/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040506.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 6, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 89 Headlines ADAM'S GOLF: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit AMGEN INC.: Tularik Shareholders Launch DE Fiduciary Duty Suit AMGEN INC.: Tularik Stockholders Lodge Fiduciary Duty Suit in CA ASK JEEVES: Directors' Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro Lawsuits Pending in Various Courts BRUSH WELLMAN: OH Employees Lodge Injury Suit in OH High Court BRUSH WELLMAN: CA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit FINOVA CAPITAL: Shareholders Sue Over Loan to Thaxton Entities HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Enters Mediation For NJ Securities Suit HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit IMS HEALTH: IL Court Approves Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Settlement IMS HEALTH: Pharmacies Launch Breach of Contract Lawsuit in IL INFOSPACE INC.: WA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs To File Amended CA Derivative Suit LABOR READY: NY Court Denies Appeal of Consumer Suit Dismissal LABOR READY: CA Court Grants Motion For Partial Summary Judgment LABOR READY: CA Temp Employees, Applicants Sue Over Gender Bias LABOR READY: Ex-Employees File Motion To Intervene in CA Lawsuit LABOR READY: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA, WA NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For NY, GA Stock Lawsuits NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Completed in Securities Suit QUINTILES LABORATORIES: GA Court Dismisses Settled RICO Lawsuit RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Plaintiffs Appeal KY Ruling in Stock Lawsuit SPORT-HALEY INC.: Reaches Settlement in CO Securities Fraud Suit TULARIK INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition by Amgen in DE New Securities Fraud Cases ABATIX CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX ADOLOR CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in PA GENTA INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ GLOBAL CROSSING: Cauley Bowman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY GLOBAL CROSSING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY GLOBAL CROSSING: Anatoly Weiser Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY NORTEL NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY TITAN CORPORATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA ********* ADAM'S GOLF: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court of the District of Delaware's refusal to allow them to re-file their dismissed consolidated class action against Adam's Golf, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the three underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO). The suit alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the Company's IPO. In particular, the suit alleged that the Company's prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was materially false and misleading in at least two areas. Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market sales) threatened the Company's long-term profits. Plaintiffs also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on the Company's sales. The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interests and costs, including legal fees. On December 10, 2001, the court dismissed the consolidated, amended complaint citing that the plaintiffs failed to plead any facts supporting their claim that the Company or its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws. On January 14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the Judgment of Dismissal. In the motion, plaintiffs alleged that, if given another opportunity, they would amend the original Complaint to state actionable claims. The motion was denied on August 27, 2003. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on September 25, 2003 and in the early part of 2004 opening briefs and Appellant's reply briefs were submitted to the Court of Appeals. AMGEN INC.: Tularik Shareholders Launch DE Fiduciary Duty Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by Fred Zucker against the Company, Tularik, Inc. and members of the Tularik board of directors, on behalf of Tularik stockholders. The complaint alleges that the members of the Tularik board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Tularik stockholders, and that the Company knowingly aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty through an alleged failure to: (1) undertake an appropriate evaluation of Tularik's net worth as a merger/acquisition candidate; (2) actively evaluate the proposed merger in an attempt to obtain the best value for Tularik's public stockholders; (3) act independently so that the interests of Tularik's public stockholders will be protected and enhanced; and (4) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist between the individual defendants' own interests and their fiduciary obligations and, if such conflicts exist, ensure that all conflicts are resolved in the best interests of Tularik's public stockholders. In addition, the complaint alleges that each defendant is sued individually and/or as a conspirator and an aider and abettor. The complaint further alleges that the consideration to be paid to the class members in the proposed acquisition of Tularik by the Company is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value of Tularik common stock is in excess of the amount offered for those securities, giving due consideration to the anticipated operating results, net asset value, cash flow, profitability and established markets of Tularik. The plaintiff seeks an order that the action be maintained as a class action and certification of the plaintiff as a proper class representative; a declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class and aided and abetted such breaches; the enjoining of the proposed acquisition of Tularik by the Company and, if the proposed acquisition is consummated, rescinding it; and granting such other relief as the court may find just and proper. Further, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law; and interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs. AMGEN INC.: Tularik Stockholders Lodge Fiduciary Duty Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The suit, filed by Mary Kahler, also names as defendants Tularik, Inc. and members of the Tularik board of directors. The suit was filed on behalf of Tularik