/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/031105.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 5, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 219 Headlines ABORTION LITIGATION: ACLU Files Suit to Block Partial-Birth Bill AMERICAN SEAFOODS: WA Court Dismisses Crewmembers' Wages Lawsuit APPLE COMPUTERS: G3/OS X Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval BADGERLAND MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef For E.coli Contamination BARRICK GOLD: Plaintiffs Propose Case Management For TX Lawsuits BARRICK GOLD: NY Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated DEL MONTE: Recalls Canned Soup Due To Undeclared Allergens (Egg) ENRON CORPORATION: Delainey Indictment To Lead To Other Execs EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Tenants Launch Suit Over Rent Collection EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pharmacies Commence Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pension Participants File ERISA Violations Suit F5 NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit GE LIFE: Reaches Nationwide Settlement For Policyholders' Suit GOLDEN STAR: Faces Suit Over August 1995 Omai Gold Mine Accident GRISTEDES OPERATING: Payments to NY Lawsuit Settlement Commenced GROUP 1: TX Car Dealers Working To Settle Three Antitrust Suits HONDA CARS: Recalls 652,000 Vehicles For Faulty Ignition Switch INVESTMENT FIRMS: Judge Approves $1.4B Investor Fraud Settlement LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit for $3.75 Million MERRILL LYNCH: Klayman Toskes Firm Pursues Arbitration With NYSE MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 165,000 Candleholders For Burn Hazard MINNESOTA CORN PROCESSORS: Court Allows Investor Suit to Proceed NETWORK ASSOCIATES: CA Court Approves Settlement For Stock Suit NETWORK ASSOCIATES: DE Court OKs Pact, Other Lawsuits Dismissed NORTHERN TRUST: Request For Dismissal of TX Enron Suit Rejected NORWAY: Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies PACKETEER INC.: Tries To Forge Settlement For NY Securities Suit PACTIV CORPORATION: To Settle Containerboard Antitrust Lawsuit PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Lawsuit PIONEER NATURAL: Kansas Court Yet To Rule in Royalties Lawsuit SERVICE CORPORATION: Ex-Worker Guilty of Removing Dead Bodies SOUTH AFRICA: Workers Ask For Finance Minister's Resignation TALX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of MO Stock Suit TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Settlement of Investor Suit TRAVELERS' PROPERTY: Enters Mediation For Unfair Trade Lawsuits TUT SYSTEMS: Trial in CA Securities Lawsuit Set For March 7,2005 TUT SYSTEMS: Files Demurrer To CA Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit TUT SYSTEMS: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit VOLUME SERVICES: Former CA Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit WD-40: FL Consumers Lodge Suit For State Consumer Law Violations WD-40: CA Court Junks Consumer Lawsuit Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuits Over Fox Paine Proposal Withdrawn WM HOLDINGS: IL Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Stock Lawsuit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals New Securities Fraud Cases ALKERMES INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MA AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Lawsuit in IL FEDERATED INVESTORS: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Suit in PA GOODYEAR TIRE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio PUTNAM FUNDS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA PUTNAM FUNDS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY PUTNAM FUNDS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY ********* ABORTION LITIGATION: ACLU Files Suit to Block Partial-Birth Bill ---------------------------------------------------------------- In an unusual legal maneuver, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a group of physicians went to court Friday to block a bill, that U.S. President George W. Bush has yet to sign into law, banning a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions, AP newswire reports. "We want the judge to be in a position to issue an order as soon as the bill is signed," Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told AP. Ms. Smith filed her motion in Nebraska federal court on behalf of physicians, while the American Civil Liberties Union sought a similar order in New York. The bill imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since the Supreme Court in 1973 confirmed a woman's right to end a pregnancy. The lawsuit filed in Nebraska contends the legislation fails to make an exception in cases where the prohibited abortion might be necessary to protect the health of the mother. In further argues that it would ban safe procedures done commonly before the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, imposing an undue burden on a woman who is seeking to end a pregnancy. Supporters of the bill contend it applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy that is never necessary to protect the health of the mother. The new bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus." Congress approved the legislation earlier this month, capping a seven-year political struggle, AP states. AMERICAN SEAFOODS: WA Court Dismisses Crewmembers' Wages Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the amended lawsuit filed against American Seafoods Group LLC, by a former vessel crewmember on behalf of himself and a class of over 500 seamen. However, the court has not certified this action as a class action. The complaint filed alleges that the Company breached its contract with the plaintiff by underestimating the value of the catch in computing the plaintiff's wages. The plaintiff demanded an accounting of his crew shares pursuant to federal statutory law. In addition, the plaintiff requested relief under a Washington statute that would render the Company liable for twice the amount of wages withheld, as well as judgment against the Company for compensatory and exemplary damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs, among other things. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company fraudulently concealed the underestimation of product values, thereby preventing the discovery of the plaintiff's cause of action. The conduct allegedly took place prior to January 28, 2000, the date the Company was acquired by Centre Partners and others through American Seafoods, L.P. (ASLP). On September 25, 2003, the court entered an order granting the Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the entirety of plaintiff's claims with prejudice and with costs. The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of this order which motion is currently pending with the court. APPLE COMPUTERS: G3/OS X Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement has been reached in the class action filed against Apple on behalf of G3 owners who have upgraded to Mac OS X, MacCentral.com reports. According to the lawsuit, Apple had violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act by failing to support certain G3- equipped Mac models with the same features in Mac OS X available to later systems, after saying in a 1998 press release that Mac OS X would be "fully optimized" for G3 systems. Some G3- equipped systems lost DVD playback capabilities, support for hardware graphics acceleration using OpenGL and hardware- accelerated QuickTime movie playback, following their upgrade to Mac OS X. In September, a preliminary settlement was approved by the courts, and goes for final approval in January. Apple admitted no wrongdoing in the case, but stated in the conditional settlement that it wanted to avoid the "further expense, inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation," MacCentral.com states Barring any other complications, once the settlement is finally approved, users that qualify as part of the affected class will either be able to get a refund of the purchase price of Mac OS X (US$129) or a coupon for $25 off the purchase of $99 or more in Apple hardware and software from the online Apple Store. "Apple also has agreed to pay an amount not to exceed $350,000 in full payment of the fees and expenses of Class Counsel subject to the approval of the Court," states the settlement. According to the terms of the settlement, if users sign a claims form stating that they haven't used and won't use their copy of Mac OS X on their affected computer and agree to return their copy of Mac OS X, they'll get a refund of up to $129. If they wish to continue using Mac OS X, they can instead opt for a $25 coupon to be used for purchases of $99 or more on Apple hardware software bought from the online Apple Store. The final hearing is scheduled for January 26, 2004 at 10AM PT at the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. The antitrust class action captioned Mason Bancroft et al. v. Apple Computer Inc., Case No. BC 267266 was filed in January 2002 in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County and assigned to Judge Victoria G. Chaney. Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Thomas M. Ferlauto of King & Ferlauto LLP, and defendant by Penelope A. Preovolos of Morrison & Foerster. BADGERLAND MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef For E.coli Contamination ------------------------------------------------------------- Badgerland Meat and Provisioners, a Madison, Wisconsin, establishment, in cooperation with the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 500 pounds of fresh ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The ground beef products being recalled are 10 and 40 pound boxes of "WISCONSIN PREMIER" GROUND BEEF and "WISCONSIN PREMIER" GROUND BEEF PATTIES. Each label bears the USDA establishment number "EST. 1267" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The ground beef and ground beef patties were produced on October 22, October 24 and October 27, 2003, and were distributed to restaurants in the Madison, Wisconsin, area. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician. There have been no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of this product. For more details, contact Pat Mackesey, company president, by Phone: 608-244-1934. BARRICK GOLD: Plaintiffs Propose Case Management For TX Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs proposed a trial and case management plan for the class action filed against Barrick Gold Corporation, Bre-X Minerals Ltd., certain of Bre-X directors and officers or former directors and officers and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division. The class action alleges, among other things, that statements made by the Company in connection with its efforts to secure the right to develop and operate the Busang gold deposit in East Kalimantan, Indonesia were materially false and misleading and omitted to state material facts relating to the preliminary due diligence investigation undertaken by the Company in late 1996. On July 13, 1999, the Court dismissed the claims against the Company and several other defendants on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under United States securities laws. On August 19, 1999, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint restating their claims against the Company and certain other defendants and on June 14, 2000 filed a further amended complaint, the Fourth Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. As a result, the Company remained a defendant in the case. The Company believes that the remaining claims against it are without merit. The Company filed its formal answer to the Fourth Amended Complaint on April 27, 2001 denying all relevant allegations of the plaintiffs against it. Discovery in the case has been stayed by the Court pending the Court's decision on whether or not to certify the case as a class action. On March 31, 2003, the Court denied all of the Plaintiffs' motions to certify the case as a class action. Plaintiffs have not filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court's decision denying class certification to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 2, 2003, the Plaintiff's submitted a proposed Trial and Case Management Plan, suggesting that the Plan would cure the defects in the Plaintiff's motions to certify the class. The Court has taken no action with respect to the proposed Trial and Case Management Plan. The Plaintiffs' case against the Defendants may now proceed in due course, but not on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs but only with respect to the specific claims of the Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit. Having failed to certify the case as a class action, the Company believes that the likelihood of any of the named Defendants succeeding against Barrick with respect to their claims for securities fraud is remote. BARRICK GOLD: NY Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District Court of New York ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against Barrick Gold Corporation and several of its current or former officers. The suits, filed on behalf of Barrick shareholders who purchased Barrick shares between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002, allege that the Company and the individual defendants violated US securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning Barrick's projected operating results and earnings in 2002. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The plaintiffs have been ordered to file a Consolidated and/or Amended Complaint by November 4, 2003. The Company has yet to respond to the consolidated complaint, it said in a disclosure to the Canadian Securities and Exchange Commission. DEL MONTE: Recalls Canned Soup Due To Undeclared Allergens (Egg) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Del Monte Foods, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania firm, in cooperation with the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 31, 650 lbs. of canned soup because of an undeclared allergen (egg). The products being recalled are 19 oz. cans of "FOOD LION, Ready To Serve, CHUNKY GRILLED SIRLOIN STEAK WITH VEGETABLES." The top of each can is stamped with a use by code: "JUL2005," a lot code: "PF3G24," a variety symbol: "PK" and an establishment number: "P-51." The cans included in the recall are labeled as "CHUNKY GRILLED SIRLOIN STEAK WITH VEGETABLES," but they actually contain "Chunky Grilled Chicken with Vegetables and Pasta." The pasta contains egg whites. The soup was produced on July 24, 2003 and distributed to retail stores in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. There have been no reports of allergic reactions associated with consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should contact a physician. The problem was discovered by Del Monte Foods. For more details, contact the recall information line at Del Monte Foods: (800) 828-9980. ENRON CORPORATION: Delainey Indictment To Lead To Other Execs ------------------------------------------------------------- The indictment of former Enron executive David W. Delainey, 37, who pleaded guilty to an insider trading charge cast a wide net that experts say could lead to the scandal-ridden company's former chief executive, Jeffrey Skilling, founder and former chairman Kenneth Lay and others, AP newswire reports. "Prosecutors have broadly designed the allegations to flush out all officers who were aware of manipulative efforts and profited through sales of Enron stock, particularly those who are already filled with anxiety, and bring them to the negotiating table," Christopher Bebel, a former prosecutor for the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, told AP. Mr. Delainey, who once ran Enron's failed retail energy unit, became the highest-ranking former executive so far to plead guilty and cooperate with investigators. His plea calls no jail time, but he agreed to forfeit nearly $8 million to the government. Mr. Delainey's indictment alleges he sold $4.25 million in stock throughout 2001 when he knew of a wide-ranging scheme make Enron appear financially robust and inflate the company's stock. The indictment doesn't mention other executives by name, but it repeatedly alleges "Enron managers" or "Enron corporate management" directed myriad efforts to carry out the deception. "The theory that the government has chosen here is so far reaching that essentially anyone with knowledge of these questionable transactions and thereafter traded Enron stock could conceivably be charged with insider trading," Robert Mintz, a former Justice Department prosecutor and an expert in white-collar crime, told AP. "This lays the groundwork for the government's attempt to build a case against Skilling and possibly even Ken Lay." Neither Mr. Skilling nor Mr. Lay have been charged. Both, through their attorneys, have repeatedly said investigators will conclude that neither committed any crimes. Schemes identified in Mr. Delainey's indictment include using reserves from Enron's trading unit as income to conceal losses in the retail unit Delainey ran in 2001, Enron Energy Services, as well as to cover uncollectable receivables from California utilities during that state's power crisis. The indictment also said asset values were inflated and fraudulent financing methods were used to lock in those unrealistic values. Earlier indictments have focused on alleged frauds committed by executives or lower-ranking employees in various divisions at Enron - such as finance, broadband and trading - without much crossover. Overall, 26 people have been charged. Of those, seven, including Mr. Delainey, have pleaded guilty. One of the seven, former Enron treasurer Ben Glisan Jr., is not cooperating with investigators. He is serving a five-year prison sentence for conspiracy, AP states. All those with pending cases pleaded innocent and are free on bond. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Tenants Launch Suit Over Rent Collection --------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Florida tenants, who reside in Horizon Place on Hillsborough Ave., have filed a class action against Chicago- based Equity Residential Group claiming they were over-charged thousands of dollars to end their lease agreements, causing damage to their finances and their credit reports, BayNews9.com reports. Horizon Place apartments in Tampa are one of many Bay area housing developments owned by Equity Residential and affected by the pending litigation. The suit charges the company with unfair collection practices, and alleges violations of two Florida Statutes concerning lease agreements and rent guidelines. Attorneys in the case are expected to send literature to approximately 10,000 Florida residents who live in Equity Residential Group properties. Rod Tennyson, who represents the group of tenants who filed the original lawsuit, claims some were and still are being over- charged $1,400 a piece. "(Tenants that are) part of the class action were charged some type of insufficient notice fee, early termination fee, things of that nature," Mr. Tennyson told BayNews9. "It usually comes in the form of a double or triple- month's rent (charge), and it's affecting people's credit rating." Some of the charges are incurred when the residents fail to give Equity Residential Group proper notice of non-renewal at the end of their agreement. Equity Residential denies the charges and claims its practices do not violate any Florida Statutes. "This decision, which is incompatible with Florida law, makes no finding that Equity Residential did anything wrong," company Vice President Marty McKenna told BayNews. "We remain confident that our leasing practices will be vindicated once we have been heard on the merits (of our case)." Some Horizon Place tenants say they aren't surprised by the lawsuit. Some, like tenant Pat Wilson, even claim they've experienced some of the problems firsthand. "I know from the arrangements that we made moving in that we had some haggling going back and forth, so I'm not surprised at all," Mr. Wilson told BayNews. "Owners are out there to make the money and get rich and somewhere along the line it affects us, the little people." The suit alleges the company is still overcharging residents. Tenants who want to join the class action lawsuit have 45 days, until December 22, to decide if they want to join the pending litigation. Attorneys say they not only want to stop the alleged illegal practices, but also to recoup the millions of dollars they say their clients are owed. The tenant's legal team calls some of Equity Residential practices `hard-nosed collection tactics.' The attorneys estimate that before the case reaches court they may have up to 260,000 plaintiffs who live in Equity properties all over the state. Equity Residential owns 1,000 apartment buildings with more than 200,000 units nationwide. The consumer class action titled Tammy Yates v. Equity Residential Properties, Case No. CL 02-14116 AB was filed on November 25, 2002 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida and is assigned to Judge Jorge Labarga. Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Rod Tennyson P.A. and Joseph R. Johnson of Babbitt Johnson Osborne & LeClainche P.A., and defendant by Joseph Ianno Jr. of Carlton Fields. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pharmacies Commence Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL -------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action, styled "North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Civil Action No. CV-03-B-2696-NE," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The case purports to be a class action against the Company on behalf of independent pharmacies within the United States. The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's business practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.Css.1, et. seq. The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and injunctive relief. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pension Participants File ERISA Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action styled "Mixon v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:03CV1519)," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri The case was on behalf of participants or beneficiaries of any Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan which required the participant or beneficiary to pay a percentage co- payment on prescription drugs during the period from October 1, 1997 to the present. The case alleges that the Company is an ERISA fiduciary and that certain of its business practices, including those relating to our contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers for retrospective discounts on pharmaceuticals and those related to the Company's retail pharmacy network contracts, violated these alleged fiduciary duties. The case requests an accounting and unspecified damages. F5 NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- F5 Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain investment banking firms that underwrote the Company's initial public offering and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The consolidated suit, styled "In re. F5 Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No.01 CV 7055," asserts that the registration statements for the Company's June 4, 1999 initial public offering and September 30, 1999 secondary offering failed to disclose certain alleged improper actions by the underwriters for the offerings. The consolidated, amended complaint alleges claims against the Company and those of its officers and directors named in the complaint under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Other lawsuits have been filed making similar allegations regarding the public offerings of more than 300 other companies. All of these various consolidated cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.21-MC-92." In October 2002, the directors and officers were dismissed without prejudice. The issuer defendants filed a coordinated motion to dismiss these lawsuits in July 2002, which the court granted in part and denied in part in an order dated February 19, 2003. The court declined to dismiss the Section 11 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company. In June 2003, a proposal was made for the settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, and their directors and officers in exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims against the underwriters. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the proposed settling parties and the court. If the settlement does not occur, and litigation against the Company continues, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the case vigorously. Securities class action litigation could result in substantial costs and divert management's attention and resources. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the litigation, and any unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition and operating results. GE LIFE: Reaches Nationwide Settlement For Policyholders' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company agreed in principle to settle the case entitled "McBride v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia dba GE Life and Annuity Assurance Co." The suit was initially filed in Georgia state court, but was later removed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The complaint was brought as a class action on behalf of current and former owners of certain Company universal life insurance policies, and alleges improper practices in connection with the sale and administration of those universal life policies. The Company denies liability with respect to the plaintiff's allegations. Nevertheless, to avoid the risks and costs associated with protracted litigation and to resolve its differences with policyholders, the Company agreed in principle on October 8, 2003 to settle the case on a nationwide class action basis. The settlement documents have not been finalized, nor has any proposed settlement been submitted to the proposed class and the United States District Court for approval, and a final settlement is not certain. GOLDEN STAR: Faces Suit Over August 1995 Omai Gold Mine Accident ---------------------------------------------------------------- Golden Star Resources Ltd. has been named as one of 14 defendants in a class action filed in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana on May 19, 2003, related to the August 1995 accidental release of cyanide-bearing waste into a stream near the Omai gold mine, in which the Company then owned a 30% interest. Other defendants include Cambior Inc., which co-owned and operated the mine in 1995 and to which the Company subsequently sold its interest in the mine in 2002. The plaintiffs claim to represent residents near the stream and its tributaries. The plaintiffs claim various environmental and other damages and have asked for substantial damages, in excess of $1 billion, from all defendants, jointly and severally, among other remedies. During the third quarter of 2003 Cambior filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. There has been no ruling on the motion. The Company has not been served with process in this litigation. In connection with the sale of its interest in the Omai mine to Cambior in 2002, Cambior indemnified the Company from any claims related to the mine. While the Company believes that the suit is without merit, it cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this litigation. GRISTEDES OPERATING: Payments to NY Lawsuit Settlement Commenced ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gristedes Operating Corporation is implementing the settlement for the class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against it and: (1) Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. d/b/a/ A&P, (2) Shopwell Inc. - d/b/a Food Emporium, (3) Duane Reade, Inc., (4) Charlie Bauer, individually and d/b/a B&B Delivery Service a/k/a Citi Express, (5) Scott Weinstein and Steven Pilavan, ind. and d/b/a Hudson Delivery Service Inc., (6) Chelsea Trucking, Inc. a/k/a Hudson York The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs are claiming damages for the differential between the amount they were paid by the Great American Delivery Service Company and what the minimum wage was in each specific year dating back to 1994. To date, about 35 to 40 delivery workers have opted into the class action. Specifically, the Company was one of the parties sued in this litigation by delivery workers claiming they were