/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/031022.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 22, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 208 Headlines ALSTOM SA: Auditors See Possible Fall over Financial Concerns APARTHEID LITIGATION: Lawyer Meets Plaintiffs in South Africa ASHE COUNTY: Recalls Mexican Style Cheese Due To Contamination ATTORNEYS TITLE: License Suspended As Condition Deemed Hazardous BERRY PACKING: Recalls Cold Cuts Due To Listeria Contamination CALIFORNIA: Lodi Resident Continues Suit Over Garbage Collection CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Abuse Victims Sign Settlement Agreement ENRON CORPORATION: Creditors Oppose Statement on Business Units FLORIDA: AG Launches Lawsuit Over Student Financial Aid Program GENERAL MOTORS: Two-Tier Car Loan Pricing Report Hints at Bias GREAT ATLANTIC: Plaintiffs To Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal INFLUENZA VACCINE: FDA Debunks Rumors of Recalled Flu Vaccine LEADENHALL BANK: Faces Flurry of Suits Over Cash 4 Titles Fraud MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Faces Investor Suit Over Financial Misdeeds MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Responds To EU Antitrust Charges on Time NEVADA: Judge Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Improper Sentencing OLYMPIC FOOD: Recalls Frozen Corn Dogs For Undeclared Allergens RJ REYNOLDS: IL Court Stays Trial For "Lights" Cigarette Lawsuit TACO BELL: Reaches Full Settlement For OR Overtime Wage Lawsuit TELSTRA CORPORATION: Customers To File Suit Over E-Mail Fiasco TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: Military Personnel's Privacy Lawsuit Junked UNITED KINGDOM: 40% of Epilepsy Cases Misdiagnosed, Group States UNITED STATES: Republicans Push For Passage of Class Action Bill WASHINGTON: Court Orders Striking Teachers To Go Back to Work WESTERN UNION: Money Transfer Settlement Receives Approval WORLDCOM INC.: Appearance of Ex-Employees' in OK Court Delayed Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in CA TRIPOS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MO VAN DER MOOLEN: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY VAN DER MOOLEN: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Lawsuit in MA ********* ALSTOM SA: Auditors See Possible Fall over Financial Concerns ------------------------------------------------------------- Independent auditors Ernst & Young and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu expressed doubt that Alstom SA could continue as a going concern, amidst financial concerns and the filing of several class actions in United States federal courts, Forbes.com reports. The Company, makers of France's famed TGV trains, cruise ships and gas turbines, is at serious risk of collapse, the auditor's filing with US authorities states. The firm also faces a probe by the French stock exchange watchdog over its financial disclosure and stock price swings, corruption charges in Italy and accounting charges in the United States. The European Commission is also looking at contracts won by the company with state-owned companies at the height of its financial crisis, including an order by state-owned Gaz de France for a tanker, a deal to build a ferry for state-owned Seafrance and contracts for certain gas power plants. The auditors assert that another key risk was the chance that European competition regulators could veto a crucial 4.7 billion euro ($5.48 billion) state-backed rescue package agreed last month that staved off immediate bankruptcy, Reuters reports. The package is still subject to European Commission approval. The Company has denied the charges in securities class actions of making untrue statements in its disclosures and witholding important financial information from the market. "While we intend to vigorously defend against these actions, any adverse outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial conditions," Alstom said, Reuters reports. The firm said that it was cooperating with U.S. authorities over an accounting probe, and that it has no knowledge of wrongdoing by certain employees in Italy, who are being investigated for possible corruption. Former Chairman Pierre Bilger has also been investigated for fraud, Reuters reports. APARTHEID LITIGATION: Lawyer Meets Plaintiffs in South Africa ------------------------------------------------------------- In a media briefing in Johannesburg on Monday at the start of a three-day visit to meet with alleged victims, US attorney Michael Hausfeld, who lodged the so-called apartheid lawsuit in New York on behalf of some 82 members of the non-profit Khulumani Support Group, said that the multinational companies currently being sued in the United States were not merely doing business in apartheid South Africa, they were knowingly aiding, abetting and in effect sustaining the racist regime, Mail & Guardian Online reports. "The companies provided oil, arms, technology and ammunition to the apartheid police who used it to commit abuses on the population. That is their crime," Mr. Hausfeld said. The group is suing Barclays Bank, British Petroleum, Chevron- Texaco, Citigroup, Commerzbank, Credit Suisse, DaimlerChrysler, Daimler-Benz, Duetsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Exxonmobil, Fluor, Ford Motor, Fujitsu, General Motors, IBM, Morgan Chase, Rheinmetall, Rio Tinto, Shell, Total and UBS AG. "We are not going after cup cake sellers here. If you do business in a repressive country that is not a crime. But if you knowingly aid a government in conducting its repression. You cannot hide behind the claim 'I was just doing business' just like Nazi's can not hide behind the 'I was just following orders' claim," Mr. Hausfeld said. He said the Khulumani suit sought to focus the principals of Nuremburg and the body of international human rights law that has since been developed. It was being pursued in the US only because that country had the most developed legal precedent with respect to prosecuting rights violations that occur outside its borders. "The US courts cannot make a determination against any perpetrator in absentia. But if a company does business in the US, it subjects itself to US laws, and one of those laws pertains to the right of non-citizens to sue other non- citizens," he said. Mr. Hausfeld claimed the litigation was not a class action suit like that being represented by US lawyer Ed Fagan, which asks for broad social relief and in effect purports to act as a surrogate for the South African government. "We agree with the observation that no country can become a substitute for the South African government. The (African National Congress) has so far not been helpful because they have misunderstood the lawsuit. Once they have understood the suit they will see the distinction. Khulumani focuses on the victims and not on the profits made by companies. Its about the rights of victims to seek restitution. I believe the South African government can and should support such claims," Mr. Hausfeld said. ASHE COUNTY: Recalls Mexican Style Cheese Due To Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- The Ashe County Cheese Company of West Jefferson, North Carolina, a division of Newburg Corners Cheese, Inc., is voluntarily recalling 237 cases, (2133 lbs.), of Mexican style Queso Fresco cheese following a routine FDA sampling of the product which suggested it may contain the bacteria Listeria Monocytogenes; an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, an others with impaired immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short term symptoms such as headaches, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. No illnesses have been reported to date. This product is packaged under the Margarita brand name in 12- ounce plastic packages with the expiration date of November 6, 2003 and code number 37-77 stamped on the package. According to the distributing agent, the product was distributed to supermarkets in the Indianapolis and Detroit areas. The manufacture and distribution of this product by Ashe County Cheese Company has been suspended pending a Company investigation to determine the source of contamination. For more details, contact the recall coordinator of Ashe County Cheese Company by Phone: 800-445-1378. ATTORNEYS TITLE: License Suspended As Condition Deemed Hazardous ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys Title Guaranty Fund Inc., the title insurance company accused in June of participating in a $22 million real estate scam, has had its insurance license suspended for one year as of October 14, the Deseret Morning News reports. In a recently issued order, Administrative Law Judge Mark E. Kleinfield found sufficient evidence that the insurance company was in an alleged state of either "insolvency" or "financial hazardousness" such that "further transactions of business would be hazardous, financially or otherwise, to its policyholders, its creditors or the public." Attorneys Title was therefore ordered to cease writing, selling or renewing any insurance business in Utah or for Utah residents. It is permitted to service existing policies. Judge Kleinfeld wrote that he was aghast that, based on evidence submitted by Attorneys Title, it appeared that "over 13 and one- half million dollars of defalcations took place on and under respondent's watch." Judge Kleinfeld wrote further, "the department sees the recent and present circumstances of respondent as one of 'financial hazardousness.' " Judge Kleinfeld continued, writing, "The department pictures or envisions a company, if not presently unable to meet its bills, one which based on an apparent morass of pending litigation has not adequately reserved for legal defense costs and possible future damages payments." Carolyn McHugh, an attorney for Attorneys Title, said the company "obviously does not agree with the (administrative law judge's) decision, and will seek a review of it." Ms. McHugh said Attorneys Title is concerned Judge Kleinfield made his decision based upon unbalanced information that may have prejudiced the outcome in favor of the department. Attorneys Title has 30 days to petition the state for review. She added that the company also has other objections to the order, which it will raise on appeal. The firm also will ask that the license suspension be stayed until the review is complete. Attorneys Title, along with various agents and employees, has been the subject of civil and criminal investigations at the state and federal levels. The largest, a $60 million federal class-action lawsuit, is ongoing. That case includes more than 75 plaintiffs, many of whom alleged they were "swindled" out of retirement nest eggs and property. "The federal case is in a position where attorneys for Attorneys Title Guaranty and its parent company have filed motions to dismiss," said Jay Gurmankin, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. Mr. Gurmankin said he could not say much about the case while it is in litigation, except that "we have responded to those motions, and I feel really good about the case." In June of this past year, a number of agents employed by Attorneys Title were sentenced in criminal actions. For example, former Attorneys Title agent Clay Harrison was sentenced to two second-degree felonies and two third degree felonies. The judge stayed the prison sentences and ordered him to serve two weeks in jail and to cooperate with the victims and their attorneys in their lawsuit against Attorneys Title and to pay restitution. Two more agents were convicted of felonies, and three other individuals allegedly connected with the case have winter trial dates. The federal civil lawsuit against Attorneys Title Guaranty Fund Inc. was filed on June 4, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Jay Gurmankin and Daniel W. Jackson of Holme Roberts & Owen LLP and defendant by Carolyn McHugh and Paul Drecksel of Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless. BERRY PACKING: Recalls Cold Cuts Due To Listeria Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Berry Packing voluntarily recalled the following products: (1) "BERRY, GARLIC HOT SAUSAGE LINKS" Each vacuum package has a net weight of approximately 20 oz. and is stamped with the code "4255" (2) "BERRY, SUMMER SAUSAGE" Each vacuum package has a net weight of approximately 10 - 14 oz. and is stamped with the code "4245" (3) "BERRY, SUGAR CURED - SMOKED HAM" with a box code of "4245" The products were all packaged on September 26, 2003. Each package bears the establishment number "2325" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The first two products were distributed to retail establishment, while the last was distributed to a cold storage facility. The products were distributed to establishments in Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of the products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician. The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological testing. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with weak immune systems - infants, the frail or elderly and persons with chronic disease, HIV infection or in chemotherapy. For more details, contact Brad Davis, Manager by Phone: (870) 364-4856. CALIFORNIA: Lodi Resident Continues Suit Over Garbage Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lodi, California resident and business owner Jim Baum vowed to continue a class action filed against Central Valley Waste Management and the city, over the city's garbage collection system, the Lodi News-Sentinel reports. Mr. Baum filed the suit a year ago, after the company's garbage trucks allegedly dropped garbage residue on the roads near his mobile home park and in front of his residence. The suit alleges that the city's trucks were not being properly maintained, and oil and hydraulic fluid was being leaked onto city streets. In August 2002, Mr. Baum told the News-Sentinel about his complaints, claiming the public should be concerned not only with the smell left behind by leaky trucks, but also with grime being washed into the Mokelumne River. Last week, the grime was back. "I was appalled," Mr. Baum, who owns two mobile home parks that have both reportedly been littered with garbage grime, told the News-Sentinel. "They've been notified, and they still make one heck of a mess." City Attorney Randy Hays told the News-Sentinel the case is proceeding between the garbage company and Mr. Baum, although Mr. Hays said the city is not involved directly and the case does not ask the city for anything. Representatives of Central Valley Waste could not be reached for comment, the News-Sentinel reports. "They denied they've ever spilled anything," Mr. Baum said of the garbage company, adding that he is waiting for a court date to be set. "In the meantime, it keeps going on and on and on." CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Abuse Victims Sign Settlement Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Garabedian, who represents about 120 plaintiffs who claim they were sexually abused by clergy in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, said Monday that enough had signed an $85 million settlement agreement with the archdiocese for the settlement to take effect, AP Newswire reports. "Mediators told me that my submitting of 113 agreements will bring the total beyond 80 percent," Mr. Garabedian said. Under the agreement, at least 80 percent of the 552 victims must agree to the settlement by Thursday. Last week, attorney Roderick MacLeish Jr., whose firm represents about half of the victims, said that the vast majority of his clients had signed the agreement. He said he expected only about 10 would still refuse by the Thursday deadline. The archdiocese of Boston has been at the center of a national scandal for nearly two years following the release of church documents revealing that archdiocese leaders shuffled abusive priests from parish to parish instead of removing them from the ministry. The $85 million settlement agreement was reached in early September, less than two months after Archbishop Sean O'Malley took over as leader of the nation's fourth-largest diocese. In a similar clergy abuse case, a judge on Friday approved a plan to divide a $25.7 million settlement among 243 people who sued the Archdiocese of Louisville, Ky. Plaintiffs in the abuse lawsuits filed against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston are represented by Mitchell Garabedian and William H. Gordon of The Law Offices of Mitchell Garabedian, and Roderick MacLeish Jr., Jeffrey Newman and Robert Sherman of Greenberg Traurig LLP, and Carmen L. Durso, and defendant by Wilson D. Rogers Jr., Wilson Rogers III and Mark Rogers of The Rogers Law Firm, and Thomas H. Hannigan, Jr. ENRON CORPORATION: Creditors Oppose Statement on Business Units --------------------------------------------------------------- Enron Corporation's creditors filed more than two dozen objections to a statement the fallen energy giant filed, describing its business units, the Houston Chronicle reports. Among those who objected were the states of Oregon, California and a group of shareholders who filed a class action against the Company. The creditors said the 555-page disclosure, essentially a prospectus, was vague and did not give enough information about assets and their proposed allocation to creditors. Additionally, they said the statement was nothing more than a "glossy overview of Enron's businesses and does not include such nuts and bolts information as the methodology the company and its advisors used to determine the recovery various groups of creditors should receive." "The disclosure statement is so vague and incomplete in its present form as to prevent meaningful review by creditors and this court," says an objection by Aaron Cahn, a lawyer for a group of Enron North America creditors, the Chronicle reports. In order for Enron to emerge from bankruptcy and pay off creditors, Houston Judge Arthur Gonzalez must approve the disclosure statement. Then, the statement will be submitted to a vote of creditors along with the Company's reorganization plan. A majority of creditors in each of more than 350 classes of creditors, holding two-thirds of the debt in each class, must vote for the plan. The hearing to approve the statement was initially set for next week, but was moved to November 18 at the Company's request. The criticisms on the statement show that there is a widespread opposition to the statement. The Company has often sought to delay controversial measures in the course of its bankruptcy, seeking to work out compromises to get a better shot at getting judicial approval. Enron spokeswoman Karen Denne told the Chronicle that although the objections were filed before the delay was requested, the two were unrelated. The decision to delay was made, she said, because company lawyers and accountants need more time to analyze all the company's information and ensure it reflects the interests of all creditor groups. Enron's proposal consists of paying creditors, on average, slightly less than 20 cents on the dollar. 70% of the payment will be made in cash, while 30% will be in select energy holdings, such as Enron's pipelines. Bankruptcy experts told the Chronicle the disclosure-statement hearing offers creditors that oppose the plan a free shot at derailing its passage. Therefore, they say, widespread opposition to the disclosure statement likely foreshadows similar opposition to the plan of reorganization. FLORIDA: AG Launches Lawsuit Over Student Financial Aid Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist filed suit against National Student Financial Aid (also known as Integrated Capital, Inc.) and Marketing Plus, Inc., along with the various individuals in charge of these companies, in a move to stop what is described as a student financial aid counseling scam. The suit claims that within the past four years, National Student, with the support and assistance of Marketing Plus, deceived approximately 40,000 individuals nationwide in predominately low-income neighborhoods. During hotel seminars across the country, National Student employed an array of deceptive high-pressure sales tactics, pressuring students and parents into paying approximately $1,000 each. National Student obtained these sums by misrepresenting that consumers would receive personalized counseling and assistance. It was further pledged that this assistance would substantially enhance the student's prospects of receiving college admission and financial aid. "It is shameful to dash the dreams of young people who want to continue their education," said AG Crist in a statement. "This is not the way companies should do business in Florida." In reality, National Student did not render personalized counseling services to the vast majority of its customers and was not capable of rendering such service. The company employed no trained guidance counselors and frequently refused to even answer the telephone. Instead, the company sent consumers practice Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) and offered the assistance of an untrained data processor, who edited college admissions essays, the suit said. The Attorney General's Complaint was accompanied by a proposed "consent judgment," signed by the company, its officers and the Attorney General's Office. The consent judgment, when entered by the Court, would require the company to leave Florida, cease doing business with Florida consumers, pay $150,000 in restitution and costs of the investigation, and forgive consumer debts and judgments. Florida's action is in conjunction with several other states that have taken limited enforcement action against this Florida- based company on behalf of a handful of their residents. The Federal Trade Commission took further enforcement action, stopping short of shutting down the company. Approximately 40 consumers from across the country have provided affidavits to the Attorney General's Office. The lawsuit against National Student Financial Aid a/k/a Integrated Capital Inc. and Marketing Plus, Inc. was filed on October 20, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Florida. Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist represents the plaintiffs. GENERAL MOTORS: Two-Tier Car Loan Pricing Report Hints at Bias -------------------------------------------------------------- Vanderbilt Business Professor Mark A. Cohen studied more than 1.5 million General Motors Acceptance Corporation loans made between 1999 and April 2003 for a lawsuit filed against the financing giant that alleges discrimination against blacks and Hispanics as evidenced by a two-tier pricing system for auto loans, The State.com reports. In his research, Mr. Cohen found that when compared with white borrowers, blacks consistently were charged higher interest rates on their loans even when controlling for such factors as amount financed, term of loan and, most importantly, credit worthiness. Fifty-three percent of black GMAC borrowers were charged a markup, compared to 28 percent of white borrowers, Mr. Cohen reported. Greg Merryman, an attorney with GMAC, contends that Mr. Cohen's methodology is "seriously flawed" and as a result, his conclusions are wrong. Last year, Mr. Cohen found Hispanic borrowers in Florida with loans from Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation were also charged higher markups than white car buyers. Sixty-seven percent of Hispanics were charged a markup, compared to 47 percent of whites, according to a report Mr. Cohen submitted as part of a lawsuit against NMAC. "There have been 11 class action complaints filed in federal courts around the country over the last several years seeking to hold lenders accountable for disparities in these markups", said Stuart Rossman, director of litigation for the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center. "If the allegations prove to be true, lenders certainly should be taken to task because it is their policies that have resulted in these seemingly discriminatory markups. (However) I think auto dealers aren't getting the litigation or regulatory whipping they deserve." It is common practice for dealerships to mark up interest rates on car loans whenever possible, no matter what the prospective buyer's race or ethnicity or, for that matter, credit history, but expert research shows that white buyers aren't targeted as often and, when they are, the markups are not as high as those for minorities. The markups work this way: A consumer decides to let the dealership handle the financing. Taking into account that person's credit history and other information, a lender approves the application for a certain annual percentage rate known as the "buy rate." Unbeknownst to the consumer, the dealer may simply decide to increase the buy rate for no other reason than to make a profit, a practice that is legal. So, for example, a person's buy rate might be 6 percent, but the customer is told by the dealer he's been approved for a 9 percent loan. One of the things NMAC promised in reaching its settlement was to prominently disclose that the interest rate offered is negotiable. However, the settlement only requires NMAC to do it for five years. Short of a ban or industry-wide cap, Congress should practice some homeland financial security and pass legislation as part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act that would force prominent disclosure on every auto loan contract of the buy rate and the markup being charged. GREAT ATLANTIC: Plaintiffs To Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey's dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. and certain of its officers and directors, captioned "In re The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02 CV 2674 (FSH)." The suit alleged claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Company's July 5, 2002 filing of restated financial statements for fiscal 1999, fiscal 2000 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2001. The complaint sought unspecified money damages, costs and expenses. On January 17, 2003, defendants filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaint. On February 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to defendants' motion. Defendants' reply brief in support of their dismissal motion was filed on March 28, 2003. By Opinion & Order entered on September 18, 2003, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' Complaint without prejudice. The Court ultimately imposed an October 7, 2003 deadline by which plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint had to be filed. On October 1, 2003, defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider the portion of its September 18, 2003 Opinion & Order which granted plaintiffs' leave to further amend. By letter dated October 8, 2003, plaintiffs advised the court that they did not intend to file a Second Amended Complaint and, in fact, no Second Amended Complaint was filed by that deadline. On October 13, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal advising that they are appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the District Court's September 18, 2003 Opinion & Order. INFLUENZA VACCINE: FDA Debunks Rumors of Recalled Flu Vaccine ------------------------------------------------------------- The FDA labeled as "false" rumors that it has recalled "contaminated" lot of flu vaccine. In a statement, it said, "No contamination of any flu vaccine has been identified anywhere in the U.S. and the FDA has not recalled any lot of flu vaccine." As with any vaccine, flu vaccine is capable of causing some side effects, these are very rarely severe. Most side effects from flu vaccine are mild such as arm soreness, redness or swelling where the shot was given, fever, or achiness. More serious reactions to the flu vaccine do occur, but they are rare, the FDA said in a statement. "While FDA and CDC are currently investigating several recent reports of possible significant allergic reactions to flu vaccine, it is important to note that the number and type of reactions reported to date are not unexpected. The reactions reported, not all of which may have been caused by the administration of vaccine, do not, at this time, suggest any problem with the flu vaccine," The statement continues. The FDA and CDC will continue to investigate these and any other reports and will provide any further information as available. While serious reactions to flu vaccine are rare, each year about 114,000 people in the US are hospitalized and about 36,000 people die because of the flu. LEADENHALL BANK: Faces Flurry of Suits Over Cash 4 Titles Fraud --------------------------------------------------------------- Leadenhall Bank & Trust, a Bahamian private bank, and its credit card affiliate, Axxess International Ltd., were sued in federal court last week by about 2,000 people over claims of car fraud that fleeced investors out of $158M, AP Newswire reports. The lawsuit, the latest in a series of prosecutions and enforcement actions involving Cash 4 Titles, alleges that Leadenhall and Axxess promoted Cash 4 Titles to investors and provided an air of legitimacy to a fraudulent operation. Cash 4 Titles investors accounted for 80 percent of Axxess' business. Cash 4 Titles operated 36 stores offering short-term, high- interest loans to borrowers who pledged their auto titles as collateral. The company was shut down in 1999 by securities investigators who said the Atlanta-based company was running a Ponzi scheme that paid a promised tax-free return of up to 36 percent to old investors with money from new ones. Owner Charles Homa and chief fund-raiser Michael Gause were sent to prison after Mr. Homa turned on his former partner and went to federal investigators in New York, the lawsuit said. Leadenhall and Axxess vouched for Cash 4 Titles, and were "critical in sustaining and attracting necessary additional cash flow to ensure that the prior investors would continue to receive some 'return' on the investment," the suit said. Millions in Cash 4 Titles money was moving through Leadenhall and Axxess on a daily basis just before its collapse. Investors included Jacksonville Jaguars running back Fred Taylor and former college football coaches Jim Carlen, Brad Scott and Danny Ford, who were brought in by sports agent William "Tank" Black. The lead plaintiff, bridge champion Robert Wolff of Fort Worth, Texas, said he invested $125,000 as a nine-month loan and received none of the promised profits. Individual investments ranged from $5,000 to $22 million, with the average around $100,000. Large clusters of investors came from Atlanta, Florida, Illinois, Maryland and South Carolina. William Jennings, a director of Leadenhall, said Monday that he was unaware of the lawsuit and had no comment on it. A phone number for Axxess reached a recording saying it was not in service. "The investors have not yet been paid 100 percent of their losses," said Lawrence Kellogg, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs suing Leadenhall and Axxess. The lawsuit filed by Kellogg's clients contends James Owen, a Leadenhall officer, was part of investor recruitment seminars and traveled to North Carolina as part of the fraud. A separate federal lawsuit against the Bank of Bermuda alleging its Cayman Islands branch supported the fraud was settled out of court in 2001 for $50 million with the bank denying any wrongdoing. A court-appointed receiver has recovered another $30 million. MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Faces Investor Suit Over Financial Misdeeds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Woburn-based small equipment leasing firm MicroFinancial, Inc. faces a class action suit on behalf of people who purchased shares between February 5, 1999 and October 30, 2002, the Boston Business Journal reports. The lawsuit accuses MicroFinancial, which specializes in offering financing products in the $500 to $10,000 price range, and three individuals affiliated with the company: Peter R. Bleyleben, Richard F. Latour and James R. Jackson Jr., of overstating revenue and earnings by improperly recording financing income, fees and revenue from delinquent and defaulted commercial leasing. According to a release from the law firm, MicroFinancial and the other defendants announced on October 11, 2002, that the company would stop making new lease originations as part of new business strategy to focus on its technology and loan servicing options. The company also announced a layoff as part of the new business plan. MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Responds To EU Antitrust Charges on Time --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation filed its response to antitrust charges by the European Union (EU) that it was illegally trying to extend its dominance with Windows operating systems into markets for servers and multimedia players, the Associated Press reports. Earlier this month, the software giant asked for more time to file its response before the set deadline of midnight of October 17, 2003. "We've now received the reply which we will now be reviewing," said Amelia Torres, antitrust spokeswoman at the European Commission. She said the response was received Friday night, hours ahead of the midnight deadline. The 4-year-old suit could cost the Company almost $3 billion in fines, as well as possible orders to disclose more of its prized software code to rivals and change how it sells Windows software, AP reports. There is no deadline for a decision. Neither Microsoft nor the EU would comment on its contents. NEVADA: Judge Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Improper Sentencing ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal lawsuit alleges that Clark County District Court Judge Donald Mosley violated defendants' civil rights with improper sentences, AP Newswire reports. The class action stems from the case of Jeanette Faye Sadoski, who accuses the veteran Nevada court judge of wrongfully increasing her sentence and exposing her to double jeopardy. The suit seeks a review of all of Mosley's criminal cases to determine if he legally resentenced other defendants. Clark Garen, Ms. Sadoski's attorney, says he believes "a couple hundred people'' may be affected. Ms. Sadoski claims that Judge Mosley changed her sentence for theft from a misdemeanor to a felony after another charge came to light. Nevada law lets a judge reduce sentences, but does not address lengthening them. The federal class action lawsuit initiated by Jeanette Faye Sadoski against Clark County District Court Judge Donald Mosley was filed in January 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Attorney Clark Garen represents the plaintiffs. Past stories: CAR030131 OLYMPIC FOOD: Recalls Frozen Corn Dogs For Undeclared Allergens --------------------------------------------------------------- Olympic Food Products Inc., a Kokomo, Indiana, establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 33,000 pounds of frozen corn dogs that contain undeclared allergens (egg, whey) and an undeclared ingredient (beef), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced. The products being recalled are: (1) "QUICKMEAL PREMIUM CORN DOG, BATTER-WRAPPED CHICKEN & PORK FRANK ON A STICK, NET WT 2.75 oz. Included on each package is the label code "40238-07", which is located on the back of the package in the lower right hand corner below the list of ingredients. These products contained undeclared allergens and were produced on July 28, August 18, and September 16, 2003. (2) "OUICKMEAL PREMIUM JUMBO CORN DOG, BATTER-WRAPPED CHICKEN & PORK FRANK ON A STICK, NET WT 4 oz. Included on each package is the label code "37175-02", which is located on the back of the package in the lower right hand corner below the list of ingredients. These products contained an undeclared ingredient and were produced on August 18 and 19, 2003. All of the products subject to recall also bear the establishment code "EST. P-6882" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were distributed nationwide to wholesale and retail establishments. The Company discovered the problem. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician. For more details, contact the company's consumer hotline: 1-877-446-7635. RJ REYNOLDS: IL Court Stays Trial For "Lights" Cigarette Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Third Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County, Illinois stayed the "lights" class action trial against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. (NYSE: RJR) for 90 days, Reuters reports. A week ago, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied the request to stay the class action trial, known as Turner, which was set to commence on October 28 Judge George Moran issued the stay from October 20, an R.J. Reynolds spokeswoman told Reuters. Philip Morris USA lost a similar class action case over the marketing of some of its "lights" cigarettes in the same venue earlier this year. Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc. (nyse: MO), is appealing that verdict, Reuters reports. Analysts had expected R.J. Reynolds' trial to be stayed until the verdict against Philip Morris was resolved. TACO BELL: Reaches Full Settlement For OR Overtime Wage Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Taco Bell Corporation reached a final settlement for the class action, entitled "Bravo, et al. v. Taco Bell Corporation," filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah. Two former Taco Bell shift managers launched the suit on behalf of approximately 17,000 current and former hourly employees statewide. The lawsuit alleges violations of state wage and hour laws, principally involving unpaid wages including overtime, and rest and meal period violations, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. Under Oregon class action procedures, the Company was allowed an opportunity to "cure" the unpaid wage and hour allegations by opening a claims process to all putative class members prior to certification of the class. In this cure process, Taco Bell paid out less than $1 million. On January 26, 1999, the court certified a class of all current and former shift managers and crew members who claim one or more of the alleged violations. A Court-approved notice and claim form was mailed to approximately 14,500 class members on January 31, 2000. Trial began on January 4, 2001. On March 9, 2001, the jury reached verdicts on the substantive issues in this matter. A number of these verdicts were in favor of the Taco Bell position; however, certain issues were decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In April 2002, a jury trial to determine the damages of 93 of those claimants found that Taco Bell failed to pay for certain meal breaks and/or off-the-clock work for 86 of the 93 claimants. However, the total amount of hours awarded by the jury was substantially less than that sought by the claimants. In July and September 2002, the court ruled on several post- trial motions, including fixing the total number of potential claimants at 1,031 (including the 93 claimants for which damages have already been determined) and holding that claimants who prevail are entitled to prejudgment interest and penalty wages. The second damages trial for the remaining 938 claimants began on July 7, 2003. Before the trial concluded, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter in full. The court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement, which is subject to delivery of a notice of the settlement terms to the class with an opportunity to object and be heard. TELSTRA CORPORATION: Customers To File Suit Over E-Mail Fiasco -------------------------------------------------------------- Telstra Corporation's e-mail service remains subject to long delays but has improved as a result of work on the system over the past weekend, according to the company and some customers. Telstra added new capacity to its systems in order to boost the services, but still expects problems to continue beyond this week, the Australian Financial Review reports. The company, Australia's largest Internet server, said late last week it would credit $25 million to customers to compensate for the delay; and it will be boosting the capacity of the e-mail network by 30 percent over the coming weeks. Nonetheless, critics of the company are gathering momentum in their push to prepare a class action over the delays in e-mail services in recent weeks. One of the organizers of the potential class action, according to the Australian Financial Review, said he had received support from other customers and expected to brief lawyers this week. Telstra's Chief Executive, Dr. Ziggy Switkowski, said the company attributed the slowdown of e-mails to the Swen-A virus, and, earlier, told reporters that it was therefore able to promptly consider appropriate customer measures and introduce them. Internet legal expert Oliver Barrett, of the Minter Ellison law firm, considering the issue of a class action judgment against Telstra, told the Review such a judgment looked unlikely. If Internet service providers were held liable for losses caused by forces outside their control, such as spam, viruses, and more, said Mr. Barrett, carriers would have to "change their business models radically." Telstra spokeswoman Kerrina Lawrence told the Review recently that customers should expect far fewer "time-out" and error messages as a result of the technical work on the weekend October 18-19. At the same time, Telstra remains cautious about how quickly it can return its systems to normal. The customer rebate, or credit, equivalent to two weeks of internet access, is automatic. The company's other offer, for free virus and firewall protection, can be claimed online. A man who did not want to be named said there was evidence some e-mails were being lost, because customers were receiving failure notices 10 days after sending a message. TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: Military Personnel's Privacy Lawsuit Junked --------------------------------------------------------------- US District Judge Susan Bolton dismissed a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Lt. Col. Michael Stollenwerk and other military personnel whose personal information was stolen in a December 14 burglary at Phoenix-based TriWest Healthcare Alliance, a private firm that runs the Defense Department's TriCare HMO program, AP Newswire reports. "Without damages, it doesn't matter how negligent anyone was," Judge Bolton said, while allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The thieves stole computer hard drives containing names, addresses, phone numbers, medical claim histories and Social numbers for about 562,000 military personnel. The lawsuit stated that security measures at TriWest were lax, and because of that, the company was negligent. It claimed that under Arizona law, TriWest failed to protect people's privacy interests and to "keep confidential and secure each plaintiff's sensitive personal information it collected from them." Company officials said there was nothing linking the stolen information to fraud. During a hearing Monday, TriWest attorney Barry Halpern called the claim "creative and unfounded." TriWest serves about 2.6 million active-duty personnel, their dependents and retirees in 21 states. UNITED KINGDOM: 40% of Epilepsy Cases Misdiagnosed, Group States ---------------------------------------------------------------- A health organization believes that 40% of childhood epilepsy cases have been wrongly diagnosed and warned of a nationwide crisis in epilepsy detection, the Scotsman reports. Epilepsy Action, the national epilepsy association, issued the warning, as a two-year inquiry over the handling of a doctor who wrongly diagnosed at least a third of his juvenile patients prepared to publish its findings. The inquiry is about Dr. Andrew Holton, who worked as a pediatric neurologist at the Leicester Royal Infirmary (LRI) between 1990 and 2001. Dr. Holton allegedly misdiagnosed epilepsy in 618 children. Around 500 children were given high doses of powerful drugs, which in some instances they did not need. Parents will be handed the findings of the independent NHS inquiry team, commissioned by the Regional Director of Public Health (RDPH) in November 2001, today. They have also demanded to know how the consultant was able to misdiagnose over 600 of their children. Around 400 families have already filed a $10 million group legal action against the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust. "The situation in Leicester could quite easily have happened elsewhere as it highlighted the national problem of childhood epilepsy," a spokeswoman for the group told the Scotsman. "There are around 62,000 children with epilepsy in the UK, but only 63 pediatric neurologists, not all of whom have a specialist knowledge in epilepsy. It represents a chronic lack of specialists." The association further said that some sufferers will never have the chance to be treated by a neurologist who specializes in epilepsy. Solicitors acting for the families told the Scotsman that they have also been instructed to bring similar, unrelated claims against Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London, and hospitals in Doncaster, Manchester and Warrington. Lindsay Wise, of the solicitors Alexander Harris, which is handling 151 cases against the trust, said: "Around 400 families are involved in the class action and we are working with the NHS solicitors to settle those claims and we estimate the total cost will be a seven figure sum. UNITED STATES: Republicans Push For Passage of Class Action Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- Republicans in the United States Senate are continuing their fight to have a long-pending legislation to curb huge awards from class actions approved, despite strong opposition from Democrats, the Washington Post reports. The House had passed the legislation thrice, but it has yet to come to a vote in the Senate, where its supporters have yet to come up with the 60 votes needed to pass the bill in the 100- member chamber. The bill calls for the removal of class actions from state courts - which are perceived to be highly friendly to plaintiffs and consumer interests - to federal courts, where it is harder to seek compensation. The suits referred to in the proposed legislation are suits with 100 or more plaintiffs, at least $5 million at stake or where the primary defendant and no more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state, the Washington Post states. The only cases that would be allowed to remain in state court are those where two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the defendant. Judges could determine what happens in cases that fall in between. President Bush has regarded the passage of the bill as a priority, saying that it would free businesses to focus on creating jobs. Supporters of the bill