/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030303.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 3, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 43 Headlines AHOLD NV: Involved In Accounting Scandal, Holdings, Shares Drop by 70% AIR CANADA: BC High Court Certifies Lawsuits Filed by Former Employees BETESH GROUP: Recalls 11,200 "Busy Bug" Plush Toys For Choking Hazard CALIFORNIA: Reaches Settlement in ACLU Suit For Racial Profiling in CA CCA-TREATED WOOD: FL Court Denies Class Certification To Consumer Suit ELI LILLY: Consumers File Suits Over Schizophrenia Drug's Side Effects ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Denies Charges in RI Consolidated Securities Suit ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit FIRST YEARS: Gives Instructions For 120T Step Stools For Injury Hazard GREENWOOD HEALTH: Fire Breaks Out, Leaving Ten Dead, Several Injured KINDER MORGAN: KS Court To Decide on Certification For Royalties Suit KINDER MORGAN: Discovery Commences in TX Natural Gas Producers' Lawsuit KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NV Personal Injury Suit RANDOM HOUSE: Voluntarily Recalls 360,000 Book Sets For Choking Hazard REZULIN LITIGATION: Lawyers Seek Class Certification For Consumer Suit ROTO-ROOTER INC.: OH Court Grants Certification To Consumer Fraud Suit UNITED STATES: Judge Says Army Delays Access To Nazi Gold Train Records UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Schemed To Artificially Inflate Stock Price VENTAS INC.: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Shareholder Derivative Suit VENTAS INC.: DE Court Refuses To Allocate Portions of Reorganization WASHINGTON DC: Suits Filed v. Over Police Action During Demonstrations WEST VIRGINIA: EPA Faces Lawsuit Over Non-review Of State's Water Rules New Securities Fraud Cases AMERCO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada Court ARIBA INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA ATMEL CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Shareholder Derivative Suit CARREKER CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in TX CARREKER CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Suit in TX GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Two Lawfirms Lodge Securities Suit in S.D. NY LEXENT INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit ROYAL AHOLD: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ROYAL AHOLD: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Lawsuit in MD Court ********* AHOLD NV: Involved In Accounting Scandal, Holdings, Shares Drop by 70% ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Netherlands' popular supermarket, Ahold NV, is facing an accounting scandal, as its stock price plunged 70 percent. There are hundreds of thousands of persons in this country of 16 million, who directly own shares in the supermarket, Ahold, but they are exhibiting little sign of public outrage. The government, as well, is responding in a way we here in the United States would call low key; particularly, since Ahold, until this week, was ranked tenth, by market value, trading on Euronext Amsterdam, The Wall Street Journal Europe reports. Dutch Finance Minister Hans Hoogervorst has not made any public statements about Ahold's current problems. At the Economics Ministry, a spokesman characterized events at Ahold as "an internal business matter." The spokesman said the minister is on vacation, adding, however, that the ministry is following developments at Ahold through its "own sources," but has not started its own independent investigation. A grandson of Ahold's founder, appearing on national television, described himself as feeling "shafted" -- one of the stronger responses to the news of Ahold's troubles. Seven out of 10 Dutch private investors bought Ahold shares in recent years, according to the largest Dutch shareholder lobby, Vereniging van Effectenbezitters. Many of the investors did it by turning in coupons while they were shopping at Ahold's Dutch supermarket chain, making it the country's "People's Share," which is what Europeans call some stocks that are widely held by individuals. Vereniging does seem to be taking what might be called a strong stand, when compared to the government, which for now is taking a back seat in the corporate area while industry and shareholders try to write a new corporate-governance code. Peter Paul de Vries, head of Vereniging, said the Ahold "debacle" reinforces the view that the Dutch system of self-regulation and "soft laws" is not good enough. Vereniging is asking individual investors to register as it investigates whether to sue Ahold. Meanwhile, several US law firms already have announced that they are seeking class action status for their lawsuits. The Dutch Justice Ministry has referred all calls to the public prosecutor's office, which in turn said it needs a complaint from the Authority for Financial Markets (AFM) before it can launch an investigation into Ahold's recent disclosure that it had overstated earnings in 2001 and 2002 by at least 64.5 million euros ($500 million). The AFM is the Dutch version of the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The AFM said that all it can do is look into whether insider trading was involved. A spokesman revealed that so far the agency has no indication of insider trading. A law that will give AFM oversight over the accuracy of full-year financial accounts has been in the works since 2001. Although it has not yet been sent to Parliament, the Finance Ministry said that will probably happen after the summer of 2003. Meanwhile, the US attorney's office and the Securities and Exchange Commission already have opened investigations into Ahold's accounting irregularities. AIR CANADA: BC High Court Certifies Lawsuits Filed by Former Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of British Columbia certified as class actions lawsuits filed against Air Canada and Air Canada Regional Inc. d.b.a. AIRBC on behalf of retired and former employees whose retirement or severance benefits were unilaterally changed by Air Canada and/or AIRBC. The class action suits were brought by Michael Trainor and Gerri Andrews, both of Delta, British Columbia and Sonia Catherine Marie Halbert of Surrey, British Columbia. The plaintiffs in these suits are part of a group of former Canadian Airlines and AIRBC employees who qualified for travel benefits under the airlines' Factor 60/70 program. These were employees who each had combined age and years of service of 60 or 70 with a minimum of 10 years of service with the airline. Mr. Trainor, for example, was a factor 60 employee with Canadian Airlines and, in 1994, accepted a severance package from Canadian as part of its downsizing program. The package included reduced travel on Canadian Airlines as well as reduced cost travel on other airlines. The ability to fly on other airlines is known in the airline industry as interline travel. In September 2000 Air Canada unilaterally eliminated Mr. Trainor's right to travel at reduced cost on other airlines. The change affected approximately 1,500 former employees of Canadian Airlines and AIRBC. Mrs. Halbert retired from Canadian Airlines in August 2000. Ms. Andrews took early retirement from Air Canada/AIRBC in January 1996. According to the Amended Statements of Claim filed in Vancouver, British Columbia, "the sudden, harsh, and malicious manner of the change and the bad faith unilateral modification of the severance and retirement packages warrants the imposition of punitive and exemplary damages to punish the Defendants, and deter the Defendants from engaging in similar behavior." The Statements of Claim further allege that the plaintiffs accepted early retirement and severance packages with the knowledge that they would be free to travel the world both for pleasure and to visit friends and loved ones. