserts Texas class action allegations and seeks recovery of the $275.00 document preparation fee and treble damages for a total of $1,100.00, and injunctive relief preventing the Company from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in connection with the sale of its Vacation Intervals in Texas. Since the Company was served very recently, it is in the process of retaining defense counsel and has not yet had sufficient time to evaluate the merits of the case. TENFOLD CORPORATION: UT Court Hears Pleas For Final Settlement Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court of Utah heard arguments for final approval of the settlement for the consolidated securities class action pending against Tenfold Corporation and certain of its officers, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. Specifically, 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) Company insiders sold stock in early calendar year 2000 while knowing about these issues. In May 2001, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 19, 2001. On March 19, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the suit, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to make a motion to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to amend their complaint and the Company filed a written response. The parties then reached an agreement for settlement of the action, which calls for a payment by the Company's insurer of $5.9 million to a class of Company shareholders and their attorneys in return for a dismissal with prejudice of the actions and a release of all claims asserted in the actions. TENFOLD CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Tenfold Corporation's officers and directors as defendants in the consolidated securities class action filed against them, the company and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of the Company's s initial public offering violated the securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the offering's registration statement and by engaging in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of Company stock in the after-market subsequent to the initial public offering. Company defendants are named in the amended complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative practices. The individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002, were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice. Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998. The Company is vigorously defending this action and expects that the costs of defense and/or resolution will be covered by insurance. Although no assurance can be given that this matter will be resolved in the Company's favor, the Company believes that the resolution of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. TURBODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement with parties in the consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The suit asserted claims for violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition to the Company, the defendants include: (1) Edward Halimi, (2) Leon Nowek and (3) Walter Ware The consolidated action purports to be brought on behalf of individuals claiming that they purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period from March 1, 1997 through January 22, 1999. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages arising from alleged misstatements concerning such matters as the technological capability and actual and potential sales of the Company's TurbopacT products and the demand and acceptance of this and other products of the Company. The plaintiffs allege that these alleged misstatements caused the price of the Company's common stock to be artificially inflated during the class period. The Company reached a settlement agreement that the Company anticipates will result in the final disposition of these legal proceedings. This settlement agreement has been approved by the insurance companies involved. The Company has signed a stipulation of settlement with the legal counsel for the plaintiffs that sets forth the terms and conditions of this settlement. This settlement has been approved by the court and the time for appeal has commenced. The settlement will not become final until such time as the time for appeal has lapsed and funds are released in accordance with the settlement agreement. The agreed terms of settlement provide for a stipulated judgment against the Company in the amount of $7.9 million. The plaintiff's case against the Company and its co-defendants will be dismissed. The plaintiffs will not have any right to pursue execution against the Company or our assets upon finalization of the settlement. UNITED KINGDOM: Railtrack Shareholders Raise Funds to Launch Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Irate Railtrack shareholders have raised a GBP1.6 million fund to enable them to initiate legal proceedings against the Government, according to a report by The Times of London. Andrew Chalklen, chairman of the Railtrack Private Shareholders Action Group (RPSAG), said that 40,000 investors have contributed an average of Pounds 50 each and that contributions were still flooding in. "We have set ourselves a target of raising GBP2 million, and we are very confident that we can reach that. The speed with which shareholders have backed our campaign with contributions indicates that there is still an enormous amount of shareholder anger towards the Government over the Railtrack fiasco," he said. The so-called "fiasco" referred to is the confiscation of railroad property when the former Transport Secretary forced Railtrack into administration in October 2001, a process which many private shareholders see as back-door re-nationalization. The claims to be alleged by the planned class action against the Government include abuse in public office and breach of human rights. RPSAG already has appointed a legal team headed by Michael Crystal, QC, to advise on the lawsuit. The class action will be filed against the Government, but the former Transport Secretary may be called to give evidence. The action group will contend that either the Transport Secretary, on behalf of the Government, knew that his actions were unlawful, or that he was recklessly indifferent to the fact. The case could become the largest class action taken against the Government. Most of the contributions have come from small shareholders, but the group will initiate meetings with institutional investors to persuade them to back the case. Mr. Chalklen believes there are about 10 UK and US institutions that are sympathetic to the group's claim, but he refused to name them. