/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040220.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, February 20, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 36
Headlines
ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
AIRGATE PCS: Plaintiffs, Counsel File Motion For Lead Positions
AMERCO: NV Court Consolidated For Securities Violations Lawsuits
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in TX
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in TX Court
CHATTEM INC.: Reaches MOU To Settle Dexatrim PPA Lawsuit in WA
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Plaintiffs Appeal OR Stock Suit Dismissal
DANKA INDUSTRIES: Seeks Transfer of TN Lawsuit To Federal Court
DUNKIN DONUTS: CA Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Violations Suit
EAGLE PICHER: Reaches Settlement For Environmental Damage Suit
EAGLE PICHER: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OK
EMERSON RADIO: Plaintiff To File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: To Ask For Dismissal of Stock Suits
FLORIDAFIRST BANCORP: Shareholder Launches Securities Suit in FL
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Several Securities Suits in NV, CA, FL
MGM MIRAGE: Court Hears Oral Arguments of Certification Appeal
MGM MIRAGE: Written Discovery Proceeds in Amended Lawsuit in NV
MGM MIRAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Disposition For NV Lawsuit
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: To File Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: AZ Securities Fraud Lawsuits Dismissed
SILICON IMAGE: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
STRATUS SERVICES: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Suits for ERISA Violations
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AFG Takes Charges From Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Group Strengthens Asbestos Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Slashes Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant, Inc. Makes liability Payments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Exposed To Liabilities From Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Faces Suits For Subsidiary's Products
ASBESTOS ALERT: Claymore Securities Sees Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Sees Decline in Asbestos Payments
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Foresees Possible Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear's Asbestos Lawsuits Increase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules, Inc. Increases Asbestos Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jacuzzi Brands Subsidiary Facing Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 36T Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc. Pays Asbestos-related Charge
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Strengthens Asbestos Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Posts Insurance Recoveries
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l Named As Defendant In Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco International Asbestos Cases Increase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Automotive Named In Two Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Sypris Solutions Foresees Asbestos Litigation
New Securities Fraud Cases
ADECCO SA: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MA
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Reinhardt Wendorf Files CA Securities Suit
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Lodges IL Stock Lawsuit
ROYAL DUTCH: Schatz & Nobel Lodges NJ Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SONUS NETWORKS: Rabin Murray Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges IL Stock Suit
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Abraham Fruchter Files Stock Suit in M.D. FL
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in FL
*********
ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and/or directors, styled "In re Acclaim
Entertainment, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2,
03-CV-1270." The suit names as defendants the Company and:
(1) Gregory Fischbach,
(2) Edmond Sanctis,
(3) James Scoroposki and
(4) Gerard F. Agoglia
Penn Capital Management, Robert L. Mannard and Steve Russo have
been appointed as lead plaintiffs, and lead plaintiffs'
selection of counsel has been approved.
The consolidated complaint alleges a class period from October
14, 1999 through January 13, 2003. The consolidated complaint
alleges that the Company engaged in a variety of wrongful
practices which rendered statements made by the Company and its
financial statements to be false and misleading.
Among other purported wrongful practices, the Consolidated
Complaint alleges that the Company:
(i) engaged in "channel stuffing," a practice by which
Acclaim allegedly delivered excess inventory to its
distributors to meet or exceed analysts' earnings
expectations and inflate its sales results;
(ii) entered into "conditional sales agreements" whereby
Acclaim's customers allegedly were induced to accept
delivery of Acclaim products prior to a quarter-end
reporting period on the condition that Acclaim would
accept the return of any unsold product after the
quarter-end; and
(iii) that Acclaim falsified sales reports and manipulated
the timing and recognition of price concessions and
discounts granted to its retail customers.
The Consolidated Complaint further alleges that the Company
engaged in improper accounting practices, including the improper
recognition of sales revenue; manipulation of reserves
associated with concessions, chargebacks and/or sales discounts
granted to customers; and the improper reporting of software
development costs.
The consolidated complaint alleges that as a result of these
practices defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. The
Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.
On December 3, 2003 the Company moved to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss on January 20, 2004,
and the Company will submit its reply papers by February 20,
2004.
AIRGATE PCS: Plaintiffs, Counsel File Motion For Lead Positions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain plaintiffs and their lead counsel filed a modified
renewed motion for appointment to lead counsel and plaintiff
positions in the securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
against AirGate PCS, Inc. and:
(1) Thomas M. Dougherty,
(2) Barbara L. Blackford,
(3) Alan B. Catherall,
(4) Credit Suisse First Boston,
(5) Lehman Brothers,
(6) UBS Warburg LLC,
(7) William Blair & Company,
(8) Thomas Wiesel Partners LLC and
(9) TD Securities
The complaints do not specify an amount or range of damages that
the plaintiffs are seeking. The complaints seek class
certification and allege that the prospectus used in connection
with the secondary offering of Company stock by certain former
iPCS shareholders on December 18, 2001 contained materially
false and misleading statements and omitted material information
necessary to make the statements in the prospectus not false and
misleading.
The alleged omissions included:
(i) failure to disclose that in order to complete an
effective integration of iPCS, drastic changes would
have to be made to the Company's distribution channels,
(ii) failure to disclose that the sales force in the
acquired iPCS markets would require extensive
restructuring and
(iii) failure to disclose that the "churn" or "turnover" rate
for subscribers would increase as a result of an
increase in the amount of sub-prime credit quality
subscribers the Company added from its merger with
iPCS.
On July 15, 2002, certain plaintiffs and their counsel filed a
motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
Subsequently, the court denied this motion without prejudice and
two of the plaintiffs and their counsel filed a renewed motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On
September 12, 2003, the court again denied the motion without
prejudice.
AMERCO: NV Court Consolidated For Securities Violations Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The four class actions filed against AMERCO have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada.
One of the suits is entitled "Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et
al., Case No. CV-N-03-0050-DWH-VPC." The suit was filed on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired
AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26,
2002. The Article Four Trust action alleges one claim for
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Another suit is styled "Mates v. AMERCO, et al., United
States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-
0107." Maxine Mates, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this
putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12,
1998 and September 26, 2002. The Mates action asserts claims
under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.
"Klug v. AMERCO, et al., Case No. CV-S-03-0380" was filed on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired
AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26,
2002. The Klug action asserts claims under section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
"IG Holdings v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court,
District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-0199." IG Holdings, an
AMERCO bondholder, commenced this putative class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased, acquired, or
traded AMERCO bonds between February 12, 1998 and September 26,
2002, alleging claims under section 11 and section 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and
section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.
Each of these four securities class actions allege that AMERCO
engaged in transactions with SAC entities that falsely improved
AMERCO's financial statements, and that AMERCO failed to
disclose the transactions properly.
The actions are at a very early stage. As to AMERCO, the
actions are stayed pending AMERCO's emergence from bankruptcy.
In addition, by agreement of the parties, AMERCO's directors who
are also named in the lawsuits have an extension to file their
responses to the complaints.
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Americredit Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors face a consolidated securities class action, alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The suit,
styled "Pierce v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al.," is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Fort Worth Division.
The suit alleges that deferments were improperly granted by the
Company to avoid delinquency triggers in securitization
transactions and enhance cash flows to incorrectly report
charge-offs and delinquency percentages, thereby causing the
Company to misrepresent its financial performance throughout the
alleged class period.
The Company believes that its granting of deferments, which is a
common practice within the auto finance industry, complied with
the covenants contained in its securitization and warehouse
financing documents, and that its deferment activities were
properly disclosed to all constituents, including shareholders,
asset-backed investors, creditors and credit enhancement
providers, it stated in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company believes that the claims alleged in the "Pierce"
lawsuit are without merit and the Company intends to assert
vigorous defenses to the litigation. Neither the likelihood of
an unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at this
time. The Company does not expect this litigation to have a
material impact on its financial position, operations or
liquidity, the SEC Filing states.
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in TX Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Americredit Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors face a securities class action filed in the Judicial
District Court of Tarrant County, Texas alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the Company's secondary public offering of common stock
on October 1, 2002.
This lawsuit, styled "Lewis v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al.," has
been removed by the Company to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. In
"Lewis," which seeks class action status on behalf of all
persons who purchased in such secondary offering, the plaintiff
alleges that the Company's registration statement and prospectus
for the offering contained untrue statements of material facts
and omitted to state material facts necessary to make other
statements in the registration statement not misleading.
The Company believes that the claims alleged in the "Lewis"
lawsuit are without merit. Neither the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if
any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at this
time. The Company does not expect this litigation to have a
material impact on its financial position, operations or
liquidity.
CHATTEM INC.: Reaches MOU To Settle Dexatrim PPA Lawsuit in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the Plaintiffs's Steering Committee (PSC) in "In re
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, MDL
1407," pending before the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) memorializes certain
settlement terms concerning lawsuits relating to "Dexatrim"
products containing PPA. The Company is currently negotiating
with the PSC on the terms of a settlement agreement that will
supercede the Memorandum of Understanding.
The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the Company
will commence a national class action settlement of all
"Dexatrim" PPA claims in the first quarter of 2004. The Company
will then seek final approval of the settlement terms at a
fairness hearing. If the class settlement is approved, it is
expected that a judgment will be entered, and the Company will
pay an initially determined amount of the settlement into a
trust fund. The Company will then publish notice of the final
settlement and details on how plaintiffs can submit claims and
the deadlines for making such claims.
Claims would be settled pursuant to an agreed upon settlement
matrix that is designed to evaluate and place settlement values
on cases. If the Company is able to complete a final settlement
agreement and successfully obtain approval from the court in
each of the foregoing steps, which the Company presently
believes it will be able to do, it is expected that final
approval of the class settlement and funding of the settlement
trust fund will occur in the second half of 2004, the Company
stated in a SEC filing.
Based upon the Memorandum of Understanding and the settlement
matrix, Judge Rothstein has entered a stay of discovery in all
federal court "Dexatrim" PPA cases to allow the PSC and the
Company to negotiate a final settlement agreement and for the
Company to then file its class action settlement. The Company
will seek a similar stay in the state court cases.
Approximately 70% of its cases are included in the MDL.
The Company expects many of its cases pending in state courts
will join in the settlement. Judge Rothstein ordered that the
"Dexatrim" case scoring system and settlement matrix remain
confidential until a final settlement agreement is entered.
Since the terms of the preliminary settlement in the "PPA"
litigation are not final or binding, the Company cannot give any
assurance that it will be able to reach a final settlement or
that if a final settlement is reached, the terms will be
approved by the court. If the settlement is approved, the
Company believes that the settlement will include a substantial
majority of the claims by users of "Dexatrim" products
containing PPA, but that some claims may elect to "opt out" of
any class settlement and will continue to pursue claims for
damages against the Company in separate lawsuits.
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Plaintiffs Appeal OR Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court in Oregon's
decision dismissing the consolidated securities class action
filed against Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc.
The consolidated suit alleged the Company violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
accompanying regulations by misleading shareholders regarding
such things as FDA approval and other matters, which the
plaintiffs alleged caused significant damage to the holders of
the Company's common stock at the time of these alleged
misrepresentations and omissions.
On April 17, 2003, the consolidated litigation was dismissed
without prejudice by the court. In a written opinion, the U.S.
District Judge concluded that the alleged misstatements were
either not material, not misleading, or not pled by plaintiffs
with sufficient particularity to constitute a claim.
The Court gave the plaintiffs until May 8, 2003 to replead three
of the nine claims. Plaintiffs did not replead, so the judge
dismissed the case with prejudice on May 13, 2003. On May 22,
2003, the plaintiffs filed for appeal, and on September 3, 2003
the plaintiffs filed their memorandum in support of their
appeal.
On October 20, 2003, the Company filed its response in support
of the District Court's opinion. The Company does not expect to
receive a decision from the appellate court for at least one
year. The likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the extent of
any potential loss is not presently determinable, the Company
revealed in a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
DANKA INDUSTRIES: Seeks Transfer of TN Lawsuit To Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danka Industries, Inc. seeks the removal of the class action
styled "Stephen L. Edwards, et al., Plaintiffs vs Danka
Industries, Inc., et al., including American Business Credit
Corporation, Defendants," to the United States District Court
for the District of Tennessee.