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Trainor, Halbert and Andrews by the law firms of Hanson Wirsig Matheos and Klein Lyons both of Vancouver. According to class action lawyer David Klein "the cavalier attitude with which Air Canada and Air Canada Regional have treated their former loyal and trusting employees cannot be allowed to continue without challenge and redress". For more details, contact David Klein of Klein Lyons by Mail: Suite 1100 - 1333, West Broadway, Vancouver, B.C., V6H 4C1 by Phone: (604) 874-7171 BETESH GROUP: Recalls 11,200 "Busy Bug" Plush Toys For Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Betesh Group of New York, NY is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 11,200 "Busy Bug" plush toys. The plush toy's antennae can be chewed or pulled off, posing a choking hazard to young children. The Company has received two reports of children gagging on the fabric antennae ends that separated from the toy. The recalled toy is a small plush bug with two springy black antennae with orange round fabric ends. The bug has a blue stuffed round face with a red musical nose that blinks when pressed. The body of the bug is segmented in various colors and patterns. Striped elastic legs are attached to the body along with crinkly, iridescent wings. "Smart Scents," and "Made In China" are printed on a label on the side of the bug. The UPC code 778267862920 is on the packaging. Discount department stores sold these recalled toys from August 2002 through January 2003 for about $7. For more details, contact the Company by Mail: One East 33rd Street, New York, NY 10016, Att: Consumer Relations, to receive a refund including postage, or by Phone: (866) 473-0118 anytime. CALIFORNIA: Reaches Settlement in ACLU Suit For Racial Profiling in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The California Highway Patrol (CHP) reached a settlement for a major racial profiling lawsuit, which was filed in California federal court early this week, the Associated Press reports. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the suit on behalf of three San Francisco Bay drivers. The suit was initially commenced on behalf of San Jose attorney Curtis Rodriguez, who was driving on Highway 152 east of San Jose in June 1998 when he noticed CHP officers pulling over Hispanic drivers. Soon after, he also was stopped and detained while a drug-sniffing dog checked the car but found nothing. Under the settlement, the Highway Patrol agreed to ban some car searches and to require that officers articulate a reason for each traffic stop, instead of offering a hunch the driver may be running drugs. The CHP also is required to to track all stops and constantly review that database to spot whether any officer is pulling over a disporportionate number of black or Hispanic motorists. CHP officers must have "specific and articulable facts to support" a stop. "A mere suspicion or 'hunch' is not sufficient," the settlement reads. The settlement further extends for three years a temporary moratorium on "consent searches" - the kind that officers can conduct only if they receive permission from a driver. The ACLU has said such searches are a pretext for harassing minority drivers, AP reports. Lawyers for the ACLU hailed the settlement as a major victory at a time when the war on terrorism has bolstered profiling as a law enforcement tool. The settlement is due for approval by a federal judge. CHP officials have continuously denied wrongdoing, insisting that its officers do not profile or discriminate. However, they agreed to keep detailed computer records of all traffic stops in the state and hire an auditor to analyze the database. Supervisors in CHP field offices also must review the data every day to ensure compliance. CCA-TREATED WOOD: FL Court Denies Class Certification To Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida refused class certification to a lawsuit challenging the safety of CCA- treated wood and its warnings, The American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI) announced in a statement. In denying the plaintiffs' motion, and after a thorough review of CCA- treated wood products and their markets, the court held that the plaintiffs' claims failed to satisfy several basic requirements for class certification: "(T)he class representatives' claims would be atypical of other potential members of the class, that individual issues of fact and law would predominate in this matter, and that class action treatment would not be the superior method of resolving this dispute." Among other reasons, the court stated that the establishment of a class is unwarranted given the relatively small number of claims related to CCA-treated wood: "For instance, even in spite of the seventy year history of treated woods use in this country, there is no track record of cases in which plaintiffs were alleging property damage as a result of treated wood. And there is no indication that a sea of litigation over treated wood is imminent." In fact, during the course of oral argument, plaintiffs conceded that there have only been a handful of personal injury cases filed involving these products. In addressing the manageability of a class action, the court quoted the Fifth Circuit as follows: "(N)ot every tort is asbestos, and not every mass tort will result in the same judicial crisis." The AWPI, a defendant in the lawsuit, stated, "We are pleased that the Court agreed with our position that this case is not appropriate for class action certification. We continue to stand by the safety of CCA- treated wood and we believe that sound science demonstrates that CCA- treated wood is safe when used as recommended." ELI LILLY: Consumers File Suits Over Schizophrenia Drug's Side Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly & Co. faces several complaints filed by Hersh & Hersh of San Francisco on behalf of plaintiffs across the US. Attorneys are in the process of filing numerous other complaints and plan to prove that as a result of taking Zyprexa, a drug prescribed for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar mania, their clients have sustained life- threatening or fatal injuries, including diabetes mellitus, hyperglycemia and pancreatitis. In some cases patients have died after long-term use of Zyprexa, even though it has been FDA-approved only as a short-term treatment, and their families have hired Hersh & Hersh to represent them in wrongful death suits against the giant drug manufacturer. Cases are being filed individually, in both federal and state courts. According to Hersh & Hersh partner Nancy Hersh, "Eli Lilly's profits are skyrocketing from these 'atypical' anti-psychotic drugs, while patients are being kept in the dark about their damaging side effects. We believe Eli Lilly is culpable in heavily promoting Zyprexa as a safe and effective drug for psychotic disorders, yet virtually concealing the risks to doctors and their patients." Since 1996 Eli Lilly has widely promoted Zyprexa as the most effective medication on the market for bipolar disorder, with fewer adverse side effects than any other methods of treatment. It is also the company's top-selling drug, with reported sales of $3 billion in 2001. However in 2002, author of Mad In America and medical journalist Robert Whitaker exposed clinical trial data about Zyprexa that was not made available to most doctors prescribing the drug. According to Mr. Whitaker, "Of the 2,500 patients in the trials who received Zyprexa, 20 died; 20 committed suicide; and 22% suffered a 'serious' adverse event. Two-thirds of the Zyprexa patients did not successfully complete the trials." In July 2002, a team of medical researchers at Duke University discovered the link between the new generation of anti-psychotic drugs like Zyprexa and early onset diabetes. They identified 289 cases of diabetes in patients who had been prescribed Zyprexa, stating, "Of the 289 cases of diabetes linked to the use of Zyprexa, 225 were newly diagnosed cases; 100 patients developed ketosis (a serious complication of diabetes); 22 people developed inflammation of the pancreas, a life- threatening condition; and 23 people died. Over 70% of these cases occurred within six months of starting the drug treatment." Numerous other medical studies have reported that Zyprexa can result in serious and often-fatal diabetic diseases, caused by severe insulin deficiency. In