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Policyholder Files Insurance Policies Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- When the nation's largest disability insurer, UnumProvident Corporation, set out in 1994, to cut its losses from expensive long- term claims, it created a "Hungry Vulture" award to honor its most "relentless" employees, according to a recent report by Associated Press Newswires. The award bore a "ruthless" motto - "Patience, my foot . I'm gonna kill something." The insurer scrapped the Hungry Vulture several years ago, but hundreds of unhappy policyholders allege, some in class action, some individually, that the company, based in Chattanooga, Tennessee, still puts profits before the welfare of seriously ill and badly injured people. The complaints come from people like Loretta Hale, 49, a once successful San Francisco Bay area real estate broker, who has been fighting to collect her disability benefits for the past five 1/2 years while dying of cancer. A Contra Costa Superior Court jury, in California, returned a $1.5 million fraud verdict against UnumProvident in July 2000, but the company is pursuing an appeal that may outlive Ms. Hale. The Company dismisses most of the allegations as the sour grapes of a relatively few duplicitous and uncooperative policyholders. The Company maintains that customer complaints have been overblown by opportunistic lawyers and sensational media accounts, including stories on CBS's "60 Minutes" and "Dateline NBC." "We are 100 percent proud of our customer care organization," said Thomas White, the company's vice president of corporate relations. Nevertheless, a federal judge in San Francisco last month concluded that the Company had engaged in a wide range of shady activities to avoid paying legitimate disability claims. US Magistrate Judge James Larson criticized the Company's business practices as he upheld a jury's $7.67 million penalty for mistreating former Berkeley chiropractor Joan Hangarter, and ordered the company to "obey the law." Ms. Hangarter, 53, had alleged that UnumProvident left her bankrupt and suicidal after terminating her $8,150 monthly benefit for joint and muscle injuries that prompted her to stop treating her chiropractic patients in 1997. Much of Judge Larson's stinging 62-page rebuke in Ms. Hangarter's case echoes the allegations of misconduct made against UnumProvident in lawsuits that have flooded the nation's courts over the last five years. In a September court filing, UnumProvident listed more than 2,500 policyholder lawsuits charging the company with fraud or breach of contract. The lawsuits were filed between 1997 and August of this year. The biggest judgment against UnumProvident, so far, occurred last year when a jury in a Florida federal court awarded $36.7 million to John Tedesco, a former ophthalmologist. Mr. Tedesco alleged that a UnumProvident-owned disability carrier refused to pay him the benefits provided by his policy after he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and a herniated disk. A federal lawsuit recently filed in New York seeks to represent tens of thousands more UnumProvident policyholders as part of a class action complaint against the company. Insurance regulators in California, Georgia and Tennessee also say they will investigate the policyholders complaints. UnumProvident says the complaints represent a small fraction of the roughly 400,000 disability claims it processes annually. The company claims it rejects less than two percent of those claims. US LIQUIDS: Securities Fraud Suit Trial To Start April 2003 in TX Court ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the consolidated securities class action pending against US Liquids, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors is set for April 14, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the Company's March 1999 public offering and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period beginning on May 12, 1998 and ending on August 25, 1999. The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose allegedly material information regarding the operations of the Company's Detroit facility and the Company's financial condition in the prospectus relating to the March 1999 stock offering and in certain other public filings and announcements made by the Company. In January 2001, the court dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiffs under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and in April 2002 the court dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiffs under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Accordingly, the lawsuit is proceeding only with respect to the claims asserted under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. In June 2002, the court determined that two individuals designated by the plaintiffs are adequate class representatives for plaintiffs' claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act. In August 2002, the court entered an order defining the plaintiff class as all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's March 1999 stock offering. Further proceedings and discovery in the lawsuit have been suspended pending the resolution of the Company's dispute with its insurance carrier over whether insurance coverage exists for the claims asserted by the plaintiffs. UTAH: Hispanic Group Accuses Institutions of Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------------ Charging instances of racial bias, language-based discrimination and a lack of cultural competency, a group of Hispanic activists has asked Utah's advisory committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights to investigate the University of Utah, Salt Lake Community College (SLCC) and the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), the Deseret News reported. Employees from SLCC filed a class action complaint against the college with the US Department of Labor last summer. All three institutions have discriminated against Hispanics and other minority groups in a myriad of situations including employment practices and in the provision of family social services, members of the Coalition of La Raza, or Raz Pac, said recently at a state advisory committee meeting at the Horizonte Instruction and Training Center. Before a gathering, Raz Pac leadership cited a laundry list of cases in which they said the civil rights of local Hispanics have been denied. They claimed that at both the University and the SLCC, Hispanics have been passed over for job promotions, if they are given the opportunity to interview for positions at all. The leaders further charge that Hispanics have been paid less than non-Hispanic co-workers. They say that the local have been have been threatened with firing for speaking Spanish and have been retaliated against when filing grievances or when supporting co-workers in their own grievances. A shortage of Spanish-speaking, culturally competent social workers within DCFS has meant that services to Hispanic families are second- rate, Raz Pac member, Luz Robles said. Response time to needs of Spanish-speaking families can be slow, leaving some children at risk in dangerous settings. Allegations of abuse have either gone uninvestigated or have been dropped. Social workers who do not understand Hispanic cultural practices often bring more confusion to family situations than help, she said. Ms. Luz called for Utah's advisory committee to the US Commission on Civil Rights to force DCFS into compliance with federal civil rights law. Commission analyst Malee Craft, from the Rocky Mountain division office, said the state's advisory commission cannot launch any sort of "investigation." However, she said the committee can convene public hearings to record public testimony. The committee can also issue federal subpoenas requiring an institution or company to produce documentation of its practices, former committee chairman and local attorney Michael Martinez said. The advisory committee will meet again in January to determine which issues to address. If they opt to hold a hearing, it would take about four months to plan, Mr. Martinez said. In the meantime, Ms. Craft said she will ask the Department of Justice's Office of Community Relations Services to step in as a mediator to assist anyone having difficulty in their dealings with the University, SLCC or DCFS. No representatives from the University or SLCC attended the meeting. However, in a prepared statement issued last summer, SLCC said it "does not condone, endorse or tolerate discriminatory behavior of any kind. Any employee that feels that they have experienced discrimination of any kind has a number of resources available to them within the college and a wide range of resources outside the college." The University of Utah spokeswoman Coralie Alder said that the university encourages its employees to register complaints either through the University's processes or external processes. DCFS staff training coordinator Midge Delavan did attend the meeting and she said her agency is making efforts to improve training for social workers that result in better services for the Hispanic community. VIROPHARMA INC.: Asks PAC Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Viropharma, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the consolidated securities class action pending against it and certain of its directors on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 3,1999 and March 19,2002. The suit alleges that certain statements by the Company about PicovirT were misleading, and 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 July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this action in August 2002. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against these claims. While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of this claim at this time, the ultimate resolution of this action could have a material adverse effect on its financial position and the resolution of this matter during a specific period could have a material adverse effect on the quarterly or annual operating results for that period. WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against the Warnaco Group, Inc. filed a notice of appeal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's decision dismissing the suit. The consolidated suit names the Company and certain of its officers and directors, and was filed on behalf of shareholders of the Company who purchased Company stock between September 17, 1997 and July 19, 2000. The suit alleges, inter alia, that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by artificially inflating the price of the Company's stock and failing to disclose certain information during the first class period. A second amended consolidated complaint was filed on May 31, 2001. On October 5, 2001, the defendants other than the Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon, among other things, the statute of limitations, failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with the requisite particularity. On April 25, 2002, the court granted the individual defendant's motion to dismiss this action based on the statute of limitations. On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration in the court. On May 24, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect to such dismissal. On July 23, 2002, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied. On July 30, 2002, the