stockholders. The complaint alleges that the Company has clear and material conflicts of interest that have caused, with the acquiescence of the Tularik board of directors, an alleged failure to act in good faith toward the plaintiff and other members of the purported class and have caused it to take actions that allegedly have furthered the Company's interests at the expense of Tularik stockholders. The complaint alleges that the Company and the Tularik directors have breached and are breaching their fiduciary duties to the members of the class. The complaint also alleges that defendants were and are under a duty: (1) to act in the interests of the equity owners; (2) to maximize stockholder value; (3) to undertake an appropriate evaluation of Tularik's net worth as a merger/acquisition candidate; and (4) to act in accordance with their fundamental duties of due care and loyalty The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to Tularik stockholders and also failed to exercise ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of such fiduciary obligations. In addition, plaintiff alleges that the defendants, individually and as part of a common plan and scheme, or in breach of fiduciary duties owed to Tularik stockholders, are attempting unfairly to deprive the plaintiff and the other class members of the true value of their investment in Tularik. The complaint further alleges that the consideration to be paid to the class members in the proposed merger of Tularik and the Company is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value of Tularik common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered for those securities. The plaintiff seeks the following relief: an order that this action may be maintained as a class action and certification of plaintiff as the proper class representative; the preliminarily and permanent enjoining of the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Tularik common stock by the Company and, if the proposed transaction is consummated, the recission of it or the award of rescissory damages to the class members; and the granting such other and further relief as the court may find just and proper. Plaintiff seeks the following damages: compensatory and/or rescissory damages as allowed by law; and interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs. ASK JEEVES: Directors' Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A Special Committee of Ask Jeeves, Inc.'s board of directors approved the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against the Company and two of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District Court of New York. The suit also names as defendants the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering: (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, (3) Goldman Sachs & Co., (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, and (5) Dain Rauscher, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants, and violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Individual Defendants in connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO). An amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2001, which includes the same allegations in connection with Ask Jeeves' secondary offering in March 2000. The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock between June 30, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. On June 24, 2003, a special committee of the Company's board of directors approved the settlement of this action, subject to certain conditions including that a sufficient number of the defendants participate in the settlement, and on July 9, 2003, the Individual Defendants approved the settlement of this action. It is anticipated that the settlement will be submitted to the Court for approval in the near future. BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro Lawsuits Pending in Various Courts -------------------------------------------------------------- Barr Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc. and others face approximately 38 class action complaints filed in state and federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) from 1997 to the present. The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer protection laws. A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas Attorney General's Office on behalf of a group of state Attorneys General was closed without further action in December 2001. The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court, one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the MDL Case). Fact discovery in the MDL Case has been completed and the parties are proceeding with expert discovery, to be followed by summary judgment briefing. The direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs also have filed motions for class certification in the MDL Case, but briefing is not complete and the Court has indicated that it will defer ruling on the motions at the present time. The state court actions remain in a relatively preliminary stage generally, tracked to follow the MDL Case, although defendants have filed dispositive motions and plaintiffs have moved for class certification in certain of the cases, and certification of a California-only class has been granted in the California consolidated case (subject to a pending appeal). On May 20, 2003, the District Court entered an order in the MDL Case holding that the Barr-Bayer settlement did not constitute a per se violation of the antitrust laws and restricting the scope of the legal theories the plaintiffs could pursue in the case. On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law. Plaintiffs appealed, but the appeal has been stayed pending a decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court in another case involving similar legal issues. On October 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York County dismissed the consolidated New York state class action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Wisconsin Circuit Court's decision and the New York Supreme Court's decision do not affect the federal class actions currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York or the state class actions currently pending in other state courts. On February 4, 2004, the California Court of Appeals issued a writ to review the California state trial court's certification of a California-only class in that action. Discovery is ongoing pending the appeal, with a current trial date of November 2004. BRUSH WELLMAN: OH