The suit, originally filed in state court, alleges claims of:
(1) breach of contract,
(2) fraud/intentional misrepresentation,
(4) unjust enrichment,
(5) violation of the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade
Protection Act and
(6) injunctive relief
The Company intends to fight all claims alleged by the
plaintiff, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
DUNKIN DONUTS: CA Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dunkin Donuts Master Franchisee Quebec, Inc. faces a class
action filed in California State Court, regarding overtime pay
for store managers. This case is brought by store managers and
alleges that they were due overtime pay based on the job duties
they performed.
The plaintiffs are currently trying to certify the case as a
class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. The case is in the preliminary stages of discovery
and the outcome cannot be predicted, the Company revealed in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
EAGLE PICHER: Reaches Settlement For Environmental Damage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Picher Holdings, Inc. reached a settlement for the
purported class action filed on behalf of approximately 3,000
homeowners in the United States District Court in Colorado
against it and a company with a facility adjacent to its
facility in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
The suit seeks property damages, testing and remediation costs
and punitive damages arising out of chlorinated solvents and
nitrates in the groundwater alleged to arise out of activities
at the Company's facility and the adjacent facility. The
federal court has not yet decided on class certification.
In September 2002, as amended in May 2003, a trust purportedly
the assignee of approximately 200 property owners filed suit
against the Company and the same co-defendant in the United
States District Court in Colorado suit. This lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages to provide for remediation of the
groundwater contamination as well as unspecified punitive
damages. The owner of the adjacent facility, which is
upgradient from the Company's facility, is operating a
remediation system aimed at chlorinated solvents in the
groundwater originating from its facility under a compliance
order on consent with the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE).
The Company is operating a remediation system for nitrates in
the groundwater originating from its facility, also under a
compliance order on consent with CDPHE. The Company does not
believe that nitrates in groundwater materially affect any of
the properties related to the plaintiffs in these lawsuits.
Neither the United States Environmental Protection Agency nor
the CDPHE has ever required the Company to undertake a cleanup
for chlorinated solvents, the Company stated in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In November 2003, the Company settled the purported class action
for $0.3 million, conditioned on the court's certification of
the purported class. In November 2003, the Company also settled
the lawsuit brought by the trust, and claims of certain other
individuals, for $0.3 million, conditioned on at least 90% of
the 440 individuals covered by the settlement executing
releases.
EAGLE PICHER: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Picher Holdings, Inc. faces a purported class action filed
on behalf of approximately 600 members of the Quapaw Tribe of
Oklahoma owning or possessing lands within the Quapaw
Reservation was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma against the Company and six
other corporations.
The lawsuit alleges liability for property damage resulting from
historical mining activities prior to 1959. The Company
believes that any possible liability to members of the Quapaw
Tribe was discharged in connection with the Company's bankruptcy
reorganization in 1996.
The Company does not believe the resolution of this suit will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows, it stated in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
EMERSON RADIO: Plaintiff To File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the securities class actions filed against
Emerson Radio Corporation is set to file a consolidated suit on
March 15,2004 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The suits also name as defendants:
(1) Geoffrey Jurick,
(2) Kenneth Corby and
(3) John Raab
The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of publicly
traded securities who bought shares between January 29, 2003 and
August 12, 2003. On December 17, 2003, the court entered a
Joint Stipulation and Order consolidating these putative class
actions under the caption "In Re Emerson Radio Corp. Securities
Litigation, 03cv4201 (JLL)." Further to that Stipulation and
Order, lead plaintiff was appointed and co-lead counsel and co-
liaison counsel were approved by the Court in the Consolidated
Action.
Generally, the original complaints allege that the Company and
the Individual Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing certain positive statements during the
Class Period regarding our growth and demand for the Company's
products.
The complaints further allege that these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made because the Company
allegedly misrepresented and omitted certain adverse facts which
then existed and disclosure of which was necessary to make the
statements not false and misleading.
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: To Ask For Dismissal of Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Flextronics International Ltd. is set to file a motion seeking
dismissal of several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against it and certain of its officers and directors.
These actions, which were filed on behalf of those who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, Flextronics' ordinary shares
between January 18, 2001 and June 4, 2002, including those who
purchased in our secondary offerings of on February 1, 2001 and
January 7, 2002, generally allege that, during this period, the
defendants made misstatements to the investing public about the
financial condition and prospects of Flextronics.
On April 23, 2003, the Court entered an order transferring these
lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. On July 16, 2003, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss on behalf of itself and its officers and
directors named as defendants. On November 17, 2003, the Court
entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice.
On January 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is due March
10, 2004 with a hearing on the motion to dismiss scheduled for
May 26, 2004.
These actions seek unspecified damages. Although the Company
believes the plaintiffs' claims lack merit, it is unable to
predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. There can be no
assurance the Company will be successful in defending these
lawsuits, and, if it is unsuccessful, it may be subject to
significant damages.
FLORIDAFIRST BANCORP: Shareholder Launches Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
FloridaFirst Bancorp, Inc. and its directors face a class action
filed by a shareholder in the Circuit Court for the 10th
Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida under the
caption "Meisels vs. FloridaFirst Bancorp, Inc." The suit
alleges breach of fiduciary duty and seeking to enjoin the
proposed merger between the Company and SouthTrust Corporation
or in the alternative, unspecified money damages.
In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company said that it believes that the suit is without merit.
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Several Securities Suits in NV, CA, FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries have
been named in multiple lawsuits in different federal courts in
Nevada, California and Florida, seeking class action status
alleging violations of various federal securities laws.
Various subsidiaries of the Company have also been named in
multiple lawsuits filed in federal and state courts in Illinois
alleging breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton funds managed by such
subsidiaries and seeking monetary damages and costs, as follows:
(1) CULLEN V. TEMPLETON GROWTH FUND, INC. AND TEMPLETON
GLOBAL ADVISORS LIMITED, Case No. 03-859 MJR, filed on
December 16, 2003 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois;
(2) KWIATKOWSKI V. TEMPLETON GROWTH FUND, INC. AND
TEMPLETON GLOBAL ADVISORS LIMITED, Case 03 L 785, filed
on December 17, 2003 in the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois;
(3) BRADFISCH V. TEMPLETON FUNDS, INC. AND TEMPLETON GLOBAL
ADVISORS LIMITED, Case 2003 L 001361, filed October 3,
2003 in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial
Circuit, Madison County, Illinois;
(4) WOODBURY V. TEMPLETON GLOBAL SMALLER COMPANIES FUND,
INC. AND TEMPLETON INVESTMENT COUNSEL, LLC, Case 2003 L
001362, filed on October 3, 2003 in the Circuit Court
for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
Illinois;
(5) KENERLEY V. TEMPLETON FUNDS, INC. AND TEMPLETON GLOBAL
ADVISORS LIMITED, Case No. 03-770 GPM, served on the
defendants on November 25, 2003, and filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois: This suit alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties imposed by Section 36(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 and pendant state law claims with
respect to the valuation of Templeton World Fund's
portfolio securities;
(6) PARISE V. TEMPLETON FUNDS, INC. AND TEMPLETON GLOBAL
ADVISORS LIMITED, Case No. 2003-L-002049, filed on
December 22, 2003 in the Circuit Court for the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois and served
on the defendants on February 13, 2004
Management strongly believes that the claims made in each of
these lawsuits are without merit, the Company said in a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
MGM MIRAGE: Court Hears Oral Arguments of Certification Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of class
certification for the class action filed the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against MGM
Mirage and 40 other manufacturers, distributors and casino
operators of video poker and electronic slot machines were
conducted in January 2004.
The consolidated complaint claims that the Company and the other
defendants have engaged in a course of fraudulent and misleading
conduct intended to induce people to play video poker and
electronic slot machines based on a false belief concerning how
the gaming machines operate, as well as the chances of winning.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the gaming machines are
not truly random as advertised to the public, but are pre-
programmed in a predictable and manipulative manner.
The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as claims of common law
fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and
asks for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
In December 1997, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint, which they filed in February 1998. The Company,
along with most of the other defendants, answered the amended
complaint and continue to deny the allegations contained in the
amended complaint. The parties have fully briefed the issues
regarding class certification, which are currently pending
before the court.
In June 2002, the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the
prerequisite requirements for class action status, but the Court
denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification,
saying that the proposed class lacked the cohesiveness required
to settle common claims against the casino industry. The court
had previously stayed discovery pending resolution of these
class certification issues.
In August 2002, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
plaintiffs the right to appeal the district court's order
denying the motion for class certification. Briefings
before the 9th Circuit Court have been completed and oral
arguments were presented. A ruling from the 9th Circuit Court
is expected sometime in 2004.
MGM MIRAGE: Written Discovery Proceeds in Amended Lawsuit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
Written discovery is proceeding in an amended class action filed
against MGM Mirage in the District Court for Clark County,
Nevada. The suit also names as defendants certain former
directors and principal stockholders of its subsidiary which
owns and operates the Boardwalk Hotel and Casino.
The complaint alleged that Mirage induced the other defendants
to breach their fiduciary duties to Boardwalk's minority
stockholders by devising and implementing a scheme by which
Mirage acquired Boardwalk at significantly less than the true
value of its shares. The complaint sought an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages from Mirage and punitive damages from
the other defendants, whom the Company is required to defend and
indemnify.
In June 2000, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Nevada
Supreme Court. The parties filed briefs with the Nevada Supreme
Court, and oral arguments were conducted in October 2001.
In February 2003, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the
District Court's order granting the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings on the elements of the lawsuit involving
wrongful conduct in approving the merger and/or in the valuation
of the merged corporation's shares. The Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims for lost profits and mismanagement.
The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling relates only to the District
Court's ruling on its motion to dismiss and is not a
determination of the merits of the plaintiff's case. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and in October 2003,
the District Court certified the action as a class action.
Depositions are expected to occur sometime in 2004. The Company
will continue to vigorously defend its position that the
plaintiff's claims are without merit.
MGM MIRAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Disposition For NV Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Court of Appeals heard oral arguments for the appeal of
the Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan's granting
of a motion for summary disposition in a class action filed
against one of MGM Mirage's subsidiaries, International Game
Technology, Anchor Gaming, Inc. and two other operators of
casinos in Detroit, Michigan.
The plaintiff claims the bonus wheel feature of the "Wheel
of Fortune and I Dream of Jeannie" slot machines, which are
manufactured, designed and programmed by International Game
Technology and/or Anchor Gaming, Inc., are deceptive and
misleading. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the bonus
wheels on these games do not randomly land on a given dollar
amount but are programmed to provide a predetermined frequency
of pay-outs.
The complaint alleges violations of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act, common law fraud and unjust enrichment and asks
for unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement
of profits, injunctive and other equitable relief, and costs and
attorney's fees. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of any
individual in Michigan who has played either of these games
since June of 1999. The machines and their programs were
approved for use by the Michigan Gaming Control Board, the
administrative agency responsible for policing the Detroit
casinos.
The Company, along with the other casino operators, filed a
motion for summary disposition arguing that the plaintiff's
complaint fails to state a claim as a matter of law.
Additionally, the Company, along with the other casino
operators, filed motions for summary disposition arguing that
the plaintiff's common law claims are preempted by the Michigan
Act, that the court has no jurisdiction to decide this matter
and that all the allegations in the complaint regarding the
alleged deceptive nature of the machines are directed to the
manufacturers of the machines and are not the casinos'
responsibility.
In April 2002, the Wayne County Circuit Court granted the motion
for summary disposition. The plaintiff appealed and, after a
full briefing of the case, oral argument was held in November
2003. The Michigan Court of Appeals has not yet issued a
decision on the appeal.
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: To File Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parametric Technology Corporation intends to file a motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its current and former officers and directors
in the United States District Court in Massachusetts claiming
violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations regarding the Company's reported financial
results for the fiscal years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
The Company prepared a motion to dismiss the consolidated
action. In accordance with the Court's briefing schedule, its
motion, together with the plaintiff's opposition and its reply,
shall be filed with the court simultaneously by March 5, 2004.