not being paid the minimum wage. The delivery workers are employees of the Great American Delivery Company (formerly known as B&B Delivery Service or Citi Express), not employees of the Company. The Company was under contract with Great American to deliver groceries to the Company's customers. In its answer, the Company denied the allegations and cross- claimed against the delivery service co-defendants Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Baur, based upon their own negligence, theories of contribution and contractual indemnity. When allegations of underpayment first emerged, the Company, on August 2, 2000, entered into a new contract with Great American. This contract was entered into in order to assure the Company that these delivery workers would be properly and legally paid for their services. The legal hourly wages referred to in the contract were discussed with the New York Attorney General's Office. On July 23, 2001, the Company terminated its contract with Great American because Great American breached the terms of the contract. Based upon that termination, Great American commenced a breach of contract action in Supreme Court, Nassau County, against the Company and obtained a preliminary injunction compelling the Company to retain Great American as its delivery service contractor. Thereafter, Great American was found to be in contempt of several orders and added as a party-defendant by motion to amend the complaint in the class action. In response to those proceedings, Great American filed for bankruptcy. Hence, the breach of contract action commenced by Great American against the Company was stayed. The Company transferred the case to the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New York. Great American's bankruptcy petition was dismissed. Great American's breach of contract action commenced in Nassau County has been stayed pending a resolution of the Ansoumana Action. Nevertheless, Great American posted a $400,000 bond in the breach of contract action pending in Nassau County to obtain a preliminary injunction and the Company intends to recoup these monies from Great American. In August 2003 the Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement, pursuant to which the Company will be obligated to pay $2,600,000 plus up to $650,000 in legal fees. The full amount of the proposed settlement will be shared approximately 50/50 by the Company and an affiliate controlled by John A. Catsimatidis. Payment of the legal fees is due in the same percentage installments commencing the later of November 28, 2003, or 10 days after the court approves the payment of attorneys fees and costs. While the court has approved the proposed settlement as fair, all of the conditions precedent for implementation have not yet been met and cannot be assured at this time, including the fact that the Company's banks have not yet approved the granting of a subordinated security interest to the plaintiffs in certain of the Company's assets to secure the payments of the settlement amount, security documents have not yet been executed and the court has not entered a final judgment in the matter. Since all of the conditions precedent have not been met, the initial payment of $1.3 million (50%) on October 16, 2003, was made by an affiliate, controlled by John A. Catsimatidis, on behalf of the Company. This was recorded as a litigation settlement expense of the Company for the quarter ended August 31, 2003, with an offsetting equal capital contribution reflected as additional paid-in capital. The balance of the proposed settlement amount will be due in equal installments of $650,000 on the first and second anniversary of the initial payment, without interest. Future amounts paid on behalf of the Company will be accounted as a capital contribution and reflected as additional paid-in capital. Additionally, recoveries from a $400,000 security bond posted by Great American / Baur shall be solely for the Company's benefit. GROUP 1: TX Car Dealers Working To Settle Three Antitrust Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Several of Group 1 Automotive, Inc.'s dealership subsidiaries are working towards a settlement for the two state court class actions and one federal court class action filed against it, the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and certain new vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of the TADA. The three actions allege that since January 1994, Texas dealers have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other laws. In April 2002, the state court in which two of the actions are pending certified classes of consumers on whose behalf the action would proceed. On October 25, 2002, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of class certification in the state action and the defendants have requested that the Texas Supreme Court review that decision on appeal. On August 25, 2003, the Texas Supreme Court requested briefing in the state cases. In the other action, on March 26, 2003, the federal court also certified a class of consumers, but denied a request to certify a defendants' class consisting of all TADA members. On May 19, 2003, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request for permission to appeal the class certification ruling of the lower federal court. Mediation has begun and has resulted in a settlement proposal from the plaintiff class representatives to the defendant dealers, including the Company's Texas dealership subsidiaries. The Company has not yet accepted or declined this proposal. While the Company does not believe this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations, no assurance can be given as to its ultimate outcome. A settlement or an adverse resolution of this matter could result in the payment of significant costs and damages. HONDA CARS: Recalls 652,000 Vehicles For Faulty Ignition Switch --------------------------------------------------------------- Honda Motor Co. is cooperating with the U.S. National Highway Safety Administration, in recalling nearly 652,000 sedans, minivans and sport utility vehicles because of a defect that has caused vehicles to roll away even when they're in park and the key has been removed. The NHSA said Monday it received reports of four injuries, 28 crashes and 169 complaints about the defect, which is caused by excessive wear in the ignition switch. In at least one case, a rolling SUV caused a multi-vehicle accident. Affected vehicles are the 2002 CR-V SUV, the 1997-99 Acura CL and 1999 Acura TL sedans, the 1999 Odyssey minivan and the 1998- 99 Accord sedan and coupe. A total of 651,989 vehicles are involved in the recall. Honda says consumers should use the parking brake until the company repairs the vehicles. This is the second time in a year that Honda has recalled the 2002 CR-V. In July, Honda recalled 247,019 CR-Vs because excessive corrosion was preventing the automatic transmission from shifting into park. INVESTMENT FIRMS: Judge Approves $1.4B Investor Fraud Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- US Judge William Pauley's approval of a $1.4 billion settlement between financial regulators and 10 Wall Street firms accused of misleading investors with biased stock research, finalized a pact reached in April and made official changes that affect research on thousands of US stocks, Reuters news reports. The settlement came as a result of sweeping investigations into conflicts of interest on Wall Street by a group of regulators led by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who accused the brokerages of issuing biased research to attract investment banking business. The scandal was a black eye for well-known firms in the securities industry, among them Citigroup Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., and Credit Suisse First Boston. In his order on Friday, Judge Pauley said the terms of the settlement "will effect sweeping institutional reform of equity research in the investment banking industry in the United States." Judge Pauley said his judgment "does not close off" other lawsuits brought by investors blaming their stock market losses on the brokerages and seeking compensation. The judge said the 10 brokerages are required to make payments under the settlement to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by November 10, Reuters reports. His final judgment also provides an "architecture" to distribute $399 million to investors who bought securities tainted by biased research. It also sets up a framework for a nonprofit organization for investor education. "We now begin the process of implementing the settlement, which we believe is an important part of our ongoing efforts to restore investors' faith in the fairness and integrity of our markets," Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William Donaldson said in a statement. Attorneys for disgraced Wall Street analysts Jack Grubman and Henry Blodget were among about 20 lawyers who appeared before Pauley on Friday at a courthouse in lower Manhattan. Mr. Grubman, a former telecommunications analyst at Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney unit, is known for touting fallen stocks such as MCI, whose legal name is WorldCom Inc. Mr. Blodget was a star Internet analyst at Merrill Lynch who was shown to have privately lambasted stocks that he recommended publicly to investors. In December 2002, Mr. Grubman agreed to a $15 million fine and a lifetime ban from the securities industry. Mr. Blodget, for his part, has agreed to a $4 million penalty and a lifetime ban from the industry. Other firms included in the settlement are: (1) Morgan Stanley, (2) Goldman Sachs Group Inc., (3) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., (4) Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., (5) Bear Stearns Cos., (6) UBS AG, and (7) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit for $3.75 Million ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fairness hearing for the settlement of the securities class action filed against Lucent Technologies, Inc. is set for December 12,2003 in the United States District Court of New Jersey. The $3.75M settlement was for the lawsuit brought on behalf of Arthur Laufer, and all persons who purchased Lucent Debt Securities - 6.9% notes due July 15, 2001; 7.25% notes due July 15, 2006; 6.5% debenture due January 15, 2028; 5.5% notes due November 15, 2004, and 6.45% debentures due March 15, 2029, during the period from December 20, 2000 through March 27, 2001 and who were damaged thereby. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Henry Schacht, and (2) Deborah Hopkins A hearing will be held before the Honorable Joel A. Pisano on December 12, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiff's Counsel for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses. For more information, contact Lee Squitieri, of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP, by Mail: 420 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10018, or by Phone: 212-575-2092. The securities class action titled In re Laufer v. Lucent Technologies Inc. et al. Debt Securities Purchasers Litigation, Case No. 2 01 CV 05229 (JAP) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and assigned to Judge Joel A. Pisano. Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Olimpio Lee Squiteri of Squiteri & Fearon LLP and Jeffrey H. Squire of Kirby McInerny & Squire LLP as Debt Securities Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of all Debt Securities Plaintiffs' Counsel, and defendants by Paul C. Sanders, Daniel Slifkin and Michael A. Paskin of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP and John H. Schmidt Jr. and John F. Goemaat of Lindabury McCormick & Estabrook P.A. MERRILL LYNCH: Klayman Toskes Firm Pursues Arbitration With NYSE ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. is pursuing an arbitration against Merrill Lynch with the New York Stock Exchange on behalf of an investor with a multi-million dollar concentration in CMGI, Inc. (Nasdaq: CMGI). The claim seeks compensatory damages of $13,276,929. This claim alleges specific sales practice violations by Merrill Lynch and does not allege the usual "analyst conflict" issues that have plagued Wall Street's investment banking world. So far, at least ten of these class action claims have been dismissed by the federal courts, and more dismissals are expected. Alternatively, this case alleges the failure to recommend hedging strategies known as "zero cost" collars to properly manage the investor's concentrated stock position. Additionally, the investor's residence is currently in bank foreclosure due to the structured financing secured by the brokerage firm's affiliated bank through the collateralization of the concentrated portfolio. The claim alleges that a conflict of interest exists because the loan origination fees paid would be "charged back" against the stockbroker if the loan was terminated prior to the initial loan guarantee period. For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, of the law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., by Phone: 888-997-9956, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.nasd-law.com. MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 165,000 Candleholders For Burn Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Texas-based Michaels Stores, Inc., in cooperation with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is voluntarily recalling about 165,000 Halloween tealight candleholders as the lack of ventilation in these ceramic candleholders can cause the tealights to flare up, posing a risk of burns to consumers. Michaels Stores has received eight reports of flare-ups or scorching with these Halloween candleholders which resulted in three consumers reportedly received minor burns to their fingers. These ceramic Halloween tealight candleholders are in the shape of pumpkins, gourds, witch hats and ghosts. They are about 2.5 inches to 3.25 inches high. The orange sticker on the bottom of the candleholders reads, "Made in China" and "MSI Irving, TX." Michaels Stores nationwide sold these Halloween candleholders from July 2003 through October 2003 for about $1. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 562-3816 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.Michaels.com. MINNESOTA CORN PROCESSORS: Court Allows Investor Suit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a ruling that brought some much-needed good news to corn farmers in southwestern Minnesota, Fifth Judicial District State Judge John Rodenberg, denied the efforts of former Officers of Marshall-based Minnesota Corn Processors (MCP) to dismiss a class action made by former MCP shareholders, who charge former CEO Dan Thompson, and other Executives at MCP, with promoting the company sale to Archer Daniels (ADM) for their own personal gain and at the expense of the shareholders. The 38-page Order determined that valid legal claims had been presented and the case could move forward. The class action arose out of the merger of ADM and MCP in the summer of 2002. According to the Court's decision, the shareholders "have directly challenged the fairness of the merger process . alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties because Defendants had interests in direct conflict with shareholders." The complaint also alleges that the Officers created an unfair merger process in their negotiations with ADM, resulting in Officers agreeing to a lower per share price in exchange for millions of dollars channeling to the Officers. ADM is not a named defendant, but agreed to indemnify the former MCP Officers as part of the merger. "This thoughtful decision sends a strong message to corporate officers -- As a corporate officer, your first obligation is to your shareholders", plaintiff attorney Robert Moilanen, of the Minneapolis law firm Zimmerman Reed said in a statement. "The heart of this decision is that those who are victimized by self- serving corporate practices will have their day in court." The class action has five named class representatives. Vin Bot of Minnesota, a class representative and corn farmer, said "I couldn't be more pleased. I am delighted that this story will be told to a jury in Minnesota." In Clarkfield, class representative, Douglas Albin, expressed his relief with the decision. "We now have a chance for a fair outcome for the MCP shareholders; this court ruling restores your faith in the process. There will be accountability," he said. NETWORK ASSOCIATES: CA Court Approves Settlement For Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved the settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against Network Associates, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The suit, styled "In re Network Associates, Inc. II Securities Litigation," names as defendants the Company and: (1) William Larson, (2) Prabhat Goyal and (3) Peter Watkins The suit was initially filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19 and December 26, 2000 and asserted causes of action (and seeks unspecified damages) for alleged violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b)/ SEC Rule 10b-5 and Exchange Act Section 20(a). In particular, the complaint alleged that defendants engaged in improper practices designed to increase the Company's revenues and earnings and that, as a result of those practices, the Company's class period financial statements were false and misleading and failed to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). After a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on April 16, 2002, the court entered an order approving a jointly stipulated withdrawal of defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2002, plaintiffs filed a first amended and consolidated complaint. The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of an expanded class of plaintiffs, i.e., persons who purchased the Company's stock between April 15, 1999 and December 26, 2000, and, in addition to reasserting the allegations contained in the consolidated complaints, adds allegations regarding the Company's restatement of its 1998, 1999, and 2000 consolidated financial statements, which restatement resulted from the Company's discovery of certain accounting inaccuracies impacting those consolidated financial statements. The first amended and consolidated complaint also adds Terry Davis, the Company's former Controller as a party defendant. On November 11, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants each moved to dismiss certain claims asserted on the first amended and consolidated compliant. Prior to the hearing on defendants' motions, which took place on February 11, 2003, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Peter Watkins as a party defendant in the lawsuit. A decision on the remaining motions to dismiss was issued on March 25, 2003, where the court granted, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 23, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of agreement of settlement settling the matter for $70 million. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on October 22, 2003 and is subject to notice to and opportunity to object and opt-out by members of the class and final approval by the court following a hearing on any objections to the settlement. The Company funded the settlement amount into escrow in October 2003. NETWORK ASSOCIATES: DE Court OKs Pact, Other Lawsuits Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery granted approval to the settlement proposed by Network Associates, Inc. for the consolidated securities class action filed against it, arising out of the Company's proposed acquisition of McAfee.com. The Delaware court ruling also prompted the dismissal of similar suits in several courts nationwide. In March 2002, several putative securities class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, and the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The lawsuits named as defendants Network Associates and certain of McAfee.com's officers and directors, and with respect to the Delaware Court of Chancery actions, McAfee.com. The lawsuit filed in Santa Clara County is encaptioned "Peyton v. Richards, et al., No. CV806199." The lawsuits filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which were encaptioned: (1) Bank v. McAfee.com Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 19481; (2) Birnbaum v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19482 NC; (3) Brown v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19483 NC; (4) Chin v. McAfee.com Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 19484 NC; (5) Monastero v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19485; and (6) Ebner v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19487 The Delaware suits were later consolidated into a single case by court order dated April 9, 2002. Plaintiffs amended the complaint in the consolidated action on July 8, 2002. The second amended complaint asserts claims against defendants for breach of fiduciary duty on the grounds that: (i) the price at which Network Associates proposed to consummate the current exchange offer purportedly was unfair and inadequate, and (ii) defendants purportedly failed to disclose information material to assessing the propriety of the exchange offer. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to recover unspecified damages and costs and to enjoin or rescind the transaction contemplated by the offer. On September 19, 2002 the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding. On July 18, 2003, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement, and the case was dismissed. Another class action was filed on April 9, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, encaptioned "Getty v. Sampath, et. al., Case No. C 02 1692." On September 30, 2002, the parties in the Getty action filed a joint request with United States District Court for the entry of an order staying the Getty proceedings until after the Delaware Chancery Court has an opportunity to approve the proposed settlement in the Delaware Consolidated Action. On April 2, 2002, defendants removed the California state action encaptioned "Peyton v. Richards, et al., No. CV 806199" to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, by stipulation filed June 20, 2002, the parties in Peyton agreed for the action to be remanded to California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara solely for the purpose of allowing plaintiff Justin Peyton to dismiss the action. On July 1, 2002, a putative class action encaptioned "Peyton v. Richards, et al., Case No. CV 809111," was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara against Network Associates and various officers and directors of McAfee.com. The complaint generally alleges that the defendant directors of McAfee.com are liable for breach of fiduciary duty because they failed to maximize the price of Network Associates' exchange offer, and defendant Network Associates aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty by structuring the exchange offer in terms preferential to Network Associates. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the transaction contemplated by the offer, to recover costs, and to impose a constructive trust upon any benefits improperly received by defendants. On September 20, 2002, the Superior Court entered an order approving the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Peyton proceedings pending the Delaware Chancery Court's approval of the proposed settlement in the Delaware Consolidated Action. On August 14, 2003, the parties entered into a stipulation for an order that would dismiss the Peyton action with prejudice. NORTHERN TRUST: Request For Dismissal of TX Enron Suit Rejected --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division denied The Northern Trust Company's motion to dismiss a consolidated Enron-related class action filed on behalf of individual participants in the employee pension benefit plans sponsored by Enron Corporation. The suit also names as defendants various corporate entities and individuals, in their capacity as the former trustee of the Enron Corporation Savings Plan and former service-provider for the Enron Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The suit makes claims, inter alia, for breach of fiduciary duty to the plan participants, and seek equitable relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount against the defendants. On September 30, 2003, the court denied the Bank's motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law. The Bank will continue to fight these actions. NORWAY: Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies --------------------------------------------------------------- In a unanimous ruling Friday, Norway's Supreme Court ruled that the tobacco industry was not responsible for the death of Robert Lund, 67, in October 2000 from lung cancer, AP newswire reports. Before his death, Mr. Lund sued Norway's biggest tobacco company, Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrikk AS, alleging the company was aware of the health risks its products caused. It was the country's first tobacco compensation lawsuit. Smoking Tiedemanns' products before he was diagnosed with cancer, Mr. Lund said the company should have warned him of the dangers. He started smoking in 1953, more than 20 years before Norway banned tobacco advertising and require health warnings on packages in 1975, AP reports. When lower courts rejected his claim, saying he could have quit smoking after he learned of the dangers, his widow, Unni Lund, appealed to the Supreme Court. In its unanimous ruling, the high court said knowledge of the risk of smoking was so widespread after 1964 "and was given so much attention in the media" that Mr. Lund must have known the dangers. It said it could therefore only consider whether he could have known before 1964, and whether the tobacco industry may have had responsibility for health damage during that period. "In that period, medical science got clearer and clearer evidence that there was a direct connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and other serious health problems," the ruling said. The ruling further stated that people, like Mr. Lund, who began smoking during that period could not be criticized for starting in an era when advertising and customs made smoking socially acceptable. However, it said, "The demands and expectations that consumers have today about information on possible harmful aspects of a product cannot be transferred to the situation during the 10 years that preceded 1964." The court said it remains up to the individual to decide whether to smoke, AP states. Tiedemanns spokesman Jan Robert Kvam said they were satisfied with the ruling, because it confirms that they sell legal products and that the ruling is likely to prevent a possible flood of similar cases. Mr. Lund's daughter, Jorun Elisabeth Lund, told AP the family was surprised and disappointed. PACKETEER INC.: Tries To Forge Settlement For NY Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Packeteer, Inc. is working towards an agreement to settle the securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain officers and directors of the Company, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The amended complaint, captioned "In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-CV-10185 (SAS)," alleges violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class of those who acquired the Company's common stock between the date of the Company's initial public offering, or IPO, and December 6, 2000. The amended complaint alleges that the description in the prospectus for the Company's IPO was materially false and misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and in not describing certain alleged arrangements among underwriters and initial purchasers of the Company's common stock. The amended complaint seeks damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between July 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000. In July 2002, the Company and the individual defendants joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss challenging the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims. The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named in similar lawsuits. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Court heard oral argument on the motion in early November 2002. On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and Order denying the motion to dismiss as to the Company. In addition, in October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. A special committee of the board of directors has authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and their insurers. Any such settlement would be subject to approval by the Court. If the settlement is not approved, the Company will continue to defend itself against plaintiffs' allegations. The Company does not currently believe that the outcome of this proceeding will have a material adverse impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. PACTIV CORPORATION: To Settle Containerboard Antitrust Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pactiv Corporation has reached an agreement to settle a civil, class action lawsuit filed in 1999 against Tenneco Inc., Tenneco Packaging, and Packaging Corporation of America, Tenneco's former containerboard business, as well as a number of other US containerboard manufacturers. As previously disclosed by the company, Pactiv, in connection with its spin-off from Tenneco, was assigned responsibility for defending claims against Tenneco with respect to this lawsuit. "While all of the containerboard manufacturing defendants in the lawsuit believe that the allegations have no merit, several of them recently entered into settlement agreements. Given the legal costs of going forward with the lawsuit and the uncertainty associated with a potentially significant treble damage claim, we believe it to be in the best interest of our shareholders to settle this matter at this time," James V. Faulkner, Pactiv's vice president and general counsel said in a statement. Since the action was filed, certain members of the original class action opted out and filed their own lawsuits. The settlement, which must be approved by the court, will result in Pactiv recording an after-tax charge of $35 million, or $0.22 per share, as reflected in the attached schedules. This charge includes the establishment of a reserve for the estimated liability associated with the opt-out lawsuits. While this settlement has just been reached and as such is a fourth quarter event, SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, requires the charge to be booked in the third quarter because it relates to an existing, previously disclosed matter, and the company's third quarter Form 10Q has not yet been filed. Pactiv's 2003 earnings outlook, given at the time of the third- quarter earnings release on October 22, 2003, did not anticipate this charge to earnings. While the company's estimate of fourth-quarter earnings per share from continuing operations of $0.40 to $0.42 remains unchanged, the full-year estimate, adjusted to reflect this charge, is expected to be in the range of $1.20 to $1.22 per share. Free cash flow (cash provided by operating activities less capital expenditures), adjusted for this settlement cost, is targeted to be $195 million to $215 million. Earnings-per-share guidance for 2004 of $1.58 to $1.65, remains unchanged. For more information about Pactiv, visit the company's website: http://www.pactiv.com. The price-fixing class action In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation (MDL Docket No. 1261) was filed in May 1999 in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Howard Langer, Esq. of Sandals & Langer LLP, Michael J. Freed, Esq. of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein PC and Eugene A. Spector, Esq. of Spector Roseman & Kodroff P.C., and defendant by James V. Faulkner as general counsel. PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Paradyne Networks, Inc. has reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against it, and certain of its officers and directors: (1) Andrew May, Chief Executive Officer and President at the time, (2) Patrick Murphy, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, (3) Thomas Epley, then Chairman of the Board, and (4) Sean E. Belanger, current President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board The Court appointed Frank Gruttadauria and Larry Spitcaufsky as the lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP and Barrack Rodos & Bacine as the lead counsel. The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations by the defendants of the securities anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It further alleges that the individual Defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act as "control persons of Paradyne." The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors during a purported class period of September 28, 1999 through September 28, 2000 and allege, in effect, that the defendants during that time, through material misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulently or recklessly inflated the market price of the Company's stock by allegedly erroneously reporting that the Company was performing well, that its inventories were properly stated, and that its customer base and product demand were solid. The suit seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the purported class for the alleged inflated amount of the stock price during the class period. The defendants filed a motion on May 25, 2001, asking the court to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, after which the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to defendant's dismissal motion on July 2, 2001. The defendant's dismissal motion was denied by the Court on April 4, 2002. By order dated October 24, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, but accepted defendants' arguments that the class should begin no earlier than March 20, 2000, instead of September 28, 1999 as plaintiffs had proposed. The class certified consists of purchasers of Paradyne stock from March 20, 2000 through September 29, 2000. On October 14, 2003, the parties filed a notice with the court that they had reached an agreement to settle the suit. In exchange for a payment of $3 million, to be funded solely by the Company's insurer, the plaintiff class agreed to release the defendants and dismiss the suit. Defendants admitted no liability in making this settlement. The settlement is subject to the following conditions - execution of a Stipulation of Settlement, preliminary approval by the Court of the terms of the settlement, notice to the plaintiff class of the terms of the settlement and an opportunity to opt out of the settlement, funding by the defendants' insurer, and final approval by the Court. There can be no assurances that each of these conditions will be satisfied. The Company has engaged the law firm of Holland and Knight, LLP as its legal counsel in this litigation. PIONEER NATURAL: Kansas Court Yet To Rule in Royalties Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to release a judgment in the ten-year-old class action filed against Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc. by two classes of royalty owners, one for each of the Company's gathering systems connected to the Company's Satanta gas plant. The case was relatively inactive for several years. In early 2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings to add claims regarding the field compression installed by the Company in the 1990's. The lawsuit now has two material claims. First, the plaintiffs assert that the expenses related to the field compression are a "cost of production" for which plaintiffs cannot be charged their proportionate share under the applicable oil and gas leases. Second, the plaintiffs claim they are entitled to 100 percent of the value of the helium extracted at the Company's Satanta gas plant. If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in their entirety, it is possible that the Company's liability could reach $33.8 million, plus prejudgment interest. However, the Company believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs' claims and has paid the plaintiffs properly under their respective oil and gas leases. The Company believes the cost of the field compression is not a "cost of production," but is rather an expense of transporting the gas to the Company's Satanta gas plant for processing, where valuable hydrocarbon liquids and helium are extracted from the gas. The plaintiffs benefit from such extractions and the Company believes that charging the plaintiffs with their proportionate share of such transportation and processing expenses is consistent with Kansas law. The Company has also defended itself against plaintiffs' claims to 100 percent of the value of the helium extracted, and believes that in accordance with applicable law, it has properly accounted to the plaintiffs for their fractional royalty share of the helium under the specified royalty clauses of the respective oil and gas leases. The factual evidence in the case was presented to the court without a jury in December 2001. Oral arguments were heard by the court in April 2002, and although the court has not yet entered a judgment or findings, it could do so at any time. The Company strongly denies the existence of any material underpayment to the plaintiffs and believes it presented strong evidence at trial to support its positions. The Company has not yet determined the amount of damages, if any, that would be payable if the court were to render an adverse judgment against the Company. Although the amount of any resulting liability could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations for the quarterly reporting period in which such liability is recorded, the Company does not expect that any such liability will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position as a whole or on its liquidity, capital resources or future annual results of operations. SERVICE CORPORATION: Ex-Worker Guilty of Removing Dead Bodies ------------------------------------------------------------- By pleading guilty to secretly pulling two bodies from graves and agreeing to testify in criminal and civil actions against the company and its executives, former Menorah Gardens cemetery supervisor Robert McKay, 47, became the first employee of Service Corporation International, the nation's largest funeral service provider, to be held criminally accountable in the South Florida prosecution, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News reports. At two Menorah Gardens cemeteries in Palm Beach Gardens and west of Fort Lauderdale, SCI employees are accused of routinely burying people in the wrong places, breaking open vaults to squeeze in other burials and, in a few instances, removing scattered bones from broken vaults and tossing them into a maintenance yard or in the woods. The first civil suit against the company scheduled for trial is set to begin in Broward County in early December. Prosecutors declined to say what impact the plea will have on their pursuit of criminal charges against SCI and its Florida subsidiary. Civil attorneys representing hundreds of families suing the companies for improper burials and desecrations said prosecutors would be able to use Mr. McKay's cooperation to bolster the wide-ranging allegations of wrongdoing. "I think on the criminal end, basically you have an insider who has pled to wrongful and horrendous conduct by this company," Ted Leopold, a West Palm Beach attorney who represents about 50 families suing Menorah Gardens in Palm Beach County, told the Tribune Business News. "It is damning evidence about what this company has done, and it only goes to confirm what I, on behalf of my clients, have been saying for two years -- that this company acted without any care for the well-being of the families that were burying loved ones at these cemeteries." Deputy Chief Assistant Statewide Prosecutor James Cobb declined to comment after Wednesday's brief court hearing, saying, "The plea agreement speaks for itself." That plea agreement outlines Mr. McKay's punishment and what is expected of him in the coming months. Mr. McKay was charged with exhuming two bodies without notifying relatives. The two felonies each were punishable by up to five years in prison, but Mr. McKay had no criminal record and was placed on three years probation. He also is barred from working in the funeral or cemetery business for 10 years. He will pay $9,500 in fines and costs of investigation and prosecution. "The defendant will testify truthfully, completely and consistently with his prior statements to law enforcement, to any (court) in which his testimony is required, both criminal and civil, in connection with the Menorah Gardens Palm Beach case," the plea agreement says. Mr. McKay was given immunity for any other crimes he might have committed that his testimony would cover. He answered a series of questions put to him by Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Lucy Brown to make sure he knew what he was doing by pleading guilty. When the judge asked if he was pleading guilty because he was truly guilty, Mr. McKay responded, "Yes, your honor." Mr. McKay's Miami attorney, Paul Calli, told the Tribune Mr. McKay just wants to move forward. "It's been a difficult process. Mr. McKay was placed in a very difficult situation for a very short period of time at Menorah Gardens. Things that happened he regrets. He apologizes. He feels bad for family members that suffered," Mr. Calli stated. The Florida Attorney General's Office announced an investigation into operations at the two Menorah Gardens cemeteries, which primarily serve Jewish families, in December 2001, the day the first lawsuit was filed in Broward County. Criminal charges were filed in May of this year, based on interviews with former Menorah Gardens employees, family members and corporate documents. SCI and SCI Florida are each charged with two third- degree felonies for being negligent and incompetent in the operation of the cemeteries. SCI Florida's vice president, Jeffrey Frucht, 44, faces those same charges. The same day the criminal charges were filed, SCI agreed to settle a state lawsuit by paying $14 million in fines and restitution and agreeing to ensure that burial problems won't occur again. SCI spokesman Don Mathis told the Business News he didn't know what impact Mr. McKay's cooperation would have in the criminal case because Mr. McKay has declined to be interviewed by SCI attorneys. "We have no clue what Mr. McKay is going to say, and we have no clue how that is going to stand up versus testimony from other folks. There is a good deal of conflicting information about who and what," Mr. Mathis said. "The only thing to do is let the legal