Employees Lodge Injury Suit in OH High Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Ohio Supreme Court, styled "John Wilson, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc." The suit was filed on behalf of third party individuals (typically employees of customers or of independent contractors) alleging that they contracted, or have been placed at risk of contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions as a result of exposure to beryllium. The suit was originally filed in Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, case number 00-401890-CV, on behalf of plaintiffs John Wilson, Daniel A. Martin, Joseph A. Szenderski, Larry Strang, Hubert Mays, Michael Fincher, Reginald Hohenberger. Mr. Szenderski was voluntarily dismissed by the court on September 27, 2000. Mr. Szenderski filed a separate claim, which is now settled and dismissed. The trial court denied class certification on February 12, 2002, and the Court of Appeals, Ohio 8th District, remanded on October 17, 2002. The case is now before the Ohio Supreme Court, case number 03-0048. The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of a class of workers who belonged to unions in the Northwestern Ohio Building Construction Trades Council who worked in Brush Wellman's Elmore plant from 1953-1999. They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability, product liability and ultra- hazardous activities. The plaintiffs are seeking that the Company pay for a "reasonable medical surveillance and screening program for Plaintiffs and class members; punitive damages in an amount to be determined, interest, costs, attorneys fees." BRUSH WELLMAN: CA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles, styled "Manuel Marin, et al. v. Brush Wellman, Inc., case number BC299055." The suit was filed on behalf of employees of the Company's customers or of independent contractors, alleging that they contracted, or have been placed at risk of contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions as a result of exposure to beryllium. The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry and Susan Perry. The defendants are Brush Wellman, Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1 through 100. The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at The Boeing Company. Plaintiffs seek "general damages in a sum in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount, medical expenses and incidental expenses, loss of earnings, household services, fear of development of chronic beryllium disease, and other beryllium- related medical conditions, increased risk of future injury and disease, diminished quality and enjoyment of life, loss of years of life, consequential damages for other injuries, pre and post judgment interest, plaintiffs' costs of suit, such other relief as Court deems, loss of consortium, punitive damages." Mr. Marin and Mr. Perry represent current and past employees of Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are their spouses. BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of people alleging that they contracted, or have been placed at risk of contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions as a result of exposure to beryllium. The suit, styled Neal Parker, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc., case number 2004CV80827, names as plaintiffs Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and Patricia Burns. The defendants are: (1) Brush Wellman; (2) Schmiede Machine and Tool Corporation; (3) Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass Sales; (4) Axsys Technologies, Inc.; (5) Alcoa, Inc.; (6) McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation; (7) Cobb Tool, Inc and (8) Lockheed Martin Corporation Mr. Parker, Mr. Carlton, Mr. King and Mr. Burns and Ms. Watkins are current employees of Lockheed. Mr. Ponder is a retired employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns are family members. The plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability and fraudulent concealment. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to fund a court-supervised medical monitoring program, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. FINOVA CAPITAL: Shareholders Sue Over Loan to Thaxton Entities -------------------------------------------------------------- FINOVA Capital Corporation was served with and named as a defendant (with other parties) in five lawsuits that relate to its loan to The Thaxton Group Inc. and several related entities (collectively the "Thaxton Entities"). Under its loan agreement, FINOVA has a senior secured loan to the Thaxton Entities of approximately $108 million at March 31, 2004. The Thaxton Entities were declared in default under their loan agreement with FINOVA after they advised FINOVA that they would have to restate earnings for the first two fiscal quarters of 2003, and had suspended payments on their subordinated notes. As a result of the default, FINOVA exercised its rights under the loan agreement, and accelerated the indebtedness. The Thaxton Entities then filed a petition for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on October 17, 2003, listing assets of approximately $206 million and debts of $242 million. The first lawsuit, a complaint captioned Earle B. Gregory, et al, v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, James T. Garrett, et al., was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, South Carolina, case no. 2003-CP-29-967, and was served on the Company on October 17, 2003. An amended complaint was served on November 5, 2003, prior to the deadline for FINOVA to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the original complaint. The Gregory action was properly removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on November 17, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 1452. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, but the U.S. District Court denied this motion in an order dated December 18, 2003. The second Thaxton-related complaint, captioned Tom Moore, Anna Nunnery, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. 