The Company believes the claims are without merit, it stated in
a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
Company cannot predict the ultimate resolution of this action at
this time, and there can be no assurance that this action will
not have a material adverse impact on its financial condition or
results of operations.
RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: AZ Securities Fraud Lawsuits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The two securities class actions filed against Rural/Metro
Corporation in Arizona federal and state courts have been
dismissed. The suits also name as defendants:
(1) Warren S. Rustand, the former Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
(2) James H. Bolin, the former Vice Chairman of the Board,
and
(3) Robert E. Ramsey, Jr., its former Executive Vice
President and former Director
The two suits are:
(1) HASKELL V. RURAL/METRO CORPORATION, ET AL., Civil
Action No. C-328448 filed August 25, 1998 in Pima
County, Arizona Superior Court; and
(2) RUBLE V. RURAL/METRO CORPORATION, ET AL., CIV 98-413-
TUC-JMR filed September 2, 1998 in United States
District Court for the District of Arizona
The two lawsuits, which contained virtually identical
allegations, were brought on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities including its
common stock between April 24, 1997 and June 11, 1998.
The complaints alleged that the defendants issued certain false
and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the
Company's financial status and that these statements allegedly
caused the Company's common stock to be traded at artificially
inflated prices. The complaints also alleged that Mr. Bolin and
Mr. Ramsey sold stock during this period, allegedly taking
advantage of inside information that the stock prices were
artificially inflated.
On April 17, 2003, Rural/Metro and the individual defendants
agreed to settle the Ruble v. Rural/Metro and Haskell v.
Rural/Metro cases with plaintiffs, subject to notice to the
class and final court approval. Rural/Metro's primary and
excess carriers funded the settlement on June 5, 2003 by
depositing the funds in a designated escrow account and waived
any claims for reimbursement of the funds subject to final court
approval of the class action settlement. After a hearing on the
final settlement agreement, the court entered an order approving
the settlement and dismissing the Ruble action with prejudice on
December 10, 2003. The Haskell case was dismissed with
prejudice on January 13, 2004.
In the settlement agreement, the Company and the individual
defendants expressly denied all charges of liability or
wrongdoing and continued to assert that at all relevant times
they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably
believed to be in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders.
SILICON IMAGE: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. and certain of its officers face a
consolidated securities class action, styled "In re Silicon
Image, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-03-5579 JW PVT," filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased Silicon Image stock between April 15,
2002 and November 15, 2003. The lawsuit alleges that Silicon
Image had materially overstated its licensing revenue, net
income and financial results during this time period, and that
Silicon Image was being forced to restate its financial results.
With the announcement by the Audit Committee of Silicon Image's
Board of Directors that it has completed its examination and
that it has concluded that no changes to Silicon Image's
previously announced financial results are required, the
lawsuit may be moot in whole or in part, although plaintiffs may
amend the complaint once as a matter of right.
The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit, and intends
to defend the action vigorously if plaintiffs do not amend it.
The Company cannot predict what claims plaintiffs might assert
in an amended complaint.
STRATUS SERVICES: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stratus Services Group, Inc. and other defendants reached a
settlement for the class action styled "Lopez v. RSI Home
Products, Inc., et al.," filed in the Superior Court of
California, Orange County.
RSI is one of the Company's former customers. The case is a
class action proceeding alleging:
(1) failure to pay hourly wages and overtime wages,
(2) failure to provide rest periods and meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof,
(3) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees,
(4) knowing and intentional failure to comply with itemized
employee wage statement provisions,
(5) violation of the unfair competition law, and
(6) breach of fiduciary duty
The matter has been settled among the parties and the parties
await Court approval of the settlement. However, the
settlement will not have any adverse effect on its financial
condition or results of operations.
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended securities class
action against Syncor International Corporation and certain of
its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
The suit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Syncor shares and allege, among other things, that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, by issuing a series of press releases and public filings
disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's international
business, but omitting mention of certain allegedly improper
payments to Syncor's foreign customers, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Syncor shares.
The second amended consolidated class action complaint was filed
on January 28, 2004, naming the Company and 14 individuals, all
former Syncor officers, directors and/or employees, as
defendants.
On November 14, 2002, two additional actions were filed by
individual stockholders of Syncor in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against seven of Syncor's nine directors.
The complaints in each of the Delaware actions were identical
and alleged that the director defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties to Syncor by failing to maintain adequate
controls, practices and procedures to ensure that Syncor's
employees and representatives did not engage in improper and
unlawful conduct.
Both complaints asserted a single derivative claim, for and on
behalf of Syncor, seeking to recover all of the costs and
expenses that Syncor incurred as a result of the allegedly
improper payments (including the costs of the federal securities
actions described above), and a single purported class action
claim seeking to recover damages on behalf of all holders of
Syncor shares in the amount of any losses sustained if
consideration received in the merger by Syncor stockholders was
reduced.
On November 22, 2002, the plaintiff in one of the two Delaware
actions filed an amended complaint adding as defendants the
Company, its subsidiary Mudhen Merger Corporation and the
remaining two Syncor directors, who are hereafter included in
the term "director defendants." These cases have been
consolidated under the caption "In re: Syncor International
Corp. Shareholders Litigation."
On August 14, 2003, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
operative complaint in the consolidated Delaware action. At the
end of September 2003, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware
actions moved the court to file a second amended complaint.
Monty Fu is the only defendant in the proposed second amended
complaint attached to this motion.
On November 18, 2002, two additional actions were filed by
individual stockholders of Syncor in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles against the director
defendants. The complaints in the California actions allege
that the director defendants breached certain fiduciary duties
to Syncor by failing to maintain adequate controls, practices
and procedures to ensure that Syncor's employees and
representatives did not engage in improper and unlawful conduct.
Both complaints asserted a single derivative claim, for and on
behalf of Syncor, seeking to recover costs and expenses that
Syncor incurred as a result of the allegedly improper payments.
An amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2002 in one of
the cases, purporting to allege direct claims on behalf of a
class of shareholders. The defendants' motion for a stay of the
California actions pending the resolution of the Delaware
actions was granted on April 30, 2003.
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Suits for ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corporation, Cardinal Health, Inc. and
certain employees and officers of Cardinal Health face several
class actions filed by a purported participant in the Syncor
Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (Syncor ESSOP).
These related suits allege that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
It is expected that these related suits will be consolidated.
In addition, the United States Department of Labor is conducting
an investigation of the Syncor ESSOP with respect to its
compliance with ERISA requirements. The Company has responded
to a subpoena received from the Department of Labor and intends
to fully cooperate in its investigation.
Asbestos Alert
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AFG Takes Charges From Asbestos Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group, Inc. reported net earnings for the
2003 fourth quarter of $196,600,000 ($2.68 per share) in a
recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
AFG's net earnings for last year's fourth quarter were
$44,200,000 ($0.64 per share) which included a charge for an
asbestos litigation settlement, offset by certain tax resolution
benefits and net realized gains on investments.
The Company's P&C Group generated an underwriting profit of
$14,400,000 in the 2003 fourth quarter, with a combined ratio of
97.0%. The combined ratio for the 2002 fourth quarter,
excluding the effect of an asbestos litigation settlement, was
96.9% which benefited from the solid underwriting profit
reported by the personal lines operations, now part of Infinity
Property and Casualty Corporation. The 2003 combined ratio for
the P&C Group, before a 2.3 point charge for the above-mentioned
arbitration decision, was 96.6% compared to 99.8% for the 2002
full year, excluding the asbestos litigation charge.
AFG Inc. and its subsidiaries' summary of earnings indicated
losses per common share (reflecting in part from an asbestos
litigation settlement in 2002) of $0.28 for the three months
ended December 31, 2002, $0.33 for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2003, and $0.28 for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2003.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Group Strengthens Asbestos Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Argonaut Group Incorporated reported to the Securities and
Exchange Commission in its financial results for the fourth
quarter that its net income after tax was $31,000,000 or $1.10
per diluted common share, compared to a net loss of $105,300,000
or $4.88 per diluted common share during the same period in
2002. The current quarter includes $20,900,000 of net income as
a result of a reduction in the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. The prior year period included reserve strengthening
of $52,800,000 related to asbestos in the run-off lines segment
combined with the establishment of a valuation allowance of
$71,900,000 related to the deferred tax asset.
Fourth quarter operating income, another meaningful measure of
Argonaut's performance, was $13,400,000, compared to an
operating loss of $58,700,000 for the same period in 2002. The
Company's continuing segments in the aggregate produced
operating income of $17,800,000 while the run-off segment
incurred an operating loss of $2,500,000. Operating income
includes corporate and other expenses, which during the fourth
quarter totaled $1,900,000. The net of the segments' operating
income (loss) and corporate and other expenses produced
operating income of $13,400,000 for the quarter. Operating
income (loss) differs from net income (loss) under accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States (GAAP) in
that operating income excludes a tax benefit of $16,200,000 and
net realized investment gains of $1,400,000 for the quarter.
Operating income (loss) does not replace net income (loss) as
the GAAP measure of company results of operations.
Total revenue for the quarter was $160,600,000, compared to
$137,800,000 for the same period in 2002, or a 16.5 percent
increase. Earned premium was $145,700,000 compared to
$113,500,000 for the comparable quarter in 2002, or a 28.4
percent increase. Total revenue includes realized gains on the
sales of investments, which were $1,400,000 and $11,400,000,
respectively, for the fourth quarters of 2003 and 2002.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Slashes Asbestos Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc. stated in its quarterly report to the
Securities and Exchange Commission that its subsidiary, Maremont
Corporation had $79,000,000 in asbestos-related liabilities as
of December 31, 2003, down from $82,000,000 as of September 30,
2003 and that its asbestos-related recoveries stood at
$73,000,000 as of December 31, 2003, from $76,000,000 as of
September 30, 2003.
Unbilled committed settlements liability relates to committed
settlements that Maremont agreed to pay when Maremont
participated in the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR).
Maremont shared in the payments of defense and indemnity costs
of asbestos-related claims with other CCR members.
The CCR handled the resolution and processing of asbestos claims
on behalf of its members until February 1, 2001, when it was
reorganized and discontinued negotiating shared settlements.
There were no significant billings to insurance companies
related to committed settlements in the three months ended
December 31, 2003.
Upon dissolution of the CCR in February 2001, Maremont began
handling asbestos-related claims through its own defense counsel
and is committed to examining the merits of each asbestos-
related claim. For purposes of establishing liabilities for
pending asbestos-related claims, Maremont estimates its defense
and indemnity costs based on the history and nature of filed
claims to date and Maremont's experience. Maremont developed
experience factors for indemnity and litigation costs using data
on actual experience in resolving claims since the dissolution
of the CCR in February 2001 and its assessment of the nature of
the claims. Maremont had about 65,000 and 63,000 pending
asbestos-related claims at December 31, 2003 and September 30,
2003, respectively.
Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in the cases
where actual injury has been alleged very few claimants have
established that a Maremont product caused their injuries. The
decline in the pending claims liability since September 30, 2003
was due to a decline in the cost per indemnity claim. Billings
to insurance companies for indemnity and defense costs of
resolved cases were $3,000,000 in the three months ended
December 31, 2003.
Several former members of the CCR have filed for bankruptcy
protection, and these members have failed, or may fail, to pay
certain financial obligations with respect to settlements that
were reached while they were CCR members. Maremont is subject
to claims for payment of a portion of these defaulted member
shares (shortfall). In an effort to resolve the affected
settlements, Maremont has entered into negotiations with
plaintiffs' attorneys, and an estimate of Maremont's obligation
for the shortfall is included in the total asbestos-related
reserves. In addition, Maremont and its insurers are engaged in
legal proceedings to determine whether existing insurance
coverage should reimburse any potential liability related to
this issue. There were no payments by the company related to
shortfall and other in the three months ended December 31, 2003.
Maremont has insurance that reimburses a substantial portion of
the costs incurred defending against asbestos-related claims.
The coverage also reimburses Maremont for any indemnity paid on
those claims. The coverage is provided by several insurance
carriers based on the insurance agreements in place. Based on
its assessment of the history and nature of filed claims to
date, and of Maremont's insurance carriers, management believes
that existing insurance coverage is adequate to cover
substantially all costs relating to pending claims.