assert that it would keep lawyers from "forum shopping" to find courts - often in poor, rural areas - that are the most likely to order the highest damage awards. There is "widespread abuse of class-action lawsuits in our state courts" that result in aggrieved consumers receiving "little or nothing of value while the attorneys receive millions of dollars in fees," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R- Utah) told the Post. However, the opponents of the bill, said this would cause federal courts to be clogged up with cases, delaying them and causing other problems. It is a "special interest piece of legislation designed exclusively to protect those who are wealthy in America and powerful in America from even being held accountable in court," Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) told the Post. The Senate is the last obstacle to the enactment of the bill after a five-year struggle between Republicans allied with business interests and Democrats with ties to trial lawyers and consumer groups. Republicans have said 57 senators, including some Democrats, are ready to proceed, but this falls three votes short of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post last week he believed Democrats would succeed in stopping the bill, but Republicans have expressed guarded optimism that they can pick up the three votes needed to prevail. If the filibuster fails, Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) intends to bring up a substitute proposal that would, among other things, provide more latitude for state court consideration of cases involving out-of-state defendants. Business lobbyists oppose the proposal, but Sen. Breaux contends a compromise is essential for passage of any legislation on the subject, the Post reports. WASHINGTON: Court Orders Striking Teachers To Go Back to Work ------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Linda C. Krese ordered Marysville teachers, who had been on strike for more than a month - the longest in state history, that they return to work by Wednesday, but the head of their union said she expects teachers to defy the ruling, AP Newswire reports. "It is time for all the adults to grow up and start looking at their obligations to these children," Judge Krese said. The judge faulted both sides for the continuing strike, which began September 2 on what was supposed to be the first day of school for 11,000 students in the district about 30 miles north of Seattle. "I feel very firmly that we won't go back without a contract. We need a contract," said Elaine Hanson, president of the Marysville Education Association. School district Superintendent Linda Whitehead said she is pleased by the ruling. "I'm excited the teachers and students are coming back to school," she said. Nearly 700 Marysville teachers have taken to the picket lines, seeking 7.5 percent in raises over three years. The district says it can't afford it. Teacher pay in Marysville is about $33,000 a year for beginners and $66,000 for the most experienced and best educated. The district maintains that its teachers are the second-highest paid in the state; the union says its computations rank Marysville ninth in average salary. The judge told the union and school district to negotiate eight hours a day for four days, but both sides said the talks yielded no progress. A third-party panel Gov. Gary Locke appointed to analyze the strike has called negotiations "an abysmal failure." WESTERN UNION: Money Transfer Settlement Receives Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- An international notice program is currently under way to notify class members of a proposed worldwide class action settlement involving Western Union Financial Services, Inc. that has been preliminarily approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Anyone who used Western Union, Orlandi Valuta or Tex Mex to transfer money between the United States and another country or territory between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2002 should obtain further information about the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is approved by the court, members of the Class may be eligible to receive coupons for discounts on future money transfers or other benefits. To receive the benefits, or to protect their rights concerning their transactions, the lawsuit, and the proposed settlement, members of the class must receive the official Notice of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Hearing. If approved, the proposed settlement may affect the legal rights of anyone who used the Western Union(R), Orlandi Valuta(SM) or Tex Mex(R) money transfer services to send money electronically either: (1) from the United States to another country or territory (excluding Mexico) from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2002, (2) from the United States (excluding California) to Mexico from September 1, 1999 to December 31, 2002, or (3) from another country or territory to the United States from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2002. The Court has set February 9, 2004 as the deadline for members of the Class to comment on, object to, or opt out of the settlement. A Court hearing to determine the fairness of the settlement has been scheduled for April 9, 2004. For more details, contact the administrator by Mail: Western Union Money Transfer Litigation Settlement Information, P.O. Box 8882, Melville, New York 11747-8882, USA by Phone: 1-888-805-6092 from the United States and Canada; or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cruzlitigation.com. WORLDCOM INC.: Appearance of Ex-Employees' in OK Court Delayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmonson acceded to a request by US Attorney General for the Southern District of New York James B. Comey to delay the court appearances of four former WorldCom employees, who are cooperating in a federal case against the Company in New York, the Associated Press reports. Federal charges are pending against Scott Sullivan, former chief financial officer of the telecommunications company, which is now known as MCI. Mr. Sullivan, former chief executive Bernard Ebbers and others defendants are accused of 15 felony counts in Oklahoma, each carrying up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine. The charges assert that the Company's falsified profit reports led Oklahoma investors to lose millions, including a $64 million hit to state pension funds invested in the company. After the Oklahoma charges were filed, Mr. Comey said his office had not been notified. In an October 10 letter to Mr. Edmonson, he stated that it was better for the two offices' efforts to be coordinated and asked that the court appearances of former Worldcom employees Buford Yates, David Myers, Betty Vinson and Troy Normand in Oklahoma be delayed until after they testify in the federal case against Mr. Sullivan. "Because we want these witnesses to be at their best when they testify at trial, I hope you will consider adjourning any appearance by these four witnesses on the charges brought by your office until after our February trial," Mr. Comey wrote, the Associated Press reports. He added, "this is (in) both our interests because a federal conviction of Scott Sullivan will only assist your office's case." Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- October 23 - 24, 2003 THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS American Conference Institute New York Marriott East Side Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com October 24, 2003 7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS American Bar Association San Francisco, CA Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org October 27-28, 2003 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS Mealey Publications The Westin Chicago River North Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 6-7, 2003 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com November 6-7, 2003 WHITE COLLAR FRAUD, INDUSTRIAL INJURIES, PHARMACEUTICALS & NURSING HOMES MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com November 7, 2003 7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS American Bar Association Washington, DC Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org November 10-11, 2003 FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 13-14, 2003 MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS Mealey Publications The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 13-14, 2003 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 17, 2003 WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Pasadena Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 17-18, 2003 INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 18, 2003 MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 18, 2003 DAUBERT CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 19-20, 2003 LITIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTIONS Glasser Legal Works New York City Contact: mbaron@glasserlegalworks.com; 800-308-1700x111 December 3-4, 2003 LITIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTIONS Glasser Legal Works San Francisco Contact: mbaron@glasserlegalworks.com; 800-308-1700x111 December 8-9, 2003 ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 8-9, 2003 CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 8-9, 2003 D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute San Francisco Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com December 11-13, 2003 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 11, 2003 MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 11-13, 2003 EMERGING SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 11-13, 2003 CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 14-16, 2003 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conference Institute The Plaza Hotel, New York City Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com January 22-23, 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION ALI-ABA Orlando (Walt Disney World) Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 January 26-27, 2004 WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pasadena CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 29, 2004 OBESITY CLAIMS American Conference Institute Washington Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com January 29-30, 2004 TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Philadephia Marriott, PA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 02, 2004 EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute New York City Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com February 12, 2004 BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 13, 2004 PPA LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 23-24, 2004 ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 Mealey Publications The Westin, Philadephia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 23-24, 2004 FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 18-19, 2004 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com The Fairmont, San Francisco, California Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com April 14-17, 2004 INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE Mealey Publications The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 10 & 11, 2004 SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION MassTortsMadePerfect.Com Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com TBA FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com TBA FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ October 06-30, 2003 DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION: EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 06-30, 2003 NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com October 06-30, 2003 NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the AllianceBernstein family of funds (the "Funds") owned and operated by Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P. (NYSE:AC), and its subsidiaries and other affiliates, between October 2, 1998 and September 29, 2003, inclusive. The defendants are Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P., Alliance Capital Management Corporation, Alliance Capital Management, L.P., AXA Financial, Inc., each of the registrants for the Funds, Gerald Malone, Charles Schaffran, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd., each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below, are as follows: (1) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CABDX, CBBDX, CBBCX) (2) AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Sym: AHLAX, AHLBX, AHLCX) (3) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX, ADGBX, ADGCX) (4) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Sym: CHCAX, CHCBX, CHCCX) (5) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym: AREAX, AREBX, ARECX) (6) AllianceBernstein Growth Fund (Sym: AGRFX, AGBBX, AGRCX) (7) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX) (8) AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Sym: ABASX, ABBSX, ABCSX) (9) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Sym: APGAX, APGBX APGCX) (10) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio (Sym AITAX, AITBX, AITCX) (11) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, ABVCX) (12) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Sym: QUASX, QUABX, QUACX) (13) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Sym: ALTFX, ATEBX, ATECX) (14) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX) (15) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX, AUIBX, AUICX) (16) AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX, CBACX) (17) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX, ADGBX, ADGCX) (18) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX, ABCGX) (19) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX, ABIBX, ABICX) (20) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym: AREAX, AREBX, ARECX) (21) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: ABASX, ABBSX, ABCSX) (22) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX, AUIBX, AUICX) (23) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX) (24) AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap Portfolio (Sym: ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX) (25) AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX, AAABX, AAACX) (26) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX, ABCGX) (27) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX, GCHBX, GCHCX) (28) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX) (29) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX, ABIBX, ABICX) (30) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX, AGCBX, GSCCX) (31) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX, ANEBX, ANECX) (32) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (Sym: AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX) (33) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX) (34) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX) (35) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX) (36) AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust (Sym: ANAGX, ANABX, ANACX) (37) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio (Sym: CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX) (38) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio (Sym: ABQUX, ABQBX, ABQCX) (39) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio (Sym: ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX) (40) AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym: AGDAX, AGDBX, AGDCX) (41) AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust (Sym: AGSAX, AGSBX, AGCCX) (42) AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX, AHHCX) (43) AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym: AMMSX, AMMBX, AMMCX) (44) AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX, ADPCX) (45) AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni Portfolio (Sym: AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX) (46) AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni Portfolio (Sym: AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX) (47) AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio: (Sym: ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX) (48) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio (Sym: ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX) (49) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio (Sym: AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX) (50) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio (Sym: ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX) (51) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California Portfolio (Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX) (52) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National Portfolio (Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX) (53) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio (Sym: AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX) (54) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts Portfolio (Sym: AMAAX, AMABX) (55) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio (Sym: AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX) (56) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio (Sym: AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX) (57) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio (Sym: ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX) (58) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio (Sym: ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX) (59) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio (Sym: AOHAX, AOHBX, AOHCX) (60) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym: APAAX, APABX, APACX) (61) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio (Sym: AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX) Investors in the State of Rhode Island 529 Plan, known as the CollegeBoundfund(SM), may have invested in one or more of the funds listed below: (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds, including Canary and certain Alliance hedge funds, to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities. Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being filed based on the next day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC regulations. Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market- moving information that only becomes available after 4 P.M. and has been compared to betting on a horse race that already has been run. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual fund investors - who are not allowed to engage in such practices - and are acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored investors, Alliance Capital Management Holding and its subsidiaries allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for Canary's improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against timing and represented that post-4 P.M. EST trades will be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that premature redemptions will be assessed a charge. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ssbny.com ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Nasdaq: CABBX, CBACX), AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Nasdaq: ADGBX, ADGCX), AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: ABBGX, ABCGX), AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Nasdaq: ABIBX, ABICX), and other AllianceBernstein family of funds (the "Funds") owned and operated by Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P. (NYSE: AC), and its subsidiaries and other affiliates, between October 2, 1998 and September 29, 2003. The complaint names Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P., Alliance Capital Management Corporation, Alliance Capital Management, L.P., AXA Financial, Inc., each of the registrants for the Funds, Gerald Malone, Charles Schaffran, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd., each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100. The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below, are as follows: (1) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CABDX, CBBDX, CBBCX) (2) AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Sym: AHLAX, AHLBX, AHLCX) (3) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX, ADGBX, ADGCX) (4) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Sym: CHCAX, CHCBX, CHCCX) (5) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym: AREAX, AREBX, ARECX) (6) AllianceBernstein Growth Fund (Sym: AGRFX, AGBBX, AGRCX) (7) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX) (8) AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Sym: ABASX, ABBSX, ABCSX) (9) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Sym: APGAX, APGBX APGCX) (10) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio (Sym AITAX, AITBX, AITCX) (11) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, ABVCX) (12) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Sym: QUASX, QUABX, QUACX) (13) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Sym: ALTFX, ATEBX, ATECX) (14) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX) (15) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX, AUIBX, AUICX) (16) AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX, CBACX) (17) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX, ADGBX, ADGCX) (18) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX, ABCGX) (19) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX, ABIBX, ABICX) (20) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym: AREAX, AREBX, ARECX) (21) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: ABASX, ABBSX, ABCSX) (22) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX, AUIBX, AUICX) (23) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX) (24) AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap Portfolio (Sym: ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX) (25) AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX, AAABX, AAACX) (26) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX, ABCGX) (27) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX, GCHBX, GCHCX) (28) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX) (29) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX, ABIBX, ABICX) (30) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX, AGCBX, GSCCX) (31) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX, ANEBX, ANECX) (32) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (Sym: AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX) (33) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX) (34) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX) (35) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX) (36) AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust (Sym: ANAGX, ANABX, ANACX) (37) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio (Sym: CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX) (38) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio (Sym: ABQUX, ABQBX, ABQCX) (39) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio (Sym: ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX) (40) AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym: AGDAX, AGDBX, AGDCX) (41) AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust (Sym: AGSAX, AGSBX, AGCCX) (42) AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX, AHHCX) (43) AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym: AMMSX, AMMBX, AMMCX) (44) AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX, ADPCX) (45) AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni Portfolio (Sym: AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX) (46) AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni Portfolio (Sym: AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX) (47) AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio: (Sym: ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX) (48) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio (Sym: ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX) (49) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio (Sym: AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX) (50) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio (Sym: ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX) (51) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California Portfolio (Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX) (52) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National Portfolio (Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX) (53) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio (Sym: AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX) (54) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts Portfolio (Sym: AMAAX, AMABX) (55) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio (Sym: AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX) (56) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio (Sym: AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX) (57) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio (Sym: ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX) (58) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio (Sym: ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX) (59) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio (Sym: AOHAX, AOHBX, AOHCX) (60) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym: APAAX, APABX, APACX) (61) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio (Sym: AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX) Investors in the State of Rhode Island 529 Plan, known as the CollegeBoundfund(SM), may have invested in one or more of the funds listed below: (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds, including Canary and certain Alliance hedge funds, to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities. Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC regulations. Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market- moving information that only becomes available after 4 P.M. and has been compared to betting on a horse race that already has been run. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored investors, Alliance Capital Management Holding and its subsidiaries allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for Canary's improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against timing and represented that post-4 P.M. EST trades will be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that premature redemptions will be assessed a charge. For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Robert A. Kauffman, Glen L. Abramson, Diane R. Werwinski by Mail: Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888- 891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of InterMune, Inc. (NASDAQ: ITMN) during the period January 6, 2003 to June 11, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges that the Company and the Company's CEO, W. Scott Harkonen, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements about one of the its leading products, Actimmune. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware that demand for Actimmune was declining because: (1) the most recent clinical study showed that Actimmune was not effective in the treatment of certain pulmonary diseases, (2) Actimmune inventory levels were increasing, and (3) doctor demand was falling due, in part, to the Company's decision to curtail physician education, the lifeblood of InterMune's off-label sales of Actimmune. However, despite this knowledge, the Company falsely stated during the class period that it was on course to meet projected revenue figures, which had not been previously reduced to reflect lowered demand for the drug. 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of MicroFinancial, Inc. (NYSE: MFI) from February 5, 1999 through October 30, 2002, inclusive. The complaint charges MicroFinancial, Peter R. Bleyleben, Richard F. Latour, and James R. Jackson Jr. with violations of 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 February 5, 1999 and October 30, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of MicroFinancial's common stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants represented that the Company's business and operations were being conducted in a profitable and lawful manner. In offering documents issued in connection with its 1999 initial public offering and in the Company's periodic filings with the SEC, the Company described itself as a "specialized" commercial finance enterprise that leases and rents "low-priced" equipment and provides other financial services. Throughout the Class Period, the Company issued highly positive earnings reports, as well as forecasts for the Company's continued growth and profitability. Unknown to the investing public, however, the Company materially overstated its revenues and earnings by improperly recognizing tens of millions of dollars of financing income, fees and other revenues arising from delinquent and defaulted commercial leasing, rental and finance contracts that defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, were uncollectible because the contracts were unenforceable by their terms. Additionally, defendants materially understated MicroFinancial's credit losses on tens of thousands of delinquent customer accounts and certain third-party "dealer receivables" which defendants never intended to collect but, in many instances, offset against the Company's funding of new contracts. As a result, defendants materially misrepresented the Company's current and future revenues and profits and issued financial statements that violated generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") and SEC reporting requirements throughout the Class Period. On August 14, 2002, MicroFinancial disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, that the Company was the target of a combined federal and state inquiry into the Company's leasing and credit collection practices, among other things. Then just two months later on October 11, 2002, defendants stunned the market by announcing that MicroFinancial was ceasing to make any new lease originations as part of a "new business strategy to leverage the Company's technology and loan servicing platform." Market reaction to the Company's "new business strategy" announcement was swift and severe. The Company's common stock lost 37% of its value to close at $2.14 per share on October 11, 2002. The Company's stock price has never recovered, and its common shares have continued to trade at or below that level to the current date, representing more than an 85% loss in value from MicroFinancial's IPO price of $15.00 per share. 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 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Printcafe Software, Inc. (NasdaqNM: PCAF) from June 18, 2002 through October 22, 2002, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with Printcafe's initial public offering (IPO). The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus were materially false and misleading because statements made therein failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that demand for the Company's products and services was declining to the extent that the Company was not performing in line with its internal expectations; (2) that the Company's product development efforts were experiencing difficulties; and (3) that the Company's declining financial performance would require it to engage in a material restructuring of its operations in order to generate cost savings and reverse that negative trend. At the time of the filing of the complaint, the price of Printcafe common stock was $2.57 per share. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities fraud class action against SureBeam Corporation (NasdaqNM: SUREE) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased shares of SureBeam's common stock pursuant to SureBeam's March 16, 2001 initial public offering or on the open market during the period from March 16, 2001, through August 27, 2003. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants improperly utilized the percentage-of-completion method for accounting for its revenue and improperly accounted for millions of dollars of revenue derived from sales of equipment to a Brazilian company and to Texas A&M University causing the Company's Class Period revenues to be misrepresented. The truth began to be revealed when, on June 3, 2003, SureBeam announced that it had terminated KPMG LLP as its auditor. A little more than two months later, on August 21, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was firing Deloitte & Touche, which had been hired to replace KPMG, because Deloitte & Touche allegedly had refused to sign off on the Company's improper accounting. Prior to the termination of KPMG, SureBeam's stock was selling for $3.10 per share. After the substantial issues that Deloitte had contested became public, SureBeam's stock had dropped almost in half, to $1.62 per share. During the period SureBeam was issuing its favorable false statements about the Company's financial results, defendant Lawrence A. Oberkfell, the former President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, sold over 1.5 million SureBeam shares for proceeds of more than $5.5 million. Similarly, defendant Kevin K. Claudio, formerly the Chief Financial Officer of the Company and currently its Senior Vice President, sold over 522,000 SureBeam shares for proceeds of more than $2.3 million. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com TRIPOS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MO ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com VAN DER MOOLEN: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP intiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the American Depository Receipt shares ("ADRs") of Van der Moolen Holding N.V. (NYSE: VDM), between October 18, 2001 and October 15, 2003, inclusive. The complaint charges Van der Moolen Holding N.V., Friedrich M.J. Bottcher, Frank F. Dorjee, James P. Cleaver, Jr., and Casper F. Rondeltap with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Van der Moolen acts as a specialty firm on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). As a specialist on the NYSE, Van der Moolen is required to uphold the rules and requirements of the NYSE. One such requirement that Van der Moolen must adhere to is called the "negative obligation." The negative obligation is the duty to hang back and not trade for the specialist firm's own account when enough public investor orders exist to pair up naturally, without undue intervention. Rather than uphold its duties, Van der Moolen, during the class period, repeatedly violated its duties by engaging in an illegal scheme to drive up the Company's financial results. