/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030703.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 3, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 130 Headlines ACTERNA CORPORATION: Faces Securities Litigation in Maryland ADVANCEPCS: AZ Court Dismisses Marantz Case re ERISA Violation ADVANCEPCS: Court Consolidates Suits Alleging ERISA Violations ADVANCEPCS: Fighting Two Antitrust Lawsuits in California ANDERSEN: Worldcom Gets Green Light to Proceed with Lawsuit CALIFORNIA: New Privacy Breach Notification Law Now in Effect CORRPRO COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Lawsuit CREDIT CARD LITIGATION: Court Ruling on Issuers' Fees Disclosure ENRON CORPORATION: Reaches Tentative Accord With Creditors EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Class Certification of LA Suit FOREST LAB: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuits in IL FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Suffolk County Suit Has No Merit GUNTHER: Court Denies Andersen Appeal re CT Class Action Order MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Throws Out Suits Alleging Faulty Research MYLAN: Court Dismisses In Part, Consolidates Antitrust Suits MYLAN LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of CA Cases MYLAN LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Tentatively Okays $35M Settlement PAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Firms Hit By Drug Recall Refused Payouts PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Will Answer Shareholder Complaint on July 23 PCS HEALTH: Intends To Fight Certification of NJ ERISA Lawsuit PEAK INTL: NY Lawsuit Settled for $4M Pending Court Approval POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Commences in MA Fraud Suit SELECTICA INC: NY Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit SELECTICA: CA Court Sustains Motion to Dismiss Derivative Suit * Crawford's Risk Sciences Group Celebrates 25 Years * McGlinchey Opens Mortgage Banking Services Office in Dallas New Securities Fraud Cases CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Lawsuit in FL DIVINE INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL GOLDMAN SACHS: Berger & Montague Launches Lawsuit in S.D. NY GUIDANT CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files Lawsuit in Indiana INTERMUNE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in FL ********* ACTERNA CORPORATION: Faces Securities Litigation in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ On April 16, 2003, Sik-Lin Huang commenced class action litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, against Acterna Corporation and certain of its officers and directors alleging that the Company and certain of its officers and directors committed certain securities law violations. The Company is party to several pending legal proceedings and claims. Although the outcome of such proceeding and claims cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the final outcome should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operations or financial position. ADVANCEPCS: AZ Court Dismisses Marantz Case re ERISA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Marantz v. AdvancePCS, case number CIV-01-2413PHX EHC, was a class action filed on or about December 17, 2001 in the United States District Court in Arizona, alleging that the company act as an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) fiduciary and that it has breached certain fiduciary obligations under ERISA. The plaintiff withdrew the class action allegations in April 2002. In March 2003, the court dismissed the plaintiff's apparent effort to reassert possible class action claims. In May 2003, the Marantz case was dismissed based on inadequacies in the plaintiff's pleadings and subsequently the plaintiff filed and amended complaint purporting to address these inadequacies. Currently, the case is proceeding as a single plaintiff seeking to represent one health plan. ADVANCEPCS: Court Consolidates Suits Alleging ERISA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Glanton v. AdvancePCS, case number CIV-02-0507 PHX SRB, previously referred to as Lewis v. AdvancePCS is a class action filed in the United States District Court in Arizona on or about April 19, 2002, alleging that the company has breached certain fiduciary obligations under ERISA. The case purports to be brought on behalf of a class of self- funded health plans; however, a class has not been certified and the company intends to oppose the certification. On about March 31, 2003, the company was served with another complaint (Mackner v. AdvancePCS, case number CIV-03-0607 PHX MHM) in which the plaintiff, a purported participant in a self- funded plan customer of AdvancePCS, sought to bring action on behalf of that plan. Because the Glanton case purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of self-funded plans, the company moved to consolidate the Glanton and Mackner cases. On May 14, 2003, the United States District Court consolidated Mackner into Glanton. ADVANCEPCS: Fighting Two Antitrust Lawsuits in California --------------------------------------------------------- AdvancePCS was named as a defendant in two California State court cases in 2003. One was filed on or about March 17, 2003 in Los Angeles County Superior Court (American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees ("AFSCME") v. AdvancePCS, et al., case number BC292227) against the company and other leading PBMs. The other was filed on or about March 26, 2003 in Alameda County Superior Court against the company and several other defendants (Irwin v. AdvancePCS, et al., case number RG03088693) and is styled as a class action brought on behalf of a class of all public employees that participate in non-ERISA prescription drug benefit plans. However, a class has not been certified and the company intends to oppose such certification. These two California cases allegedly involve non-ERISA plans and make the same general allegations of wrongdoing as made in the Arizona ERISA actions but are brought under California's Unfair Competition Law rather than ERISA. Since the two California actions are related, the company will ask to have them coordinated. The company states, "Although the ultimate outcome in these cases is uncertain, an adverse determination could potentially cause us to change our business practices with respect to formularies, preferred drug listings, rebates, and intervention programs, potentially reducing our profitability and growth prospects. We have denied all allegations of wrongdoing and are vigorously defending these suits." ANDERSEN: Worldcom Gets Green Light to Proceed with Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court of Mississippi has given Worldcom permission to proceed with a class action lawsuit against now-defunct public accounting firm Andersen for failing to properly review and investigate the events that led to the massive accounting fraud, reports AccountingWEB US. At the same time the judged dismissed claims against individual Andersen partners Melvin Dick and Mark Schopper who headed the WorldCom audit, as well as claims against Andersen's umbrella organization and its UK