The amounts recorded for the asbestos-related liabilities and
recoveries from insurance companies are based upon assumptions
and estimates derived from currently known facts. All such
estimates of liabilities for asbestos-related claims are subject
to considerable uncertainty because such liabilities are
influenced by variables that are difficult to predict. If the
assumptions with respect to the nature of pending claims, the
cost to resolve claims and the amount of available insurance
prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of Maremont's liability
for asbestos-related claims, and the effect on the company,
could differ materially from current estimates.
Maremont has not recorded liabilities for unknown claims that
may be asserted against it in the future. Maremont does not
have sufficient information to make a reasonable estimate of its
potential liability for asbestos-related claims that may be
asserted against it in the future.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant, Inc. Makes liability Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant Inc. reported in a recent filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission that it has exposure to asbestos,
environmental and other general liability claims arising from
its participation in various reinsurance pools from 1971 through
1983. This exposure arose from a short duration contract that
the Company discontinued writing many years ago. The Company
carried case reserves for these liabilities as recommended by
the various pool managers and bulk reserves for IBNR of
$40,000,000 (before reinsurance) and $39,000,000 (after
reinsurance) in the aggregate at December 31, 2002.
Any estimation of these liabilities is subject to greater than
normal variation and uncertainty due to the general lack of
sufficiently detailed data, reporting delays and absence of a
generally accepted actuarial methodology for those exposures.
There are significant unresolved industry legal issues,
including such items as whether coverage exists and what
constitutes an occurrence.
In addition, the determination of ultimate damages and the final
allocation of losses to financially responsible parties are
highly uncertain. However, based on information currently
available, and after consideration of the reserves reflected in
the financial statements, the Company believes that any changes
in reserve estimates for these claims are not reasonably likely
to be material. Asbestos, environmental and other general
liability claim payments, net of reinsurance recoveries, were
$1,400,000, $2,200,000 and $2,100,000 for the years ended
December 31, 2002, 2001 and 2000, respectively.
The Company's Property and Warranty line of business includes
creditor-placed homeowners, manufactured housing homeowners,
credit property, credit unemployment and warranty insurance and
some longer-tail coverages (e.g. asbestos, environmental, other
general liability and personal accident). The Company's
Property and Warranty loss reserves consist of case reserves and
bulk reserves. Bulk reserves consist of IBNR and development on
case reserves.
The method it most often uses in setting Property and Warranty
bulk reserves is the loss development method. Under this
method, the Company estimates ultimate losses for each accident
period by multiplying the current cumulative losses by the
appropriate loss development factor. The Company then
calculates the bulk reserve as the difference between the
estimate of ultimate losses and the current case-incurred losses
(paid losses plus case reserves). The Company selects loss
development factors based on a review of historical averages,
and considers recent trends and business specific matters such
as current claims payment practices.
For the longer-tail Property and Warranty coverages (e.g.
asbestos, environmental, other general liability and personal
accident), there were no changes in estimated amounts for
incurred claims in prior years for all years.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Exposed To Liabilities From Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Expected developments in the insurance business of CNA Financial
Corporation include losses for asbestos, environmental pollution
and mass tort claims, the Company said in a recent filing.
It also stated that inherent risks and uncertainties which could
cause the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company and the price of the Company's common stock to differ
materially from those projected include exposure to liabilities
due to claims made by insureds and others relating to asbestos
remediation and health-based asbestos impairments, and exposure
to liabilities for environmental pollution and other mass tort
claims; and whether a national privately financed trust to
replace litigation of asbestos claims with payments to claimants
from the trust will be established or approved through federal
legislation, or, if established and approved, whether it will
contain funding requirements in excess of the Company's
established loss reserves or carried loss reserves.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cabot Faces Suits For Subsidiary's Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. disclosed in a recent filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that it has legal proceedings in connection
with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary
acquired from American Optical Corporation in an April 1990
asset transaction. As more fully described in its Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, the
Company's respirator liabilities involve claims for personal
injury, including asbestosis and silicosis, allegedly resulting
from the use of AO respirators that are alleged to have been
negligently designed or labeled. As of December 31, 2003, there
were around 90,000 claimants in pending cases asserting claims
against AO in connection with respiratory products.
In fiscal year 2003, the Company retained the assistance of
Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. ("HR&A"), a leading
expert, to assist it in calculating Cabot's estimated share of
liability with respect to then-existing and future respirator
liability claims. Based on the HR&A estimates, Cabot recorded a
$20,000,000 reserve during the third quarter of fiscal year 2003
to cover its share of liability for then-existing and future
respirator liability claims. The book value of the reserve is
being accreted up to the undiscounted liability through interest
expense over the expected cash flow period, and at December 31,
2003, is about $20,000,000.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Claymore Securities Sees Asbestos Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claymore Securities Defined Portfolios Series 170 reported in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that certain
of the issuers of securities in a trust involved in the
financial services industry face risks related to asbestos
claims.
In addition to the normal risks of business, companies involved
in the insurance industry are subject to significant risk
factors, including those applicable to regulated insurance
companies, such as the inherent uncertainty in the process of
establishing property-liability loss reserves, particularly
reserves for the cost of environmental, asbestos and mass tort
claims, and the fact that ultimate losses could materially
exceed established loss reserves which could have a material
adverse effect on results of operations and financial condition.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Sees Decline in Asbestos Payments
------------------------------------------------------------
EnPro Industries Inc. reported in its fourth quarter and 2003
year-end results filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that its cash flows remain strong from operations and
declining net asbestos payments.
Operating income also improved sharply in the fourth quarter of
2003, increasing to $10,800,000, compared with $1,500,000 in
2002. The improvement came as asbestos-related costs declined
from 2002, when an insurance receivable was written off due to
the bankruptcy of an insurance carrier.
Segment profits for the full year in 2003 improved by 16%, to
$87,600,000, compared with $75,000,000 the year before, as a
stronger euro and lower restructuring charges improved results.
Higher segment profits, combined with lower asbestos-related
expenses, led operating income to increase to $52,800,000 in
2003, compared with $37,500,000 in 2002.
"Our operations performed well in 2003 in the face of continuing
weakness in their markets and tough competition," said Ernie
Schaub, President and Chief Executive Officer. "We spent a
total of $83,000,000 on net asbestos outflows, acquisitions,
capital expenditures and pension plan contributions, and still
increased our cash balances by $13,000,000 and reduced our net
debt to total capital ratio to 15%."
Schaub also noted that new asbestos filings declined markedly in
the second half of 2003, to 10,800 new filings, or about 60%
below the number of new filings in the second half of 2002. In
fact, the number of new filings was the lowest for any six month
period since 1994. The decline comes following a surge of new
claims during the second half of 2002 and the first half of
2003. The company believes the claims levels were inflated
during those periods due to reform legislation in Mississippi,
Texas and West Virginia and in anticipation of federal reform.
"We remain cautious about predicting a trend," Schaub said, "but
we are encouraged by legislative reforms and by publicly
available scientific data showing the incidence of serious
asbestos-related disease is in decline and should continue to
decline over the next decade."
EnPro continued to experience strong cash flows during 2003.
The company's operations produced $42,100,000 in cash after net
asbestos-related cash outflows of over $35,000,000 ($9,800,000
of asbestos-related expenses and $25,700,000 of payments of
asbestos-related claims, net of insurance) and $8,000,000 in
pension plan contributions. Capital expenditures for the year
were $20,800,000. The company's year-end cash balance increased
by about $13,000,000, to $94,700,000 from $81,800,000 at the end
of 2002.
EnPro expects the combination of cash flows from operations and
its current cash balances to be more than sufficient to cover
its cash requirements for growth initiatives and net asbestos
payments in 2004. Net asbestos payments are expected to
increase in the first half of the year as the collection of
substantial amounts of asbestos insurance proceeds is delayed
while the company pursues resolution of a dispute with certain
insurance carriers over their documentation requirements. The
company is optimistic it will prevail in the dispute and recover
delinquent proceeds in the second half of the year. Overall,
the company believes net cash outflows for asbestos will
continue to decline in 2004, as they did in 2002 and 2003.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich Foresees Possible Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Corporation reported in a recent filing that important
factors which could cause the company's actual results to differ
from its forward-looking statements include possible assertion
of claims against the company on the theory that it, as the
former corporate parent of Coltec Industries Inc, bears some
responsibility for the asbestos-related liabilities of Coltec
and its subsidiaries.
Goodrich Corp. is a worldwide supplier of aerospace components,
systems and services serving the commercial, military, regional,
business and general aviation markets. The company's major
products include aircraft engine nacelle and pylon systems,
aircraft landing gear, wheels and brakes, sensors and sensor-
based systems, fuel measurement and management systems, flight
attendant and cockpit seats, aircraft evacuation slides and
rafts, optical and electro-optical systems, space applications,
ice protection systems and collision warning systems.
Maintenance, repair and overhaul services on commercial
airframes and components are also provided.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear's Asbestos Lawsuits Increase
----------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is among many defendants named in
legal proceedings involving claims of individuals relating to
alleged exposure to asbestos. At September 30, 2003, around
112,500 claims were pending against the Company alleging various
asbestos related personal injuries purported to have resulted
from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain rubber encapsulated
products manufactured by Goodyear in the past or to asbestos in
certain of the Company's facilities. Goodyear expects that
additional claims will be brought against the Company in the
future.
The Company's ultimate liability with respect to such pending
and unasserted claims is subject to various uncertainties,
including:
(1) the number of claims that are brought in the future;
(2) the costs of defending and settling these claims;
(3) the risk of insolvencies among the Company's insurance
carriers;
(4) the possibility that adverse jury verdicts could
require the Company to pay damages in amounts greater
than the amounts for which the Company has historically
settled claims;
(5) the risk that the bankruptcies of other asbestos
defendants may increase the Company's costs; and
(6) the risk that Goodyear's insurance will not cover all
of the Company's asbestos liabilities.
If any of the foregoing risks were to materialize, the resulting
costs could have a material adverse impact on the Company's
liquidity, financial position and results of operations in
future periods.
Goodyear is a defendant in 22 class actions or potential class
actions, and four other civil actions, in various state and
Federal and Canadian courts asserting non-asbestos property
damage claims relating to Entran II, a rubber hose product. In
Entran II cases, two judgments were entered against Goodyear in
Colorado during 2002, which the Company has appealed, and one
judgment was entered against the Company in Colorado during
2003, which Goodyear intends to appeal. There can be no
assurance, however, that the Company will prevail on the
appeals. Goodyear has recently entered into a conditional
settlement agreement covering all pending Entran II actions in
the United States and Canada other than the 3 judgments
discussed above and claims of persons arising from property they
own or have owned in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. The settlement is
contingent upon the Company's ability to fund the settlement
with at least $120,000,000 of insurance proceeds. As a result,
the ultimate cost of disposing of Entran II claims is dependent
upon a number of factors, including the Company's ability to
satisfy the contingencies in the conditional settlement, the
number of claimants that opt out of any settlement, final
approval of the terms of the settlement at a yet-to-be scheduled
fairness hearing, Goodyear's ability to resolve claims not
subject to the settlement (including the cases in which the
Company received adverse judgments), and, in the event Goodyear
fails to consummate the conditional settlement for any reason,
future judgments by courts in other currently pending or yet
unasserted actions. Depending on the resolution of these
uncertainties, the costs associated with Entran II claims could
be significant and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations, financial position and
liquidity in future periods.
Goodyear's reserves for product liability and other tort claims
and the Company's recorded insurance assets are subject to
various uncertainties, the outcome of which may result in the
Company's actual costs being significantly higher than the
amounts recorded.
The liabilities Goodyear records for pending product liability
and other tort claims, including asbestos-related claims, are
subject to a number of uncertainties, the outcome of which could
result in the Company's actual costs and liabilities being
significantly higher than the amounts Goodyear has recorded.
For example, Goodyear cannot currently estimate potential
liabilities from unasserted asbestos-related and other product
liability claims and the Company has not recorded a reserve for
these claims. Accordingly, the amount recorded as a reserve
does not represent an estimate of Goodyear's total liability for
product liability and other tort claims. Furthermore, although
the Company maintains primary and excess liability insurance
coverage with respect to general and product liabilities and
record as an asset amounts the Company expects to recover under
such policies, Goodyear may not be able to realize such amounts.