plaintiffs' voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, their claims against the Company. WARNACO GROUP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NY Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action pending against The Warnaco Group, Inc. filed an amended suit adding the Company's auditor as defendant in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased Company stock between September 29, 2000 and April 18, 2001, allege, inter alia, that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act by artificially inflating the price of the Company's stock and failing to disclose negative information during the class period. The suit was later amended, expanding the class period to encompass August 16, 2000 to June 8, 2001. The amended complaint also dropped the Company as a defendant, but added as defendants certain outside directors. On April 18, 2002, the court dismissed the amended complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to replead. On June 7, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which again expanded the class period to encompass August 15, 2000 to June 8, 2001. On June 24, 2002, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, which motions are pending. XCEL ENERGY: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in MN Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Xcel Energy, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in the United States District Court in Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 31, 2001, and July 26, 2002. The suits name as defendants the Company and: (1) Wayne H. Brunetti, chairman, president and chief executive officer, (2) Edward J. McIntyre, former vice president and chief financial officer and (3) James J. Howard, former chairman Among other things, the suits allege violations of Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 related to allegedly false and misleading disclosures concerning various issues, including: (i) round trip energy trades, (ii) the existence of cross-default provisions in Xcel Energy's and its subsidiary NRG Energy's credit agreements with lenders, (iii) NRG's liquidity and credit status, (iv) the supposed risks to Xcel Energy's credit rating and (v) the status of Xcel Energy's internal controls to monitor trading of its power. On September 30, 2002, a further lawsuit making essentially identical allegations, identifying the same class period and seeking the same type of relief was filed in the same court on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of two series of NRG Senior Notes. The Company labeled the suits "without merit," but cannot give any assurance of a verdict in their favor. XCEL ENERGY: Employees File Two Suits Alleging ERISA Violations in CO --------------------------------------------------------------------- Xcel Energy, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the United States District Court in Colorado, on behalf of a purported class of employee participants in certain Company employee benefit plans, identifying a class period of September 23, 1999, through the date of filing. The suit also names certain present and former directors and officers as defendants. Both actions assert violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and asserting breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure violations regarding Company stock in the benefit plans. The defendants in these actions deny any liability and maintain that their disclosures and other conduct have been fully compliant with applicable laws and reporting requirements. New Securities Fraud Cases ANSWERTHINK INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Answerthink, Inc. (Nasdaq:ANSR) publicly traded securities during the period between October 17, 2000 and April 25, 2002, inclusive. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) John F. Brennan, (2) Ted A. Fernandez, (3) Allan R. Frank, (4) Edmund R. Miller, (5) William Kessinger and (6) Bruce Rauner The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. As alleged in the complaint, throughout the class period, defendants issues a series of false and misleading statements announcing "record" financial results. In violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the complaint alleges, defendants failed to disclose that the "record" results included revenues recognized from transactions with related parties who were near-bankruptcy and lacked the financial means to finalize the sales. Specifically, in order to boost reported revenues and earnings during the third and fourth quarters of 2000, the Company recognized approximately $16.7 million of revenue in connection with various transactions with related parties who were either facing imminent bankruptcy or were otherwise unable to survive as a going concern and remit the full $16.7 million as promised. As a result, the complaint alleges, defendants were able to report artificially inflated results which permitted defendants Fernandez and Frank to receive performance-based bonuses and allowed certain of the defendants to sell stock at inflated prices. Ultimately, more than $6 million of receivables and worthless stock in one of the related party companies, which was received as partial payment, was written off through a charge to earnings. On February 7, 2002, when defendants were no longer able to include these illusory revenues in their financial results, the Company reported a huge drop in revenues. As a result, Answerthink investors who purchased stock in reliance on the integrity of defendants' statements and publicly-filed financial reports have sustained tremendous losses. Answerthink stock, which traded at $18 per share on October 17, 2000, dramatically declined and traded at only $1.98 per share on November 13, 2002. For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com BROADWING INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Broadwing, Inc. (NYSE:BRW) publicly traded securities during the period between January 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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 between January 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002 thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. As alleged in the complaint, the Company, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, purported to be a full-service, local and national provider of data and voice communications services. Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants represented to investors that: (1) the Company's business was strong; (2) it had unique attributes that set it apart from its competitors in the industry and that immunized it from the adverse effects of the industry-wide downturn and related "bandwidth glut"; (3) the Company was successfully achieving strong financial results and executing on its business plan; and (4) the Company's goodwill asset was reasonably valued at $2.2 billion. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things, that: (i) the Company was not increasing its revenue by winning over new customers with unique and superior service offerings but rather through the use of one-time transactions with other carriers and sham swap transactions that had no economic substance; (ii) the Company's broadband revenue flow was extraordinarily unreliable because it was derived in large part from its competitors who were themselves vulnerable to the telecommunications industry downturn; and (iii) the Company's reported goodwill and shareholder equity were grossly over-valued. On May 20, 2002, the truth emerged that a material portion of the Company's revenue was derived from one-transactions with its competitors. Company share price plummeted 30% on these reports and related concerns about the quality of the Company's revenue reporting and liquidity, to close at $3.70 down $1.58 from the previous days closing price of $5.28. For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: (888) 844-5862 or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com EFUNDS CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in WI --------------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of eFunds Corporation (Nasdaq: EFDS) from February 2, 2001 through October 24, 2002 inclusive. 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 February 2, 2001 to October 24, 2002. For example, according to the complaint, throughout the class period, eFunds issued press releases announcing quarter after quarter of record results of operations, with revenues and earnings doubling in several quarters during the class period. The financial statements contained in such press releases were repeated in quarterly and annual reports filed with the SEC. According to the complaint, such statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose that eFunds had been improperly recognizing revenue during the class period. Specifically, according to the complaint, the Company recognized revenues on certain contracts immediately which, according to generally accepted accounting principles, should have been deferred over a period of time. Accordingly, the complaint alleges, eFunds materially inflated its revenues and revenue growth rate throughout the class period. On March 4, 2002, eFunds issued a press release announcing that it was "revising its previously announced results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2001" because the Company had recognized revenue from two transactions in the second quarter of 2001 which should have been recorded in the third quarter as a single transaction, or, in the alternative, as a reduction in operating expenses instead of revenue. The revision required a reduction of the Company's reported 2001 revenue by $5 million. According to the suit, that announcement, however, did not disclose the truth regarding the Company's improper revenue recognition. On October 25, 2002, before the open of trading, eFunds shocked the market by announcing that it would "delay the release of its earnings for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, while the Company completes a review of the accounting treatment given to various transactions that occurred in 2000 and 2001 and certain tax matters related to the Company's India based operations." In response to the announcement, the price of eFunds common stock fell by 10% in one day, from a close of $9.65 per share on October 24, 2002 to close at $8.68 per share on October 25, 2002, on unusually large trading volume, and representing a decline of 66% from the Class Period high of $25.49 per share reached on May 18, 2001. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com NASH FINCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Nash Finch Company (Nasdaq:NAFCE) common stock during the period between July 15, 2002 and November 8, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company is a food distribution and retail company in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the class period, the Company issued false statements, including false financial results in which the Company included income from vendor promotions to which it was not entitled, so as to maintain favorable credit ratings on its debt. As a result of defendants' false statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated levels, permitting the Company to maintain credit ratings on its $400 million in debt. Then, on November 8, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled "Nash Finch Explains Postponement of Earnings Release" which disclosed an SEC inquiry into its accounting practices. Once this news was revealed, Company stock collapsed to $7.60 before closing at $8.18, some 70% below the class period high of $28.85. It was also noted in November 2002, that the Company's former CFO had sued the Company claiming he was fired in 2000 for refusing to manipulate Nash Finch's reported financial results. For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Sue Null by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.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 * * *