/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/030728.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 28, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 147 Headlines AOL TIME WARNER: W. Virginia Files Suit For Pension Fund Losses BLACK & DECKER: Recalls 265,000 Cordless Drill For Fire Hazard BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Preliminary Approval Granted to TX Suit CANADA: Vancouver Judge Reserves Ruling on Suit V. Wheat Board CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Routers For Design Flaw, Safety Hazard CATHOLIC CHURCH: Report Reveals Culture of Protection, Secrecy CENTRELINK: Unemployed To Launch Suit Seeking Changes in System CONAGRA FOOD: Recalls Fresh Chicken That May Contain Glass FAX ADVERTISING: Appeals Court Allows Suits Over Unsolicited Ads FGH INTERNATIONAL: NC Attorney General Halts Telemarketing Scam FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Settles Motor Home Owners' Lawsuit in TX GLOBAL COMMODITIES: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites GOODYEAR TIRE: PA Court Remands Entran II Lawsuit To State Court GUSTO FOODS: Recalls No. 1 Bamboo Shoots For Undeclared Sulfites IDAHO: Residents Asked To File Claims in Taxol Antitrust Pact JV TRADING: Recalls Sweetened Jujube Due To Undeclared Sulfites KADOURI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins For Undeclared Sulfites LISY CORPORATION: Recalls Ground Cumin Over Possible Salmonella PHILIPPINES: Human Rights Victims To Promote Compensation Law PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discovery Starts in Chicken Growers' Suit in TX PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss PA Listeria Suit QUALCOMM INC.: Employees Appeal Dismissal of Claims in CO Suit QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in CA Court QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File New Lawsuit For Labor Violations QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Mobile Phone Suits SAN ANTONIO: Recalls 438lbs of Cheese For Undeclared Ingredient SERVICES GROUP: Agrees To Settle Pension Fund Lawsuit For $1.95M SMITHFIELD FOODS: Oral Arguments on Appeal of Suit Set Aug. 2003 STAMPEDE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Beef For E. Coli Contamination TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Given In LA Smokers Suit TRANS WORLD: CA Jury Rules Firm Did Not Defraud Policyholders UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students To Sue Over Tuition Fee Hike New Securities Fraud Cases CENTRAL PARKING: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Suit in TN TRIPOS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MO TRIPOS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO ********* AOL TIME WARNER: W. Virginia Files Suit For Pension Fund Losses --------------------------------------------------------------- The state of West Virginia is commencing a lawsuit against multimedia company AOL Time Warner, Inc. charging it with fraudulent accounting practices that caused the state pension fund to lose $9 million, the Associated Press reports. The suit, filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, follows two suits filed against the Company by the states of California and Ohio. These suits seek to recover more than $450 million and $100 million, respectively, in losses. The West Virginia Investment Management Board filed the suit, charging corporate insiders, bankers and accountants with filing false and misleading financial statements after the the 2001 merger between America Online and Time Warner. The board oversees state pension investments in stock and bond markets. West Virginia filed its own lawsuit against AOL Time Warner rather than participate in a class action case, Craig Slaughter, the investment board's executive director told AP. A company spokeswoman declined to comment. BLACK & DECKER: Recalls 265,000 Cordless Drill For Fire Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Black & Decker (US), Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 265,000 18-volt cordless drill/drivers. The drill's switch can malfunction and overheat, posing the possibility of a fire hazard to consumers. Black & Decker has received twenty reports of melting, smoking, or fires in the drills, including two minor burn injuries. The recalled 18-volt, cordless drill/drivers are orange or jade and have the words, "Black & Decker" printed on the body of the drill. The drill/drivers have the following model numbers and date codes: (1) MODEL NUMBER: CD1800 DATE CODES: 20011952 through 20020652 COLOR: Orange (2) MODEL NUMBER: PS3700 DATE CODES: 973652 through 983052 COLOR: Jade (3) MODEL NUMBER: PS3725 DATE CODES: 20003852 through 20013652 COLOR: Jade (4) MODEL NUMBER: PS3750 DATE CODES: 20002454 through 20005252 COLOR: Jade The model number is printed on the nameplate on the side of the drill and the date code is printed on the bottom of the handle where the battery is inserted (remove the battery to locate date code). The recalled units were manufactured in China. Mass merchandisers, home centers and hardware stores nationwide sold the drill/drivers from September 1997 through February 2002 for between $50 and $80. The drill/drivers were sold separately and as part of various tool kits. For more details, contact Black & Decker by Phone: (866) 821-5444 between 8 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday to receive a free repair. For additional information, visit the Company's Website: http://www.blackanddecker.com. BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Preliminary Approval Granted to TX Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 172nd District Court in Beaumont, Texas granted preliminary approval to a nationwide settlement proposed by Bridgestone Corporation's Firestone Unit for a class action relating to the Company's August 2000 recall of 6.5 million tires, Reuters reports. Under the settlement, consumers who purchased the recalled Wilderness AT and ATX tires but were not personally injured or have property damage will be entitled to a replacement of the tire. The Company will also spend $15.5 million on a three-year consumer education program focusing on tire safety and incorporate technology that would improve the high-speed capability of some tires. Judge Donald Floyd also ordered lawyers for both sides to come up with a plan to notify those eligible for the settlement. The proposal is subject to a final fairness hearing. The Company still faces hundreds of personal injury lawsuits filed after federal authorities linked the tires, mostly installed on Ford Motor Co. F.N Explorers, with 271 deaths and hundreds of injuries. Most of the personal injury lawsuits have been settled out of court. Firestone, based in Nashville, Tennessee, told Reuters it will incorporate the new manufacturing technology involving cap strips, nylon strips or comparable elements in some tires for seven years. It also will pay $19 million in legal fees and $2,500 each to 45 named plaintiffs in the case, a Firestone spokesman said. Consumers who had the recalled Wilderness AT and ATX tires can get more information toll free by calling 866-345-0360. CANADA: Vancouver Judge Reserves Ruling on Suit V. Wheat Board -------------------------------------------------------------- A Vancouver federal court judge is holding off issuing his decision on a government motion to strike the class action filed against the Canadian Wheat Board, The Western Producer reports. Prominent Regina lawyer Tony Merchant filed the suit on farmers' behalf of farmers, accusing the board of taking expenses related to the issuance of export licenses from the pool accounts. That contravenes the board's statutory powers, he said. Mr. Merchant said he is confident the claim will proceed. "The judge said often to the government lawyer words like, 'But even the Canadian Wheat Board may not disobey the statutes," he said. He