Recovery from Goodyear's insurance carriers is subject to
various risks and uncertainties, including the risk that the
final resolution of allocation, coverage or other issues
affecting the Company's available insurance coverage will result
in lower recoveries than the amounts Goodyear currently
anticipates. Any failure to recover amounts from the Company's
insurance carriers could have a material adverse impact on
Goodyear's liquidity, financial position and results of
operations in future periods.
Goodyear is the world's largest tire company. The company
manufactures tires, engineered rubber products and chemicals in
more than 85 facilities in 28 countries around the world.
Goodyear employs about 88,000 people worldwide.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules, Inc. Increases Asbestos Reserve
-----------------------------=--------------------------------
Hercules Incorporated reported in a recent filing with the
Securities Exchange Commission that its fourth quarter 2003 net
income included a $6,000,000 pre-tax charge, net of insurance,
to increase the reserve for future asbestos costs following the
conclusion of a study commissioned in early 2003. Based on the
results of the study, the Company estimates that its reasonably
possible gross financial exposure for asbestos-related matters
will range from $220,000,000 to $675,000,000.
In accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP), the Company recorded a gross charge of $55,000,000 as of
December 31, 2003, thereby increasing its recorded liability for
future asbestos costs, before anticipated insurance recoveries,
to $221,000,000, reflecting the low end of the range noted above
and $1,000,000 for previously settled but unpaid asbestos cases.
The Company believes that it is probable that at least
$169,000,000 of that amount will be paid or reimbursed by its
insurance carriers.
Accordingly, an increase of $49,000,000 to the associated
receivable for anticipated insurance recoveries was recorded as
of December 31, 2003. This range of financial exposures does
not include estimates for future legal costs, which are expensed
on an ongoing basis. The Company, in conjunction with outside
advisors, will continue to study its asbestos-related exposures,
insurance recovery expectations, and reserves on an ongoing
basis, and make adjustments as appropriate.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Jacuzzi Brands Subsidiary Facing Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In June 1998, Jacuzzi Brands Inc. acquired Zurn, which itself
owned various subsidiaries. Zurn is one of the Company's
wholly-owned subsidiaries. Zurn, along with many other
unrelated companies, is a co-defendant in numerous asbestos
related lawsuits pending in the U.S. Plaintiffs' claims
primarily allege personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure
to asbestos used primarily in industrial boilers formerly
manufactured by a segment of Zurn that has been presented as a
discontinued operation. Zurn did not manufacture asbestos or
asbestos components but purchased it from other suppliers.
As of December 31, 2003, the number of asbestos claims pending
against Zurn was around 64,800. These 64,800 claims were
included in about 3,613 lawsuits, in which Zurn and an average
of 100 other companies are named as defendants, and in which
cumulatively allege damages of around $15,000,000,000 against
all defendants. Asbestos claims pending against Zurn as of
September 30, 2003, September 30, 2002 and September 30, 2001
were about 59,000, 65,000 and 52,000, respectively. For the
three month period ending December 31, 2003, around 8,400 new
asbestos claims were filed against Zurn. Asbestos claims filed
against Zurn, and settled unfiled claims treated as if filed,
for the years ended September 30, 2003, 2002 and 2001 were
around 32,400, 31,000 and 33,500, respectively.
Since Zurn received its first asbestos claim in the 1980s, Zurn
has settled, agreed to settle or otherwise disposed of about
89,100 asbestos claims including dismissals of about 6,700 of
such claims through December 31, 2003. During the three month
period ended December 31, 2003 and as of such date, settlements
paid and/or pending payment amounted to about 21,800 claims and
about 800 claims were dismissed and/or pending dismissal.
During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003 and as of such
date, settlements paid and/or pending payment amounted to around
45,000 claims and around 3,000 claims were dismissed and/or
pending dismissal.
During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 and as of such
date, settlements paid and/or pending payment amounted to about
20,000 claims (including about 4,000 unfiled claims) and about
3,000 claims were dismissed and/or pending dismissal. Finally,
during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2001 and as of such
date, settlements paid and/or pending payment amounted to about
17,000 claims and about 1,000 claims were dismissed and/or
pending dismissal.
Zurn's insurers have paid or have agreed to pay all settlement
costs relating to these claims. Defense costs are currently
being paid by Zurn's insurers without eroding the coverage
amounts of its insurance policies, although a few policies that
will be accessed in the future may count defense costs toward
aggregate limits.
At September 30, 2003, Zurn and its actuarial consultant
estimated that its potential liability for asbestos claims
pending against it and for claims estimated to be filed through
2013 is around $160,000,000. This accrual comprises (i) about
$8,000,000 in claims that had been settled but unpaid as of
September 30, 2003; (ii) about $36,000,000 in proposed
settlements of pending and future claims; and (iii) about
$116,000,000 for other future claims. At September 30, 2002, it
was estimated that Zurn's potential liability for asbestos
claims pending against it and for claims estimated to be filed
through 2012 was about $145,000,000. These estimates are based
on the current and anticipated number of future asbestos claims,
the timing and amounts of asbestos payments, the status of
ongoing litigation and the potential impact of defense
strategies and settlement initiatives. However, there are
inherent uncertainties involved in estimating both the number of
future asbestos claims as well as future settlement costs, and
the actual liability could exceed Zurn's estimate due to changes
in law and other factors beyond their control.
Zurn's present estimate of its asbestos liability assumes
(1) its recent vigorous defense strategy will enable it to
reduce both its claim frequency and claim severity in
the future;
(2) about 178,000 other future asbestos claims; and
(3) its insurers will continue to pay defense costs without
eroding the coverage amounts of its insurance policies.
While Zurn believes there is evidence, in recent claims
settlements, for such an impact of a successful defense
strategy, if the defense strategy ultimately is not successful,
to the extent assumed by Zurn, the severity and frequency of
asbestos claims could increase substantially above Zurn's
estimates. Further, while Zurn's current asbestos liability is
based on an estimate of claims through 2013, such liability may
continue beyond 2013, and such liability could be substantial.
Zurn's analysis of its available insurance to cover its
potential asbestos liability as of December 31, 2003 is about
$308,000,000. This total includes the remaining limits of
$68,000,000 in insurance coverage under certain excess policies
which were a subject of a settlement of an action commenced by
Zurn in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of
Pennsylvania which sought, among other things, a declaration
that the insurance coverage limits of certain excess policies
provided $68,000,000 in coverage. As part of the settlement,
Zurn agreed to pay its insurer $5,000,000 over four years. The
first payment in the sum of $1,250,000 was paid in March 2003,
and Zurn has secured the balance of the obligation with a letter
of credit in the amount of $1,250,000.
Zurn believes, based on its experience in defending and
dismissing such claims and the about $308,000,000 of insurance
coverage available, that it has sufficient insurance to cover
the pending and reasonably estimable future claims.
This conclusion was reached after considering Zurn's experience
in asbestos litigation, the insurance payments made to date by
Zurn's insurance carriers, existing insurance policies, the
industry ratings of the insurers and the advice of insurance
coverage counsel with respect to applicable insurance coverage
law relating to the terms and conditions of those policies.
However, there is no assurance that this amount of insurance
will ultimately be available or that Zurn's asbestos liabilities
will not ultimately exceed this amount.
Factors that could cause a decrease in the amount of available
coverage include insolvencies of one or more of Zurn's carriers,
changes in law governing the policies and potential disputes
with the carriers on the scope of coverage. After review of the
foregoing with Zurn and its consultants, the Company believes
that the resolution of Zurn's pending and reasonably estimable
asbestos claims will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
The Company's insurance for asbestos claims amounted to
$160,000,000 as of December 31, 2003 (unaudited) and $160,000,00
as of September 31, 2003.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 36T Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
At December 31, 2003, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. (LECO) was
a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos-induced illness
involving claims by around 36,215 plaintiffs, which is a net
increase of 1,711 claims from those previously reported in the
third quarter report.
In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.
Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 12,684
of those claims were dismissed, nine were tried to defense
verdicts, two were tried to plaintiff verdicts (which will be
appealed) and 216 were decided in its favor following summary
judgment motions.
On July 16, 2003, a New York state court jury in an asbestos
trial involving two claimants returned verdicts against the
Company. The verdict amounts for each claimant (after setoffs)
were $1,840,000 and $1,750,000, respectively, a substantial
portion of which would be covered by insurance and, in the
second instance, reduced by payments by an unaffiliated co-
defendant. The Company will appeal any judgments based on such
verdicts and believes it will prevail on the merits.
The Company, like other manufacturers, is subject to claims and
litigation which include, without limitation, product liability
claims and health, safety and environmental claims, some of
which relate to cases alleging asbestos and manganese-induced
illnesses. The costs associated with these claims are
predominantly defense costs, which are recognized in the periods
incurred. Insurance reimbursements mitigate these costs and,
where reimbursements are probable, they are recognized in the
applicable period. With respect to costs other than defense
costs (i.e., for liability and/or settlement or other
resolution), reserves are recorded when it is probable that the
contingencies will have an unfavorable outcome.
The Company accrues its best estimate of the probable cost,
after a review of the facts with management and counsel and
taking into account past experience. If an unfavorable outcome
is determined to be reasonably possible but not probable, or if
the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, disclosure is
provided in lieu of reserves. Many of the current cases are in
preliminary procedural stages and insufficient information
exists upon which judgments can be made as to the validity or
ultimate disposition of such actions. Therefore, a range of
possible losses cannot be made at this time. Reserves are
adjusted as facts and circumstances change and related
management assessments of the underlying merits and the
likelihood of outcomes change. Moreover, reserves only cover
identified and/or asserted claims. Future claims could,
therefore, give rise to increases to such reserves.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
claims. All costs associated with these claims, including
defense and settlements, have been immaterial to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. is a leading manufacturer of arc
welding and cutting products and welding supplies, its products
include arc-welding power sources, automated wire-feeding
systems, and consumable electrodes for arc welding.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Inc. Pays Asbestos-related Charge
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc.'s recent filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission disclosed that net income for the fourth quarter of
2003 includes a $169,000,000 after-tax charge related to the
company's asbestos-related litigation, after-tax net investment
gains of $162,000,000, and an after-tax charge for the
cumulative effect of an accounting change of $26,000,000
resulting from the required application of a new accounting
standard.
Fourth quarter 2002 net income included after-tax net investment
gains of $223,000,000, a $20,000,000 after-tax benefit from the
release of a previously established liability for the company's
2001 business realignment initiatives, and a $17,000,000 after-
tax benefit from the release of a previously established
liability for disability insurance-related losses from the
September 11, 2001 tragedies.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Strengthens Asbestos Reserves
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 2004, The Navigators Group, Inc. announced its
plan to strengthen reserves following a review of asbestos-
related exposures conducted by the Company. It expects to
record a pre-tax charge of about $31,600,000 for incurred losses
related to asbestos exposures. This amount is net of
reinsurance recoveries of about $46,000,000. Accordingly, the
Company expects to record an after-tax charge of about
$20,500,000 or $1.68 per share in the 2003 fourth quarter or
$2.12 for the 2003 full year.
The reserve action is the result of a review of asbestos-related
exposures conducted by the Company. The Company's management
was notified in late January that an asbestos claim would likely
have to be settled for a significantly greater amount than
previously anticipated. As a result of the unexpected adverse
development on this individual claim, the Company retained a
leading independent consulting firm in this area to identify its
potential exposure to asbestos claims from policies written
directly as well as those reinsured to Navigators Insurance
Company from prior members of the Company's insurance pools.
The Company's increased reserves relate primarily to policies
underwritten by Navigators Agencies in the late 1970's and first
half of the 1980's on behalf of members of the pool, consisting
of excess liability on marine related business and aviation
products liability, including policies subsequently assumed by
Navigators Insurance Company pursuant to reinsurance
arrangements with pool members who exited the pool.
Following the Company's and the independent consulting firm's
recent review, the Company determined to increase its gross
reserves for asbestos exposure to $78,500,000 (about $32,000,000
net of reinsurance recoverables) at December 31, 2003.
