/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 17, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 118 Headlines CATHOLIC CHURCH: Gov. Keating's Remarks Chafe CA Cardinal CITIGROUP INC.: Investor Lodges Suit For Securities Fraud in NY DIGITAL IMPACT: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit DIGITAL IMPACT: Named as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit in FL ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: Guilty of Fraud on Stent-Graft Device ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: K.B. Moll To Commence Injury Lawsuit HEWLETT PACKARD: Suits Over Printer Cartridges in Various Stages HEWLETT PACKARD: Certification For Consumer Suit Set This Month HEWLETT PACKARD: Named as Defendant in NY Apartheid Litigation IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Allows Securities Lawsuit To Proceed IMPERIAL TOY: CPSC Initiates CA Suit Over Unsafe Children's Toys MICHAELS STORES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging CA Labor Code Violations MICHAELS STORES: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Suit in Ontario Court ZOOCATS INC.: TX Attorney General Stops Animal Exhibit Operation New Securities Fraud Cases ADMINISTAFF INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Texas ADMINISTAFF INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX ADMINISTAFF INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files TX Securities Suit ALLIANT ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. WI ALLIANT ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA BARRICK GOLD: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY BARRICK GOLD: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY BARRICK GOLD: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Rabin Murray Files Securities Suit in TX eUNIVERSE INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in CA FEDERAL HOME: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY GUIDANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in IN SARA LEE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL ********* CATHOLIC CHURCH: Gov. Keating's Remarks Chafe CA Cardinal --------------------------------------------------------- Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony criticized former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating over a statement the governor made this week comparing some unnamed members of the church hierarchy to the Mafia, the Associated Press reports. Gov. Keating is the head of a national panel reviewing priest abuse allegations. He had earlier told the Los Angeles Times, "I certainly have concluded that a number of serious officials in my faith have very clay feet. To act like La Cosa Nostra and hide and suppress, I think, is very unhealthy." Cardinal Mahony said Gov. Keating's statements outraged him and that he may ask his fellow bishops to consider removing him from the panel. "All I can say is, from the bishops I've listened to - and several called me this morning - this is the last straw," Cardinal Mahony told the Los Angeles Times. "To make statements such as these - I don't know how he can continue to have the support of the bishops. I don't know how you back up from this." However, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley lauded Gov. Keating's remarks, saying the archdiocese has been "aggressively resisting" turning over subpoenaed church documents relating to investigations. Gov. Keating "apparently has been as frustrated as we have been in our efforts to secure information," he told the Associated Press. Atty. Cooley's office is investigating allegations of sexual abuse by the clergy. His office has charged eight current or former priests and a former seminarian with sexually abusing children and expects more charges. Church lawyers have refused to disclose documents containing communication between Cardinal Mahony and the suspected priests, arguing those documents are protected by the First Amendment. The issue is pending before a judge, AP states. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' president Bishop Wilton Gregory of Illinois appointed Gov. Keating to head the National Review Board last year to survey all 195 US dioceses and determine how many priests had been accused of sexual abuse since the scandal surfaced in January 2002. Cardinal Mahony's initial resistance to that survey led to conflict between Gov. Keating and the cardinal, who heads the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese. Gov. Keating accused Cardinal Mahony of listening "too much to his lawyer and not enough to his heart." "I appreciate he's watching out for the best interests of his diocese," Gov. Keating told the Los Angeles Times this week. "But we have a mandate for transparency, full disclosure and openness. That's what we're carrying out." Cardinal Mahony called the former governor's remarks "irresponsible and uninformed," AP reports. Archdiocese spokesman Todd Tamberg said Mahony has never met, spoken to nor corresponded with Gov. Keating. CITIGROUP INC.: Investor Lodges Suit For Securities Fraud in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District Court in Manhattan, New York by an investor who bought more than $400,000 in Class "B" shares of three mutual funds sponsored by Smith Barney, a Citigroup unit, Reuters reports. Investor Kathleen Fitzgerald alleged that she was defrauded into putting her money into the funds, which cost too much. Ms. Fitzgerald charged Salomon Smith Barney, as the unit was then known, with failing to inform her that investors with more than $100,000 might avoid "unnecessary" fees by instead buying Class "A" or "L" shares, which have different fee structures. The suit was filed on behalf of shareholders who invested at least $100,000 in B shares of Smith Barney funds and might otherwise have qualified for a load reduction on A shares, since July 1998. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages plus litigation costs. "We did an extensive amount of financial analysis on the investments that she made and other mutual fund investments offered by Salomon Smith Barney," Joel Bernstein, a partner at Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP in New York, who represents Ms. Fitzgerald, told Reuters in an interview. "It appeared that there is no economic sense, especially for those who invest $100,000 or more, to invest in Class B shares at all." A Citigroup spokeswoman declined to comment, saying she had not seen a copy of the complaint, Reuters reports. DIGITAL IMPACT: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Digital Impact, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and certain investment bank underwriters for the Company's initial public offering (IPO). The suit alleges, among other things, that undisclosed and improper practices concerning the allocation of the Company's IPO shares, violated the federal securities laws, and seek unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock during the period from November 22, 1999 to December 6, 2000. Other actions have been filed in New York making similar allegations regarding the IPOs of more than 300 other companies. All of these lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.21-MC-92. Each of these companies, including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss the complaints in the Southern District of New York in July 2002. In October 2002, the complaints against the individual current and former directors and officers were dismissed without prejudice. In February 2003, the motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part. The court did not dismiss any claims against the Company. However, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims against it and will defend itself vigorously. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel and based on currently available information, the ultimate disposition of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition or results of operations. DIGITAL IMPACT: Named as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit in FL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Digital Impact, Inc. was named as a defendant in a securities class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint names as defendants over forty companies and their respective directors and officers, including the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit plaintiff is not alleged to have bought or sold Digital Impact stock. The Company anticipates that this new case will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and coordinated with the existing IPO-related litigation. ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: Guilty of Fraud on Stent-Graft Device ---------------------------------------------------------------- Endovascular Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Indianapolis- based Guidant Corporation, pleaded guilty to covering up malfunctions that may have led to 12 deaths during aneurysm treatments, the Associated Press reports. The medical devices manufacturer could be liable for $92.4 million in penalties after it pleaded guilty to 10 felonies relating to its Ancure "stent-graft" device, used during operations to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms. The offenses include shipping misbranded products and making false statements to government regulators. Executives of the Company may also face charges. "Because of the company's conduct, thousands of patients underwent surgeries without knowing the risks they faced," US Attorney Kevin Ryan said at a news conference, AP reports. "These actions were criminal." The stent-graft device was voluntarily recalled in March 2001, before it was reintroduced five months later. The device, inserted through the groin, was designed to let doctors patch the aneurysm without requiring risky surgery to open the abdomen. The Food and Drug Administration first approved the device, which resembles a fishing pole, in 1999. An aneurysm is a weak spot in the wall of the aorta - the body's largest blood vessel - that bulges like a balloon until the pressure of pounding blood bursts it, the Associated Press reports. In a statement after the device was reintroduced, the Company assured that the issues have been resolved. The company said none of the more than 18,000 patients who have Ancure Endograft implants is at risk because the problems highlighted by the case occurred during the procedure. In court documents unsealed Thursday, federal prosecutors said that the Ancure device often malfunctioned and that company representatives asked doctors to use it in ways not approved by the government, AP states. The Company allegedly failed to report more than two thousand malfunctions of the device, thus hiding the risks from the public. The Company also allegedly failed to disclose that other, more invasive operations were required after the device failed. ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: K.B. Moll To Commence Injury Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. intends to file a class action based on claims that a device that treats abdominal aortic aneurysms, which was developed and manufactured by Endovascular Technologies, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Guidant Corporation (Guidant), has led to numerous deaths and serious injuries. According to Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd., Guidant developed, manufactured and distributed a medical device known as the Ancure Endograft System (Ancure Device), which is used to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms. Guidant was aware of numerous malfunctions of its product, but failed to file thousands of MDR's with the FDA. In fact the full extent of the malfunctions were knowingly concealed from patients, physicians and the public. According to the Chicago-based firm, the Ancure Device was approved for commercial distribution in the United States in September 1999, and withdrawn from the market on March 15, 2001. During this period, Guidant filed 172 MDR's with the FDA, but later admitted during the criminal investigation that it failed to file an additional 2,628 MDR's, out of the 7,632 devices that were sold during that period. Among the unreported incidents, there were at least 12 deaths and at least 57 unreported emergency procedures in which the physician had to convert the operation into a more invasive procedure, according to the firm. According to the firm, more than 18,000 patients worldwide have been implanted with Ancure devices. With a failure rate of over one third there could be over 6,000 failed devices. On June 12, 2003, Guidant announced that it pled guilty to a US Department of Justice Criminal Investigation charging it with nine counts of introducing misbranded medical device into interstate commerce, and one count of making false statement to the FDA. As part of a recent plea agreement and a civil settlement agreement, Guidant will pay $92.4 million. Kenneth B. Moll states that "the primary goals of the lawsuit will be to inform the public of the egregious conduct of this manufacturer and to provide complete compensation to each and every victim of the failed devices." For more details, contact Kenneth B. Moll or Arlene N. Farolan by Phone: 312/558-6444 by Fax: 312/558-1112 by E-mail: lawyers@kbmoll.