8:03- 372413, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on November 25, 2003, and was served on FINOVA on December 2, 2003. The third complaint, captioned Sam Jones Wood and Kathy Annette Wood, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, was filed in the Superior Court for Gwinnett County, Georgia, case no. 03-A13343- B, and was served on FINOVA on December 9, 2003. The fourth complaint, captioned Grant Hall and Ruth Ann Hall, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case no. 03CVS20572, was filed in the Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, Superior Court, and was also served on FINOVA on December 9, 2003. The fifth complaint, captioned Charles Shope, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. C 204022, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and was served on FINOVA on January 13, 2004. Each of the five Thaxton-related lawsuits are styled as class actions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain defined classes of people who had purchased subordinated notes from the Thaxton Entities. The complaints by the subordinated noteholders allege claims of fraud, securities fraud, and various other civil conspiracy and business torts in the sale of the subordinated notes. Each of the complaints seeks an unspecified amount of damages, among other remedies. In addition to FINOVA, the complaints each name as co-defendants Thaxton's accountants and attorneys, and in the Gregory case, several officers of the Thaxton Entities. There are approximately 6,800 holders of the subordinated notes issued in several states, with a total subordinated indebtedness of approximately $122 million. The unsecured creditors' committee has also filed an action in the Thaxton bankruptcy against FINOVA, seeking to set aside FINOVA's liens and payments collected due to alleged securities fraud, violations of banking regulations, preference payments and similar claims. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Enters Mediation For NJ Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc. entered mediation for the securities class action filed against it and three of its former officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by purportedly making false and misleading statements and by failing to disclose material information concerning Honeywell's financial performance, thereby allegedly causing the value of Honeywell's stock to be artificially inflated. The Court has certified a class consisting of all purchasers of Honeywell stock between December 20, 1999 and June 19, 2000. Discovery is ongoing. Although the Company continues to believe that the allegations in the suit are without merit, it engaged in mediation with the plaintiffs in an effort to resolve the matter without resorting to a trial, it stated in a regulatory filing. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the class action filed against it and several of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint principally alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants in the Honeywell Savings and Ownership Plan by purportedly making false and misleading statements, failing to disclose material information concerning Honeywell's financial performance, and failing to diversify the Savings Plan's assets and monitor the prudence of Honeywell stock as a Savings Plan investment. IMS HEALTH: IL Court Approves Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit in Southern Illinois approved the settlement proposed by IMS Health, Inc. of a lawsuit, originally brought in 1994 against Mayberry Systems, a small developer of pharmacy dispensary software in the Midwest. Two pharmacy customers alleged Mayberry Systems was taking prescription data from their systems without authorization, and selling it to others (including the Company). The Company was subsequently added to the lawsuit in 1996, alleging that the Company knew or should have known that Mayberry Systems was taking the data and selling it without authorization (i.e., misappropriation of trade secrets). The lawsuit was later certified as a class action on behalf of all former and current customers of Mayberry Systems (approximately 350 pharmacies). Plaintiffs were demanding damages in the amount of $20,000 plus punitive damages and attorney's fees. During the third quarter of 2003, the Company proposed a preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiffs' counsel on both the actions which was subject to several significant contingencies. On February 17, 2004, the Illinois state court approved the proposed settlement. The period for the filing of appeals and motions for rehearing expired on March 18, 2004. IMS HEALTH: Pharmacies Launch Breach of Contract Lawsuit in IL -------------------------------------------------------------- IMS Health, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court for the 20th Judicial Circuit in Illinois. The suit also names as defendants approximately 60 software vendors from which the Company purchased prescription data in the 1990's (and, for many of these vendors, from which the Company continues to purchase data). In this action, it was alleged the Company misappropriated the trade secrets (i.e., prescription data) of thousands of pharmacies in the United States and used this information either without authorization or outside the scope of any authorization. This same conduct was alleged to breach contracts between the Company and the software vendors from which the Company had purchased this prescription data. The suit was filed by two pharmacies on behalf of all pharmacies whose data was sold to the Company by their pharmacy dispensary software vendors from 1990 to the present. The pharmacies were seeking $100,000 in actual damages plus an unspecified amount of unjust enrichment damages (i.e., share of the Company profits) derived from use of the prescription data by the Company and the other defendants, or, in the alternative, a reasonable royalty paid for the use of the prescription data. However, the Company believed and continues to believe that its practices with respect to the acquisition and use of this prescription data are consistent with applicable law and industry practices, and that the claims were without merit, the Company stated in a regulatory filing. INFOSPACE INC.: WA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed against Infospace, Inc., its former chief executive officer, and its former chief financial officer, styled "In re InfoSpace, Inc. Securities Litigation." The suit alleges that the Company and its former chief executive officer made false and misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects during the period between January 26, 2000 and January 30, 2001. The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws and does not specify the amount of damages sought. An amended complaint was filed in May 2002 adding Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and one of its analysts as defendants, in response to which the Company filed a new motion to dismiss in July 2002. The various claims pending against the Merrill Lynch parties have been severed from the case. By order dated February 17, 2004, the Court granted preliminary approval to a settlement of the case pursuant to which the Company's insurance carriers would pay $34.3 million to the class (with no payments made by InfoSpace or the other defendants), and the case would be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement is conditioned on final court approval after notice to the class and expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the court approving the settlement. The hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for early May 2004. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of the securities class action filed against Juniper Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and former officers purportedly on behalf of those stockholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. In March 2003, the judge granted defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003. The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on September 12, 2003. In March 2004, the judge granted defendants motion to dismiss, without leave to amend. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs To File Amended CA Derivative Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs intend to file a third amended shareholder derivative suit against Juniper Networks, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, styled "In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No. CV 807146." The original complaint alleges that certain of the Company's officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by engaging in alleged wrongful conduct including conduct complained of in the securities litigation described above. The complaint also asserts claims against a Juniper Networks investor. The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom the plaintiff seeks no recovery. In October 2002, the Company as a nominal defendant and the individual defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated amended shareholder derivative complaint. In March 2003, the judge sustained defendants' demurrers with leave to amend. The plaintiffs lodged their amended complaint in May 2003 and the defendants demurred to the amended complaint and moved to stay the consolidated action pending resolution of the federal action. On August 25, 2003, the Court sustained defendants' demurrer with leave to amend and denied the motion to stay without prejudice. Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file a third amended complaint. There has been limited discovery to date and no trial is scheduled. LABOR READY: NY Court Denies Appeal of Consumer Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- The New York State Court in Kings County, Appellate Division denied plaintiffs appeal of the dismissal of a class action filed against Labor Ready, Inc. for alleged violations of state law in connection with the fees charged by the Company for voluntary use of the cash dispensing machines. On November 25, 2002, the court granted our motion to dismiss the lawsuit, based on the arbitration agreement signed by each of the Company's workers. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal, which was denied by the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in April 2004. LABOR READY: CA Court Grants Motion For Partial Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California State Court for Alameda County granted Labor Ready, Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment in the class action filed by Armando Ramirez, Phyllis Stennis, Earl Levels and Maurice Johnson, alleging violation of federal and state wage and hour laws for failing to pay temporary employees for all hours worked. The plaintiffs are present or former temporary employees for the Company seeking unquantified damages, injunctive relief and certification of a class of workers. On July 12, 2002, the court certified classes of plaintiffs in connection with claims relating to waiting time, travel time and equipment charges for the period of February 1998 to present. The court declined to certify classes of plaintiffs in connection with claims relating to transportation expenses. On November 19, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that time spent by temporary employees waiting for job assignments is not payable. LABOR READY: CA Temp Employees, Applicants Sue Over Gender Bias --------------------------------------------------------------- Labor Ready, Inc. and one of its customers face a class action filed by Marisol Balanderan and 55 other plaintiffs in California State Court, Los Angeles County. The plaintiffs are temporary employees and job applicants who seek unquantified compensatory and punitive damages based on allegations that they were subjected to discrimination in dispatch to jobs on the basis of their female gender, throughout a period from September 2001 through January 2002. They also seek certification of a class of similarly situated temporary employees. LABOR READY: Ex-Employees File Motion To Intervene in CA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two former Labor Ready, Inc. employees filed a complaint in intervention, requesting inclusion as plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the Company in California State Court, Los Angeles County. On February 6, 2003, Scott Romer and Shawna Clark, each a former Labor Ready employee, filed the suit action alleging they were wrongfully exempted from overtime pay during their employment. They seek unquantified compensatory damages and certification of a class of similarly situated employees. LABOR READY: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA, WA -------------------------------------------------------------- Several overtime class actions pending against Labor Ready, Inc. in California and Washington State courts are likely to be consolidated. On July 16, 2003, Alecia Recio, Elizabeth Esquivel, Debbie Owen and Barry Selbts, each a current or former Labor Ready employee, jointly filed an action in United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging failure to pay overtime under state and federal law and seeking unspecified damages and certification of a class of similarly situated employees. On September 23, 2003, the court dismissed the case for improper