affiliate. Accordingly, Andersen attempted to get the lawsuit dismissed, claiming there was no wrongdoing in its audit of WorldCom. Andersen stated it was not consulted about Worldcom's method of accounting for its costs and that WorldCom officials hid information from Andersen auditors. Previously, a restraining order had been issued preventing Andersen from destroying documents related to the WorldCom issue. CALIFORNIA: New Privacy Breach Notification Law Now in Effect ------------------------------------------------------------- California's Senate Bill 1386 (SB 1386) privacy law goes into effect July 1, 2003, mandating public disclosure of computer security breaches in which confidential information of any California resident may have been vulnerable. To help companies protect themselves and their customers, Threat Focus, Inc., a leader in IT security intelligence for small to medium enterprises, announced that its Threat Focus Diligence web-based product provides best-practices security measures required to satisfy the stringent requirements of most security and privacy regulations, including California's Senate Bill 1386 (SB 1386), HIPAA and Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Threat Focus Diligence is priced from just $49 per month. "California SB 1386 affects every business and organization that stores confidential information about even one California resident, including Social Security, California Driver's License, account, and credit or debit card numbers," said Mark Remington, CEO of Threat Focus, Inc. "Beginning July 1st, 2003, businesses that experience even a single network security breach must publicly disclose that fact to their customers. Threat Focus Diligence identifies more than 1,700 known vulnerabilities, helping companies in their efforts to protect themselves against hackers and other security breaches." According to the 2003 Computer Crime and Security Survey conducted by the Computer Security Institute and the FBI, financial losses in excess of $73 billion occurred in the last year due to computer security breaches. The report also cites that an estimated 36 percent of U.S. companies and government organizations experienced system penetration in the last year alone, with an estimated 1.5 million U.S. citizens being victims of identity theft in the past 12 months. "New security and privacy regulations such as California SB 1386 are designed to compel enterprises to implement the best security practices to protect their computer systems from vulnerabilities," said Jaclynn Bumback, research analyst at In- Stat/MDR, a high-tech market research firm based in Scottsdale, Arizona. "The practice of pretending a vulnerability never happened is no longer an option for companies doing business in California. Companies now have a choice to either secure themselves or face the embarrassment and negative press associated with an insecure system. Even worse, if companies do not publicly disclose security breaches to their customers, they run the risk of being held liable for civil damages or can face class action lawsuits." CORRPRO COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Corrpro Companies, Inc. is a defendant in a purported class action suit filed on June 24, 2002, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint also names certain former and current officers and directors of the Company as defendants. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Corrpro Common Shares during the period April 1, 2000 through March 20, 2002 and alleges violations of the federal securities laws resulting in artificially inflated prices of the Company's Common Shares during the class period. The complaint relates to the Company's announcement that it had discovered accounting irregularities caused by apparent internal misconduct in its Australian subsidiary. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and expenses on behalf of the putative class. On or about May 27, 2003, the District Court granted, with prejudice, the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended and consolidated class action complaint. On June 24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit from the order of dismissal. The Company is unable at this time to make a determination as to whether an adverse outcome is likely and whether an adverse outcome would have a materially adverse affect on its operations or financial condition. CREDIT CARD LITIGATION: Court Ruling on Issuers' Fees Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to decide how credit card issuers must disclose fees they charge when cardholders exceed their credit limits, reported the Houston Chronicle. The case arises originally from a class-action lawsuit brought by Sharon Pfennig. The justices will review a ruling by a divided panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. That court ruled that credit companies must include so-called "over-the-credit-limit" fees in finance charges they disclose to consumers. The industry presently discloses these fees separately as "other charges." U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson asked the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling of the appeals court. There are nearly 1.3 billion U.S. credit card accounts, Mr. Olson said, citing Thomson Financial Media. The class-action lawsuit alleges that Household Credit Services, a unit of Household International, based in Prospect Heights, Illinois, violated the Truth in Lending Act by letting her exceed her credit limit and then imposing fees. Ms. Pfennig, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, also sued MBNA American Bank, which had acquired her account. The bank is a unit of MBNA Corp. A federal district court dismissed Ms. Pfennig's complaint, ruling that the over-the-limit fees are not finance charges. The appeals court reversed, holding that the fee "falls squarely within the statutory definition of a finance charge." Card issuers, however, follow the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation Z, which requires the banks to treat over-the-limit fees separately from finance charges. In his brief, Solicitor General Olson said the appeals court ruling hurts both lenders and consumers. "The decision creates conflicting disclosure rules that will burden credit card lenders, expose lenders to significant liability, confuse consumers and impair the effective administration of Regulation Z," wrote Mr. Olson in his brief. "The existence of conflicting disclosure rules also frustrates [the Truth in Lending Act's] goal of enabling consumers to compare accurately the cost of credit," Mr. Olson wrote. ENRON CORPORATION: Reaches Tentative Accord With Creditors ---------------------------------------------------------- Enron Corp. reached a tentative agreement with its creditors for distributing the diminished assets of its company to its legions of creditors, reported The Asian Wall Street Journal. Enron's reorganization plan, when it has been approved, is likely to specify targeted levels of recovery for the numerous creditors owed tens of billions of dollars. The levels of recovery are likely to total less than 20 cents on the dollar of debt for the vast majority of