one Hersh & Hersh case, the North Carolina plaintiff suffered a diabetic coma after taking Zyprexa for eight months, and had to have his left leg and right foot amputated. In spite of these dangerous side effects there is no warning in Zyprexa's product information to monitor blood glucose levels, or discontinue use if high blood sugar is noted or if the patient develops diabetes. Currently, the literature accompanying Zyprexa only alludes to diabetes and acidosis as part of a list of side effects that are purported to be very rare. Among the numerous cases to be filed by Hersh & Hersh attorneys, several individuals were prescribed Zyprexa for the treatment for "off label" symptoms, including anxiety and depression, even though it is FDA-approved exclusively for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. At least one client so far has developed an irreversible neurological disorder known as Tardive Dyskinesia and is subjected to a life of repetitive, rhythmic involuntary movements such as tongue thrusting, lip smacking, chewing movements, rocking of the trunk, marching in place and repetitive sounds such as humming or grunting. Zyprexa is among a host of anti-psychotic drugs that doctors are encouraged to prescribe for off-label uses by manufacturers. According to an article published last summer in The Globe & Mail (August 13, 2002), medical ethics professor Miriam Shuchman, MD, stated that the biggest difference between the approved and unapproved use of a drug is the evidence that backs it up. To get a medical condition approved or "on-label," drug companies must convince the FDA that high-quality studies show that the drug makes a real difference for people with that condition. Off-label uses of a drug typically have not been subjected to that level of scrutiny. "To boost sales and circumvent the FDA approval process drug manufacturers like Eli Lilly are actually encouraging their sales reps to push secondary uses of these anti-psychotic drugs and regularly review reports of the frequency of doctors prescribing these meds for off-label uses," added Mr. Hersh. "In many cases, off-label sales account for the bulk of revenues generated by these drugs. Our intention in the case against Eli Lilly is to also shine a light on the severe damage caused by this kind of dubious sales and marketing practice." For more details, contact Shelly Gordon by Mail: 650/856-1607 or by E- mail: sgordon@g2comm.com or contact Lisa Byrne by Phone: 415/221-5018 by E-mail: lisa@lisabyrne.com ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Denies Charges in RI Consolidated Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enterasys Networks, Inc. filed an answer to the amended consolidated securities suits filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of District of Rhode Island. The complaint alleges that the Company and several of its officers and directors disseminated materially false and misleading information about the Company's operations and acted in violation of federal securities suits from March 3, 1997 to December 2, 1997. The complaint further alleges that certain officers and directors profited from the dissemination of such misleading information by selling shares of the Company's common stock during this period. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought on behalf of the class. In a ruling dated May 23, 2001, the court dismissed this complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and, in a ruling issued on November 12, 2002, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 17, 2003, the defendants filed an answer denying all material allegations of the complaint. If the plaintiffs prevail on the merits of this case, the Company could be required to pay substantial damages. ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Asks Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enterasys Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and: (1) former chairman and chief executive officer Enrique Fiallo, (2) former chief financial officer Robert Gagalis, (3) former chief executive officer of Cabletron Systems, Inc. Payush Patel, and (4) David Kirkpatrick, former chief financial officer of Cabletron The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that during periods spanning from June 28, 2000 and August 3, 2001 and in the period between August 6, 2001 and February 1, 2002, defendants issued materially false and misleading financial statements and press releases that overstated the Company's revenues, income, and cash, and understated the Company's net losses, because the defendants purportedly recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the Company's own accounting policies in connection with various sales and/or investment transactions. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class against all of the defendants, jointly and severally as well as fees, costs and interest and unspecified equitable relief. On February 10, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. If plaintiffs prevail on the merits of the case, the Company could be required to pay substantial damages. FIRST YEARS: Gives Instructions For 120T Step Stools For Injury Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The First Years, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by providing a new instruction sheet for 120,000 "2-In-1 Fold-Away Tub and Step Stools." When used as a tub, babies' body parts can be pinched if the product's footrest is not fully extended so that it clicks into place firmly. The Company have received 20 reports of babies being pinched while using these tubs, including one bruising of a baby boy's genitalia and 10 reports of abrasions to toes and feet. This recall to replace the stools' instructions is being conducted to prevent further incidents. These "2-In-1 Fold-Away Tub and Step Stools," have model number 3141 written on the underside of the base. The product is a folding baby bathtub that can be used as a step stool for an older child. In the step stool position, the top of the turquoise lid has raised lettering stating "the first years" followed near the bottom of the lid with the two statements, "MAXIMUM LOAD/POIDS MAXIMUM: 200lbs/90kg" and "USE ONLY ON A LEVEL SURFACE. N'UTILISER QUE SUR UNE SURFACE PLANE." In the bathtub position, the seat back has a purple pad. The base and footrest are both white. Also, on the underside of the base is a tiny raised clock showing the year of manufacture of the product (i.e., "9?9") surrounded by the numbers of the clock. Only products bearing date codes 1999 and 2000 ("9?9" or "0?0") are included in this program. Mass merchants nationwide sold these bathtub/stools between January 1999 and February 2002 for about $17. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 533-6708 between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday to receive free revised instructions and a warning label to attach to the product, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.thefirstyears.com. GREENWOOD HEALTH: Fire Breaks Out, Leaving Ten Dead, Several Injured -------------------------------------------------------------------- A fire broke out in Greenwood Health Center, a nursing home in Hartford, Connecticut, killing ten people last Wednesday, the Associated Press reports. Nurses and rescue worker hauled more than a hundred patients out of the building as the fire swept through part of the single-story brick building before dawn. Police have obtained a search warrant for the home, as well as detained a 23-year-old resident. Officers detained the woman hours after the fire broke out Wednesday at Greenwood Health Center, police Lt. Michael Manzi told AP. However, police Chief Bruce Marquis said the woman was undergoing medical care and "thus deemed not stable at this moment." The 148 patients at the home included the elderly, mentally handicapped and a young man who had been in a coma for three years. Mayor Eddie Perez said the facility also handled younger psychiatric patients. A nursing supervisor, three nurses and eight nurses' aides were on duty when the fire erupted. Family members flooded the