Stan Galanski, Chief Executive Officer of Navigators, commented,
"We are extremely disappointed with the need to strengthen our
asbestos reserves, given both the traditional strength of our
loss reserves and the strong underwriting results being produced
by our current business units. Based upon the review of our
potential asbestos claim exposure, we believe that we have
established a prudent level of loss reserves for asbestos
liabilities, taking into account current industry trends and
evolving theories of liability. We will monitor our asbestos
exposures, status of litigation and reserve adequacy in this
area as well as the progress towards federal legislation
relating to asbestos liability, which we believe would be very
beneficial to all parties."
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Posts Insurance Recoveries
-------------------------------------------------------------
For the fourth quarter of 2003, Owens Corning had net sales of
$1,275,000,000, compared to net sales of $1,174,000,000 for the
same period in the prior year. The company reported income from
operations of $112,000,000 for the quarter, including a credit
of $10,000,000 for restructuring and other charges, $10,000,000
of Chapter 11-related charges, and $1,000,000 in asbestos-
related insurance recoveries. For the fourth quarter of 2002,
Owens Corning reported a loss from operations of $44,000,000,
including charges of $113,000,000 for restructuring and other
charges and $11,000,000 of Chapter 11-related charges. For the
fourth quarter 2003, the company had net income of $43,000,000,
compared to a net loss of $39,000,000 for the fourth quarter of
2002.
For the full year 2003, the company had net sales of
$4,996,000,000, compared to $4,872,000,000 for the full year
2002. Owens Corning reported income from operations of
$267,000,000, including charges of $34,000,000 for restructuring
and other charges and $85,000,000 of Chapter 11-related charges,
partially offset by $5,000,000 in asbestos-related insurance
recoveries. For the year, the company had net income of
$115,000,000.
For 2002, the company reported a loss from operations of
$2,313,000,000, including charges of $2,356,000,000 for
asbestos-related liabilities, $166,000,000 for restructuring and
other charges, and $96,000,000 of Chapter 11-related charges,
partially offset by $5,000,000 in asbestos-related insurance
recoveries. Owens Corning had a net loss of $2,809,000,000 for
2002, including a non-cash charge of $491,000,000 ($441,000,000
net of tax) as the result of the adoption of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, relating to the
accounting for goodwill and other intangibles.
On October 5, 2000, Owens Corning and 17 United States
subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware. The Debtors are currently operating
their businesses as debtors-in-possession in accordance with
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Chapter 11 cases of the
Debtors are being jointly administered under Case No. 00-3837
(JKF). The Chapter 11 cases do not include other U.S.
subsidiaries of Owens Corning or any of its foreign
subsidiaries. The Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 11 to
address the growing demands on Owens Corning's cash flow
resulting from the substantial costs of asbestos personal injury
liability.
On October 24, 2003, the Debtors, together with the Official
Committee of Asbestos Claimants and the Legal Representative for
future asbestos personal injury claimants, filed an amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware. The Plan is subject to confirmation
by the Bankruptcy Court. As filed, the Plan provides for
partial payment of all creditors' claims, in the form of
distributions of new common stock and notes of the reorganized
company, and cash. Additional distributions from potential
insurance and other third-party claims may also be paid to
creditors, but it is expected that all classes of creditors will
be impaired. Therefore, the Plan also provides that the
existing common stock of Owens Corning will be cancelled, and
that current shareholders will receive no distribution or other
consideration in exchange for their shares. It is impossible to
predict at this time the terms and provisions of any plan of
reorganization that may ultimately be confirmed or the treatment
of creditors thereunder.
Owens Corning is the largest manufacturer of glass containers
all over America, Australia and New Zealand. The company also
produces plastic packaging.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex Int'l Named As Defendant In Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Essex International has been named as a defendant since around
1990 in a number of product liability lawsuits brought by
electricians and other skilled tradesmen claiming injury from
exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire products produced
many years ago. Litigation against various past insurers of
Essex International who had previously refused to defend and
indemnify Essex International against these lawsuits was settled
during 1999. Under the settlement, Essex International was
reimbursed for substantially all of its costs and expenses
incurred in the defense of these lawsuits, and the insurers have
undertaken to defend, are currently directly defending and, if
it should become necessary, will indemnify Essex International
against those asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits
of the respective policies. Under the plan of reorganization,
certain of the claimants in these actions will be able to assert
claims under applicable insurance coverage and other similar
arrangements. The Company believes that its liability, if any,
in these matters will not have a material adverse effect either
individually, or in the aggregate, upon its business, financial
condition, liquidity or results of operations. There can be no
assurance, however, that future developments will not alter this
conclusion.
Superior Essex's former parent is United Technologies
Corporation.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco International Asbestos Cases Increase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. reports that the Company and some of its
subsidiaries are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.
Consistent with the national trend of increased asbestos-related
litigation, the Company has observed an increase in the number
of these lawsuits in the past several years. The majority of
these cases have been filed against subsidiaries in its
Healthcare segment and its Engineered Products and Services
segment. A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability, based on claims that individuals were exposed to
asbestos while on a subsidiary's property. Some of the cases
involve product liability claims, based principally on
allegations of past distribution of heat-resistant industrial
products incorporating asbestos or the past distribution of
industrial valves that incorporated asbestos-containing gaskets
or packing. Each case typically names between dozens to
hundreds of corporate defendants.
Tyco's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because
its subsidiaries did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore,
in its experience, a large percentage of these claims were never
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. Tyco's
vigorous defense of these lawsuits has resulted in judgments in
its favor in all cases tried to verdict. The company has not
suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related
to asbestos claims.
When appropriate, Tyco settles claims. However, the total
amount paid to date to settle and defend all asbestos claims has
been immaterial. As of December 31, 2003, there are around
14,500 asbestos liability cases pending against the Company and
its subsidiaries, an increase from the 11,000 cases previously
reported in the January 3, 2003 edition of the Class Action
Reporter.
Tyco believes that the Company and its subsidiaries have
substantial indemnification protection and insurance coverage,
subject to applicable deductibles, with respect to asbestos
claims. These indemnitors and the relevant carriers typically
have been honoring their duty to defend and indemnify. Tyco
believes that the Company has valid defenses to these claims and
intends to continue to defend them vigorously.
Additionally, based on historical experience in asbestos
litigation and an analysis of current cases, the Company
believes that it has adequate amounts accrued for potential
settlements and adverse judgments in asbestos-related
litigation. While it is not possible at this time to determine
with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-related
proceedings, the Company believes that the final outcome of all
known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
its substantial indemnification rights and insurance coverage,
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, annual results of operations or cash flows.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Automotive Named In Two Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Automotive reported in a filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission that it could be subject to claims based
on the use of asbestos.
In 1999, the Company purchased its factory in Walkerton,
Virginia, which had been using asbestos in products. The
Company immediately discontinued the manufacturing of asbestos
disc brake pads and continued to sell through the existing
asbestos brake drum lining and raw materials for a period of
time. The Company is not aware of any claims having been made
at any of its facilities related to asbestos exposure, but a
risk exists that persons may seek to assert that this exposure
was related to our operations, which could subject us to
liability.
Additionally, persons may seek to assert that the Company's
operation as a warehouse distributor prior to 1996 may have
resulted in the sale of products that contained asbestos. A
large number of lawsuits were filed against the Company and
numerous other automotive manufacturers and distributors, and it
was recently dismissed out of these lawsuits. The Company
remains a named defendant, along with numerous other defendants,
in a total of two lawsuits. It intends to seek dismissal on
similar grounds from such lawsuits but cannot assure the outcome
of the lawsuits.
ASBESTOS ALERT: Sypris Solutions Foresees Asbestos Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sypris Solutions Inc. mentioned in a recent filing that
important factors which could cause its performance to differ
materially from projected results contained in, or based upon,
its forward-looking statements include risks of litigation with
respect to environmental or asbestos-related matters, customer
or supplier claims, or stockholders. The company did not
elaborate on the specific nature of such litigation risks.
COMPANY PROFILE
Sypris Solutions, Inc. (NasdaqNM: SYPR)
101 Bullitt Lane, Suite 450
Louisville, KY 40222
Phone: 502-329-2000
http://www.sypris.com
Employees : 1,454
Revenue : $276,600,000
Net Income : $8,140,000
(As of December 31, 2003)
Description: Sypris Solutions, Inc. is a diversified provider of
outsourced services and specialty products. The Company
performs a wide range of manufacturing, engineering, design,
testing and other technical services, typically under multi-
year, sole-source contracts with major companies and government
agencies in the markets for aerospace and defense electronics,
truck components and assemblies, as well as for users of test
and measurement equipment. The Company's customers include
large, established companies and agencies of the federal
government. In the year ended December 31, 2001, Sypris' five
largest customers (which accounted for 46% of net revenue) were
ArvinMeritor, Dana, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
New Securities Fraud Cases
ADECCO SA: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of
Adecco S.A. publicly traded securities during the period
between March 16, 2000 and January 9, 2004, against defendants
Adecco and certain of its officers and directors with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Adecco's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, Adecco was able to
complete a public offering of $533 million worth of convertible
bonds on July 23, 2003.
On January 12, 2004, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Adecco S.A. Delays Announcement of FY 2003 Audited Results."
The press release stated that "Adecco ... does not expect the
audit of its consolidated financial statements for the 2003
fiscal year, ended on December 28, 2003, to be completed by
Adecco's auditors, by the previously announced release date of
February 4, 2004." The press release included the following
reasons for the delay in completion of the audit:
(1) the identification of material weaknesses in internal
controls in the Company's North American operations of
Adecco Staffing;
(2) the resolution of possible accounting, control and
compliance issues in the Company's operations in
certain countries; and
(3) the completion of the Company's efforts to address
these matters and determine their effect on the
Company's consolidated financial statements.
On this news, Adecco's stock price dropped from a close of
$16.93 on January 9, 2004 to below $10 per share.
For more information, visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com.
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, against Biopure
Corporation and three of the Company's senior officers, on
behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Biopure
during the period between March 17, 2003 and December 24, 2003,
inclusive.
The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a number of positive statements regarding the progress of
Biopure's application for regulatory approval to market Hemopure
in the United States for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery,
which was submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It
is alleged that by the beginning of the Class Period, the FDA
had informed defendants of flaws in the Hemopure application
which put defendants on notice that FDA approval was in serious
doubt, including citing "safety concerns" arising from adverse
clinical data submitted as part of the Company's application.
Yet, before defendants disclosed these adverse facts, they
conducted at least two offerings of Biopure common stock and
generated millions of dollars in proceeds. In addition, certain
high-level Biopure insiders sold hundreds of thousands of
Biopure common shares at artificially inflated prices.
On December 24, 2003, after the Securities & Exchange Commission
threatened civil litigation, defendants stunned the market by
announcing that, in fact, the FDA had halted further clinical
trials of Hemopure due to safety concerns. Defendants also
disclosed that the commercial release of Hemopure in the United
States would be delayed beyond mid-2004. As a result of these
disclosures, Biopure common stock lost 16% of their value on
December 26, 2003, to close at $2.43 per share.
For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan, By Phone:
(888) 476-6529 or (888) 4-POMLAW), or by E-mail:
agtolan@pomlaw.com.
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull Stull & Brody, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers,
redeemers and holders of shares of Franklin AGE High Income Fund
(Nasdaq: AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX); Franklin Adjustable
U.S. Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: FISAX, FCSCX); Franklin
Aggressive Growth Fund (Nasdaq: FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX, FKACX,
FKARX); Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq: FRALX,
FALEX); Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq: FTAZX,
FBAZX, FAZIX); and other Franklin Templeton Funds (collectively
referred to as the "FT Funds"), which are managed by Franklin
Resources, Inc. from February 6, 1999 through February 4, 2004,
inclusive.