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kbmoll.com HEWLETT PACKARD: Suits Over Printer Cartridges in Various Stages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hewlett Packard Company faces several class actions filed in different jurisdictions all over the country by customers who claim that they purchased printers with half-full or "economy" ink cartridges instead of full cartridges. The first suit was commenced in the Superior Court of California in Riverside County in July 2000. Suits in 32 additional states followed. The various plaintiffs throughout the country claim to have purchased different models of HP inkjet printers over the past four years. Plaintiffs claim that HP's advertising, packaging and marketing representations for the printers led the consumers to believe they would receive full cartridges. These actions seek injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees under various state unfair business practices statutes and common law claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The Company obtained summary judgment against plaintiffs in the California action, which the plaintiffs are appealing. The Company also obtained summary judgment in Wisconsin, Kansas and Arizona. The matter has been certified as a class action in North Carolina state court, and a trial date has been set for August 25, 2003. The Ohio and New York litigation has been dismissed. In Connecticut, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action. In Oregon and Washington, the case has been dismissed without prejudice. The litigation is in various stages in other jurisdictions. HEWLETT PACKARD: Certification For Consumer Suit Set This Month --------------------------------------------------------------- Class certification hearing in the consumer class action filed against the Hewlett Packard Company has been set for June 30,2003 in Texas state court. Two suits were initially filed against the Company. The first suit, Alvis v. HP was filed in United States District Court in Jefferson County, Texas by a resident of eastern Texas. A similar suit captioned LaPray v. Compaq was filed in United States District Court in Jefferson County, Texas. On the motion of plaintiffs' counsel, the matters were dismissed in the United States District Court and refiled in Texas state court in Beaumont, Texas. These actions are part of a series of similar suits filed against several computer manufacturers. The basic allegation is that the Company and Compaq Computers sold computers containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy disc controller errors. That failure is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption. The plaintiffs in both suits seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, rescission and attorneys' fees. In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002. Compaq has filed a petition for review by the Texas Supreme Court. On June 5, 2003, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review the trial court's certification of a class and requested oral argument on a date to be determined. A class certification hearing has been set for June 30, 2003 in the suit. On June 4, 2003, two other suits were each filed in United States District Court in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with factual allegations similar to those in first two suits concerning computers sold by HP and Compaq, respectively. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, class certification, declaratory relief, damages and attorneys' fees. In addition, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, the General Services Administration Office of Inspector General and other Federal agencies are conducting an investigation of allegations that the Company made or caused to be made false claims for payment to the United States for computers known by the Company to contain defective parts or otherwise to perform in a defective manner relating to the same alleged floppy disk controller errors. The Company also continues to provide information to state attorneys general in California and Illinois in response to similar inquiries. The Company is fully cooperating with these inquiries. HEWLETT PACKARD: Named as Defendant in NY Apartheid Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hewlett Packard Company was named as a defendant in a class action filed in the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and former South African citizens and their survivors who suffered violence and oppression under the apartheid regime. The suit also names numerous other multinational corporations as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and other companies helped perpetuate, and profited from, the apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by selling products and services to agencies of the South African government. Claims are based on: (1) the Alien Tort Claims Act, (2) the Torture Protection Act, (3) the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and (4) a variety of other international laws and treaties relating to violations of human rights, war crimes and crimes against humanity The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200 billion, costs and attorneys' fees. This matter is in the early stages of litigation. IMCLONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Allows Securities Lawsuit To Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld two related securities class actions and sustained allegations against ImClone Systems, Inc. and Harlan Waksal. These cases are private actions seeking to recover damages on behalf of purchasers of Company securities from March 27, 2001 to January 28, 2002. The complaints charge the Company and certain of its officers and directors with issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's publicly traded securities, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states. Throughout the class period, defendants issued multiple press releases highlighting the successful progress of its "Fast- Track" application to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of IMC-C225, its blockbuster drug used for the treatment of colorectal cancer and also known as Erbitux, and the positive impact that the drug's approval would have on the Company's revenues. The suit further alleges that defendants filed their application, despite lacking the skill and expertise to make a proper