facility's parking lot in the hours after the fire, peering into the home's windows in hopes of spotting loved ones, the Associated Press reports. After several hours, Debbie and Donald Duford finally found her 53-year-old brother, Bill Carroll, a mentally retarded man with a lung ailment. "We expected the worst, but reminded ourselves that he was ambulatory," she said. "He said he wasn't scared." Fire Marshal William Abbott said there was no sprinkler system in the building, but said it was up to code and fire extinguishers were present. He told AP it was not clear whether the building had a "grandfathered" exemption from sprinkler requirements or was exempt from them because of its layout or occupancy. Investigators have yet to determine a reason for the blaze, Lt. Manzi told AP. KINDER MORGAN: KS Court To Decide on Certification For Royalties Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for the plaintiffs asked the Stevens County, Kansas District Court to certify as a class action a nationwide lawsuit filed against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, and other natural gas pipelines and many of their affiliates. The suit also names as defendants certain entities the Company acquired in the Kinder Morgan Tejas acquisition. The suit alleges a conspiracy to underpay royalties, taxes and producer payments by the defendants' under-measurement of the volume and heating content of natural gas produced from nonfederal lands for more than twenty-five years. The named plaintiffs purport to adequately represent the interests of unnamed plaintiffs in this action who are comprised of the nation's gas producers, State taxing agencies and royalty, working and overriding owners. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and fees from the defendants, jointly and severally. This action was originally filed as a class action against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates, including certain Kinder Morgan entities. Subsequently, one of the defendants removed the action to Kansas Federal District Court and the case was styled as Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., Case No. 99-1390-CM, United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On January 12, 2001, the suit was remanded to the State Court in Stevens County, Kansas. The state court has issued a case management order addressing the initial phasing of the case. In this initial phase, the court will rule on motions to dismiss (jurisdiction and sufficiency of pleadings), and if the action is not dismissed, on class certification. Merits discovery has been stayed. Recently, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on grounds other than personal jurisdiction, which was denied by the Court in August 2002. The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction of the nonresident defendants has been briefed and is awaiting decision. The current named plaintiffs are: (1) Will Price, (2) Tom Boles, (3) Cooper Clark Foundation and (4) Stixon Petroleum, Inc. One of the original plaintiffs, Quinque Operating Company has been dropped from the action. On January 13, 2003, a motion to certify the class was argued. A decision on this motion is pending. KINDER MORGAN: Discovery Commences in TX Natural Gas Producers' Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Preliminary discovery is commencing in the class action filed against Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LP and Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP in the United States District Court in Wharton County, Texas. The suit also names as defendants: (1) Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., (2) Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline GP, Inc., (3) Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline GP, Inc., (4) Tejas Gas, LLC and (5) HPL GP, LLC The first amended complaint purports to bring a class action on behalf of those Texas residents who purchased natural gas for residential purposes from the so-called "Reliant Defendants" in Texas at any time during the period encompassing "at least the last ten years." The suit alleges that Reliant Energy Resources Corp., by and through its affiliates, has artificially inflated the price charged to residential consumers for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from the non-Reliant defendants, including the above-listed Kinder Morgan entities. The suit further alleges that in exchange for Reliant Energy Resources Corp.'s purchase of natural gas at above market prices, the non-Reliant defendants, including the above-listed Kinder Morgan entities, sell natural gas to Entex Gas Marketing Company at prices substantially below market, which in turn sells such natural gas to commercial and industrial consumers and gas marketers at market price. The suit purports to assert claims for fraud, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and violations of the Texas Utility Code against some or all of the defendants, and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants, and seeks relief in the form of, inter alia, actual, exemplary and statutory damages, civil penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and a constructive trust ab initio on any and all sums which allegedly represent overcharges by Reliant and Reliant Energy Resources Corporation. On November 18, 2002, the Kinder Morgan defendants filed a motion to transfer venue and, subject thereto, original answer to the first amended complaint. Based on the information available to date and the Company's preliminary investigation, the Kinder Morgan defendants believe that the claims against them are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NV Personal Injury Suit --------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action filed against Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP appealed the United States District Court of Nevada's decision dismissing the suit, in the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The suit also names as defendants: (1) the city of Fallon, Nevada, (2) United States Department of the Navy, (3) Exxon Mobil Corporation, (4) Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP, (5) Speedway Gas Station and (6) John Does I-X The suit asserts that a leukemia cluster has developed in the City of Fallon, Nevada. The suit alleges that the plaintiffs have been exposed to unspecified "environmental carcinogens" at unspecified times in an unspecified manner and are therefore "suffering a significantly increased fear of serious disease." The plaintiffs seek a certification of a class of all persons in Nevada who have lived for at least three months of their first ten years of life in the City of Fallon between the years 1992 and the present who have not been diagnosed with leukemia. The suit purports to assert causes of action for nuisance and "knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of material facts" against all defendants, and seeks relief in the form of "a court-supervised trust fund, paid for by defendants, jointly and severally, to finance a medical monitoring program to deliver services to members of the purported class that include, but are not limited to, testing, preventative screening and surveillance for conditions resulting from, or which can potentially result from exposure to environmental carcinogens," incidental damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants responded to the suit by filing motions to dismiss on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On November 7, 2002, the court granted the motion to dismiss and further dismissed all claims against the remaining defendants for lack of Federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and leave to amend, which was denied by the court on December 30, 2002. On December 3, 2002, plaintiffs filed an additional suit entitled "Frankie Sue Galaz, et al v. United States of America, City of Fallon, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Berry Hinckley, Inc., and John Does I-X," in the same court, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same purported class against virtually the same