The following FT Funds are subject to this lawsuit:
(1) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX,
FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX
(2) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
FISAX, FCSCX
(3) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
FKACX, FKARX
(4) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
(5) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
FAZIX
(6) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX,
FRAIX, FAHRX
(7) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
FISAX, FCSCX
(8) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
FKACX, FKARX
(9) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
(10) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
FAZIX
(11) Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund FRBSX, FBSAX,
FBSBX, FCBSX, FBSRX
(12) Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund FBDIX
(13) Franklin Blue Chip Fund FKBCX, FKBBX, FBCCX,
FBCRX
(14) Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund FCAMX,
FBCAX, FCAHX
(15) Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRCIX,
FRCBX, FRCAX
(16) Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
Fund FKCIX
(17) Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(18) Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund FCLXX
(19) Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund FKTFX, FCAVX,
FCABX, FRCTX
(20) Franklin Capital Growth Fund FKREX, FEACX,
FKEQX, FREQX, FKIRX
(21) Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund FRCOX, FCOIX
(22) Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund FXCTX, FCTIX
(23) Franklin Convertible Securities Fund FISCX, FROTX
(24) Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund FPRTX, FPRIX
(25) Franklin DynaTech Fund FKDNX, (Nasdaq: FDNBX, FDYNX
(26) Franklin Equity Income Fund FISEX, FBEIX,
FRETX, FREIX
(27) Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
FKITX
(28) Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
FFTFX
(29) Franklin Federal Money Fund FMNXX
(30) Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund FKTIX, FAFTX,
FFTBX, FRFTX
(31) Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund FKCGX, FKCBX,
FCIIX, FRCGX
(32) Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund FAFRX, FBFRX,
FCFRX
(33) Franklin Floating Rate Trust XFFLX
(34) Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FFLTX
(35) Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund FRFLX, FRFBX,
FRFIX
(36) Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund FTGAX, FGAIX
(37) Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund
(38) Franklin Global Communications Fund FRGUX
(39) Franklin Global Growth Fund
(40) Franklin Global Health Care Fund FKGHX, FGHBX,
FGIIX
(41) Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund FKRCX, FGADX,
FAGPX, FRGOX
(42) Franklin Growth Fund FKGRX, FCGAX, FKGBX,
FRGSX, FGSRX
(43) Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund FRHIX, FYIBX,
FHYIX
(44) Franklin Income Fund FKINX, FRIAX, FBICX,
FICBX, FCISX, FISRX
(45) Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTFIX, FBITX,
FRITX
(46) Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund FRKYX
(47) Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund FKGAX, FRGAX,
FKGCX, FRLGX
(48) Franklin Large Cap Value Fund FLVAX, FBLCX,
FLCVX, FLCRX
(49) Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund FKLAX, FLAIX
(50) Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund FMDTX, FMDIX
(51) Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund
FMISX, FMAIX
(52) Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTTMX,
FBMIX, FRMTX
(53) Franklin MicroCap Value Fund FRMCX
(54) Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FMINX,
FMNIX
(55) Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund FRMOX, FMOIX
(56) Franklin Money Fund FMFXX
(57) Franklin Natural Resources Fund FRNRX, FNRAX
(58) Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund FRNJX,
FNJBX, FNIIX
(59) Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRNYX,
FNYKX
(60) Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
Fund FKNIX
(61) Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(62) Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund FRNXX
(63) Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund FNYTX, FNYAX,
FTFBX, FNYIX
(64) Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund
FXNCX,
(Nasdaq: FNCIX)
(65) Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTOIX,
FBOIX, FOITX
(66) Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund FRORX, FORIX
(67) Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund FRPAX,
FBPTX, FRPTX
(68) Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund FREEX, FRLAX,
FBREX, FRRSX
(69) Franklin Rising Dividends Fund FRDPX, FRDBX,
FRDTX, FRDRX
(70) Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities
Fund FRGVX, FSUAX
(71) Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II FSGRX, FSSAX,
FBSGX, FCSGX, FSSRX
(72) Franklin Small Cap Value Fund FRVLX, FVADX,
FBVAX, FRVFX, FVFRX
(73) Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund FRSGX, FSGAX,
FBSMX, FRSIX, FSMRX
(74) Franklin Strategic Income Fund FRSTX, FKSAX,
FKSBX, FSGCX), FKSRX
(75) Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio FSMIX
(76) Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund FTMXX
(77) Franklin Technology Fund FTCAX, FRTCX,
FFTCX, FTERX
(78) Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund FTCIX,
FTCCX, FTCRX
(79) Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund FTCOX
(80) Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund
FFALX, FFABX, FFACX
(81) Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund FGTIX, FTGTX,
FGTRX
(82) Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund ICPHX
(83) Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund FMTIX, FTMTX,
FTMRX
(84) Franklin Templeton Money Fund FMBXX, FRIXX,
FMRXX
(85) Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund FRTIX
(86) Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund FTXTX, FTXIX
(87) Franklin Total Return Fund FKBAX, FBDAX,
FBTLX, FCTLX, FTRRX
(88) Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund FKUSX, FUSAX,
FUGBX, FRUGX, FUSRX
(89) Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund FUSLX
(90) Franklin Utilities Fund FKUTX, FRUAX,
FRUBX, FRUSX, FRURX
(91) Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund FRVAX, FVAIX
(92) Templeton China World Fund TCWAX, TACWX
(93) Templeton Developing Markets Trust TEDMX, TDADX,
TDMBX, TDMTX, TDMRX
(94) Templeton Foreign Fund TEMFX, TFFAX, TFRBX,
TEFTX, TEFRX
(95) Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund FINEX,
FTFAX, FCFSX
(96) Templeton Global Bond Fund TPINX, TGBAX,
TEGBX
(97) Templeton Global Long-Short Fund TLSAX, TLSBX
(98) Templeton Global Opportunities Trust TEGOX, TEGPX
(99) Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc. TEMGX,
TGSAX, TESGX
(100) Templeton Growth Fund, Inc. TEPLX, TGADX,
TMGBX, TEGTX, TEGRX
(101) Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund TEGEX, TGEFX
(102) Templeton Latin America Fund TELAX, TLAAX,
TLAIX
(103) Templeton Pacific Growth Fund FKPGX, FPGCX
(104) Templeton World Fund TEMWX, TWDBX, TEWTX
(105) Mutual Beacon Fund TEBIX, TEBBX, TEMEX,
BEGRX
(106) Mutual Discovery Fund TEDIX, TEDBX, TEDSX,
TEDRX, MDISX
(107) Mutual European Fund TEMIX, TEUBX, TEURX,
MEURX
(108) Mutual Financial Services Fund TFSIX, TBFSX,
TMFSX, TEFAX
(109) Mutual Qualified Fund TEQIX, TEBQX, TEMQX,
MQIFX
(110) Mutual Recovery Fund FMRVX
(111) Mutual Shares Fund TESIX, FMUBX, TEMTX,
TESRX, MUTHX
The complaint charges Franklin Resources, Inc., Franklin
Advisers, Inc., Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc.,
Templeton/Franklin Investment Services, Inc., Franklin Private
Client Group, Inc., and FT Funds, among others, with violations
of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and for common law
breach of fiduciary duties.
According to the Complaint, FT Funds, Franklin Resources, Inc.,
defendant Daniel G. Calugar and his broker-dealer, Security
Brokerage, Inc. and other defendants engaged in illegal and
improper trading practices, in concert with certain
institutional traders, which caused financial injury to all
shareholders of the FT Funds. In particular, the Defendants
surreptitiously permitted certain favored investors, including
the Calugar Defendants and others to engage in "timing" of the
FT Mutual Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted
to conduct short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund
shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the FT
Mutual Funds' prospectuses.
For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017, by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll
free), or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Reinhardt Wendorf Files CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District of the
Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of
Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund (Nasdaq:FRAAX), (Nasdaq:FKABX),
(Nasdaq:FKACX), (Nasdaq:FKARX); Franklin Biotechnology Discovery
Fund (Nasdaq:FBDIX); Franklin DynaTech Fund (Nasdaq:FDNBX),
(Nasdaq:FDYNX); Franklin Global Communications Fund
(Nasdaq:FRGUX); and other securities of the Franklin family of
funds operated by Franklin Resources, Inc. and its subsidiaries
between February 6, 1999 and February 4, 2004, inclusive,
seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
against defendants Franklin Resources, Inc. and:
(1) Franklin Advisers, Inc;
(2) Templeton/Franklin Investment Services, Inc.;
(3) Franklin Private Client Services, Inc.;
(4) Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC;
(5) Williams Post;
(6) Security Brokerage, Inc.;
(7) Daniel G. Calugar, DCIP, L.P.;
(8) Franklin Templeton Strategic Growth Fund, L.P.;
(9) each of the Franklin mutual funds & their registrants,
and
(10) John Does 1-100.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain favored investors, including Calugar,
SBI, and DCIP, to engage in "timing" of the Funds' securities.
In return for receiving extra fees from Calugar, SBI, and DCIP,
and other favored investors, Franklin Resources and its
affiliates allowed and facilitated timing activities in the
Funds, to the detriment of class members who paid, dollar for
dollar, for the improper profits made by Calugar, SBI, and DCIP.
These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the
Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police
against timing and that premature redemptions will be assessed a
charge.