process work it out." From the outset of the criminal prosecution, Mr. McKay - who was fired in the summer of 2000 - appeared to be the odd man out. Mr. Mathis has defended the companies and Mr. Frucht, saying they were the unwitting victims of lower level "rogue" employees who were acting against company policies. Fort Lauderdale attorney Neal Hirschfeld - who is pursuing a class action against Menorah Gardens in Broward County and represents the two families whose loved ones' bones were found in the woods in Palm Beach Gardens - said Mr. McKay could prove to be a valuable witness. "Bob McKay will be able to testify to what he was told to do or not to do by his supervisors, including Jeffrey Frucht," Mr. Hirschfield said. "Generally, I believe he will testify there were desecrations that took place in the cemetery and that his supervisors knew about it or ordered it. We're satisfied he is now able to tell the truth about what he was told to do." SOUTH AFRICA: Workers Ask For Finance Minister's Resignation ------------------------------------------------------------ In a statement Sunday, U.S. lawyer Ed Fagan, who has stirred controversy with a slew of multibillion dollar apartheid lawsuits, said South Africans seeking compensation for missing pension fund money will demand the resignation of Finance Minister Trevor Manuel if he does not investigate the issue, Reuters newswire reports. According to Mr. Fagan, the affected workers were also demanding the resignation of the country's Financial Services Board, an independent regulator. "Under its watch, billions of rand went missing -- the entire FSB board should be replaced," he said. "Manuel should also resign if he does not launch a full blown investigation in which he can testify as a witness." Finance Ministry officials could not be reached for comment. Mr. Fagan was visiting South Africa ahead of a protest march on Monday by people seeking government support to investigate claims that up to 250 billion rand ($36 billion) disappeared from their private pension funds between 1993 and 2001. Protesters were also seeking compensation for a host of damages ranging from apartheid reparations to occupational illnesses. They would present a list of demands to a representative of President Thabo Mbeki after marching through Pretoria, the nation's capital, Mr. Fagan said. Mr. Fagan and South African advocate Gugulethu Madlanga have just launched a new round of lawsuits against insurers and banks -- modeled on Mr. Fagan's successful Holocaust case against Swiss Banks -- seeking a total of $100 billion. The lawsuits have been contentious in South Africa, where apartheid reparations are a sensitive matter in a society still suffering the legacy of nearly half a century of white minority rule. The country's first democratic elections were in 1994. President Mbeki's government has said it does not support the lawsuits, giving comfort to big businesses which maintain they did not benefit from apartheid. Companies included in some of Fagan's apartheid class action suits include top global players like mining giant Anglo American Plc, Daimler Chrysler, IBM and Gold Fields. So far, South African financial services firm Alexander Forbes, one of the world's top ten risk and financial services firms, is the only named defendant in the case against insurers and banks. TALX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of MO Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss the securities class action filed against Talx Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against It and: (1) William W. Canfield, (2) Craig N. Cohen, (3) Richard F. Ford, (4) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated and (5) A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. The case was initially brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001, including as part of the Secondary Offering. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the Secondary Offering, as well as other statements made by the Company and/or the Individual Defendants during the Putative Class Period, were materially false and misleading because they allegedly did not properly account for certain software and inventory, did not reflect certain write-offs, and did not accurately disclose certain business prospects. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company and the Individual Defendants, violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, the Individual Defendants and the underwriters, and violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against Mr. Canfield. The consolidated lawsuit seeks, among other things, an award of unspecified money damages, including interest, for all losses and injuries allegedly suffered by the putative class members as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief as the Court deems proper. On May 20, 2002, the Company and the Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuits, and the underwriter defendants filed a separate motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2003, the Court granted defendants' motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, without prejudice. The Court granted plaintiffs sixty additional days to file an amended consolidated complaint, and defendants sixty days thereafter to respond to the amended complaint. On May 29, 2003, plaintiffs in the several pending securities lawsuits filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Amended Complaint amends the original Complaint by adding allegations pertaining to the Company's December 2002 restatement of financials and expanding the Putative Class Period to include all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between April 25, 2001 and November 14, 2002. The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that certain statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's August 2001 secondary common stock offering, as well as other statements made by the Company and/or the Individual Defendants during the Amended Putative Class Period, were materially false and misleading because the Company: (i) capitalized instead of expensed $1.6 million related to a patent technology license agreement executed in March 2001; (ii) expensed approximately $158,000 in bonus payments to executive officers in the first quarter of fiscal 2002 instead of the fourth fiscal quarter of 2001; (iii) improperly recognized revenue and expenses during the Amended Putative Class Period; and (iv) miscalculated diluted earnings per share during the Amended Putative Class Period The Amended Complaint also alleges, as did the original Complaint, that the Company did not properly account for certain software and inventory, did not reflect certain write-offs, and did not accurately disclose certain business prospects. The Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, an award of unspecified money damages, including interest, for all losses and injuries allegedly suffered by the putative class members as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief as the Court deems proper. On July 30, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 26, 2003, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion. TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Settlement of Investor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court, Clark County, Nevada granted approval to the settlement of the class action filed against Technical Olympic USA, Inc., in connection with its announcement in March 2001 of its proposed merger with Engle Holdings Corporation. Two suits were filed against the company. One suit filed in District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and another was filed in the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The two suits challenged the merger as a breach of fiduciary duty. In addition, two interveners filed interventions in the Texas class action. In March 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of the class actions and interventions. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $350,000 in the aggregate. The parties originally contemplated that the settlement would be consummated in the Texas action. In the third quarter of 2002, the parties learned that the anticipated Texas forum was unavailable due to a prior dismissal. The Nevada court later entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement relating to the Nevada action. TRAVELERS' PROPERTY: Enters Mediation For Unfair Trade Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Property Casualty Corporation has entered mediation for several class actions, charging the Company with violating unfair trade practice requirements and inappropriately handling and settling asbestos claims. In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class actions (Wise v. Travelers, and Meninger v. Travelers), were filed against the Company and other insurers in state court in West Virginia. The plaintiffs in these cases, which were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, allege that the insurer defendants violated unfair trade practices requirements and inappropriately handled and settled asbestos claims. The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on insurers. Lawsuits similar to Wise have been filed in Massachusetts (2002) and Hawaii (2002, served in May 2003). Also, in November 2001, plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court moved to amend their complaint to name the Company as a defendant, alleging that the Company and other insurers breached alleged duties to certain users of asbestos products. In March 2002, the court granted the motion to amend. Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and raising allegations similar to those presented in the West Virginia amended complaint are also pending against the Company in Louisiana and Texas state courts. Similar complaints were filed in various Ohio state courts during the second quarter of 2003. All of the actions, other than the Hawaii actions, are currently subject to a temporary restraining order entered by the federal bankruptcy court in New York, which had previously presided over and approved the reorganization in bankruptcy of the Company's former policyholder Johns Manville. In August 2002, the bankruptcy court conducted a hearing on the Company's motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting further prosecution of the lawsuits pursuant to the reorganization plan and related orders. At the conclusion of this hearing, the court ordered the parties to mediation, appointed a mediator, and continued the temporary restraining order. During January and June 2003, the same bankruptcy court extended the existing injunction to apply to an additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio as well as to the attorneys who are prosecuting these cases. The order also enjoins these attorneys and their respective law firms from commencing any further lawsuits against the Company based upon these allegations without the prior approval of the court. The parties have met with the mediator several times since August 2002. The results of the mediation, if any, are uncertain at this time. If the mediation is not successful, the bankruptcy court could hold a hearing as soon as late 2003 to consider the Company's motion for a permanent injunction. If the Company is not successful, including on appeal, the temporary restraining order currently in effect will be lifted and the Company will again be subject to the pending litigation and could be subject to additional litigation based on similar theories of liability. TUT SYSTEMS: Trial in CA Securities Lawsuit Set For March 7,2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the securities class action filed against Tut Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors is set for March 7,2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is filed on behalf of a purported class of people who purchased the Company's stock during the period between July 20, 2000 and January 31, 2001, seeking unspecified damages. The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors made false and misleading statements about the Company's business during the putative class period. Specifically, the complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit is styled "In re Tut Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-01-2659-CW." Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 29, 2002. On August 15, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On September 23, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on August 6, 2003 the court granted in part that motion. On September 24, 2003, defendants answered the remaining allegations of the amended complaint. Discovery has commenced. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in the complaint. TUT SYSTEMS: Files Demurrer To CA Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tut Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers filed demurrers to the shareholder derivative lawsuit styled "Lefkowitz v. D'Auria, et al., No. RG03087467," filed against them in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) gross negligence, (3) breach of contract, (4) unjust enrichment and (5) improper insider stock trading The complaint seeks unspecified damages against the individual defendants on behalf of the Company, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees. The demurrers have not yet been heard by the court, and no trial date has been established. TUT SYSTEMS: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tut Systems, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated class action filed against it and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Whalen v. Tut Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 01-CV-9563." The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the prospectuses from the Company's January 29, 1999 initial public offering and its March 23, 2000 secondary offering failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the offerings. The complaint alleges claims against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and alleges claims against certain of its current and former officers and directors under Sections 15 and 20(a) of the 1933 Act. The complaints also name as defendants the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering. The court has denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company's Board recently approved a tentative settlement proposal from the plaintiffs. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the court. If the settlement does not occur, and the litigation against the Company continues, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the case vigorously. An unfavorable resolution of this litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. VOLUME SERVICES: Former CA Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Services America, Inc. faces a class action styled "Holden v. Volume Services America, et al." filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a former employee at one of the California stadiums the Company serves. The suit, initially filed in the California Superior Court for Orange County, alleges violations of local overtime wage, rest and meal period and related laws with respect to this employee and others purportedly similarly situated at any and all of the facilities the Company serves in California. The purported class action seeks compensatory, special and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties under the applicable local laws and injunctions against the alleged illegal acts. The Company is in the process of evaluating this case and, while the review is preliminary, management believes that the Company's business practices are, and were during the period alleged, in compliance with the law. WD-40: FL Consumers Lodge Suit For State Consumer Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- WD-40, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida by Michael William Granese, a Florida citizen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, to seek damages allegedly arising out of the use of automatic toilet bowl cleaners (ATBCs) sold by the Company. ATBCs are marketed and sold by the registrant under the brand names, 2000 Flushes and X-14. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of consumers in the state of Florida who, since September 1, 1998, have purchased and used ATBCs sold by the registrant and who, at the time of the first use of such products, had a product warranty for a toilet in which such products were used. The plaintiff alleges that the product warranty for such toilet may have been voided by the use of the Company's ATBC. In addition to damages attributed to the value of the lost product warranty, plaintiff seeks damages for the purchase price of the ATBC which is allegedly unfit for its intended purpose. The legal action includes allegations of negligent omission of information concerning the potential loss of product warranties and alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for failing to inform consumers of the potential loss of product warranties. The plaintiff seeks punitive and/or treble damages in addition to actual or compensatory damages, as well as costs and attorneys fees as may be provided for by Florida law. WD-40: CA Court Junks Consumer Lawsuit Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda dismissed the class action filed against WD-40, Inc., by Patricia Brown on behalf of the general public, to seek a remedy for alleged violation of California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., and 17500. The complaints allege that the Company has misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach, 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach and X-14 Anti-Bacterial automatic toilet bowl cleaners (ATBCs) are safe for plumbing systems and that the Company has unlawfully omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber. The complaints seek to remedy such allegedly wrongful conduct: (1) by enjoining the Company from making the allegedly untrue representations and to require the Company to engage in a corrective advertising campaign and to order the return, replacement and/or refund of all monies paid for such ATBCs; (2) by requiring the Company to identify all consumers who have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be ordered by the court; and (3) by the granting of other equitable relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Another substantially similar complaint was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, by Genevieve Valentine. This complaint, filed by the same law firms that filed the first suit, is brought as a consumer class action on the same or similar grounds as alleged in the above suit and seeks substantially similar relief on behalf of the purported class of similarly situated plaintiffs. If class certification is granted in any of the above actions, it is reasonably possible that the outcome of the action(s) could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations. There is not sufficient information to estimate the Company's exposure at this time. WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuits Over Fox Paine Proposal Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------- The class actions filed against WJ Communications, Inc. in relation to a proposal from Fox Paine LLC to acquire all of the shares of WJ common stock held by unaffiliated stockholders have been voluntarily dismissed, as Fox Paine withdrew the proposal on March 27, 2003. The suits were filed against Fox Paine, the Company and certain of its current and former directors. The lawsuits sought to enjoin the acquisition proposal and unspecified compensatory damages. Although each of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice as a result of the withdrawal of the proposal, the Company cannot give any assurance that, in the future, no other purported class action lawsuits will be filed against it based on similar allegations. WM HOLDINGS: IL Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Stock Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Illinois State Court refused to grant WM Holdings, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the class action filed against it, its parent Waste Management, Inc., five former officers of WM Holdings, and WM Holdings' former independent auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP. The suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who purchased WM Holdings common stock before November 3, 1994, and who held that stock through February 24, 1998. The action is for alleged acts of common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. In May 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court later denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. The extent of possible damages, if any, in this action cannot yet be determined. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 ________________________________________________________________ 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 ALKERMES INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Suit 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 purchasers of the common stock of Alkermes, Inc. from April 22, 1999 through July 1, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and: (1) Richard F. Pops, (2) Robert A. Breyer, (3) David A. Broecker, (4) Michael J. Landine, (5) James M. Frates and, (6) James L. Wright The lawsuit charges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations about the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for Risperdal Consta to the market between April 22, 1999 and July 1, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Alkermes' common stock. The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants during the Class Period but were concealed from the investing public, were as follows: (1) In an attempt to decrease development expenses and speed the product to market, defendants concealed the deficient nature of the manufacturing process for Medisorb polylactide-glycolide polymer used to manufacture Risperdal Consta, resulting in quality management issues and delays in the development program; (2) in order to conceal lot-to-lot variations resulting from the manufacturing process for Medisorb polymer, defendants minimized process development and validation requirements, including the establishment of specifications and analytical tests necessary to control those variations; (3) significant quality issues for the manufacture of Risperdal Consta existed at the Wilmington, Ohio facility, impacting the ability of the Company to meet clinical development timelines for Risperdal Consta; (4) in order to avoid disclosure of the serious deficiencies of the Medisorb manufacturing process, particularly the lot-to-lot variation in molecular weight for Medisorb polymer, and in order to find a way to fix the desired molecular weight of the Risperdal Consta finished drug product, defendants patented a method to degrade the finished product to the desired molecular weight; (5) defendants' revenue projections for Risperdal Consta were grossly inflated based on defendants' concealment of the fact that Risperdal's adverse effects and safety or tolerability issues worsen when Risperdal is formulated using Medisorb technology and used as intended; (6) defendants concealed that due to the combined effect of the financial agreements reached with its joint venture partner, Janssen, Risperdal Consta would not be profitable unless it achieved the high end of sales projections, an unlikely outcome because of the worsening of Risperdal's adverse effects and safety or tolerability issues when the drug is formulated using Medisorb technology and used as intended; (7) the serious safety concerns for Risperdal "oral" and Risperdal Consta "depot" products, such as cerebrovascular effects in elderly patients, extrapyramidal symptoms, QT interval prolongation and diabetes, which were detected in clinical trials that went unreported to worldwide regulatory authorities for long periods, in some cases for studies completed well before the beginning of the Class Period, were negatively impacting the regulatory review process; (8) for one or more reasons related to the known but unmet manufacturing, safety or efficacy requirements for the drug, the NDA for Risperdal Consta would not be approved on July 1, 2002; and, (9) the failure to disclose the defective nature of the Risperdal Consta chemical and manufacturing controls, clinical program, safety and other issues preventing the Company from realizing product approval would prevent investors from learning the extent of the misrepresentations made to them during the Class Period. On July 1, 2002, defendants announced the receipt of a non- approvable letter for Risperdal Consta. As a result of this announcement, Alkermes' stock price dropped precipitously over the next two days to a low of $4.04, or a loss of 93% from its Class Period high of $98 per share, on total volume of 29 million shares. For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll-free) or 1-610-667-7706, by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Lawsuit in IL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Illinois, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired American Pharmaceuticals Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPX) securities between February 19, 2002 and October 6, 2003, inclusive. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements with respect to the drug Abraxane, a reformulated version of Taxol under development for the treatment of breast cancer. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants hyped Abraxane as a safer and more effective alternative to Taxol, the world's best-selling chemotherapy drug for cancer. Defendants claimed that clinical studies had indicated that: (1) Abraxane could be administered without Cremophor, a toxic substance with severe side-effects that limited the tolerable dose and effectiveness of Taxol; (2) unlike Taxol, Abraxane could be administered without the need for potentially harmful steroid pre-medication and other drugs that reduce the loss of white blood cells; (3) because Abraxane was not formulated with a toxic substance it could be delivered in much higher doses than Taxol and was therefore more effective than Taxol with respect to reduction in tumor size; and (4) because it can be injected intravenously directly to the location of the tumor, Abraxane therapy is only one-half hour, compared to 3 hours for Taxol. The truth began to emerge on September 24, 2003. On that date, Defendants issued an ostensibly positive news release to announce the preliminary results of Phase III testing of Abraxane. However, commentators noted that the news release did not include the data underlying the trial results, and that the trial lacked a common safeguard known as double blinding designed to prevent research bias, since doctors and patients both knew whether Abraxane or Taxol was in use. Moreover, in the release APP narrowed some of its claims for Abraxane, stating not that Abraxane was well tolerated without the need for steroid pre-medication and G-CSF support (to reduce loss of white blood cells) but rather, noted the absence of "severe hypersensitivity reactions despite no routine pre- medication in patients receiving Abraxane" and stated that the procedure was to administer Abraxane "without routine steroid pretreatment or growth factor support." After this partial disclosure, APPX shares fell 21% from a Class Period high of $44.14 per share on September 24, 2003 to a closing price of $29.59 per share on September 26, 2003. Two trading days before the September 24th announcement -- but after APP had seen Phase III trial results -- Chairman and CEO Patrick Soon-Shiong disposed of 300,000 shares of his personally held APP stock while the stock was trading at artificially inflated prices. Finally, on October 6, 2003, an article in Barron's disclosed the entire truth -- not only was Abraxane not as safe or effective as the Company claimed, but it stood a poor chance of winning FDA approval. After this disclosure, APPX shares fell an additional 12% from $30 per share to $26.20 per share on enormous volume of over 6.2 million shares.. For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations, by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414, by E-mail: APPX@bernlieb.com, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com. FEDERATED INVESTORS: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: LEIBX) (Nasdaq: LEICX) (Nasdaq: LFEIX), Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: FGEFX) (Nasdaq: FGEDX), Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: WUFBX) (Nasdaq: WUFCX), Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMGSX), and other Federated Investment family of funds, between November 1, 1998 and October 21, 2003, inclusive. The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below, are as follows: (1) Federated Adjustable Rate Securities Fund (Sym: FEUGX, FASSX) (2) Federated American Leaders Fund, Inc. (Sym: FALDX, FALBX, FALCX, FALFX) (3) Federated Bond Fund (Sym: FDBAX, FDBBX, FDBCX, ISHIX) (4) Federated California Municipal Income Fund (Sym: FCMIX, CMUIX) (5) Federated Capital Appreciation Fund (Sym: FEDEX, CPABX, CPACX, CPAKX) (6) Federated Capital Income Fund (Sym: CAPAX, CAPBX, CAPCX, CAPFX) (7) Federated Capital Preservation Fund (8) Federated Communications Technology Fund (Sym: FCTAX, FCTEX, FCTYX) (9) Federated Conservative Allocation Fund (Sym: FMCGX, FCGSX) (10) Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Sym: LEIFX, LEIBX, LEICX, LFEIX) (11) Federated European Equity Fund (Sym: EURAX, EURBA, EURCX) (12) Federated Fund for U.S. Government Securities (Sym: FUSGX, FUSBX, FUSCX) (13) Federated GNMA Trust (Sym: FGMAX, FGSSX) (14) Federated Global Equity Fund (Sym: FGEIX, FGEFX, FGEDX) (15) Federated Global Value Fund (Sym: WUFAX, WUFBX, WUFCX) (16) Federated Government Income Securities, Inc. (Sym: FGOAX, FGOBX, FGOCX, FGOIX) (17) Federated Government Ultrashort Duration Fund (Sym: FGUAX, FGUSX, FEUSX) (18) Federated Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: FMGPX, FMGSX) (19) Federated Growth Strategies Fund (Sym: FGSAX, FGSBX, FGSCX) (20) Federated High Income Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FHIIX, FHBBX, FHICX) (21) Federated High Yield Trust, Federated Income Trust (Sym: FHYTX) (22) Federated Income Trust (Sym: FICMX, FITSX) (23) Federated Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (Sym: FIHBX) (24) Federated Intermediate Income Fund (Sym: FIIFX, INISX) (25) Federated Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym: FIMTX, FIMYX) (26) Federated International Bond Fund (Sym: FTIIX, FTBBX, FTIBX) (27) Federated International Capital Appreciation Fund (Sym: IGFAX, IGFBX, IGFCX) (28) Federated International Equity Fund (Sym: FTITX, FIEBX, FIECX) (29) Federated International High Income Fund (Sym: IHIAX, IHIBX, IHICX) (30) Federated International Small Company Fund (Sym: ISCAX, ISCBX, ISCCX) (31) Federated International Value Fund (Sym: FGFAX, FGFBX, FGFCX) (32) Federated Kaufmann Fund (Sym: KAUAX, KAUBX, KAUCX, KAUFX) (33) Federated Kaufmann Small Cap Fund (Sym: FKASX, FKBSX, FKCSX) (34) Federated Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: FLGAX, FLGBX, FLGCX) (35) Federated Limited Duration Fund (Sym: FTRLX, FTRDX) (36) Federated Limited Duration Government Fund, Inc. (Sym: FLDIX, FLDSX) (37) Federated Limited Term Fund (Sym: LTDFX, LTFSX) (38) Federated Limited Term Municipal Fund (Sym: LMINX, LMFSX) (39) Federated Managed Income Portfolio (Sym: FMIPX, FIPSX) (40) Federated Market Opportunity Fund (Sym: FMAAX, FMBBX, FMRCX) (41) Federated Max-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MXCCX, FISPX, FMXKX, FMXSX) (42) Federated Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym: MMIFX) (43) Federated Mid-Cap Index Fund (Sym: FMDCX) (44) Federated Mini-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MNCCX, FMCPX) (45) Federated Moderate Allocation Fund (Sym: FMMGX, FMMSX) (46) Federated Mortgage Fund (Sym: FGFIX, FGFSX) (47) Federated Muni and Stock Advantage Fund (Sym: FMUAX, FMNBX, FMUCX) (48) Federated Municipal Opportunities Fund, Inc. (Sym: FMOAX, FMOBX, FMNCX, FHTFX) (49) Federated Municipal Securities Fund, Inc. (Sym: LMSFX, LMSBX, LMSCX) (50) Federated Municipal Ultrashort Fund (Sym: FMUUX, FMUSX) (51) Federated New York Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NYIFX, NYIBX) (52) Federated North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NCIFX) (53) Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Sym: OMIFX) (54) Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Sym: PAMFX, FPABX) (55) Federated Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: FSTIX, FSISX) (53) Federated Short-Term Municipal Trust (Sym: FSHIX, FSHSX) (54) Federated Stock Trust (Sym: FSTKX) (55) Federated Stock and Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FSTBX, FSBBX, FSBCX, FSBKX) (56) Federated Strategic Income Fund (Sym: STIAX, SINBX, SINCX, STFSX) (57) Federated Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TLRAX, TLRBX, TLRCX, FTRBX, FTRKX, FTRFX) (58) Federated Total Return Government Bond Fund (Sym: FTRGX, FTGSX) (59) Federated U.S. Government Bond Fund (Sym: FEDBX) (60) Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 1-3 Years (Sym: FSGVX, FSGIX, FSGTX) (61) Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 2-5 Years (Sym: FIGTX, FIGKX, FIGIX) (62) Federated Ultrashort Bond Fund (Sym: FULAX, FULIX, FULBX) 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, defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed the John Doe defendants to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities. In return for receiving extra fees from the John Doe defendants, Federated Investors, Inc. and its subsidiaries allowed and facilitated the John Doe defendants' timing and late trading activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for the John Doe defendants' 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-4:00 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 information, contact: Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh by Phone: (800) 497-8076, or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com. GOODYEAR TIRE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio --------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. securities (NYSE: GT) during the period between October 22, 1998 and October 22, 2003, both dates inclusive against the Company and: (1) Robert J. Keegan and (2) Robert W. Tieken The Complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company's implantation of an enterprise resource planning accounting system in 1999 caused Goodyear to materially overstate its net income and earnings by up to $100 million; (ii) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); (iii) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company; and (iv) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On October 22, 2003, after the market had closed, Goodyear announced that it would restate its financial results for the years 1998-2002 and for the first and second quarters of 2003, and that the restatement would result in a decrease in net income over the restatement period by up to $100 million. Market reaction to this news was swift and fast. Shares of Goodyear fell more than 10 percent during inter-day trading and traded as low as $5.55 per share on extremely heavy volume. For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh by Mail: Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com. PUTNAM FUNDS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court on behalf of all holders of the Putnam mutual funds listed below during the time period of January 3, 2000 through September 16, 2003, inclusive, against Putnam Investment Management Trust, Putnam Investment Management LLC, Marsh & McLennan Corp., Inc., Omid Kamshad, Justin Scott, and the following Putnam mutual funds: (1) International Voyager Fund n/k/a International Capital Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PNVAX, PVNBX, PUVCX, PIVMX); (2) Europe Growth Fund n/k/a Europe Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PEUGX, PEUBX, PEUMX); (3) International Growth Fund n/k/a International Equity Fund (NASDAQ: POVSX, POVBX, PIGCX, POVMX); and, (4) Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PEQUX, PEQBX, PUGCX, PEQMX). The complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to mutual fund investors by allowing certain select investors and Putnam's own fund managers to engage in "market timing" (or rapid in-and-out trading) of the above-listed mutual funds to the financial detriment of the majority of mutual fund investors. It is alleged that defendants engaged in this wrongful activity in exchange for substantial fees and other income for themselves and their affiliates. For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss, or Christine M. Fox, by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, by Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980, by Fax: (212) 687-7714, by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kaplanfox.com. PUTNAM FUNDS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: POGBX) (Nasdaq: POGCX) (Nasdaq: PGOMX), Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: PHYBX) (Nasdaq: PHYMX), Putnam Income Fund (Nasdaq: PNCBX) (Nasdaq: PUICX) (Nasdaq: PNCMX), Putnam International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: POVBX) (Nasdaq: PIGCX) (Nasdaq: POVMX), and other Putnam family of funds (the "Funds"), between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive. The complaint names Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Putnam Investments Trust, Putnam Investment Management LLC, Putnam Investment Funds, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100. The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below, are as follows: (1) Putnam American Government Income Fund (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio (5) Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Sym: PAEAX) (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund (16) Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Sym: PGRWX) (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston (18) Putnam Global Equity Fund (Sym: PEQUX) (19) Putnam Global Income Trust (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (21) Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: POGAX, POGBX, POGCX, PGOMX) (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (24) Putnam High Yield Trust (25) Putnam Income Fund (26) Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund (28) Putnam International Equity Fund (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund (30) Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Sym: PINOX) (31) Putnam Investors Fund (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund (36) Putnam Money Market Fund (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund (40) Putnam New Value Fund (Sym: PANVX) (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund (46) Putnam Research Fund (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund (56) Putnam Vista Fund (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX) 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, defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain investors (the John Doe defendants) to engage in the "timing" of their transactions in the Funds' securities. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit. Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and is acknowledged as an improper practice by the Funds. In return for receiving extra fees defendants allowed the John Doe defendants to engage in timing, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for the favored investors' improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against timing. For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com. PUTNAM FUNDS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the Putnam Family of Funds during the period between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds subject to the lawsuit are as follows: (1) Putnam American Government Income Fund (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio (5) Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Sym: PAEAX) (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund (16) Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Sym: PGRWX) (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston (18) Putnam Global Equity Fund (Sym: PEQUX) (19) Putnam Global Income Trust (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (21) Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: POGAX, POGBX, POGCX, PGOMX) (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (24) Putnam High Yield Trust (25) Putnam Income Fund (26) Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund (28) Putnam International Equity Fund (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund (30) Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Sym: PINOX) (31) Putnam Investors Fund (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund (36) Putnam Money Market Fund (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund (40) Putnam New Value Fund (Sym: PANVX) (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund (46) Putnam Research Fund (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund (56) Putnam Vista Fund (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX) The wrongful conduct alleged in, and which is the subject of the lawsuit, relates to "late trading" of mutual fund shares by certain customers of the fund. Specifically, the conduct complained of relates to allegations that certain of those who invested in certain of the various defendants' mutual funds improperly arranged to place orders after 4 p.m. Eastern Time on a given day at that day's price (instead of the next day's price, which the order would have received had it been processed lawfully). This allowed mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on information available only after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time while others who bought shares in the subject mutual funds could not so benefit. The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of the lawsuit relates to "timing." As used, "timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their shares, particularly shares of international funds. It is alleged, further, that while the mutual fund companies purported to guard against timing, they allowed select investors to time their trades to the detriment of other mutual fund investors and for the benefit of the mutual fund companies. For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/332-0030, or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.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 * * *