defendants, including the Company. On February 10, 2003, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Galaz complaint on the grounds that it also fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This motion is currently pending before the court. Based on the information available to date and the Company's preliminary investigation, it believes that the claims against it in the two suits are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. RANDOM HOUSE: Voluntarily Recalls 360,000 Book Sets For Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Random House, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 360,000 children's board book sets. The book sets were sold in cardboard boxes with plastic snaps. The plastic snaps can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. The Company has not received any reports of injuries involving these book sets. This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries. The boxed sets included in the recall have children's characters on the front of the box, a colored plastic handle and plastic snaps. The book set titles are "MONSTERS TO GO!," "DISNEY PRINCESS - DISNEY THE PRINCESS COLLECTION 2," "DISNEY'S WINNIE THE POOH - A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS," and "BARBIE - MY BARBIE FUN BOX." Each book set contains four board books inside. Only book sets with plastic snaps are included in the recall. Book sets with metal snaps are not part of the recall. Book, discount department stores and online retailers sold the recalled books nationwide from August 2002 through January 2003 for about $10. For more details, contact Tri-State by Mail: c/o Anthony Armetta, 325 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge, NY 11788 to receive a free replacement book set, and a refund for postage, or contact the Company by Phone: (800) 805-8534 ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.randomhouse.com. REZULIN LITIGATION: Lawyers Seek Class Certification For Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The lawyers for 5,000 West Virginia residents recently appeared before the state's Supreme Court, asking that class-action certification be granted the lawsuit brought by these plaintiffs, all of whom have taken the diabetes drug Rezulin, which has been linked to at least 63 deaths nationwide, the Associated Press Newswires reports. Raleigh County Circuit Judge John A. Hutchinson denied the plaintiffs' class action certification request, in 2001, saying tests did not conclusively prove that the drug causes liver damage. After a number of liver-related deaths were linked to Rezulin, the Food and Drug Administration, in 2000, banned the drug, which already had generated $2.1 billion for manufacturer Warner-Lambert. They are really saying that "diabetics are undeserving of being in a class because they are sick," said Deborah McHenry, who was one of the attorneys who represented the plaintiffs. "But they weren't (undeserving as a class) when the bean counters were preparing their magic-bullet wonder drug (for their class to ingest)." ROTO-ROOTER INC.: OH Court Grants Certification To Consumer Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio State Court certified as a class action a consumer fraud suit against Roto-Rooter, Inc., Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, LLP, co-counsels for the plaintiffs said in a joint statement. The court certified a class of Roto-Rooter customers in thirty-five states who were charged a fee purportedly for "miscellaneous supplies." An estimated two million customers were charged the fee in varying amounts, as much as $9.95 or $12.95. Plaintiff, a resident of Cleveland, Ohio, alleges that the fee was pre-printed on form invoices and served as an illegitimate device to boost Roto-Rooter's profits, because the fee had no actual relation to any supplies used. The class certification order was entered yesterday afternoon by Judge Bridget M. McCafferty of the Ohio Court of Common Pleas. The court has not made any ruling on the merits of any claims or defenses asserted by any party. Commenting on the court's order, Lieff Cabraser partner Jonathan D. Selbin stated, "Judge McCafferty's order was thorough and well-written. We are gratified that the Judge recognizes that a class action is the appropriate tool for consumers to take on shady corporate practices." Joshua Cohen of the Ohio law firm of Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, LLP, stated, "We believe that Roto-Rooter improperly charged customers across the country collectively millions of dollars. Because the amount charged each customer wouldn't warrant an individual lawsuit, a class action is the only way these customers will have their day in court." The defendants named in the class action are: (1) Roto-Rooter, Inc., (2) Roto-Rooter Services Company, Inc., (3) Roto-Rooter Management Company, (4) Roto-Rooter Corporation, and (5) Chemed Corporation Plaintiff alleges that from October 1999, through July 1, 2002, all Roto-Rooter company-owned stores were providing customers with a preprinted invoice assessing a "miscellaneous supplies" charge on every service call. Company-owned stores were allegedly required to use the preprinted form invoices on every job. The complaint alleges that that the fee was collected on service calls for drain cleaning or plumbing work regardless of whether miscellaneous supplies were actually used. If questioned by customers, the complaint alleges that Roto-Rooter intentionally misrepresented or concealed the nature of the charge and the basis for the "miscellaneous supplies charge." The multi-state class certified by the Ohio court consists of all persons and entities who reside in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, or West Virginia, and who were charged a miscellaneous supplies charge in connection with services provided by a Roto-Rooter company-owned store during the period of October, 1999, through July 1, 2002. For more details, contact Jonathan D. Selbin by Mail: 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: (212) 355-9500 by E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com or contact Joshua Cohen by Mail: The Western Reserve Building - Suite 705, 1468 West Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 by Phone: (216) 781-7956 by E-mail: jrc@crklaw.com UNITED STATES: Judge Says Army Delays Access To Nazi Gold Train Records ----------------------------------------------------------------------- US District Court Judge Patricia Seitz told Justice Department attorneys and those for the US Army that "your superiors are dragging their feet," and "the conduct is unacceptable." Judge Seitz was referring to a request by Hungarian Jews, who are suing the US government, and want access to examine Holocaust Commission records about a Nazi gold train commandeered by US troops, Associated Press Newswires reports. The Hungarian Jews are suing the government, saying that the United States illegally sold or distributed the contents of the train seized in 1945, days after the Allied victory over the Germans in World War II. Samuel Dubbins, an attorney for the families, wrote Judge Seitz last week to complain, "The United States still continues to do everything in its power to delay further a proper accounting for its conduct." The families claim riches seized from 800,000 people were loaded onto a train that moved from Hungary to Austria to avoid the advancing Soviet troops days after Germany's surrender. However, US troops intercepted the 44-car train, and its 1,200 Oriental carpets, gold, silver, jewelry and other valuable were sold or looted. Compensation was never made to the owners of the property. Survivors say the handling of the train's contents violated US Army policy and international treaties. The lawsuit was filed in 2001, as a class action, covering anyone with property on the train. The families are claiming that the government has backed away from an agreement to pursue access to presidential records after weeks of talks, because a motion that could delay the case indefinitely was pending. Attorneys for the families said that the Justice Department and the Army had been working on the wording of an agreement for a records search to be performed by the National Archives on former President Clinton's presidential papers in Little Rock, Arkansas. President Clinton had appointed members to the Holocaust Commission. The US government has asked for dismissal of the case, but Judge Seitz ruled last August that Hungarian Jews and their heirs should be allowed to pursue the lawsuit. Furthermore, the judge refused to allow a pre- trial appeal on the dismissal. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Schemed To Artificially Inflate Stock Price ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The shareholders of UnumProvident Corporation have filed two class actions against the foremost disability insurer in federal court, in Chattanooga, Tennessee, charging that the defendants improperly denied some claims in order to artificially inflate its stock price, the Associated Press Newswires reports. At least two complaints seeking class action status have been filed since the company announced February 5 that it has recorded investment losses of $93 million and was responding to a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation for information relating to its investment disclosures. The complaints allege that UnumProvident, President and CEO Harold Chandler and chief financial officer Robert C. Grieving inflated the price of the company's securities by failing properly and promptly to state losses to its investments and by improperly denying insurance claims, in order to pursue an accelerated securities sale program. "As with most securities suits, somebody told a lie," said Samuel Rudman, a partner of New York-based Cauley, Geller, Bowman, Coates and Rudman, one of the law firms representing the shareholders in the case. Mr. Chandler and Mr. Grieving "knew that by concealing Unum Provident's true financial results they could foster the perception in the business community that Unum Provident was a 'growth company,' " asserted the first complaint. The second complaint contends the company's "forward-looking statements" in financial disclosures are not protected from litigation because UnumProvident officials knew such statements were false. The filings cover a period beginning May 7, 2001, after UnumProvident announced earnings of $147.6 million after-tax operating income. The company's stock then rose $3.75 to reach $32.27 nine days later on the New York Stock Exchange. The day after the company announced its $93 million loss this month, shares closed at $14.45, a drop of 55 percent from the 2001 high. UnumProvident shares closed at $12.78 last Tuesday. A court hearing will be held by mid-April to determine whether the case will continue. If defendants' motion to dismiss is not granted, lead plaintiff and lead counsel will be designated, the latter usually being the attorney or firm representing the largest group of shareholders, Mr. Rudman said. UnumProvident was created by the merger, in 1999, of The Provident Companies of Chattanooga and the Unum Corporation in Portland, Maine. The company employs about 6,000 people. VENTAS INC.: Court Dismisses With Prejudice Shareholder Derivative Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Jefferson County, Kentucky Circuit Court dismissed with prejudice the stockholder derivative filed against certain of Ventas, Inc.'s officers and directors on behalf of the Company and Kindred, Inc. and The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants damaged Kindred and the Company by engaging in violations of the securities laws, including engaging in insider trading, fraud and securities fraud and damaging the reputation of Kindred and the Company. The suit seeks unspecified damages, interest, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs, and any extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief permitted by law or equity to assure the plaintiff has an effective remedy. The company believes the allegations in the suit are without merit. On October 4, 2002, Kindred filed with the court a motion to dismiss this action as to all defendants, including the Company, for lack of prosecution by the plaintiffs. On October 17, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice. On October 17, 2002, the plaintiffs filed with the court a motion to vacate that order of dismissal in order to allow further briefing. Kindred, on behalf of the Company, intends to continue to defend this action. VENTAS INC.: DE Court Refuses To Allocate Portions of Reorganization -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Bankruptcy Court refused to set aside portions of Ventas, Inc.'s releases from its reorganization plan for plaintiffs of a class action filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and employees, originally filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The suit alleges that the Company and certain current and former officers and employees of the Company engaged in a fraudulent scheme to conceal the true nature and substance of the 1998 Spin Off resulting in: (1) a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, (2) bankruptcy fraud, (3) common law fraud, and (4) a deprivation of plaintiffs' civil rights The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to act affirmatively to explain and disclose the fact that the Company was the entity that had been known as Vencor, Inc. prior to the 1998 Spin Off and that a new separate and distinct legal entity assumed the name of Vencor, Inc. after the 1998 Spin Off. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants filed misleading documents in the plaintiffs' state court lawsuits that were pending at the time of the 1998 Spin Off and that the defendants deceptively used the Delaware bankruptcy proceedings of Vencor, Inc. (now known as Kindred Healthcare, Inc.) to stay lawsuits against the Company. As a result of these actions, the plaintiffs maintain that they and similarly situated individuals suffered and will continue to suffer severe financial harm. The suit seeks compensatory damages (trebled with interest), actual and punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, declaratory and injunctive and any and all other relief to which the plaintiffs may be entitled. Before any class of plaintiffs was certified, this action was dismissed in its entirety on February 4, 2002 because it was deemed to be an impermissible collateral attack on the Delaware Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an appeal of the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. However, on plaintiffs' motion, the appeal was stayed after the plaintiffs separately filed a motion with the Delaware Bankruptcy Court seeking, among other things, to have the Delaware Bankruptcy Court set aside portions of the releases of the Company contained in the Kindred Reorganization Plan, as such releases might apply to the plaintiffs. On September 19, 2002, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The Sixth Circuit appeal has been resumed by the plaintiffs. Kindred, on behalf of the Company, intends to contest the Sixth Circuit appeal vigorously. WASHINGTON DC: Suits Filed v. Over Police Action During Demonstrations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nearly 400 people were arrested in a small park next to the expanded White House Security zone, during demonstrations against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on September 27 of 2002, Associated Press Newswires reports. The incident has led to a class action filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice and the National Lawyers Guild, because of arrests characterized as "pre-emptive and wrongful" and detention conditions described as "inhumane" by D.C. Council member, Kathleen Patterson, D-Ward 3, who chairs the council's Judiciary Committee. Ms. Patterson's remarks, which were based on an internal review of the September 27 demonstration arrests and detentions, were made during a recent hearing of the Judiciary Committee at which Mayor Anthony Williams and his top aides defended the police department's handling of political protests