The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:
(1) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX,
FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX
(2) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
FISAX, FCSCX
(3) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
FKACX, FKARX
(4) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
(5) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
FAZIX
(6) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX,
FRAIX, FAHRX
(7) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
FISAX, FCSCX
(8) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
FKACX, FKARX
(9) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
(10) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
FAZIX
(11) Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund FRBSX, FBSAX,
FBSBX, FCBSX, FBSRX
(12) Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund FBDIX
(13) Franklin Blue Chip Fund FKBCX, FKBBX, FBCCX,
FBCRX
(14) Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund FCAMX,
FBCAX, FCAHX
(15) Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRCIX,
FRCBX, FRCAX
(16) Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
Fund FKCIX
(17) Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(18) Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund FCLXX
(19) Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund FKTFX, FCAVX,
FCABX, FRCTX
(20) Franklin Capital Growth Fund FKREX, FEACX,
FKEQX, FREQX, FKIRX
(21) Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund FRCOX, FCOIX
(22) Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund FXCTX, FCTIX
(23) Franklin Convertible Securities Fund FISCX, FROTX
(24) Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund FPRTX, FPRIX
(25) Franklin DynaTech Fund FKDNX, (Nasdaq: FDNBX, FDYNX
(26) Franklin Equity Income Fund FISEX, FBEIX,
FRETX, FREIX
(27) Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
FKITX
(28) Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
FFTFX
(29) Franklin Federal Money Fund FMNXX
(30) Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund FKTIX, FAFTX,
FFTBX, FRFTX
(31) Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund FKCGX, FKCBX,
FCIIX, FRCGX
(32) Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund FAFRX, FBFRX,
FCFRX
(33) Franklin Floating Rate Trust XFFLX
(34) Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FFLTX
(35) Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund FRFLX, FRFBX,
FRFIX
(36) Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund FTGAX, FGAIX
(37) Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund
(38) Franklin Global Communications Fund FRGUX
(39) Franklin Global Growth Fund
(40) Franklin Global Health Care Fund FKGHX, FGHBX,
FGIIX
(41) Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund FKRCX, FGADX,
FAGPX, FRGOX
(42) Franklin Growth Fund FKGRX, FCGAX, FKGBX,
FRGSX, FGSRX
(43) Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund FRHIX, FYIBX,
FHYIX
(44) Franklin Income Fund FKINX, FRIAX, FBICX,
FICBX, FCISX, FISRX
(45) Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTFIX, FBITX,
FRITX
(46) Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund FRKYX
(47) Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund FKGAX, FRGAX,
FKGCX, FRLGX
(48) Franklin Large Cap Value Fund FLVAX, FBLCX,
FLCVX, FLCRX
(49) Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund FKLAX, FLAIX
(50) Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund FMDTX, FMDIX
(51) Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund
FMISX, FMAIX
(52) Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTTMX,
FBMIX, FRMTX
(53) Franklin MicroCap Value Fund FRMCX
(54) Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FMINX,
FMNIX
(55) Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund FRMOX, FMOIX
(56) Franklin Money Fund FMFXX
(57) Franklin Natural Resources Fund FRNRX, FNRAX
(58) Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund FRNJX,
FNJBX, FNIIX
(59) Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRNYX,
FNYKX
(60) Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
Fund FKNIX
(61) Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
(62) Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund FRNXX
(63) Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund FNYTX, FNYAX,
FTFBX, FNYIX
(64) Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund
FXNCX,
(Nasdaq: FNCIX)
(65) Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTOIX,
FBOIX, FOITX
(66) Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund FRORX, FORIX
(67) Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund FRPAX,
FBPTX, FRPTX
(68) Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund FREEX, FRLAX,
FBREX, FRRSX
(69) Franklin Rising Dividends Fund FRDPX, FRDBX,
FRDTX, FRDRX
(70) Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities
Fund FRGVX, FSUAX
(71) Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II FSGRX, FSSAX,
FBSGX, FCSGX, FSSRX
(72) Franklin Small Cap Value Fund FRVLX, FVADX,
FBVAX, FRVFX, FVFRX
(73) Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund FRSGX, FSGAX,
FBSMX, FRSIX, FSMRX
(74) Franklin Strategic Income Fund FRSTX, FKSAX,
FKSBX, FSGCX), FKSRX
(75) Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio FSMIX
(76) Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund FTMXX
(77) Franklin Technology Fund FTCAX, FRTCX,
FFTCX, FTERX
(78) Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund FTCIX,
FTCCX, FTCRX
(79) Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund FTCOX
(80) Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund
FFALX, FFABX, FFACX
(81) Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund FGTIX, FTGTX,
FGTRX
(82) Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund ICPHX
(83) Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund FMTIX, FTMTX,
FTMRX
(84) Franklin Templeton Money Fund FMBXX, FRIXX,
FMRXX
(85) Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund FRTIX
(86) Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund FTXTX, FTXIX
(87) Franklin Total Return Fund FKBAX, FBDAX,
FBTLX, FCTLX, FTRRX
(88) Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund FKUSX, FUSAX,
FUGBX, FRUGX, FUSRX
(89) Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund FUSLX
(90) Franklin Utilities Fund FKUTX, FRUAX,
FRUBX, FRUSX, FRURX
(91) Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund FRVAX, FVAIX
(92) Templeton China World Fund TCWAX, TACWX
(93) Templeton Developing Markets Trust TEDMX, TDADX,
TDMBX, TDMTX, TDMRX
(94) Templeton Foreign Fund TEMFX, TFFAX, TFRBX,
TEFTX, TEFRX
(95) Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund FINEX,
FTFAX, FCFSX
(96) Templeton Global Bond Fund TPINX, TGBAX,
TEGBX
(97) Templeton Global Long-Short Fund TLSAX, TLSBX
(98) Templeton Global Opportunities Trust TEGOX, TEGPX
(99) Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc. TEMGX,
TGSAX, TESGX
(100) Templeton Growth Fund, Inc. TEPLX, TGADX,
TMGBX, TEGTX, TEGRX
(101) Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund TEGEX, TGEFX
(102) Templeton Latin America Fund TELAX, TLAAX,
TLAIX
(103) Templeton Pacific Growth Fund FKPGX, FPGCX
(104) Templeton World Fund TEMWX, TWDBX, TEWTX
(105) Mutual Beacon Fund TEBIX, TEBBX, TEMEX,
BEGRX
(106) Mutual Discovery Fund TEDIX, TEDBX, TEDSX,
TEDRX, MDISX
(107) Mutual European Fund TEMIX, TEUBX, TEURX,
MEURX
(108) Mutual Financial Services Fund TFSIX, TBFSX,
TMFSX, TEFAX
(109) Mutual Qualified Fund TEQIX, TEBQX, TEMQX,
MQIFX
(110) Mutual Recovery Fund FMRVX
(111) Mutual Shares Fund TESIX, FMUBX, TEMTX,
TESRX, MUTHX
For more information, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield, by Phone:
(800) 465-1592 or (651) 287-2100, Fax: (651) 287-2103, or E-
mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com.
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of Hollinger International, Inc. between August 13,
1999 and March 31, 2003, inclusive, against defendants
Hollinger, and:
(1) Lord Conrad N. Black,
(2) Hollinger Inc.,
(3) Ravelston Corporation Limited,
(4) Ravelston Management Inc.,
(5) Argus Corporation Ltd.,
(6) KPMG LLP,
(7) David Radler,
(8) Jack A. Boultbee,
(9) Peter Atkinson, and other current and former officers
and directors of Hollinger's Board of Directors
The lawsuit charges the defendants with violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Hollinger
International failed to disclose material information in
required filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission as
necessary to make the required statements, in the light of the
circumstances, not misleading in connection with certain
transfers of assets. In addition, in order to cause some of the
transfers, Hollinger International personnel falsified corporate
books and records. For example, in or about February 2001,
certain books and records were altered in order to
mischaracterize certain payments as non- competition payments.
Hollinger International also failed to have adequate internal
controls in order to insure that payments were properly approved
before they were made and that public filings were accurate.
On March 31, 2003, under pressure from its institutional
investors, Hollinger International disclosed the improprieties
by defendants Lord Black, Radler, Boultbee, and Atkinson. Market
reaction the news was swift with the price of the Company's
stock falling to $7.90 per share on that day.
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,
or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Lodges IL Stock Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of
Hollinger International, Inc. publicly traded securities during
the period between August 13, 1999 and March 31, 2003,
inclusive, against defendants Hollinger, and:
(1) Lord Conrad N. Black,
(2) Hollinger Inc.,
(3) Ravelston Corporation Limited,
(4) Ravelston Management Inc.,
(5) Argus Corporation Ltd.,
(6) KPMG LLP,
(7) David Radler,
(8) Jack A. Boultbee,
(9) Peter Atkinson, and other current and former officers
and directors of Hollinger's Board of Directors.
The lawsuit charges the defendants with violations of sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Hollinger
International failed to disclose material information in
required filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission as
necessary to make the required statements, in the light of the
circumstances, not misleading in connection with certain
transfers of assets.
In addition, in order to cause some of the transfers, Hollinger
International personnel falsified corporate books and records.
For example, in or about February 2001, certain books and
records were altered in order to mischaracterize certain
payments as non- competition payments. Hollinger International
also failed to have adequate internal controls in order to
ensure that payments were properly approved before they were
made and that public filings were accurate.
On March 31, 2003, under pressure from its institutional
investors, Hollinger International disclosed the improprieties
by defendants Lord Black, Radler, Boultbee, and Atkinson. Market
reaction the news was swift with the price of the Company's
stock falling to $7.90 per share on that day.
For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman, or David A.
Rosenfeld, Client Relations Department: Chandra West, Jackie
Addison or Heather Gann, by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock,
AR 72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free), Fax:
1-501-312-8505, or E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com.
ROYAL DUTCH: Schatz & Nobel Lodges NJ Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, PC initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company
and/or The Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC from
December 3, 1999 through January 9, 2004, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that Royal Dutch/Shell and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false and misleading
statements. Specifically, defendants classified and reported, in
SEC filings and other public documents, certain oil and gas
reserves from a project called the Gorgon Joint Venture in
Australia and from various projects in Nigeria as "proved
reserves". Unbeknownst to investors, such projects did not meet
the SEC or industry standards required to be classified as
"proved". Plaintiff further alleges that these material
misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of
Royal Dutch/Shell during the Class Period.
On January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch/Shell announced that it would
write down its "proved" oil and gas reserves by 20%. On this
news, Royal Dutch Shell ADRs fell 7.87% from $52.76 to $48.61
and Shell Transport ADRs fell 6.96% from $44.81 to $41.69.
For more information, contact (800) 797-5499 toll free, or by E-
mail: sn06106@aol.com.
SONUS NETWORKS: Rabin Murray Files Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Sonus Networks, Inc. securities during the period
between April 9, 2003 and February 11, 2004, both dates
inclusive.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Sonus Networks shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, Sonus Networks was
able to complete a public offering of 20 million shares, raising
proceeds of $61 million on April 22, 2003. On February 11, 2004,
the Company issued a press release which stated: "Sonus Networks
today provided additional information regarding the delay in
reporting its fourth quarter and full fiscal year financial
results for the year ended December 31, 2003. In connection with
the year-end audit, Sonus Networks and its independent auditors
have identified certain issues, practices and actions of certain
employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from
certain customer transactions and to certain other financial
statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003
financial statements and possibly financial statements for prior
periods." The stock dropped below $6 per share on this news.
For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton,
by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892,
or E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com.
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges IL Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. between November
19, 2001 and December 10, 2003, inclusive, against defendants
Whitehall, and:
(1) Hugh M. Patinkin,
(2) Manny A. Brown,
(3) Matthew M. Patinkin,
(4) Jon H. Browne, and
(5) John R. Desjardins
The lawsuit charges the defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the
market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:
(i) that defendants had improperly and untimely recognized
revenue on certain of the Company's customer
transactions;
(ii) that the Company's inventory was materially overstated;
(iii) that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles and the Company's own internal policies
regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues,
net income and earnings per share published during the
Class Period were materially false and misleading.
On November 6, 2003, Whitehall announced had received a subpoena
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as part of a
formal investigation into a complaint that Whitehall aided a
former supplier in an accounting fraud. On December 11, 2003,
Whitehall announced that it had fired its Chief Financial
Officer and would delay reporting results for its fiscal third
quarter, and later that month that Whitehall would be restating
its financial statements for fiscal 2000, 2001 and 2002,
including the 2002 quarters then ended, and the first two
quarters ended July 31, 2003.
On news of this, shares of Whitehall fell 7.6%, or $0.75 per
share, to close at $9.04 per share on December 11, 2003.
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,
or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Abraham Fruchter Files Stock Suit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. during the period of May 6, 2002
through and including January 29, 2004, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against
defendants Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and:
(1) Allen Rowland,
(2) Frank Lazaran, and
(3) Richard P. McCook
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission. The complaint charges the defendants with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial condition. Defendants assured investors that Winn-
Dixie was successfully executing its business plan to completely
restructure the Company and its stores and to restore
profitability. Defendants also regularly announced the issuance
of cash dividends as an additional sign of the Company's
purported financial health.
On January 30, 2004, Winn-Dixie announced a loss for the second
quarter of 2004 of nearly $80 million or $0.57 per share.
Shockingly, defendants announced that dividend payments would be
suspended indefinitely, after assuring investors only a few days
earlier, on January 20, 2004, that the dividend would be paid
and that the Company was moving forward in the execution of its
business plan. In the January 30, 2004 announcement, defendants
revealed a plan for $100 million in expense reductions and
analysis of the Company's core markets. Winn-Dixie also
announced it would need to add $21.4 million to reserves for
self-insurance, and would recognize a $36.4 million charge to
earnings for an impaired asset. In response to the unexpected
news, Winn-Dixie's stock plunged nearly 28% on unusually high
volume of nearly 25 million shares.
For more information, contact Jack Fruchter, by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, by Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, or by E-
mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com.
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Winn-Dixie
Stores, Inc. between October 9, 2002 and January 29, 2004,
inclusive, against defendants Winn-Dixie and certain of its
officers.
The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial performance.
Such representations were materially false and misleading
because, unbeknownst to investors, they failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented that:
(1) Winn-Dixie's business operations were mismanaged and
burning cash such that the Company was unable to reduce
excess expenses when needed;
(2) the Company had no strategic vision in place to enhance
shareholder value and thus would not be able to sustain
dividend payments to shareholders;
(3) the Company was unable to competitively market its
Winn-Dixie product brand;
(4) Winn-Dixie was unable to gain a greater market share
for its supermarkets;
(5) the loss of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
automated teller machines would result in a decline in
sales in the stores that had these machines; and
(6) the Company recorded the carrying value of its durable
assets at inflated levels and maintained inadequate
reserves for self-insurance.
On January 30, 2004, Winn-Dixie announced net losses from sales
and operations for its second quarter of fiscal 2004. The
Company also announced major new initiatives designed to improve
competitive market position and profitability and announced it
had to take an asset impairment charge of $36.4 million and an
increase in the self-insurance reserve of $21.4 million. This
news shocked the market. Shares of Winn-Dixie dropped 27.8%, or
$2.53 per share, to close at $6.56 on January 30, 2004 on
extremely heavy trading volume.
For more information, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr., Shareholder
Relations, by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New
York 10022, by Phone: (877) 935-7400, or by E-mail:
vsoler@whesq.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. Roberto Amor, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick,
Editors.
Copyright 2004. 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 * * *