creditors, people familiar with the negotiations said. Enron has been operating under Chapter 11's U.S. bankruptcy protection since December 2001. Last Friday, the company and its creditors requested bankruptcy-court approval to extend, until July 11, the deadline for filing its plan of reorganization. Enron said, in a court filing, that the extension was required in order to complete a "tentative agreement in principle" between representatives of its unsecured creditors and creditors of its Enron North America Corp. affiliate. The reorganization plan is expected to call for those two groups of creditors to divide the proceeds from the sales of numerous Enron assets, and from the settlement of certain energy trading contracts. Such sales and settlements already have generated nearly $5 billion for the bankruptcy estate. Creditors also are expected to receive ownership stakes in the planned successor companies to Enron, which will engage in scaled-down operations focusing on the former energy giant's pipelines, electric utility and international assets. Enron's position has been that its shareholders are expected to receive nothing. A class action lawsuit, on their behalf, however, is demanding to recover damages from financial institutions and other firms involved in Enron's off-balance sheet financial transactions. When it filed for bankruptcy, Enron listed assets of $49.8 billion, but the values have been scaled back significantly as its energy businesses eroded. The company also took further write-downs due to questionable accounting. Fees for lawyers and other professionals, which through May were approaching $500 million, also have eaten into assets. At the same time, estimates of Enron's liabilities rose. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Denies Class Certification of LA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In June 2002, Exide Technologies was named a defendant in a putative class action filed in Louisiana state court for damages brought by two employees of Ducote Wrecking & Demolition, an independent contractor performing multiple maintenance projects at the Company's Baton Rouge, Louisiana facility. The plaintiffs allege that while they were engaged in work at the Company's facility, they were intentionally exposed to and poisoned by lead, acid, and other heavy metals. Plaintiffs named the Company's insurance carriers and supervisory employee as defendants, along with Ducote. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was denied by the Court in a January 2003 decision. In the same January 2003 decision, the Court dismissed the Company's supervisory employee and the independent contractor defendant from the litigation. The Court also has denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company's insurer has issued a reservation of rights as to the Company's coverage for the alleged claims. FOREST LAB: Remains a Defendant in Antitrust Lawsuits in IL ----------------------------------------------------------- Forest Laboratories Inc. remains a defendant in actions filed in various federal district courts alleging certain violations of the federal anti-trust laws in the marketing of pharmaceutical products. In each case, the actions were filed against many pharmaceutical manufacturers and suppliers and allege price discrimination and conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products. The actions were brought by various pharmacies (both individually and, with respect to certain claims, as a class action) and seek injunctive relief and monetary damages. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has ordered these actions coordinated (and, with respect to those actions brought as class actions, consolidated) in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) under the caption "In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation." On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the consolidated federal class action (which proceeded to trial beginning in September 1998), including the Company, were granted a directed verdict by the trial court after the plaintiffs had concluded their case. By ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial Judge held that no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and stated "the evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence as to individual defendants paltry or non- existent." The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit subsequently affirmed the granting of the directed verdict in the federal class case in favor of the Company. Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed verdict in favor of the Company, the Company has secured the voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in all of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who elected to "opt-out" of the federal class action, cases which were included in the coordinated proceedings, and the dismissal of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims pending in various state courts. The Company, together with other manufacturers, remains a defendant in many of the federal opt-out cases included in the coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. No discovery or other significant proceedings have been taken to date related to these claims. FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Suffolk County Suit Has No Merit ------------------------------------------------------------- On January 14, 2003, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Forest Laboratories Inc., was named as a defendant, together with 29 other manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, in an action brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by the County of Suffolk, New York, as plaintiff. The action alleges that plaintiff County was overcharged for its share of Medicare and Medicaid drug reimbursement costs as a result of reporting by manufacturers of "Average Wholesale Prices" which did not correspond to actual provider costs of prescription drugs. The action includes counts under the Federal RICO and False Claims Acts, as well as claims arising under state statutes and common law. The action asserts substantially similar claims to other actions (none of which include the Company as a defendant) which have been brought in various Federal District and State Courts by various plaintiffs against pharmaceutical manufacturers and which have been assigned to the United States District Court of the District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Pharmaceutical Industry AWP Litigation" for coordinated treatment. The case has been transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordination with these multidistrict proceedings. In June 2003, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts ordered the dismissal of the Federal RICO claims in the consolidated proceedings, but declined to dismiss the various state law claims and other Federal claims. In addition, plaintiffs were allowed a thirty-day period to re-file their complaint to include more specific factual allegations, as required by the Court's ruling. Forest anticipates Suffolk County's complaint will be similarly amended by the plaintiff. The Company believes there is no merit to this action and intends to seek its dismissal. GUNTHER: Court Denies Andersen Appeal re CT Class Action Order -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit was filed against Gunther International Ltd., its then-current chief executive officer and its then-current chief financial officer asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Among other things, the complaint alleged that the Company's financial statements for the first three quarters of fiscal 1998 were materially false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs were seeking compensatory damages and reimbursement for the reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred in connection with the action. In February 2001, the Company reached an out-of-court settlement, which the Court approved in May 2001. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants agreed to pay $595,000 to the plaintiffs, $380,000 of which was paid by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance carrier and $215,000 of which was paid by the Company. In April 2001, prior to the entry of the final order approving the settlement of the Purported Class Action (the "Class Action Final Order"), the Company commenced separate legal proceedings against Arthur Andersen, LLP, its former auditor, in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New London, Connecticut (the "Malpractice Proceedings"). The Malpractice Proceedings sought damages sustained by the Company as a result of Andersen's failure to comply with professional standards in the conduct of certain of its audits of the Company's financial statements. In May 2001, Andersen removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, but the court remanded the complaint to the state court upon the motion of the Company. The Company asserted in the Malpractice Proceedings that Andersen breached its duties to the Company by, among other things, negligently and/or intentionally misrepresenting the Company's true financial condition to the Company, its Board of Directors and its Audit Committee. Andersen vigorously denied any wrongdoing and filed a counterclaim against the Company alleging claims for fraud, negligence, breach of contract, interpleader and indemnification. In addition, Andersen asserted that the Class Action Final Order interposed an effective bar against any recovery in the Malpractice Proceedings. On June 7, 2001, the Company filed a motion to amend the Class Action Final Order to clarify that it has no application to the Malpractice Proceedings. The court granted the Company's motion, and Andersen appealed the court's decision. In February 2003, the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second District entered an Order Voluntarily Dismissing that appeal with Prejudice. As a plaintiff, the Company settled certain litigation in fiscal year 2003 realizing income of $190,000, net of related litigation expenses. MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Throws Out Suits Alleging Faulty Research -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Milton Pollack dismissed two class action lawsuits against Merrill Lynch over faulty analyst research, stating that the plaintiffs -- investors of 24/7 Real Media and Interliant -- failed to establish that omissions in Merrill's research caused the claimed losses when the stock prices of these two companies plummeted after the Internet bubble burst, CBS.MarketWatch.com reports. The suits claimed analyst Henry Blodget and others at Merrill Lynch misled investors by hyping stocks in their research reports to lure investment banking business, reports the Associated Press. Judge Pollack did not find any evidence that former Internet analyst Henry Blodget misrepresented his opinions. The lawsuits are also barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The investors, because of news reports, were on notice of the claims more than one year before bringing their claims, Pollack said. U.S. District Judge Milton Pollack said the two lawsuits were filed by investors who were no more than ``high-risk speculators' who never would have sued had they made money during the dot-com crash rather than lost it. U.S. securities laws were not meant to ``underwrite, subsidize and encourage their rash speculation in joining a freewheeling casino that lured thousands with the fantasy of Olympian riches,' the judge wrote, according to AP. Interliant, based in Purchase, New York, provides Internet security services for businesses and has filed for bankruptcy protection. New York-based 24/7 Real Media is an Internet marketing firm. MYLAN: Court Dismisses In Part, Consolidates Antitrust Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- In February 2001, Biovail Laboratories Inc. filed suit against Mylan Laboratories Inc. and Pfizer Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging antitrust violations with respect to agreements entered into between the Company and Pfizer regarding nifedipine. The Company filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, which was granted. The Company has been named as a defendant in five other putative class action suits alleging antitrust claims based on the same alleged conduct. Two of the class actions have been dismissed in their entirety, and the remaining actions have been dismissed in part and consolidated into a single proceeding. The plaintiffs in the remaining actions, as well as Biovail, are seeking unspecified compensatory and treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs of litigation, restitution, disgorgement, and declaratory and injunctive relief. MYLAN LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of CA Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Laboratories Inc., along with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been named as a defendant in four lawsuits filed in the state courts of California in which the plaintiffs allege the defendants unlawfully, unfairly and fraudulently manipulated the reported average wholesale price of various products, allegedly to increase third-party reimbursements to others for their products. One of these lawsuits was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. None of the three remaining cases has been certified as a class action, although all three cases seek class action and representative status. Plaintiffs seek equitable relief in the form of disgorgement and restitution, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. MYLAN LABORATORIES: D.C. Court Tentatively Okays $35M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- On March 31, 2003, Mylan Laboratories Inc. announced a tentative settlement of a direct purchaser class action related to the sale of lorazepam and clorazepate for a total amount of $35 million. Mylan's co-defendants agreed to an initial contribution of approximately $7.0 million toward the $35.0 million settlement. Mylan's obligation was accrued at March 31, 2003. The co- defendants' contribution was subsequently increased by agreement with Mylan by an additional $10.0 million, which reduces Mylan's share of the total settlement to approximately $18.0 million. Mylan is to receive the $10.0 million in five annual payments