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company's statements concerning its financial results during the class period were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that Van der Moolen engaged in the illegal practice of "front-running" trades at the NYSE, which allowed Van der Moolen to act on nonpublic information to trade ahead of customers lacking that knowledge and pocket a profit on each trade; (2) that Van der Moolen illegally "traded ahead" of customer orders by causing or allowing its traders to put Van der Moolen's own interest ahead of investors by ignoring one investor order in the process of interacting with another investor, thereby creating more illegal profits for the Company; (3) that Van der Moolen, throughout the Class Period, improperly recognized revenue from its illegal scheme in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); and (4) as a result of this illegal scheme, Van der Moolen materially overstated and artificially inflated its earnings and net income. On April 17, 2003, the NYSE issued a statement wherein it disclosed that it had begun an investigation of the specialist firms of the NYSE. On news of this Van der Moolen ADRs fell 4.8% or $0.52 per share to close at $10.19 per share. On April 18, 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that Van der Moolen and others were the subject of an investigation by the NYSE into illegal trading practices on the floor of the NYSE. Additionally on April 18, 2003, Bloomberg reported that the SEC had also begun an investigation into illegal trading practices by specialist firms, such as Van der Moolen. On news of this, Van der Moolen ADRs fell another 4.7% or $0.48 per share to close at $9.71 per share on April 21, 2003. On September 22, 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that SEC had intensified its inquiry into the NYSE specialist firms, like Van der Moolen. The article noted that SEC was not only investigating the illegal "front-running" practices of the specialist firms, like Van der Moolen but was now investigating whether floor traders "traded ahead" of customer orders. On news of this, Van der Moolen ADRs fell 4.4% or $0.62 per share to close at $13.35 per share. Lastly, on October 16, 2003, the NYSE announced that the NYSE Enforcement Division had decided to bring disciplinary action against Van der Moolen and the other specialist firms. Additionally, the NYSE stated that for the three- year period ended December 31, 2002, Van der Moolen disadvantaged customers who entered orders via the NYSE's Designated Order Turnaround System (DOT) through alleged "interpositioning" resulting in losses to customers of approximately $10 million. In the case of such alleged "interpositioning" Van der Moolen is believed to have traded unnecessarily as dealer with DOT orders on one side of the market, and then immediately traded with DOT orders on the opposite side, at a profit to the specialist. The NYSE further stated that Van der Moolen's illegal actions resulted in additional losses to customers of approximately $25 million. In these alleged "one-sided trading" cases, the specialist is believed to have traded unnecessarily, as dealer, on one side of the market only, at a price level where one or more DOT orders could have traded instead. News of this shocked the market. Van der Moolen ADRs fell 14.7% or $1.56 per share to close at $9.05 per share on extremely high volume. For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld 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 VAN DER MOOLEN: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the American Depository Receipt shares (ADRs) of Van der Moolen Holding N.V. (NYSE: VDM), between October 18, 2001 through October 15, 2003, inclusive. The complaint names as defendants the Company and: (1) Friedrich M.J. Bottcher, (2) Frank F. Dorjee, (3) James P. Cleaver, Jr., and (4) Casper F. Rondeltap The defendants are charged with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Van der Moolen acts as a specialty firm on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). As a specialist on the NYSE, Van der Moolen is required to uphold the rules and requirements of the NYSE. One such requirement that Van der Moolen must adhere to is called the "negative obligation." The negative obligation is the duty to hang back and not trade for the specialist firm's own account when enough public investor orders exist to pair up naturally, without undue intervention. Rather than uphold its duties, Van der Moolen, during the class period, repeatedly violated its duties by engaging in an illegal scheme to drive up the Company's financial results. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company's statements concerning its financial results during the class period were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that Van der Moolen engaged in the illegal practice of "front-running" trades at the NYSE, which allowed Van der Moolen to act on nonpublic information to trade ahead of customers lacking that knowledge and pocket a profit on each trade; (ii) that Van der Moolen illegally "traded ahead" of customer orders by causing or allowing its traders to put Van der Moolen's own interest ahead of investors by ignoring one investor order in the process of interacting with another investor, thereby creating more illegal profits for the Company; (iii) that Van der Moolen, throughout the Class Period, improperly recognized revenue from its illegal scheme in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); and (iv) as a result of this illegal scheme, Van der Moolen materially overstated and artificially inflated its earnings and net income. On April 17, 2003, the NYSE issued a statement wherein it disclosed that it had begun an investigation of the specialist firms of the NYSE. On news of this Van der Moolen ADRs fell 4.8% or $0.52 per share to close at $10.19 per share. On April 18, 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that Van der Moolen and others were the subject of an investigation by the NYSE into illegal trading practices on the floor of the NYSE. Additionally on April 18, 2003, Bloomberg reported that the SEC had also begun an investigation into illegal trading practices by specialist firms, such as Van der Moolen. On news of this, Van der Moolen ADRs fell another 4.7% or $0.48 per share to close at $9.71 per share on April 21, 2003. On September 22, 2003, The Wall Street Journal reported that SEC had intensified its inquiry into the NYSE specialist firms, like Van der Moolen. The article noted that SEC was not only investigating the illegal "front-running" practices of the specialist firms, like Van der Moolen but was now investigating whether floor traders "traded ahead" of customer orders. On news of this, Van der Moolen ADRs fell 4.4% or $0.62 per share to close at $ 13.35 per share. Lastly, on October 16, 2003, the NYSE announced that the NYSE Enforcement Division had decided to bring disciplinary action against Van der Moolen and the other specialist firms. Additionally, the NYSE stated that for the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, Van der Moolen disadvantaged customers who entered orders via the NYSE's Designated Order Turnaround System (DOT) through alleged "interpositioning" resulting in losses to customers of approximately $10 million. In the case of such alleged "interpositioning" Van der Moolen is believed to have traded unnecessarily as dealer with DOT orders on one side of the market, and then immediately traded with DOT orders on the opposite side, at a profit to the specialist. The NYSE further stated that Van der Moolen's illegal actions resulted in additional losses to customers of approximately $25 million. In these alleged "one-sided trading" cases, the specialist is believed to have traded unnecessarily, as dealer, on one side of the market only, at a price level where one or more DOT orders could have traded instead. News of this shocked the market. Van der Moolen ADRs fell 14.7% or $1.56 per share to close at $9.05 per share on extremely high volume. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Lawsuit in MA --------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons who purchased publicly traded securities of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRTX) between March 27, 2000 and September 24, 2001, inclusive against Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors. 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. Vertex is a global biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of breakthrough drugs for a range of serious diseases. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Vertex stock by concealing critical material information regarding its p38 mitogen- activated protein kinase ("MAPK") program, for Vertex development compound VX-745. The following facts which were known by each of the defendants during the Class Period, but were concealed from the investing public, were as follows: (1) that p38 MAPK has a varied tissue distribution and is implicated not only in inflammation and arthritis, but also in cellular models for neuronal differentiation and effects, presenting multiple targets and significant drug design challenges, which defendants knew from well before the beginning of the Class Period; (2) that small, highly lipophilic molecules designed as inhibitors of p38 MAPK are at great risk of crossing the blood-brain barrier and of causing neuronal effects; (3) that defendants already knew or should have known what constituted an acceptable absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion ("ADME") profile for p38 MAPK inhibitors targeting inflammation and arthritis, as opposed to inhibitor targets for neuronal effects, particularly the desired molecular weight and lipophilicity, as well as the correlation of lipophilicity with the potential for p38 MAPK related neuronal effects; (4) that defendants knew or should have known, as early as 1998, of the importance of lipophilicity in the design of p38 MAPK inhibitors, since they had designed at least one other class of potential inhibitory molecules targeting p38 MAPK, possessing significantly lower lipophilicity; (5) that VX-745, a potential pe8 MAPK inhibitor intended to target inflammatory disease, asthma, crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis, was exceptionally lipophilic and thus would be predicted to cross the blood-brain barrier and thus to cause neuronal effects; (6) that once clinical testing of VX-745 had commenced, defendants quietly continued the preclinical testing of VX-745 in secret, despite public assurances that they would not commence clinical development until all preclinical studies were completed; (7) that defendants purposefully delayed the announcement of renewed long-term preclinical studies of VX-745 in animals until announcement of study results to avoid connection of the need for the renewed studies with the October 2000 disclosure of defendants' problems with the Vertex first-generation drug candidate selection process; (8) that the announcement of the unsuitability of VX-745 as a drug candidate was similarly delayed until two months after completion of the merger with Aurora Biosciences Corp.; and (9) that the failure to disclose the defective nature of the VX-745 program, including but not limited to physical and chemical properties, ADME profile, tests, experiments and preclinical and clinical studies, would prevent investors and Aurora Biosciences Corp. shareholders from learning the extent of the misrepresentations made to them during the Class Period. The announcement on September 24, 2001 of the termination of the VX-745 drug development program caused Vertex's stock price to drop to as low as $17.74 from its Class Period high of $97.25, on record volume of over 9.8 million shares, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ssbny.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., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Enid Sterling, Roberto Amor, 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 * * *