filing, in order to convince Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to purchase at least $1 billion in Company stock, of which approximately $150 million was tendered by insiders, including the individual defendants, and to convince Bristol-Myers to make an additional $1 billion cash investment in the Company. On December 28, 2001, the Company disclosed that the FDA had refused to accept its deficient and defective application for approval of Erbitux, confirming almost two weeks of speculation that had already driven down the price of Company stock by 21%, from a class period high of $73.83 per share on December 5, 2001 to $55.25 per share at the close of regular trading on December 28, 2001. Immediately following this shocking revelation, however, Company shares dropped precipitously, falling $5.25 per share in after hours trading, or 9.5%, to close that session at $50 per share. On December 31, 2001, shares continued to trade lower, and closed at $46.46 per share. David R. Scott, Managing Partner at Scott + Scott, LLC, co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the suit, stated that the Court's decision was not unexpected. "This is the first step and we are pleased with this decision," Mr. Scott said. "The case can now move forward." William C. Fredericks, a partner at Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, co-lead counsel, stated "that in light of this decision, the case will now move swiftly into the discovery phase of the litigation." He also stated, that "he is quite pleased with how the proceedings have moved along thus far." For more information, contact David Scott by Phone: 800/404-7770 or by E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com or Neil Rothstein by Mail: 800/404-7770 or 619/251-0887 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott- scott.com or contact Steven G. Schulman by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: sgs@mwbhlny.com IMPERIAL TOY: CPSC Initiates CA Suit Over Unsafe Children's Toys ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) filed suit against Imperial Toy Corporation, of Los Angeles, California, and the Company's president, Fred Kort, alleging that the Company repeatedly imported and sold children's toys that violate federal safety standards and pose serious choking hazards. The suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeks a civil penalty and a court order preventing the Company from committing any further illegal actions. The complaint charges that in May 1998, Imperial imported 4,300 candy-filled plastic trucks, called "Candy Road Machines," that were intended for children under 3 years old, but failed to comply with the federal small parts regulations. Tests conducted by commission staff resulted in small pieces breaking off the toy trucks, which young children could place in their mouths and choke on. After recalling the "Candy Road Machines" in October 1998, Imperial allegedly sold another 22,000 units on numerous occasions, even though the toys were known to present a hazard to young children. In October 2000, Imperial allegedly imported 5,700 "Cuddles Feeding Set" toys, knowing that the products were dangerous to young children, based on two previous recalls (in 1990 and 1995) of the same toys. The baby doll feeding sets, which were also sold as "My Dolly's Meal Time" and "Cuddles Meal Time," failed the commission's small parts test. It is illegal to sell products intended for children under 3 years old that violate the small parts regulations of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. The US Department of Justice's Office of Consumer Litigation is representing the Commission in federal court. MICHAELS STORES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging CA Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michaels Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles by Donald Brown, Thomas Lamour, and Sau Yeung, acting on behalf of themselves and the general public. The suit also names as defendants a number of employers, including Aaron Brothers, Inc., a wholly owned Company subsidiary. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated California Labor Code provisions that prohibit employers from requesting job applicants to disclose prior criminal convictions for specified marijuana-related infractions or participation in certain criminal diversionary programs. MICHAELS STORES: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors face a consolidated securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The suit asserts various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to actions prior to the Company's announcement on November 7, 2002, that, among other things, it had revised its outlook for the fourth fiscal quarter of 2002, adjusting downward its guidance for annual earnings per diluted share. The complaints charge that, prior to that announcement, the Company and certain of the other defendants made misrepresentations and omitted to disclose negative information about the financial condition of the Company while the individual defendants were selling shares of the Company's common stock. MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Suit in Ontario Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michaels Stores, Inc. and Michaels of Canada, ULC, its wholly owned subsidiary, face a class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by James Cotton, a former store manager of Michaels of Canada and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of Canada. The suit was filed on behalf of themselves and current and former employees employed in Canada. The suit alleges that the defendants violated employment standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces and territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime compensation as required by that legislation. The claim also alleges that this conduct was in breach of the contracts of employment of those individuals. The claim seeks a declaration that the defendants have acted in breach of applicable legislation, payment to current and former employees for overtime, damages for breach of contract, punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, and costs. Although the Company believes it has certain meritorious defenses, given the early stage of the proceedings, it is premature at this time for it to comment on issues of liability and damages. ZOOCATS INC.: TX Attorney General Stops Animal Exhibit Operation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott obtained an emergency court order in Kaufman County, an