of $2.0 million each. On April 11, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted tentative approval of the class action's settlement. This settlement does not include several related cases, and the Company does not believe that an adverse result in any of the remaining lorazepam and clorazepate cases, collectively or individually, would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. PAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Firms Hit By Drug Recall Refused Payouts ------------------------------------------------------------ Firms affected by the Pan Pharmaceuticals drug recall are being refused insurance payouts because a key insurer, ACE Insurance Co., has said the vitamins and drugs involved in Australia's biggest medical products recall were not necessarily harmful, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review. The refusal to pay out on insurance contracts is yet another blow to the hundreds of companies already hit by the Pan scandal. Apart from the large pharmaceutical companies, many smaller companies, including pharmacies, health-food shops, vitamin resellers and manufacturers, have been harmed as the business Pan once provided through its products to sell simply dried up. Pan is in voluntary administration after federal drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, withdrew the company's license after finding it had substituted ingredients in its health products and then faked test results. More than 1600 products were recalled. At least five companies are considering legal action over ACE'S refusal to pay and scores more are likely to be affected by similar refusals. Commonly, making a claim under a product recall or product liability policy requires proof the goods in question either may, or did result in personal injury. "ACE is considering avoiding the policy on the grounds that it needs to be shown there was something wrong with the product," said Ben Slade, class actions manager at Marice Blackburn Cashman. "But without taking a sample from every single product, that is near impossible; especially since in some cases the product has been destroyed." Mr. Slade is acting for an insured company facing the prospect of no payout; he said some industry members have estimated as many as 100 companies could be affected. At least five companies are known to be considering legal action, and more are likely to take action as similar refusals are given applications for insurance payouts. One option for companies with the financial muscle is to pursue Pan itself for the cost of the recall. Pan's voluntary administrator Tony Mcgrath expects claims from creditors and other injured parties to be $100 million to $160 million. Health-care giant Mayne Group's claim against Pan is put at about $43 million. A Mayne spokesman said the company was still working through its insurance issues and was examining a number of possibilities. ACE has retained law firm Wotton & Kearney. Phillip Wotton confirmed that he has provided advice to ACE relating to certain notifications made under its policies. Mr. Wotton also said ACE's product recall insurance provided a more limited type of cover than other policies. PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Will Answer Shareholder Complaint on July 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- On June 4, 2003, Parlux Fragrances, Inc. was served with a shareholder's class action complaint, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Judy Altman, purporting to act on behalf of herself and other public stockholders of the Company. The Complaint names Parlux Fragrances, Inc. as a defendant along with all of its Board of Directors, except Mr. David Stone. The Complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Tender Offer Proposal, dated May 19, 2003 and received from Quality King Distributors, Inc. and Ilia Lekach, the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The proposal requests the formation of a new entity to acquire all of the company's outstanding shares of common stock at a price of $4.00 per share in cash, which was a premium of approximately 60% over the closing price of the common stock of $2.50 on that day. The Proposal was conditional upon the approval of Quality King's lenders and the approval of the company's Board of Directors under Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The shareholder complaint asks that the acquisition be rescinded if it is consummated. In addition, the Complaint seeks unspecified damages, plus the fees, costs and disbursements of Ms. Altman's attorneys. The defendants are currently scheduled to file a written response to the Complaint on July 23, 2003. The Company and the named defendants have engaged Delaware counsel, stating, "We believe that the Complaint is without merit. In addition, the Tender Offer Proposal, which precipitated the Complaint, has been withdrawn. However, there can be no assurance of the ultimate outcome." PCS HEALTH: Intends To Fight Certification of NJ ERISA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- In March 1998, a class action lawsuit captioned Mulder v. PCS Health Systems, Inc., case number 98-1003, was filed in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey. This action alleges that PCS is a fiduciary, as that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, and that the company has breached its fiduciary obligations under ERISA in connection with its development and implementation of formularies, preferred drug listings and intervention programs for its sponsors of ERISA health plans. In particular, plaintiffs allege that the company's therapeutic interchange programs and negotiation of formulary rebates and discounts from pharmaceutical manufacturers violate fiduciary obligations. The plaintiffs want injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The company states, "We believe that we do not assume any of the plan fiduciary responsibilities that would subject us to regulation under ERISA as alleged in the complaint. Although the ultimate outcome is uncertain, an adverse determination could potentially cause us to change our business practices with respect to formularies, preferred drug listings, intervention programs, and rebates, potentially reducing our profitability and growth prospects." A class of plaintiffs has not yet been certified and the company intends to oppose such certification. "We have denied all allegations of wrongdoing." PEAK INTL: NY Lawsuit Settled for $4M Pending Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ On June 29, 1999, plaintiff Dorchester Investors commenced a purported securities class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all TrENDS purchasers against Peak International Limited and: 1) the Peak TrENDS Trust, 2) Mr. T. L. Li, 3) Mr. Jerry Mo, Vice President, Finance, 4) Luckygold 18A Limited and 5) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation (DLJ) The suit charges that the TrENDS prospectus failed to disclose that allegedly significant short selling of the company's common stock was certain to occur at the time of the TrENDS offering. On June 5, 2000, plaintiff and defendants stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice from the action of the company and Mr. Mo. Additionally, Mr. T. L. Li, Luckygold and the company entered into certain indemnification agreements with the Trust and DLJ in connection with the TrENDS offering. Certain of these indemnification agreements may require that under certain circumstances Peak International, Luckygold and/or Mr. T. L. Li indemnify the Trust and/or DLJ from certain liabilities that the Trust and/or DLJ may incur to plaintiff or to the purported plaintiff class. Mr. T. L. Li and Luckygold have, in turn, provided a deed of indemnity to the company pursuant to which Mr. T. L. Li and Luckygold have agreed to indemnify the company from liabilities related to the TrENDS offering. In June 2003, the remaining parties agreed to settle the lawsuit for an aggregate payment of $4,000,000, and the settlement is currently pending approval by the court. Also, the remaining defendants entered into an agreement that will become effective when and if the settlement is approved by the court in which they agreed not to seek contribution or indemnification arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the claims asserted by the plaintiffs. Peak International states, "We believe that this agreement, if approved, will preclude the remaining defendants from asserting claims of indemnification or contribution against us. While there is no assurance that the settlement will be finalized or approved by the court, we believe that the lawsuit will be settled in the near future. Accordingly, we believe it is unlikely that we will have any liability to any party in connection with this matter, including for any claim for contribution or indemnification by DLJ, or that we will have any claim against T. L. Li for indemnification." Peak International Limited is a leading supplier of precision engineered packaging products for the storage, transportation and automated handling of semiconductor devices and other electronic components. POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Commences in MA Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ On November 27, 2000, Richard Bowe SEP-IRA filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against PolyMedica Corporation and Steven J. Lee, PolyMedica's former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, on behalf of himself and purchasers of common stock. The lawsuit demands unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various statements were misleading with respect to the company's revenue and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce fictitious sales. At least one virtually identical lawsuit was subsequently filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against PolyMedica. On July 30, 2001, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the complaints under the caption In re: PolyMedica Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No.00-12426-REK. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on October 9, 2001. The consolidated amended complaint extended the class period to October 26, 1998 through August 21, 2001, and named as defendants PolyMedica, Liberty, Steven J. Lee, former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Eric G. Walters, an Executive Vice President and Clerk of PolyMedica, and Keith Trowbridge, President of Liberty and a Senior Vice President of PolyMedica. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 10, 2001. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this motion on February 11, 2002, and defendants filed a reply memorandum on March 11, 2002. The Court denied the motion without a hearing on May 10, 2002. On June 20, 2002, defendants filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint. The case is currently in discovery. SELECTICA INC: NY Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Between June 5, 2001 and June 22, 2001, four securities class action complaints were filed against Selectica Inc, certain of its officers and directors, and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, as the underwriters of its March 13, 2000 initial public offering (IPO), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 9, 2001, these actions were consolidated before a single judge along with cases brought against numerous other issuers, their officers and directors and their underwriters, that make similar allegations involving the allocation of shares in the IPOs of those issuers. The consolidation was for purposes of pretrial motions and discovery only. On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting essentially the same claims as the original complaints. The amended complaint alleges that the Company, the officer and director defendants and CSFB violated federal securities laws by making material false and misleading statements in the prospectus incorporated in our registration statement on FormS-1 filed with the SEC in March, 2000 in connection with the company's IPO. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that CSFB solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from several investors in exchange for which CSFB allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares of common stock issued in the company's IPO. The complaint further accuses CSFB of entering into agreements with its customers in which it agreed to allocate the common stock sold in the IPO to certain customers in exchange for which they agreed to purchase additional shares of common stock in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The practice is commonly known as "laddering." The complaint also alleges that the underwriters offered to provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company after the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for Selectica's stock. On July 15, 2002, the Company and the officer and director defendants, along with other issuers and their related officer and director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based on common issues. Opposition and reply papers were filed and the Court heard oral argument. Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on October 8, 2002, the individual officers and directors entered into a stipulation of dismissal and tolling agreement with plaintiffs. As part of that agreement, plaintiffs dismissed the case without prejudice against the individual defendants. The Court ordered the dismissal of the officers and directors without prejudice on October 9, 2002. The court rendered its decision on the motion to dismiss February 19, 2003, denying the Company's dismissal. SELECTICA: CA Court Sustains Motion to Dismiss Derivative Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- On April 16, 2002, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, against certain of Selectica Inc.'s officers and directors, against CSFB, as the underwriters of our IPO, and against the Company as nominal defendant. The action was filed by a shareholder purporting to assert on behalf of the Company claims for breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, relating to the pricing of shares in the Company's IPO. On June 6, 2002, the shareholder plaintiff filed an amended complaint dropping the breach of contract claim against CSFB and