added that sections 7 and 33 of the wheat board act set out that the federal government will pay certain costs related to that wheat or the wheat in the designated area. "What the wheat board has been doing . is taking all sorts of expenses out of the pooled accounts and they've been doing it since 1935," he told the Western Producer. Spokespersons for the wheat board would not comment while the case is before the courts. CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Routers For Design Flaw, Safety Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Tire is voluntarily recalling the Mastercraft Router and Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kit. The recall applies to all Mastercraft Routers sold between October 15, 2001 and July 18, 2003, and to Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kits sold between May 1, 2003 and July 18, 2003. The Mastercraft Router (Canadian Tire product number 54-7036-6) and Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kit (Canadian Tire product number 54-6903-8) are being voluntarily recalled due to a design flaw and potential safety issue. If the dust cover is used on these units, router bits with a diameter in excess of 1- 1/8" may not be able to be sufficiently tightened resulting in the potential for bits to be projected from the unit when in use. Mastercraft Routers and Mastercraft Router and Table Combo Kits can be identified as follows: (1) Mastercraft branding on the product; (2) Product number (54-7036-6) is stamped on the faceplate of the router; (3) Product number (54-6903-8) is stamped on the leg of the router table. Canadian Tire has not been notified of any instance of injury, but is requesting that customers who have purchased either of these products immediately discontinue their use and return them to their nearest Canadian Tire store for a full refund. CATHOLIC CHURCH: Report Reveals Culture of Protection, Secrecy -------------------------------------------------------------- Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly's report on the Boston clerical sex abuse crisis is unnerving because it revealed a familiar pattern of bishops protecting abusers and not victims, some Catholic observers stated, the Associated Press reports. Findings in the report state a likely total of more than 1,000 sexual abuse victims since 1940, and more than 200 Roman Catholic priests who abused them. The report stated that former Boston Archbishop Bernard Law had the ultimate responsibility for handling the abusers, but his predecessors and his five senior assistants did nothing to punish the molesters in Boston parishes. Analysts believe that this showed that too many bishops have given the Catholic faithful too little reason to trust them. The role of bishops in Catholicism is "extremely important and, no question, it is seriously damaged," David O'Brien, a historian at the College of Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass told AP. Several groups have called for concrete forms of action. The Massachusetts-based lay reform group Voice of the Faithful called on Pope John Paul II to publicly reprimand Cardinal Law, his advisers and others. It is "morally unacceptable that the protectors of predators" continue to lead the church so they should decide on their own to resign, the group told AP. Cardinal Law will be replaced next week by Archbishop-elect Sean Patrick O'Malley - a prelate with a good record on dealing with abusers. Mr. O'Brien said that the question regarding whether the Vatican or fellow American bishops will hold erring leaders accountable still stands. "Pressure will grow for truth telling, for full implementation of promised reforms and especially for what we haven't gotten yet: accountability of bishops," he told AP. CENTRELINK: Unemployed To Launch Suit Seeking Changes in System --------------------------------------------------------------- Government agency Centrelink and the Australian government ministers face a potential class action to be filed on behalf of more than 4,000 Australians, seeking to change the commonwealth services system, ABC News Online reports. The announcement was made in Hobart, Australia on behalf of the Australian National Organisation of the Unemployed. Spokesman Bill Watson says the culture of Centrelink has to change. "Unemployed people, no matter what they are, are automatically guilty until they . prove their innocence (against) actions by the Government to continually blame and slander those people for every single mistake known on the planet," Mr. Watson said. "The time has come now for us to fight back." Mr. Watson expects the case will be lodged in a Hobart court in six weeks. CONAGRA FOOD: Recalls Fresh Chicken That May Contain Glass ---------------------------------------------------------- ConAgra Poultry Company is voluntarily recalling approximately 129,000 pounds of fresh chicken that may contain glass, the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced. The products being recalled are: (1) 3.5-4 lb. bags of "Country Pride FRESH CHICKEN" bearing a sell-by date of "6-20-03," "6-21-03," or "6-22-03." Each bag also has an establishment code of "P-177" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The products were produced on June 10 and distributed to retail stores in Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina; (2) 40 lb. cases of "FRESH YOUNG CHICKEN 8 PC WOFT / 20 HD" bearing a product code of "019434" and an establishment code "P-1279" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The products were produced on June 10 and distributed to institutions in Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina; (3) 40 lb. cases of "COUNTRY PRIDE FRESH YOUNG CHICKEN WHOLE WINGS AND LIVERS" bearing a product code of "019553" and an establishment code "P-6638" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The products were produced on June 9-10 and distributed to institutions in Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina. ConAgra Poultry Company discovered the problem and contacted FSIS to initiate a product recall. "Because of the potential hazard, I urge consumers who have purchased these products not to eat them but to return them to the place of purchase," said Dr. Garry L. McKee, FSIS administrator. For more details, contact Elaine Born, consumer communication, by Phone: (770) 232-4200. FAX ADVERTISING: Appeals Court Allows Suits Over Unsolicited Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Second Appellate Court in Los Angeles California reversed a decision stating that Legislature must enact a law expressly allowing people to sue fax-advertisers directly, CBC Los Angeles reports. The ruling will allow consumers to sue such firms for $500 per unwanted fax. Earlier, two class actions were filed against firms who allegedly faxed hundreds of thousands of unsolicited advertisements. Earlier this week, State Attorney General William Lockyer filed a suit against Fax.com, Inc., charging the Company with violating state and federal laws. State Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who sponsored a bill to reduce mass faxes, said Tuesday's decision "makes it crystal clear that people can go to court and sue junk faxers for $500 a fax, period, end of story," CBC Los Angeles stated. FGH INTERNATIONAL: NC Attorney General Halts Telemarketing Scam --------------------------------------------------------------- North Carolina's Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that a telemarketing scam that targets Spanish-speaking consumers who want to learn English has been ordered out of business. "These scammers are preying upon a group of consumers who are new to our state, eager to learn our language, and unfamiliar with just how low some telemarketers will stoop to steal," said Atty. Gen. Cooper. "To make their phony offer sound legitimate, the telemarketers even claim that their victims have been chosen