and accompanying arrests. "We must bring this illegal government conduct to a halt," said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co- counsel for the plaintiffs arrested during the September 27 demonstration. As lead attorney for the Partnership for Civil Justice, Ms. Verheyden-Hilliard contends district officials have engaged in "unconstitutional preventive detention tactics." The September 27, 2002, lawsuit is but one of several class actions filed on behalf of more than 1,100 demonstrators since April 2002. Some demonstrators have charged that they were held for more than 18 hours, while a computerized booking procedure was bogged down. Mayor Williams said the police are revising some of their procedures to improve the general treatment of detainees and expedite their processing following arrests. WEST VIRGINIA: EPA Faces Lawsuit Over Non-review Of State's Water Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The West Virginia Rivers Coalition has sued the EPA on behalf of West Virginia residents because that agency has failed to act on clean water standards the state revised in 2001, in order to comply with the federal Clean Water Act's mandate that updated water quality standards be imposed regularly on the state's waterways, Associated Press Newswires reports. The environmental group's complaint says EPA's Region III office in Philadelphia, has not acted on standards the state revised in 2001, to comply with the federal Clean Water Act. The standards were drafted in response to EPA concerns over previous standards submitted in 1998 and 1994. States must review and, if necessary, revise their water quality standards every three years. Revisions must be submitted to the EPA for approval. Failure of the EPA to act on West Virginia's proposals, says the Coalition's executive director Jeremy Muller, means the state "is not using protective water quality standards as it writes permits and develops river cleanup plans." "West Virginia gets polluted water because EPA is sitting back and not requiring the state to fix these standards," said Mr. Muller. Regulations stemming from the federal Clean Water Act require the EPA to a standard submitted to the agency in 60 days, or reject it within 90 days. If a state then fails to address the concerns, which must accompany the EPA's rejection, then the federal agency must itself write updated standards for the state to follow. New Securities Fraud Cases AMERCO: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada Court --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, on behalf of purchasers of Amerco (Nasdaq: UHAL) common stock during the period between February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002, inclusive. This action has been expanded to include investors of Amerco 8.5% Series A preferred shareholders (preferred stock) (NYSE: ao--pa) who purchased their shares between February 12, 1998 and October 15, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges Amerco and certain of its officers and directors with violating the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements during the class period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants caused Amerco to engage in transactions with SAC Holding Corporation and SAC Holding Corporation II (SAC Holdings), which falsely improved Amerco's financials, and which served to benefit Amerco insiders to the detriment of Amerco shareholders. According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose the true nature and financial impact of the transactions to the public. The complaint further alleges that Amerco failed to disclose that defendants used Amerco's resources to identify, purchase, and/or develop self-storage properties, which it then sold to SAC Holdings for inadequate consideration or caused SAC Holdings to buy. SAC Holdings, owned and controlled by Amerco insiders, thereby received substantial benefit from transactions which otherwise served to falsely improve Amerco's financials. On September 26, 2002, Amerco restated its 2002 financial results in an amended 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2002, and restated its 2001 and 2000 financials for the second time. The complaint charges that as a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements during the class period, Amerco's stock price was artificially inflated, averaging approximately $18 per share. In the weeks following news of the above events, Amerco's share price tumbled to less than $5, causing plaintiff and other members of the class to suffer damages, according to the complaint. Moreover, on October 15, 2002, Amerco defaulted on a $100 million bond issue payment. The very next day, Amerco preferred stock fell to a class period low of $8.55. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, 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 ARIBA INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action against Ariba, Inc. (NASDAQ: ARBAE) and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities, other than defendants, who purchased Ariba common stock between January 11, 2000 and January 15, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges Ariba and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws. It alleges that beginning in January of 2000 and throughout the class period, defendants issued numerous positive statements in press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding Ariba's revenue growth and projections. These statements falsely portrayed Ariba's business prospects and artificially inflated and maintained the price of Ariba common stock. On January 15, 2003, Ariba announced that it would restate all of its financial results for ten quarters, covering the quarter ended March 31, 2000 through the quarter ended June 30, 2002, and the fiscal years for 2000 and 2001. The Company further announced on that date that it may be delisted by the NASDAQ Stock Market because it has not filed its annual report with the SEC for 2002. Ariba's stock plunged 15% on the day of this announcement. For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Hae Sung Nam, by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-1952 by Fax: (212) 687-7714 or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com ATMEL CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Shareholder Derivative Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a shareholder derivative lawsuit against Atmel Corporation (Nasdaq:ATML) on behalf of the Company. The suits allege, generally, that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between January 20, 2000 and July 31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Atmel securities. For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone: (212) 213-6222 CARREKER CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Commences Securities Suit in TX ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Carreker Corporation (Nasdaq: CANIE) and certain of its officers, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Carreker common stock from May 20, 1998 through December 10, 2002. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002. According to the complaint, Carreker filed financial statements during the class period with the SEC which represented that revenues, income, and earnings were growing consistently and robustly, and that the Company had achieved several consecutive quarters of record growth, attributing its purported success to the Company's business model and strong demand for its products. The complaint also alleges that the Company expressly assured investors of its "dedication to transparent reporting practices," highlighting the "quality and integrity of (Carreker's) accounting and corporate governance practices." According to the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading in that Carreker omitted to disclose that it had artificially inflated its reported revenues, income, and earnings throughout the class period by engaging in improper revenue recognition practices. On December 10, 2002, Carreker stunned the market when it disclosed that it was investigating whether the Company improperly recognized revenues by accounting for revenues up-front, or in a single quarter, instead of over several quarters ratably, as required by applicable generally accepted accounting principles. The improper recognition of revenues will require the restatement of Carreker's financial statements filed during the class period beginning with the 1998 fiscal year report. In response to the disclosure of Carreker's true financial condition, its common stock plummeted from a close of $5.08 on December 9, 2002 to $3.93 per share at the close of trading on December 10, 2002. The decline represents a one day loss of almost 23%. Subsequently, the SEC commenced an investigation into the Company's accounting practices, which is ongoing. For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick, Casey M. Preston or Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com CARREKER CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Commences Securities Suit in TX ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Carreker Corporation (NASDAQ: CANIE) between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, against the Company, John D. Carreker, Jr., and Terry L. Gage. The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false financial statements between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company securities. The Company has announced that it will restate its financial results during this period. For more details, contact Kenneth or Julie Vianale by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801, Boca Raton, Florida 33486 by Phone: 561-391-4900 or by E-mail: info@vianalelaw.com GEORGESSON SHAREHOLDER: Two Lawfirms Lodge Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC and Berger & Montague, PC filed a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, against: (1) Georgeson Shareholder, Inc., (2) Georgeson Shareholder Communications, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary, (3) Georgeson Shareholder Securities Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary, and (4) AT&T Corporation The suit was filed on behalf of all security holders who, during the period from December 2000 through the present, exchanged MediaOne Corp. shares for shares of AT&T pursuant to the June 2000 merger between AT&T and MediaOne, using Georgeson as the exchange agent. Plaintiff alleges that defendant AT&T authorized defendant Georgeson to engage in a "post-merger clean-up," pursuant to which Georgeson disseminated notices urging shareholders who had not already done so, to promptly exchange their MediaOne shares for AT&T shares. Plaintiff further alleges that Georgeson's notices misled shareholders into believing that they were required to exchange their shares through Georgeson, or else to forfeit all value of the shares, and further allege that Georgeson charged an exorbitant "processing fee" for this service, amounting to twelve percent (12 %) of the value of each shareholder's stock. In fact, however, shareholders could have exchanged their shares directly through the transfer agent or other brokers at little or no cost. For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Mary Ann Fink of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500 - West Tower Washington, DC 20005 by Phone: 888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600 by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cmht.comor contact Peter R. Kahana, or Kimberly A. Walker of Berger & Montague, PC by Mail: 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888/891-2289 or 215/875-3000 by Fax: 215/875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com LEXENT INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of all shareholders of Lexent, Inc. against Kevin M. O'Kane, the Chief Executive Officer and Vice Chairman of Lexent, and Hugh J. O'Kane, the Company's Chairman, charging that they violated their fiduciary duties in connection with their recent offer to acquire the remaining shares of the Company they do not currently own for $1.25 per share in cash. Kevin M. O'Kane and Hugh J. O'Kane collectively own approximately 52% of Lexent's outstanding shares, and are the only members of the Company's Board of Directors. For more information, contact James E. Miller by Phone: 1-866-540-5505 by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com, or Scott R. Shepherd, by Phone: 1-877-891-9880 by E-mail: shepherd@classactioncounsel.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.classactioncounsel.com ROYAL AHOLD: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Royal Ahold, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities of KONINKLIJKE AHOLD N.V. d/b/a ROYAL AHOLD, Inc. (NYSE: AHO) between May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003, inclusive. 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 securities. During the class oeriod, defendants issued many statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which depicted the Company's net income and financial performance. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they omitted and/or misrepresented several undesirable facts, such as that, during the class period, AHOLD had significantly overstated its operating earnings for its US Foodservice division. The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked sufficient internal controls resulting in an inability to determine the true financial condition of AHOLD, which lead to the value of the Company's net income and financial results being materially overstated at all pertinent times. On February 24, 2003, before the market opened for trading, AHOLD announced that it discovered over $500 million in "overstatements of income related to promotional allowance programs", requiring the Company to restate its previously-issued financial reports for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Following this report, shares of AHOLD declined over 60%, to close at $4.16 per share, on volume of more than 16 million shares traded, or nearly thirty times the average daily volume. For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to AHOLD. ROYAL AHOLD: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Lawsuit in MD Court ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, against Royal Ahold NV (NYSE:AHO), two of the Company's top officers/directors, and the Company's independent auditor, Deloitte & Touche Registered Accountants, on behalf of investors who purchased the American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of Ahold during the period between May 15, 2001 and February 21, 2003, inclusive. The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly reported earnings. In particular, defendants overstated operating earnings by $500 million in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by recognizing more money in promotional allowances provided by suppliers to promote their goods than that Company actually received. Before the market opened on February 24, 2003, Ahold announced that it will restate its financial statements for fiscal year 2001 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2002 to correct the inappropriate accounting for discounts from suppliers at its US Foodservice division, which is headquartered in Columbia, Maryland. The Company also announced that its Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers, defendants Cees van der Hoeven and Michael Meurs, respectively, had been fired and that several US executives had been suspended. In addition, the Company announced that it has uncovered "questionable" transactions in its investigation of certain transactions and the accounting treatment thereof at its Argentine subsidiary, Disco. In response to the Company's announcement, Ahold's ADRs fell $6.52, or 61%, to $4.16 on volume of 16,197,900 units traded. The Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) has launched an investigation of the Company's accounting practices. For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: (888) 476-6529, (888) 4-POMLAW by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.pomlaw.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 * * *