adding claims against CSFB for breach of an agent's duty to its principal and for violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, based on alleged violations of certain rules of the National Association of Securities Dealers. On November 25, 2002, following the removal of the case to federal court and the subsequent remand of the case back to the state court, the Company and the officer and director defendants filed answers to the amended complaint, preserving certain defenses including defenses based on plaintiff's lack of standing to bring the suit. Also on November 25, 2002, CSFB filed a motion to dismiss the case, on the grounds that the plaintiff lacks standing. That motion was heard on March 4, 2003, and on March 18, 2003 the Court issued an Order sustaining the motion but granting plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. * Crawford's Risk Sciences Group Celebrates 25 Years ---------------------------------------------------- Risk Sciences Group, Inc. (RSG), a subsidiary of Crawford & Company (NYSE: CRDA CRDB), is celebrating 25 years of providing risk management information services (RMIS) this year. This 25th anniversary marks a milestone that was achieved due to the organization's commitment to creating innovative solutions and to offering superior customer service. "Service is what started RSG and continues to be the hallmark of a RSG solution," says Michael Saladino, managing director of RSG. Since its founding in 1978, RSG has grown exponentially from a customer base of six clients and 225,000 claims to over 500 customers and 12,000,000 claims managed daily. "RSG has grown into one of the most successful RMIS providers today, focused on the same mission as in 1978 -- to help clients reduce their overall cost of risk through effective information management and analysis," said Kenneth Ancona, national marketing manager for RSG. Risk Sciences Group (www.risksciencesgroup.com ) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crawford & Company (www.crawfordandcompany.com ). Based in Atlanta, Georgia, Crawford & Company is the world's largest independent provider of claims management solutions to insurance companies and self- insured entities, with a global network of more than 700 offices in 67 countries. Major service lines include workers' compensation claims administration, healthcare management services, property and casualty claims management, class action services, and risk management information services. * McGlinchey Opens Mortgage Banking Services Office in Dallas ------------------------------------------------------------- McGlinchey Stafford, one of the nation's leading law firms in the field of consumer finance, announced the opening of a new office in Dallas that will principally service the residential mortgage banking industry, effective July 1, 2003. McGlinchey Stafford's Consumer Financial Services Group specializes in compliance, regulatory and class action matters for financial services providers throughout the country. The firm adds two partners, Ronald M Bendalin and Eldon L. Youngblood, who will practice in the Consumer Financial Services Group. In addition, the firm will participate in a new affiliate, McGlinchey Stafford and Youngblood & Bendalin, P.L.L.C., which will concentrate its practice in the area of document preparation and related services. McGlinchey Stafford and Youngblood & Bendalin will start operations in Dallas with a fully-staffed day and night shift operations center dedicated to closing and document preparation services for the mortgage banking industry. In addition to enhancing the law firm's legal compliance, regulatory, licensing and litigation capabilities in all fifty states, the new office gives the Firm's clients a one-stop resource for mortgage lending documentation and closing outsourcing needs. According to Vicki Murphy of the Youngblood & Bendalin group, the office currently serves a national clientele from Dallas and over 18 on-site locations. "We are excited to be joining forces with McGlinchey Stafford to combine our highly specialized nationwide closing and document preparation capabilities with their full-service mortgage banking legal resources," said Mr. Bendalin. "We look forward to working with the Youngblood & Bendalin group on a national basis. It expands our national mortgage banking practice by allowing us to provide loan documentation and legal services to our clients," said Bennet Koren, head of McGlinchey's Consumer Financial Services Group. ABOUT McGLINCHEY STAFFORD McGlinchey Stafford was founded in New Orleans in 1974 and has grown into one of the largest law firms based in the southern region of the United States. We currently have seven offices in four states - Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Ohio. Attorneys in these offices work together to maintain a full-service commercial and defense practice in various areas of the law and to provide competent, cost-effective service to our clients. New Securities Fraud Cases CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Lawsuit in FL -------------------------------------------------------------- Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers of Cryo-Cell International, Inc. (Nasdaq:CCELE) publicly traded securities during the period between March 16, 1999 through May 20, 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 March 16, 1999 and May 20, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cryo-Cell securities. During the Class Period, the Company issued statements that failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that the Company had materially overstated its earnings, net income and earnings per share; (2) that the Company continually recognized revenue in violation of generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") and the Company's own internal accounting principles with respect to the following: (a) related-party transactions; (b) revenue sharing agreements; and (c) revenue recognition for the sale Area Licenses; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (4) that as a result, the Company's financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On April 15, 2003, the Company issued a press release wherein it disclosed that it may be necessary to restate its financial results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 because of improper recognition of revenue. Shortly thereafter, on May 20, 2003, the Company issued a press release announcing the resignation of its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP and the Company's continued assessment of certain revenue recognition accounting policies. On news of this, Cryo-Cell shares fell 14%. For queries, contact: Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. by Mail: 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 or by Phone: (612) 339-6900 or by E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com DIVINE INC: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of divine, inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: DVINQ) formerly publicly traded securities during the period between November 12, 2001 to February 18, 2003, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendants Andrew J. Filipowski (Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors) and Michael P. Cullinane (Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President) 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 November 12, 2001, and February 18, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Divine securities. Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts: (i) Divine was engaged in a scheme of inflating its revenues by approximately $65 million by instructing employees of its wholly-owned subsidiary, RoweCom, to offer discounts to library customers that paid cash in advance -- months before payments were due to publishers -- even though Divine had no plan to pay its obligations to publishers, (ii) Divine was fraudulently diverting nearly $74 million from RoweCom's operations, (iii) Divine lacked adequate financial and internal controls with respect to its RoweCom operations, and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Divine lacked a reasonable basis to project profitability by year-end or an ability to maintain its operations without bankruptcy protections. The Class Period ends on February 18, 2003. On that date, Divine announced that "despite efforts over the past several months to minimize operating expenses and various liabilities, its board of directors has determined that it must seek alternatives to protect the value and viability of its operations. As a result, Divine has engaged Broadview International LLC as advisors to assist in exploring strategic options, which may include asset divestitures, comparable transactions, and/or the filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code." In response to this announcement, the price of Divine stock declined precipitously. During the Class Period, Divine completed two acquisitions, among numerous others -- acquiring Viant Corporation and Delano Technology Corporation -- using its common stock as currency. For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone: 888/643-6735 or 610/660-8000, by Fax: 610/660-8080, by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. GOLDMAN SACHS: Berger & Montague Launches Lawsuit in S.D. NY ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Goldman Sachs & Co. (NYSE: GS), and its Senior Technology Analyst Matthew Janiga on behalf of persons who purchased securities of Exodus Communications, Inc. during the period from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001, inclusive. The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading analyst reports on Exodus, a provider of Internet system and network management solutions. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market price of Exodus common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or stabilized during the Class Period. On or about April 28, 2003, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission issued a complaint charging Goldman Sachs with violating numerous rules of conduct of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. and the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., by issuing false and misleading analyst reports on numerous companies. The complaint describes the influence and control exerted by Goldman Sachs' investment bankers on its supposedly independent research analysts, and details how positive ratings and research reports on Exodus issued by defendants to the public were contrary to defendants' more negative assessments of the Company's true value and prospects. For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas M. Risen, Esq. or Kimberly A. Walker, Investor Relations Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 or by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 or by Fax: 215-875-5715 or by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com GUIDANT CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Files Lawsuit in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 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; 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 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: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone: 888/643-6735 or 610/660-8000, by Fax: 610/660-8080, by E-mail at Mhenzel182@aol.com, or visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. INTERMUNE INC: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA ------------------------------------------------------------- Milberg Weiss initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of InterMune Inc. (NASDAQ:ITMN) securities during the period between October 24, 2002 and June 11, 2003. The complaint charges InterMune and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements about one of the Company's leading products, Actimmune. Specifically the complaint alleges that defendants were aware that: (a) InterMune's estimated number of patients on Actimmune, disclosed throughout the Class Period as an accurate and valid means by which to register the level of strength of the demand for Actimmune, was "inherently" unreliable, inconsistent, and lacking in any accountable basis for presentation; (b) there had been disruptions and problems with InterMune's sales and marketing efforts, including extraordinary turnover and lack of proper training; (c) since at least the fourth quarter of fiscal 2002, InterMune was materially understating the level of inventory being held by its distributors, of which millions of dollars worth was being held in excess, and materially overstating its revenues; (d) InterMune lacked adequate and sufficient internal controls and systems; and (e) based on the foregoing, InterMune had no reasonable basis to issue its financial and operational projections. On June 11, 2003, the Company announced that it was cutting its 2003 revenue guidance figures and slashing projected earnings from Actimmune. The Company also announced it had overstated the number of patients using Actimmune and that, contrary to its earlier representations, demand for Actimmune from physicians was flat. These disclosures sent the Company's stock price plummeting to $16.74, a 33% one-day fall. For more details contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone: 800/449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com. PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in FL -------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities of Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:PDX) between April 17, 2002 and June 23, 2003, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pediatrix securities. Significantly, on June 24, 2003, Pediatrix announced that it had been advised that the U.S. Attorney's Office is conducting a civil investigation into Pediatrix's Medicaid billing practices and that the investigation would include a document and information request, informally or by subpoena, within the next few weeks. On this news, Pediatrix's shares fell 24% or $9.90 per share, on unusually high trading volume, to close at $32.20 per share. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq. by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com, or by Phone: (toll free) 877-LEGAL-90. ********* 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 * * *