by the government to receive language classes." Wake County Superior Court Judge Ripley Rand agreed with Atty Gen. Cooper's request to temporarily stop F.G.H. International from telemarketing to North Carolina consumers. In a suit filed yesterday, Atty. Gen. Cooper alleges that F.G.H. International broke state laws by deceiving consumers and failing to register as telephone solicitors with the Secretary of State's office. He is asking the courts to stop F.G.H. International permanently and require them to pay penalties. Named as defendants are F.G.H. International, which also operates as Financiera Gubernmental Hispana and GF&C International, and its presidents, Franco Morales and Johnny Rojas, all based in California. As alleged in the complaint, F.G.H. International has marketed a program to teach English to Spanish-speaking North Carolina residents since at least the fall of 2001. Telemarketers working for F.G.H. International tell prospective customers that they have been specially selected by the government to receive subsidized language training but that they must pay a quarter of the cost out of pocket, a total of $1,200. The telemarketers sometimes offer a program to train auto mechanics using a similar pitch. In reality, none of the customers called by the telemarketers have been selected by a government agency to learn English or other skills through any F.G.H. International program. According to consumers who complained about F.G.H. International to the AG's office, the telemarketers then ask for their credit card or bank account numbers or offer to set up a payment plan. Customers who paid for the training were not enrolled in any classes to learn English or auto repair. Instead, they received only a videotape and other poor quality materials for their payment of $1,200. "Hispanic and Latino consumers who aren't as familiar with our state's laws and business practices need to be on the look out for scammers who may try to take advantage of them," cautioned AG Cooper. "If you have questions or think you've been the victim of fraud, contact my office. We're here to help." For more details, contact John Bason, Public Information Officer, North Carolina Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or by E-mail: jbason@mail.jus.state.nc.us FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Settles Motor Home Owners' Lawsuit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- Final approval for the settlement of the class action against Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is set for September 30,2003 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The complaint attempts to establish a class comprised of Class A motor home purchasers for the model years 1994-1999. It also makes claims with respect to the alleged breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violation of various state statutes in connection with the ability of these motor homes to tow an automobile or other vehicle or cargo. On September 24, 2001, the Court certified a subclass of Texas residents who purchased a subject motor home from a Texas dealer and who still own the motor home. The Company appealed this certification to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 4, 2001, and on February 14, 2003, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the trial court had erred in certifying a State sub-class based upon fraud and/or misrepresentation, but confirmed a class based upon the implied warranty of merchantability. On May 1, 2003, the Company reached a preliminary settlement agreement with representatives of the class, which received preliminary approval from the court on June 25, 2003. Pursuant to the preliminary settlement agreement, the Company would pay attorneys' fees in the amount of $2.85 million in settlement of the case plus $250 to each member of the class who still owns their vehicle and who can demonstrate that they have purchased a supplemental braking system or intend to purchase a supplemental braking system. The Company also faces a class action pending in the Los Angeles, California, Superior Court, Central District, alleging fraud and misrepresentation in the marketing of Fleetwood motor homes from model years 1994 through 2000. The complaint contends that Fleetwood misrepresented the towing capacities of its motor homes without informing consumers of the need for auxiliary brakes on the towed vehicle, and seeks a variety of damages and injunctive relief. This matter is virtually the same as the first suit, and the preliminary settlement in that suit will settle this suit as well. GLOBAL COMMODITIES: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites -------------------------------------------------------------- Global Commodities, Inc. is recalling "Dried Green Raisins" because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Dried Green Raisins which are packaged in 14 oz. plastic bags were sold in New York City. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in "Dried Green Raisins" in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The product contains 57 milligrams of sulfites per serving. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased "Dried Green Raisins" should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-460-3215. GOODYEAR TIRE: PA Court Remands Entran II Lawsuit To State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Philadelphia Federal Court remanded to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas a consumer class action filed against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. over alleged defects in a hose used for home heating systems, law.com reports. The suit was filed on behalf of all Pennsylvanian homeowners who installed Entran II hoses in their homes, under floors, above ceilings, behind dry wall and paneling, below patios and decks, in crawl spaces and sometimes directly encased in concrete. The orange-colored hose is connected to manifolds and one or more boilers, and heat is transferred throughout the system by the water and glycol fluid. The hose was allegedly warranted for 20 years, but defects sometimes arise with a few years of use. The suit asserts that the hose discolors, grows brittle and cracks causing heating system failures and extensive damage from leaking water and glycol fluid. Two similar suits are pending against the Company. Early this year, a Colorado state court issued a $23 million verdict to a group of six homeowners. However, an Ohio jury dismissed a similar suit, saying that the Entran II hose is "merchantable." Federal Judge Bruce W. Kauffman ruled that the Company couldn't show that "each and every" potential class member would satisfy the $75,000 federal damages minimum, since each of the named plaintiffs had a claim worth more than $75,000. Lawyers for the Company asked the court to keep the suit in federal court and simply dismiss the claims of any unnamed class members whose claims are jurisdictionally deficient. Judge Kauffman rejected the argument, saying remanding the suit to state court was proper "in the interests of fairness and judicial economy." The ruling is a victory for attorneys David H. Weinstein and Kellie A. Allen of Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato & Goldman who filed the suit, law.com reports. GUSTO FOODS: Recalls No. 1 Bamboo Shoots For Undeclared Sulfites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gusto Food, Inc. is recalling Mr. No. 1 Brand Bamboo Shoot Sliced (Pai Tong) because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Mr. No. 1 Brand Bamboo Shoot Sliced (Pai Tong), which is packaged in 24 oz. glass bottles, was sold in Upstate New York. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Mr. No. 1 brand Bamboo Shoot Sliced (Pai Tong) in packages which did not declared sulfites on the label. The product contains 15.81 milligrams of sulfites per serving. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Mr. No. 1 Brand Bamboo Shoot Sliced (Pai Tong) should return it to the place of purchase. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 718-894-2976. IDAHO: Residents Asked To File Claims in Taxol Antitrust Pact ------------------------------------------------------------- Idahoans who purchased Taxol or paclitaxel (including Onxol), cancer treatment drugs, may now file claims for reimbursement, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said in a statement. The reimbursement is the result of a previously announced antitrust settlement between Bristol-Myers Squibb and the attorneys general of all 50 states, the US territories and the District of Columbia. The $62 million antitrust settlement resolved allegations that Bristol-Myers Squibb violated state and federal competition laws by blocking the entry of less expensive generic drugs into the marketplace. The settlement provides $12.5 million to consumers who were injured as a result of Bristol-Myers Squibb's actions. "The delay of lower priced generic versions of the drug Taxol was an unlawful anti-competitive practice. The unlawful acts forced many Idahoans to pay more for chemotherapy," Attorney General Wasden said. "I strongly encourage Idahoans who purchased these drugs to apply for the reimbursement to which they are entitled." Taxol and Onxol are used to treat breast and ovarian cancers in their late stages. The drugs are also sometimes used to treat lung cancer and certain cancers caused by AIDS, such as Kaposi's Sarcoma. In addition to settling the states' claims, Bristol-Myers Squibb agreed to reimburse the state of Idaho $108,000 to settle the state's claims against the company. Idaho consumers who purchased Taxol or its generic equivalent between January 1, 1999 and February 28, 2003 may be eligible to file a claim. The claim form and filing information is accessible via the Attorney General's Website: http://www.state.id.us/agor contact the Taxol Settlement Administrator by Phone: (800) 659-7609. Claim forms must be postmarked by November 14, 2003. JV TRADING: Recalls Sweetened Jujube Due To Undeclared Sulfites --------------------------------------------------------------- JV Trading Glendale Ltd. is recalling packages of LUKAI brand SWEETENED JUJUBE because the product contains undeclared sulfites. People who have a severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. SWEETENED JUJUBE was distributed nationwide through retail stores and wholesale distributors. SWEETENED JUJUBE is packaged in 235gr. (8.3 oz) sealed plastic bags with red, tan, and yellow labeling, mostly all Chinese writing with a brief product introduction in English on the back of the package. The product code is Q/ CLB03-2001 and can be found on back of package. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by Food Inspectors of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets revealed the product containing sulfite was distributed in packaging that did not declare the presence of sulfites. The consumption of 10 mg. of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites. Analysis of the LUKAI SWEETENED JUJUBE revealed it contained in excess of 82 mg. per serving. Consumers who have purchased LUKAI SWEETENED JUJUBE in 235gr (8.3 oz) plastic packages can return it to J.V. Trading Glendale Ltd. at the above address for a full refund. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (516) 942-9308. KADOURI INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins For Undeclared Sulfites -------------------------------------------------------------- Kadouri International Foods, Inc. is recalling Pakistani Green Raisins (Kishmish) because it contains undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Pakistani Green Raisins (Kishmish), packaged in 27.5 pound cartons, were sold nationwide. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Pakistani Green Raisins (Kishmish) in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The product contains 57 milligrams of sulfites per serving. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 718-3831-6100. LISY CORPORATION: Recalls Ground Cumin Over Possible Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisy Corporation is recalling all ORALE brand Ground Cumin, Item 141-A, in the 1.5oz package size, because it is potentially contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The ORALE brand Ground Cumin was distributed to wholesalers and retail stores in the following states: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, Tennessee, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, West Virginia, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Kentucky, and Arizona. The ORALE brand Ground Cumin is packed into plastic bags with a paper label on top with the statement: ITEM # 141-A ORALE GROUND CUMIN 1.50 OZ. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was a result of routing sampling and analysis by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services which revealed that the finished products contained bacteria. This recall is being initiated with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 305-836-6001. PHILIPPINES: Human Rights Victims To Promote Compensation Law ------------------------------------------------------------- Victims of human rights violations under late dictator Ferdinand Marcos will push for a special law to compensate thousands of people who were tortured, summarily executed or disappeared during his rule, the Associated Press Newswires reports. Attention turned to a two-year-old bill to compensate the Marcos' victims after the Supreme Court last week awarded the former president's frozen Swiss bank deposits to the government after ruling they qualified as "ill-gotten wealth." President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, saying she will put about eight billion pesos (about US$150 million) in an escrow account for the Marcos victims to "lend recognition to the Filipino people's struggle for freedom, justice and redemption." The funds, which were valued at US$658.2 million early last year, have been transferred to an escrow account at the Philippine National Bank. Marie Hilao, secretary general of Selda, a group of former political detainees, said the proposed compensation law is in danger of being watered down by pro-Marcos legislators, including his daughter, Rep. Imee Marcos. These legislators are trying to remove direct references to the Marcos' regime, and instead wish to compensate victims of all administrations. "We want it on record that there were gross, systematic and massive human rights violations (under the Marcos regime), that President Marcos raided the treasury and that the victims resisted in a militant and heroic struggle," Ms. Hilao said. "The memory of the struggle during martial law must be preserved." There were, however, some other views about compensation for human rights victims. Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales, a former political detainee who heads a congressional committee on human rights, supported a general compensation law. "Victims of other regimes, whoever they are, should be viewed as equals," Rep. Rosales told DZBB radio. "If we could include the other victims of human rights violations, let us do so." The human rights lawyers' group, Public Interest Law Center, criticized Ms. Rosales' move to generalize the recognition of the human rights victims so as to include violations under other regimes. "The only sensible recourse is for sponsors of the (bill) to stand firm in defense of the basic premise that a special law for Marcos victims is justified and necessary," said a statement issued by the Public Interest Law Center. Rep. Satur Ocampo, a former communist underground leader severely tortured after his arrest in 1976, said a separate law should target other victims of state abuse. "There is a political message," said Rep. Ocampo. "What happened during martial law . was that the government pirated human rights massively. The state acknowledges that, and it assumes the moral and legal responsibility to compensate them." Mr. Ocampo referred to a 1992 decision by the federal district court in Hawaii, which found the Marcos estate liable for torture, summary executions and involuntary disappearances. In 1995, the court awarded about US$2 billion to 9,539 victims who filed a class action. Ms. Hilao said the number of Marcos victims is estimated to total at least 120,000 and that not all have come out publicly. Some do not want to relive their ordeal, she said; while others are still afraid because the "martial law machinery is still intact." PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discovery Starts in Chicken Growers' Suit in TX ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery has commenced in a class action filed against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation on behalf of a putative class of chicken growers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division. The suit alleges that the Company violated the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers. The plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers and Stockyards Act alleging common law fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract. On July 29, 2002, the Company filed its motion to dismiss. Upon the filing of the motion, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to stay any certification of the class pending the outcome of the trial of the three plaintiffs, Cody Wheeler, Don Davis and Davey Williams. On March 14, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The plaintiffs also dropped the charges of fraud prior to the entering of the order by the court. The Company also filed a motion to transfer venue on August 19, 2002, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to prohibit any alleged retaliation against the growers. The court denied the Company's motion to transfer venue on March 14, 2003, and the case will remain in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division. The court also denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on March 3, 2003. Discovery is in the initial phases in this case. The Company will fight the case's certification as a class action should it not prevail in the trial of the three plaintiffs. It disputes any question concerning ultimate liability and damages, if any. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss PA Listeria Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit filed against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania after a limited number of USDA environmental samples from the Company's Franconia, Pennsylvania plant tested positive for Listeria in October 2002. As a result, the Company voluntarily recalled all cooked deli products produced at the plant from May 1, 2002 through October 11, 2002. No illnesses associated with the Listeria strain in a Northeastern outbreak have been linked to any of the Company's products and no products of the Company have tested positive for the outbreak strain. The lead plaintiff allegedly contracted Listeriosis. The case, initially filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, sought recovery on behalf of a putative class of all persons that purchased and/or consumed meat products manufactured at the Company's Franconia, Pennsylvania facility between May 1, 2002 and October 11, 2002, who have suffered an injury. This putative class sought to include all individuals who have suffered Listeriosis and symptoms of Listeriosis and other medical injuries. The plaintiff also sought to represent a putative class of all persons that purchased and/or consumed meat products manufactured at the Company's Franconia, Pennsylvania facility between May 1, 2002 and October 11, 2002, who have not suffered any personal injury. The complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages under theories of negligence, alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law, strict liability in tort, and unjust enrichment. On December 6, 2002, the Company filed its Petition for Removal to Federal court transferring this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand to State Court on January 6, 2003. The Company timely filed its response. In addition, on January 13, 2003, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's class action. QUALCOMM INC.: Employees Appeal Dismissal of Claims in CO Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Several former Qualcomm, Inc. employees appealed the dismissal of their claims in the lawsuit filed against the Company in the District Court for Boulder County, Colorado, alleging claims for: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) nondisclosure and concealment, (3) violation of C.R.S. Section 8-2-104 (obtaining workers by misrepresentation), (4) breach of contract, (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (6) promissory estoppel, (7) negligent misrepresentation, (8) unjust enrichment, (9) violation of California Labor Code Section 970, (10) violation of California Civil Code Sections 1709-1710, (11) rescission, (12) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and (13) violation of California Civil Code Section 1575 The complaint seeks economic, emotional distress and punitive damages and unspecified amounts of interest. The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss 17 of the plaintiffs from the lawsuit. Subsequently, the court dismissed three other plaintiffs from the lawsuit. In November 2002, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss 61 of the remaining 67 plaintiffs from the lawsuit. The Company subsequently resolved the matters with the remaining plaintiffs. Those plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed have appealed. Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of the dispute would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results, liquidity or financial position, the Company believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in CA Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated lawsuit against Qualcomm, Inc. in the San Diego County Superior Court in California alleging claims for: (1) declaratory relief, (2) breach of contract, (3) intentional/negligent fraud, (4) concealment, (5) rescission, (6) specific performance, (7) work, labor and services, (8) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (9) violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and (10) unjust enrichment 100 former employees filed the suit, claiming that they were entitled to full vesting of unvested stock options as a result of the sale of the Company's infrastructure business to Ericsson in 1999. The Company has answered the complaints, which have been consolidated. Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of the dispute would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results, liquidity or financial position, the Company believes the claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs File New Lawsuit For Labor Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- 76 opt-in plaintiffs filed a new class action against Qualcomm, Inc. after the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed their claims in the original suit for violations of California's wage and labor laws. The first suit was filed on behalf of former employees of the Company whose employment was terminated in April 1999. Virtually all of the purported class of plaintiffs received severance packages at the time of the termination of their employment, in exchange for a release of claims, other than federal age discrimination claims, against the Company. The complaint was initially filed in California Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles and purports to state ten causes of action including breach of contract, age discrimination, violation of Labor Code Section 200, violation of Labor Code Section 970, unfair business practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief and undue influence. The complaint seeks an order accelerating all unvested stock options for the members of the class, plus economic and liquidated damages of an unspecified amount. On June 27, 2000, the case was ordered transferred from Los Angeles County Superior Court to San Diego County Superior Court. Discovery commenced. On May 29, 2001, the court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims except for claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. On July 16, 2001, the court granted conditional class certification to the remaining claims, to be revisited by the Court at the end of the discovery period. On April 15, 2003, the court granted the Company's summary judgment motions as to all remaining class members disparate impact claims. On June 18, 2003, the court ordered de-certification of the class and dismissed the remaining claims of the opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal. On June 20, 2003, 76 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a result of their layoffs in 1999. To date, the complaint has not been served. Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of these disputes would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results, liquidity or financial position, the Company believes the claims are without merit. QUALCOMM INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Mobile Phone Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal of five consolidated class actions filed against Qualcomm, Inc. and other manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and industry-related organizations in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The suits seek personal injury, economic and/or punitive damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones. On March 5, 2003, the court granted the defendants motions to dismiss five of the consolidated cases on the grounds that the claims were preempted by federal law. On April 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this order and the court's order denying remand. All remaining cases filed against the Company allege personal injury as a result of their use of a wireless telephone. The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other companies to date have held that there was insufficient scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases, and the judge responsible for the multi-district litigation proceedings recently made such a ruling in another case to which the Company is not a party. SAN ANTONIO: Recalls 438 lbs of Cheese For Undeclared Ingredient ---------------------------------------------------------------- San Antonio Packing Company, a San Antonio, Texas, firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 438 pounds of head cheese that contains an undeclared ingredient (sodium nitrite), the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced. The products being recalled are 4-8 oz. packages of "APCO Brand Meats HEAD CHEESE," bearing the package date "5/05/03" or "6/09/03." Each package also bears the establishment code "EST. 602" inside the USDA seal of inspection. The products were produced on May 3, 2003, and June 7, 2003, and distributed to retail stores in Texas. The products contain sodium nitrite, but the product label does not list sodium nitrite as an ingredient. The problem was discovered by an FSIS inspector during a routine label inspection. For more details, contact Robert Castaneda, plant manager by Phone: (210) 224-5441. SERVICES GROUP: Agrees To Settle Pension Fund Lawsuit For $1.95M ---------------------------------------------------------------- $1.95 million will be paid to settle claims for over 1,600 past and present Services Group of America employees by president Thomas Stewart, members of the company's profit sharing plan committee and Frank Russell Trust Company to settle a class action that accused them of failing to properly invest the plan's assets. A federal court judge in Seattle approved the settlement earlier this week. The lawsuit contended that Mr. Stewart, Frank Russell Trust and others precipitously liquidated over $30 million in the company's profit-sharing plan. Employees were not informed of the radical investment change until several months later. Attorney Chuck Thulin said Mr. Stewart and the other parties -- in violation of federal pension law -- failed to make prudent investment decisions and to diversify the plan's investments. The class, represented by the Seattle law firms of Sirianni, Youtz, Meier and Spoonemore and Ekman, Bohrer & Thulin, sought to recover the plan's opportunity losses from October 1998 through April 1999. "This case sends a message to people who control worker's investment funds," said attorney Rick Spoonemore. "If you want to control your employees' investment funds, you will be appropriately held to a high standard." "Stewart and other committee members were pension investment fiduciaries and had a legal duty to invest and diversify investments in a prudent manner," said Mr. Thulin. "Simply put, they didn't live up to the responsibility." Class members do not need to make a claim to obtain settlement proceeds. Checks will either be sent directly to class members, or their profit-sharing accounts will receive settlement funds. It is expected that the funds will be distributed over the next two months. For more details, contact Charles Thulin of Ekman, Bohrer & Thulin by Phone: 206-282-8221 or 206-683-9031 (After hours) or contact: Rick Spoonemore of Sirianni, Youtz, Meier & Spoonemore by Phone: 206-223-0303 or 206-937-1319 (After hours) or Barry Bartlett by Phone: 206-285-0673 SMITHFIELD FOODS: Oral Arguments on Appeal of Suit Set Aug. 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments for the appeal in the class action filed against Smithfield Foods, Inc. and Joseph W. Luter III, alleging violations of various laws, including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, based on the Company's failure to comply with certain environmental laws. The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division and seeks treble damages that are unspecified. On February 13, 2002, the court granted the Company's and Mr. Luter's motion to dismiss, giving the plaintiffs 20 days within which to file an amended complaint. On March 15, 2002, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. On June 24, 2002, the court granted the Company's and Mr. Luter's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice and issued an order imposing monetary sanctions against the plaintiffs' attorneys. The plaintiffs noted their appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on July 24, 2002. On February 25, 2003, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of some, but not all of the plaintiffs. The remaining plaintiffs' appeal has been fully briefed and oral argument is scheduled before the Court of Appeals during the week of August 4, 2003. STAMPEDE FOODS: Recalls Frozen Beef For E. Coli Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------- Stampede Meat, Inc. is voluntarily recalling approximately 739,000 pounds of frozen beef products, mostly vacuum packaged steaks, that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced. The products subject to recall were produced between March 17 and March 22, 2003, and bear the establishment code "EST. 19113" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were distributed to restaurants, institutions and retail stores nationwide. The products were also distributed to consumers through door-to-door sales. Additionally, the products were distributed to institutions in Canada. The recall was initiated after epidemiological case studies conducted by public health officials concluded the recalled product may be linked to five E. coli O157:H7 illnesses in Minnesota, Kansas and Michigan. Public health officials from FSIS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and several state health departments are continuing to investigate the extent of the outbreak and determine if additional products are linked to illnesses reported. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician immediately. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness. Generally, steaks are not considered a high-risk source of E. coli O157: H7. However, the products subject to recall were injected with tenderizers and flavor-enhancing solutions, and that process may have transferred the bacteria from the surface to the inside of the product. Consumers should return the recalled products to the point of purchase and cook similar (tenderized) products to an internal temperature of 160 degrees as measured with a food thermometer. For more details, contact Bill Asleson, company executive manager, by Phone: (800) 353-0933. TOBACCO LITIGATION: Closing Arguments Given In LA Smokers Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Six months after testimony began, lawyers for Louisiana residents who are either smokers or ex-smoker, as well as lawyers for the tobacco industry, presented their closing arguments to a state district court jury, the Associated Press Newswires reports. The smokers want the tobacco companies to pay for medical monitoring of currently healthy smokers to determine whether any future health problems develop. They also are asking for tobacco-funded quit-smoking programs. In his closing argument, attorney Stephen Murray, representing the plaintiff smokers, said the tobacco industry devised a conspiracy in 1953, when widespread reports about possible links between lung cancer and smoking first surfaced, to convince the public that cigarettes were safe. However, Mr. Murray said, "The cigarette is the most hazardous product in the history of commerce." Mr. Murray said cigarette-makers entered into a "gentleman's agreement" not to research their own products, but would, instead, use "front organizations," such as the Tobacco Institute, to tell the public that there was no link between smoking and cancer. At the same time, said Mr. Murray, marketing programs were devised to replace smokers who died or quit with a new generation of smokers. "The conspiracy and lies went on for another 50 years," Mr. Murray said. "They never let up." As in other lawsuits against the tobacco industry, plaintiffs contend that cigarette-makers hid the dangers of smoking from the public; manipulated nicotine levels to keep smokers hooked and targeted youths with advertising. However, tobacco attorneys said the plaintiffs failed to prove any case under Louisiana law, including a cause-and-effect connection between the alleged conspiracy and the class of Louisiana smokers and former Louisiana smokers. Philip Wittmann, an attorney for R.J. Reynolds, in his closing argument, said the plaintiffs tried their case around an "imaginary plaintiff" -- a non-existent person who was hooked on smoking by a conspiracy and cannot quit. Mr. Wittmann said there was no evidence that any of the industry's advertising campaigns had lured anyone to start smoking. Ron Sholes, an attorney for Philip Morris, said the main goal of the lawsuit was to make the tobacco industry pay for medical tests from which anti-smoking doctors and plaintiff attorneys would collect fees. "They want to turn people in the state of Louisiana into human guinea pigs," Mr. Sholes said. Mr. Sholes said, further, that the dangers of smoking have been known for decades. Since 1902, Louisiana schools have been required to teach about the hazards, and public health organizations and the media have been issuing warnings since the 1950s about the connection with cancer, said Mr. Sholes. As a result, those who smoke, in the midst of well-circulated information, do so as a matter of choice, Mr. Sholes said. "When people know the dangers of a product and decide to use it, it becomes their responsibility," said Mr. Sholes. Gary Long, a lawyer for Lorillard, said evidence showed that no major medical group recommended routine medical monitoring for smokers and former smokers. Such tests are unreliable, often produce false results and can prompt unnecessary and life- threatening follow-up procedures, Mr. Long said. Mr. Long also said 50 million Americans had quit smoking, and an estimated half of the Louisiana class also had quit, many by simply stopping. For others, free and low-cost cessation programs already are widely available. The lawsuit does not ask for individual payments for smokers. There has been no estimate of what a loss might cost the tobacco industry. However, a smaller class action in West Virginia that sought only medical monitoring carried a potential price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars. In that case, although attorneys for smokers prevailed in their argument that a person with a five-year, pack-a-day habit has a higher risk of contracting disease, still, the jury found routine screening to be unnecessary. Instead, the jurors accepted the defense's contention that smokers concerned about their health should just quit. If the industry in the Louisiana case is found liable, a second phase of the trial will be held to determine how much the industry would have to pay to set up the requested programs. The class action could cover up to 1.5 million Louisiana residents. Defendants include R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson and Lorrilard. State District Judge Richard Ganucheau plans to give the case to the jury for consideration after reading to them a lengthy set of instructions. TRANS WORLD: CA Jury Rules Firm Did Not Defraud Policyholders ------------------------------------------------------------- Recent jury verdicts found that Trans World Assurance Co. did not defraud its policyholders in the highly publicized California class action. In rejecting the plaintiffs' claims, the Jury's Special Verdict specifically found that no misrepresentations were made to the plaintiffs and that there was no breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. In the decision, the court found that Trans World did not act unlawfully, fraudulently or unfairly in selling and servicing Flexible Dollar Builder (FDB) life insurance policies. The court also reversed earlier rulings certifying the case as a class action. The Special Verdicts and Court Decision are consistent with the results of other cases that have gone to trial and prove once and for all that TWA's agents fairly disclose the material terms of the FDB. Unfortunately, while the Heathcock lawsuit was pending, its unproved allegations received much notoriety and often were cited as evidence of misconduct by TWA's agents. The Jury Verdicts and Court Decision confirm that Trans Word and its agents involved with the plaintiffs are innocent of any wrongdoing. "We are pleased that Trans World and its agent sales force have been vindicated by the Jury Verdicts and the Court Decision," as stated by Trans World Assurance Co.'s management. In summarizing the Jury's decision the Court stated, "On March 21, 2003, the jury returned its special verdicts in favor of both TWA and AFLI. These special verdicts included these findings: (1) Neither TWA nor AFLI made any false representation, whether intentionally or negligently, to Heathcock, Cavanaugh or Bremer; (2) Neither TWA nor AFLI concealed or suppressed any material fact to Heathcock, Cavanaugh or Bremer; (3) Neither TWA nor AFLI breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which breach caused damage to Heathcock, Cavanaugh or Bremer." In its own opinion, the court stated, "The only inferences that can reasonably be drawn from the jury's special verdicts are that either Heathcock, Cavanaugh and Bremer knew that the FDB was life insurance, or defendants' agents fully disclosed the true nature of the FDB to each of the three named plaintiffs and yet, for some reason through no fault of defendants (e.g., the three named plaintiffs did not listen to what they were being told by Defendants' agents), Heathcock, Bremmer and Cavanaugh still did not understand what they were buying." Still pending are proceedings in which the companies are seeking the recovery of over $200,000 in court costs from the plaintiffs. For more details, contact Trans World Assurance Company by Mail: 885 South El Camino Real, San Mateo, California 94402. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students To Sue Over Tuition Fee Hike --------------------------------------------------------------- 10 University of California intend to file a possible class action against the University's Board of Regents, after it voted to hike tuition fees starting in the Fall 2003 semester, KRON 4 reports. The suit asks to halt an impending tuition fee hike for some students, which will require them to pay $960 more per year. Graduate students will also be paying more than $1,000 more per year. The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, requests a temporary injunction stopping the fee hike for certain groups of professional students, including law, medical, optometry and business students from UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC Davis. The claim also asks for damages for all UC students relating to the fee increases made last week and a previous fee increase made last December. UC Berkeley law student Mo Kashmiri told law.com that the UC system allegedly promised on its Web site and in brochures that their professional degree fees would never be raised during the duration of their enrollment. Plaintiffs' attorney, Jonathan Weissglass, said this promise is binding, and that the university system will be violating its promise if it raises currently enrolled professional degree students' fees. Instead, he says, the system should just raise the fees for new professional degree students entering school this year. The plaintiffs will ask San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warner to set a date sometime before August 15, the date by which professional degree students at UC Berkeley will have to cough up the extra money. Mr. Weissglass said he intends to ask for a temporary injunction barring the UC system from charging any professional degree student already enrolled in the UC system the extra fees. Mr. Kashmiri said the university system removed the promise from its website after students brought the fee hike issue to the regents' attention. The University allegedly said that the promise not to raise fees was among the university's own policies, so the university is well within its rights to change its own policies whenever it wants. At press time, calls to the UC Board of Regents office seeking comment were not returned, law.com reports. Mr. Kashmiri says the argument supporting the refund is simple-- the regents gave students little notice before they raised fees. "They should have given students and their family's more notice before they increased their fees," Mr. Kashmiri told law.com. "They should have given them more of a chance to plan how they are going to pay for it. I really blame the legislators for putting the college in this position, but the students and their families cannot be punished because of the mistakes of the legislators or the college. And in this economy they cannot afford to be punished." New Securities Fraud Cases CENTRAL PARKING: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Suit in TN ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class action against Central Parking Corporation (NYSE:CPC) on behalf of all those who purchased Central Parking's common stock between November 4, 2002 and February 14, 2003, inclusive, in the United States District Court in the Middle District of Tennessee. 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. Defendants in the lawsuit are the Company and: (1) Hiram A. Cox, (2) Monroe J. Carell and (3) William J. Vareschi, the Company's Vice Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer The lawsuit concerns accounting irregularities at the company. On February 4, 2003, Central Parking announced net earnings of $0.19 per diluted share for the first quarter. The company announced that it was increasing accounts payable by $1.5 million for vendor invoices and increasing bad debt expense by $1.1 million. Additionally, the company announced that it had implemented a reconciliation software system to monitor credit card transactions throughout the corporation, and that during the fiscal quarter, this system identified problems resulting in exposures related to aged transactions for which a reserve of $500,000 was established. The company also announced that its Chief Financial Officer, Hiram A. Cox, had resigned from his position. Following news of the resignation and the poor earnings, the price of Central Parking common shares fell from $15.82 to a closing price of $12.31 or a decline of more than 22%, on more than seven times normal trading volume. However, before the February 4, 2003 announcement, Central Parking's Chairman of the Board, Monroe J. Carell, sold thousands of his personally controlled Central Parking shares. For more details, contact Henry Young by Phone: 800-321-0476 TRIPOS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MO ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Tripos, Inc. (NasdaqNM:TRPS) from January 9, 2002 through July 1, 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 January 9, 2002 and July 1, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Tripos common stock. 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 the Company was experiencing weakening demand for its products and services as its customers were delaying, deferring or canceling purchases; (2) that the Company was experiencing severe and material problems with a certain contract and therefore would not be able to recognize revenue on that contract as anticipated; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their earnings projections and positive statements about Tripos. On July 1, 2002, Tripos shocked the market when it announced that, contrary to its repeated representations throughout the class period, it would not meet its earnings guidance for the second quarter of 2002, and it was reducing its earnings guidance for fiscal year 2002. Furthermore, the Company stated that it now expected to have a loss from operations of $1.8 million to $2.1 million for the quarter. In response to this announcement, the price of Tripos common stock dropped precipitously, falling from $21.80 per share to $8.53 per share - a drop of 60% - on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com TRIPOS INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MO --------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Tripos, Inc. (Nasdaq: TRPS) common stock during the period between January 9, 2002 and July 1, 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 numerous positive statements throughout the class period regarding the strong performance of the Company's business, specifically stating that the Company would continue to grow its revenues and earnings and that its book of contracted business was solid. In truth and in fact, however, the Company was experiencing weakening demand for its products and services and encountering severe and material difficulties with a certain contract which would delay payments under that agreement. When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on July 1, 2002, the price of Tripos common stock dropped precipitously, falling from $21.80 per share to $8.53 per share -- a drop of 60% -- on extremely heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.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 * * *