action taken to prevent harm to the public from a traveling hands-on exhibit featuring wild jungle cats and cubs. These include tigers, leopards, lions and cougars, which nonprofit ZooCats Inc. of Kaufman has advertised as theme exhibits at children's birthday parties, weddings, commercial and media events, and educational settings. In addition, the charitable assets of ZooCats and related nonprofits, as well as operator Marcus Cline-Hines Cook, are frozen as the result of the temporary restraining order issued by District Judge Howard Tygrett. The judge also named Dallas attorney Robert Trimble as temporary receiver. He will oversee placement of the wild cats and other animals in the professional care of the International Exotic Feline Sanctuary in Boyd, northwest of Fort Worth. "This operator deliberately downplayed the potential danger of these animals, as well as the group's safety record and trainer qualifications, letting children and adults touch and hold them without regard for disease or possible physical harm," said Attorney General Abbott in a public appearance at the sanctuary last week. "This dangerous deception against the public, and the organization's false assertions about its charitable intentions, led our legal experts to conclude that we needed to act quickly." ZooCats has exhibited the animals at the Mesquite Rodeo, Six Flags Over Texas, the Dallas ArtFest and various private schools. It has also set up show booths at a number of events in North Texas where children and adults may hold and feed the animals and have their pictures taken for a fee. The principal facility housing the animals, which also include wolf pups, a bear and a zebra, is near Kaufman. ZooCats obtains its animals through donations from zoos, sanctuaries and refuges, but the group also purchases them from exotic breeders. Operator Cook has made public claims about his group's perfect safety record. To the contrary, ZooCats has been cited numerous times by the US Department of Agriculture for violations such as failing to keep the adult animals under the control of a trained animal handler and for failure to maintain structurally sound facilities to prevent escape. The organization also falsely claims to be distributing charitable funds it collects for its services. It purports to represent, and donate funds to, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation's Save the Tiger Fund, and wildlife programs underwritten by ExxonMobil. These organizations claim no affiliation with ZooCats and have not given Mr. Cook permission to use their logos or trademarks in exhibits. Mr. Cook also has falsely claimed an affiliation with the Dallas World Aquarium. The Attorney General also suspects that Mr. Cook has misappropriated charitable assets for personal use and will ask the court to correct this abuse of public funds. The state will request civil penalties under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Nonprofit Corporations Act. Also requested are attorneys' fees and reimbursement of investigative costs associated with the case. ZooCats-related nonprofits, which are also named in today's lawsuit, include Zoological Studies Group, ZooCats Zoological Systems, Specialized Species Humane Society Inc., Zoo America Inc., and Technology Specialities and Research Group Inc. New Securities Fraud Cases ADMINISTAFF INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of Administaff, Inc. (NYSE: ASF) publicly traded securities during the period between April 3, 2001 to July 31, 2002, inclusive. 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 issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 3, 2001 and July 31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Administaff securities. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that Administaff had inadequate and deficient pricing and billing systems and was incorrectly calibrating pricing for clients that experienced declines in average payroll cost per worksite employee; (2) that Administaff was incorrectly matching the price and cost for health insurance on new and renewing client contracts; and (3) that, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and in order to retain its coveted place on the Fortune 500 listing, Administaff was improperly recognizing revenue by failing to net Administaff's worksite employee payroll costs against revenues. On August 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff shocked the investing public when it released its financial and operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2 million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call estimates of $0.04 earnings per share. Market reaction was swift and negative, with Administaff stock falling from a close of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of $4.20 on August 1, 2002, or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy trading. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Candace Randle by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com ADMINISTAFF INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of Administaff, Inc. (NYSE: ASF) publicly traded securities during the period between April 3, 2001 to July 31, 2002, inclusive. 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 issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 3, 2001 and July 31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Administaff securities. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that Administaff had inadequate and deficient pricing and billing systems and was incorrectly calibrating pricing for clients that experienced declines in average payroll cost per worksite employee; (2) that Administaff was incorrectly matching the price and cost for health insurance on new and renewing client contracts; and (3) that, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and in order to retain its coveted place on the Fortune 500 listing, Administaff was improperly recognizing revenue by failing to net Administaff's worksite employee payroll costs against revenues. On August 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff shocked the investing public when it released its financial and operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2 million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call estimates of $0.04 earnings per share. Market reaction was swift and negative, with Administaff stock falling from a close of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of $4.20 on August 1, 2002, or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy trading. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 ADMINISTAFF INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files TX Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of all purchasers of Administaff, Inc. (NYSE:ASF) securities from April 3, 2001 through July 31, 2002, inclusive. 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 issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between April 3, 2001 and July 31, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Administaff securities. The complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that Administaff had inadequate and deficient pricing and billing systems and was incorrectly calibrating pricing for clients that experienced declines in average payroll cost per worksite employee; (2) that Administaff was incorrectly matching the price and cost for health insurance on new and renewing client contracts; and (3) that, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and in order to retain its coveted place on the Fortune 500 listing, Administaff was improperly recognizing revenue by failing to net Administaff's worksite employee payroll costs against revenues. On August 1, 2002, before the open of trading, Administaff shocked the investing public when it released its financial and operational results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002, reporting "a net loss and diluted net loss per share of $3.2 million and $0.11" as compared to Thomson Financial/First Call estimates of $0.04 earnings per share. Market reaction was swift and negative, with Administaff stock falling from a close of $7.50 on July 31, 2002 to a close of $4.20 on August 1, 2002, or a single-day decline of 44% in heavy trading. 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: (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com ALLIANT ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. WI ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT) between January 29, 2002 to July 18, 2002, inclusive. The action, is pending against the Company and: (1) Erroll B. Davis, Jr. (CEO, President and Chairman), (2) Thomas M. Walker (CFO) and (3) John E. Kratchmer (Chief Accounting Officer, Controller) The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between January 29, 2002 to July 18, 2002. The complaint alleges that the Company falsely touted the performance of its non-regulated businesses and represented that those businesses would compensate for expected 2002 weakness in its utilities operations. The complaint further alleges that the Company also represented that its unregulated businesses were integral to the Company's operations and were key to the Company's expected annual growth rate of 7%-10%. Such statements were materially false and misleading when made, the complaint alleges, because defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the unregulated businesses were suffering from serious problems, that such businesses were a material drain on the Company overall and could not compensate for any weaknesses in the regulated businesses and that the Company could not meet its 2002 earnings targets by the results of its utilities businesses alone. On July 18, 2002, the Company announced that it was cutting its 2002 earnings expectations by over 35%. Investors, conditioned by defendants class period statements, reacted by selling-off the stock, which fell by 23% in one day, from $23.78 per share on July 18, 2002, to $18.22 per share on July 19, on unusually heavy trading volume. A few months after the end of the class period, the Company announced that it would sell many of its non-utility assets as part of an effort to re-focus its business around the Company's utilities operations. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 ALLIANT ENERGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WI ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT) from January 29, 2002 through July 18, 2002, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Alliant and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business condition. Specifically, Alliant represented that its non- regulated businesses were having a substantial positive effect on the Company's earnings. Throughout the class period, defendants concealed that Alliant's non-regulated businesses were not contributing to the Company's earnings; rather such businesses operated as a drain on its earnings. On July 18, 2003, Alliant issued a press release announcing that it was lowering its adjusted earnings guidance to a range of $1.35 to $1.55 per diluted share from its previous guidance of $2.10 to $2.30. On this news, Alliant fell 23% from its previous day's close of $23.78 per share to close at $18.22 per share. For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, PC by Phone: (800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com. AVERY DENNISON: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Avery Dennison Corporation (NYSE: AVY) from July 24, 2001 through April 14, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges Avery and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Avery failed to disclose that its financial results during the Class Period were a product of a tacit and illegal anti-competitive scheme with its leading competitor, UPM-Kymmene, OYJ (UPM), whereby the Company and UPM manipulated the labelstock supply market. The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements to the marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Avery's shares. The statements disseminated by the defendants during the Class Period failed to disclose and indicate: (1) that Avery was engaged in an illegal anti-competitive scheme with UPM to drive a more stable price environment within the labelstock industry; (2) that the Company's financial results were a product of its anti-competitive behavior; (3) that the Company knew that its anti-competitive behavior could possibly subject the Company to regulatory scrutiny in the future if such anti- competitive behavior was discovered; and (4) that its financial results would be materially impacted if the Company were forced to stop its anti-competitive behavior. On April 14, 2003, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a press release wherein it announced that it intended to file a civil antitrust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago to block UPM from acquiring Morgan Adhesives Company (MACtac). Among the reasons given for filing the suit, the DOJ stated that its investigation had revealed that the merger between UPM and MACtac was one in which Avery and UPM sought to coordinate. Additionally, on April 14, 2003, Avery announced that the DOJ had started a criminal investigation into competitive prices in the labelstock industry and would shortly issue a subpoena to the Company in connection with that investigation. On April 15, 2003, the DOJ filed its complaint against UPM. Therein, the DOJ alleged that UPM and Avery were in ``positions of marketplace dominance and had significant incentives to engage in explicit competitive coordination.'' The DOJ also alleged that evidence of competitive coordination was enhanced by a ``longstanding strategic paper supply relationship'' between UPM and Avery. The DOJ further alleged that ``the supply relationship provided UPM and Avery with the motivations, opportunities, and means to coordinate on price, monitor adherence, punish cheating, and engage in side payments that could be hidden in label paper transactions.'' News of Avery's anti-competitive behavior shocked the market. On April 15, 2003, Avery's stock fell $4.19 on unusually high trading volume to close at $55.94. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 BARRICK GOLD: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE:ABX) between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by e-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com BARRICK GOLD: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: ABX - News) between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002 inclusive. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and: (1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12, 2003), (2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and (3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO) The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002. For example, throughout the class period, Barrick assured the markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn $0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which increases costs) in several of its mines. These representations were materially false and misleading, according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated assurances that production and costs would continue to improve in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very least, recklessly disregarded by them. On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines (which, the Company misleadingly represented during the class period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002). In reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to $15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800)320-5081 by E-mail: barrickcase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: ABX) between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002 inclusive. The action, is pending against the Company and: (1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12, 2003), (2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and (3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO) The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002. For example, throughout the class period, Barrick assured the markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn $0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which increases costs) in several of its mines. These representations were materially false and misleading, according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated assurances that production and costs would continue to improve in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very least, recklessly disregarded by them. On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines (which, the Company misleadingly represented during the Class Period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002). In reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to $15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182 BARRICK GOLD: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: ABX) publicly traded securities during the period between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002, inclusive. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12, 2003), (2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and (3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO) The defendants allegedly 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 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002. For example, throughout the class period, Barrick assured the markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn $0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which increases costs) in several of its mines. These representations were materially false and misleading, according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated assurances that production and costs would continue to improve in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very least, recklessly disregarded by them. On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines (which, the Company misleadingly represented during the class period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002). In reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to $15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Candace Randle by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Rabin Murray Files Securities Suit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Daisytek International Corporation securities (NasdaqNM:DZTK) during the period from November 9, 2001 to April 28, 2003, both dates inclusive. The complaint names James R. Powell, Ralph Mitchell, and Peter Wharf as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning Daisytek's financial results during the class period which artificially inflated the price of Daisytek securities. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants improperly accounted for uncollectible accounts receivables and vendor rebates receivables in order to inflate the Company's financial results. As a result of their misconduct, the Individual Defendants were able to sell their personal holdings in the Company's stock for over a million dollars in proceeds. Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the class period, the individual defendants permitted the Company to enter into a $200 million credit facility, raise additional capital, and caused Daisytek to benefit economically from their wrongful course of conduct. On April 28, 2003, Daisytek announced that it expected significant losses as a result of a write-down of customer and vendor receivables on inventory and large restructuring charges. Subsequently, Daisytek announced the resignation of both its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Sharon Lee by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E- mail: email@rabinlaw.com eUNIVERSE INC.: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District Of California, on behalf of all open market purchasers of securities of eUniverse, Inc. (NASDAQ:EUNI) during the period July 30, 2002 through May 5, 2003, inclusive. The named defendants are the Company, Brad D. Greenspan and Joseph L. Varraveto. The complaint charges defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934. eUniverse operates a network of web-sites and e-mail newsletters that provide users with high-tech products and services. The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, eUniverse issued false and misleading financial statements that caused members of the class to purchase eUniverse securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that eUniverse issued press releases and filed statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that materially overstated the Company's net income and earnings per share. The complaint further alleges that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true value of the Company before issuing and filing the above mentioned press releases and SEC statements. On May 6, 2003, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it intended to restate its financial statements for the second and third quarters of the year ended March 31, 2003 and possibly also for the first quarter of fiscal 2003. The Company also told investors not to rely on its reported financial results for the first three quarters of fiscal 2003. The Company attributed the need for the restatement to incorrect processing of transactions within the Company's accounting system. Following the May 6 announcement the NASDAQ halted trading in eUniverse shares and the SEC initiated an informal inquiry into the Company's announced restatement. For more details, contact Henry J. Young by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone: 212/907-0700 by E-mail: hyoung@glrslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.glrslaw.com FEDERAL HOME: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Federal Loan Mortgage Corporation (NYSE:FRE) securities between January 27, 2003 and June 9, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning Freddie Mac's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Freddie Mac failed to disclose the following facts: (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and personnel expertise; (2) the Company failed to follow accounting rules that require derivative securities to be marked to market; (3) the Company ``smoothed out its earnings'' using accounting techniques to lower results in good times and lift results when business conditions deteriorates; and (4) the Company provided investigators with doctored records to conceal improper accounting techniques. As a result, the price of the Company's securities were artificially inflated during the class period. On June 9, 2003, however, the Company shocked the market when it announced it had fired defendant David Glenn concerning ``serious questions about the timeliness and completeness of his cooperation and candor with the board's audit committee counsel." Moreover, on June 11, 2002, various news sources reported that the US Attorney's office for Eastern Virginia and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) were investigating the Company. For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 or by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com GUIDANT CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in IN --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Indiana on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Guidant Corporation (NYSE:GDT) securities between August 17, 2001 and June 12, 2003, inclusive. 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 issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between August 17, 2001 and June 12, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Guidant securities. The complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System (used to prevent an aneurysm in the heart's main artery from rupturing) was not safe and that it was the cause of over 2,600 incidents that included 12 deaths; (2) the Company failed to notify the FDA regarding the over 2,600 incidents that included 12 deaths resulting from the defective ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System; and (3) the Company engaged in fraudulent sales of the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System On June 12, 2003, the Company agreed to plead guilty to federal charges and to pay $92.4 million for misleading regulators about 12 deaths and serious injuries linked to the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System. For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E- mail: GDT@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com. SARA LEE: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of Sara Lee Corporation (NYSE:SLE) securities between August 1, 2002 and April 24, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and misleading press releases concerning Sara Lee's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Sara Lee failed to disclose, among other facts, that: (1) the Company's Reshaping program was a failure and, consequently, a large part of the Company's portfolio was in businesses that either were not growing or were in significant decline; (2) the Company's increased investment in media advertising and new product development had not started to accelerate growth of the Company's key brands, but rather, the Company's key brands continued to perform poorly; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) the Company lacked any reasonable basis for projecting ``double digit'' operating income increases for fiscal 2003 or diluted earnings per share figures for fiscal 2003. As a result, the price of the Company's securities were artificially inflated throughout the class period, allowing certain Sara Lee insiders to sell $23 million worth of personally held Sara Lee stock. On April 24, 2003, however, the Company shocked the market when it announced it was reducing earnings for fiscal 2003 to $1.50 to $1.52 per share, significantly below consensus expectations. For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 or by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html ********* 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 2003. 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 * * *