venue. On October 1, 2003, Ms. Recio re-filed her case in California State Court, Los Angeles County, seeking similar relief on behalf of Labor Ready employees employed in the State of California. On October 21, 2003, Ms. Owen re-filed her case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, seeking similar relief on behalf of Labor Ready employees employed in all states except California. The Owen matter has been stayed pending resolution of the Huntley/McCall matter. On December 30, 2003, Patricia Huntley filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking similar relief on behalf of Labor Ready employees employed in all states except California, and has moved to consolidate her claims with those of Owen. NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For NY, GA Stock Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division (the "Bankruptcy Court") approved the settlement agreement with respect to claims against its former directors, H. Eugene Lockhart, William I Jacobs, Kenneth L. Lay, Lou L. Pai, James V. Derrick, Jr., Richard A. Causey, Peter Grauer, Linda Alvarado and Ray J. Groves, in consolidated actions that were pending in the District Court entitled In re NewPower Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02 Civ. 1550 (CLB) and identical purported claims against the Company filed in the jointly- administered bankruptcy cases that were pending in the Bankruptcy Court entitled In re The NewPower Company, Case No. 02-10835, In re NewPower Holdings, Inc., Case No. 02-10836, and In re TNPC Holdings, Inc., Case No. 02-10837, respectively. The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement agreement on March 9, 2004, and the District Court entered a judgment approving the settlement agreement on April 29, 2004. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation and claimants in the Proofs of Claim agreed to resolve all their claims against the Company and its former directors in exchange for a payment of $26 million, of which $24.5 million will be paid by insurance providers and $1.5 million will be paid by the Company. Neither the Company nor any of the former directors named as defendants in the Securities Litigation have admitted any liability or wrongdoing; rather, the parties agreed to settle all outstanding claims to avoid the costs, burden and uncertainty of the ongoing litigation. NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ordered the securities class actions filed against Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. consolidated. On August 7, 2003, an individual filed a lawsuit on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Noven's common stock during the period from October 29, 2001 through April 28, 2003. The complaint alleges that, during the subject period, Noven and its officers named as defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements in its public disclosures regarding Noven's MethyPatch product. Following the filing of Plaintiff's complaint, five other substantially similar complaints were filed against Noven and its officers named as defendants in the above referenced action. In response to a joint motion, on January 6, 2004, the Court entered an order consolidating the six related actions. Pursuant to this order, plaintiffs must file a consolidated class action complaint not later than 60 days after the entry of an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. An order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel has not yet been entered. PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Completed in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Limited discovery has been completed in the class action filed against Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., certain of its former officers and current and former directors and certain other third parties in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit, styled "Funke v. Life Financial, et al.," asserts claims against the defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the sale of the Company's common stock in its 1997 public offering. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in their complaint. Following a motion to dismiss, the court dismissed plaintiff's claim for violation of Section 10b of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff's sole remaining cause of action is based on an alleged violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act. The parties have completed very limited discovery. The court has not certified the class nor has the court set a trial date. QUINTILES LABORATORIES: GA Court Dismisses Settled RICO Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The State Court of Richmond County, Georgia dismissed the class action lawsuit filed against Quintiles Laboratories Limited, and: (1) Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, (2) Pharmed Inc., (3) Debra Brown, (4) Bruce I. Diamond The suit was filed on behalf of 185 Alzheimer's patients who participated in drug studies involving an experimental drug manufactured by defendant Novartis, and their surviving spouses. The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, infliction of emotional distress, battery, negligence and loss of consortium as to class member spouses. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, plus costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On September 27, 2003, the parties entered into a settlement memorandum following a mediated settlement conference. The parties subsequently agreed to final settlement documents, which memorialized payments by several defendants to individual study participants or their representatives. On March 10, 2004, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice. RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Plaintiffs Appeal KY Ruling in Stock Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division's ruling in favor of Rally's Hamburges, Inc. in the consolidated class action, styled "Jonathan Mittman et al. v. Rally's Hamburgers, Inc., et al." In January and February 1994, two putative class action lawsuits were filed, purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Rally's against the Company, Burt Sugarman and GIANT GROUP, LTD. and certain of the Company's former officers and directors and its auditors. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, among other claims, by issuing inaccurate public statements about Rally's in order to arbitrarily inflate the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and other damages, and costs and expenses associated with the litigation. On April 15, 1994, Rally's filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. On April 5, 1995, the Court struck certain provisions of the complaint but otherwise denied Rally's motion to dismiss. In addition, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification; the plaintiffs renewed this motion, and despite opposition by the defendants, the Court granted such motion for class certification on April 16, 1996, certifying a class from July 20, 1992 to September 29, 1993. On August 22, 2003, the court ruled for the Company on all counts. SPORT-HALEY INC.: Reaches Settlement in CO Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sport-Haley, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPOR) recently announced that the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on April 29, 2004, has approved the settlement of the class action that has been pending since October 2001 against the Company, two officers and directors and one former officer and director. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 30, 2004, after the parties reached a settlement in a November 2003 settlement conference. The Court then conducted a hearing on the proposed settlement on April 23, 2004. No members of the class opted out of the class or objected to the proposed settlement. The settlement reached requires that the Defendants will pay to the class a total of $1,000,000, from which will be deducted certain administrative costs and awards. The Company expects that the settlement amount will be derived from proceeds of the Defendants' liability insurance coverage. The Defendants though settled the class action while vehemently denying any liability in connection with the asserted claims. TULARIK INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition by Amgen in DE -------------------------------------------------------------- Tularik, Inc., members of its board of directors and Amgen, Inc. face a class action filed by Janis Zvokel in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. The suit is denominated as a class action purportedly on behalf of Tularik stockholders. The complaint alleges that the members of the Tularik board of directors and that Amgen breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Tularik stockholders. The complaint further alleges that the consideration to be paid to the class members in the proposed acquisition of Tularik by Amgen is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value of Tularik's common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered for those securities. The plaintiff seeks this relief from the court: (1) an order that the action be maintained as a class action and certification of the plaintiff as a proper class representative; and (2) the enjoining of the proposed acquisition of Tularik by the Company; The suit also seeks an order that the Tularik board of directors undertake an appropriate evaluation of Tularik's worth as a merger/acquisition candidate; take all appropriate steps to enhance Tularik's value and attractiveness as a merger/acquisition candidate; take all appropriate steps to effectively expose Tularik to the marketplace in an effort to create an active auction for Tularik, including, but not limited to, engaging in serious negotiations with the Company; act independently so that the interests of Tularik stockholders will be protected; and adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist between defendants' own interests and their fiduciary obligation to maximize stockholder value or, if such conflicts exist, to ensure that all conflicts be resolved in the best interests of Tularik stockholders; and such other and further relief as the court deems appropriate. Further, the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages against defendants individually and severally; and costs and disbursements, including plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees. New Securities Fraud Cases ABATIX CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Abatix Corporation (NASDAQ: ABIX) between 5:05 p.m. EST on April 14, 2004 and 8:24 a.m. EST on April 21, 2004, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that Abatix and certain of its officers issued materially false statements concerning a business agreement with Goodwin Group, LLC ("Goodwin") for the distribution of RapidCool products. Specifically, defendants misrepresented the proprietary nature, uniqueness and efficacy of RapidCool by failing to disclose that: (1) RapidCool was not FDA approved; (2) Abatix had not verified that Goodwin had been assigned patents relating to Rapid Cool, nor had Abatix verified that it had obtained "exclusive worldwide rights to distribute RapidCool"; and (3) Abatix had only performed limited due diligence on the proprietary nature of RapidCool products before signing the distributorship agreement. As a result of the foregoing, shares of Abatix were materially inflated throughout the Class Period. For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, P.C., by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net/ ADOLOR CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in PA -------------------------------------------------------------- Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Adolor Corporation (Nasdaq: ADLR) common stock during the period between September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges that Adolor, Bruce A. Peacock, Michael R. Dougherty, Bruce Wallin, and David Jackson violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004, about its drug, Entereg, thereby artificially inflating the price of Adolor's common stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that Adolor's drug, Entereg, missed the primary end point of time to recovery of gastrointestinal function; (2) that the Company's drug, Entereg, did not reduce the time to a hospital discharge order being written; (3) that the Company's drug, Entereg, also failed to meet its primary goal of helping patients tolerate food more quickly after surgery; and (4) that given these mixed results, the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Adolor was likely to have to conduct another set of trials for Entereg in bowel resection patients, the group that appears likeliest to benefit from Entereg treatment. On January 13, 2004, the Company announced that part of its research on a drug designed to restore patients' bowel function after surgery did not meet the planned target. According to the Company, the drug called Entereg did not meet its primary goal of helping patients tolerate food more quickly after surgery. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Adolor fell $8.05 per share, or 36.9 percent, to close at $13.73 per share on January 14, 2004. For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 by Phone: 1-631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 or by E-Mail: info@geller- rudman.com GENTA INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities class action against Genta, Inc. (Nasdaq: GNTA) and certain of its principal officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Genta securities between September 10, 2003 and May 3, 2004, styled "Maitland v. Genta, Inc., et al." The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented the safety of the Company's drug, Genasense, for the treatment of advanced melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer. During the Class Period, defendants falsely represented to the investing public that Genasense did not appear to be associated with serious adverse reactions in the Phase 3 clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the use of Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and discontinuations due to adverse events, and that U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval of the Genasense New Drug Application was unlikely because the increased toxicity and adverse events associated with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits. On April 30, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated in briefing materials in advance of the May 3, 2004 ODAC meeting that the Phase 3 clinical trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival benefit, which was the primary trial endpoint. However, small but unreliable benefits were seen for progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates (RR). The staff also stated: "Uncertainty also exists regarding whether an improvement in PFS and RR of this magnitude outweighs the increase in toxicity seen with the combination [of Genasense and dacarbazine.]: ... Survival was not improved and toxicity was increased." As a result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares dropped $5.83 or 40.4% to close at $8.60 on the Nasdaq market on an unusually high volume of over 30 million shares traded. On May 3, 2004, the ODAC ruled by a 13-3 vote that, in the absence of increased survival, the evidence presented did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness to outweigh the increased toxicity of Genasense. As a result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares fell more than $3 per share, to close at $5.11 on May 3, 2004 at a high volume of over 17 million shares traded. For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Carole A. Broderick, Esq., Barbara A. Podell, Esq., Diane R. Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager by Mail: Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-Mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visist their Web Site: http://www.bergermontague.com GLOBAL CROSSING: Cauley Bowman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Firm of Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing, Ltd. (Nasdaq: GLBCE) publicly traded securities during the period between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges that Global Crossing, John Legere (Chief Executive Officer) and Daniel P. O'Brien (Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President) violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' statements during the Class Period failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company had materially understated its accrued cost-of-access liability by $50-$80 million; (2) that the Company had insufficient internal controls; and (3) that as a result, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times. On April 27, 2004, Global Crossing announced it had begun a review of its previously reported financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, including respective interim periods, and that "the company will amend periodic reports previously filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to reflect the expected restatement and to revise disclosures related to the internal control issues presented and the company's methodologies for estimating cost of access expenses and reconciling these expenses to vendor invoices." News of this shocked the market. Shares of Global Crossing stock dropped $5.00 per share, or 27.7 percent on April 27, 2004 on unusually large trading volumes to close at $13.20 per share. For more details, contact CAULEY BOWMAN CARNEY & WILLIAMS, PLLC (J. Allen Carney, Esq. or Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.) by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 by E-Mail: info@cauleybowman.com or visit their Web Site: www.cauleybowman.com/view_case.asp?cID=280 GLOBAL CROSSING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Global Crossing Ltd. (Nasdaq:GLBCE) between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant Global Crossing and one or more of its officers. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com GLOBAL CROSSING: Anatoly Weiser Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Anatoly Weiser, initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of Global Crossing Ltd. ("Global Crossing" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:GLBCE) between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Global Crossing and certain officers violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. More specifically, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company had materially understated its accrued cost-of-access liability by $50- $80 million; (2) the Company had insufficient internal controls; and (3) as a result, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times. On April 27, 2004, Global Crossing announced that it had initiated a review of its previously reported financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, including respective interim periods, and that "the company will amend periodic reports previously filed with the SEC to reflect the expected restatement and to revise disclosures related to the internal control issues presented and the company's methodologies for estimating cost of access expenses and reconciling these expenses to vendor invoices." In reaction to the news shares of Global Crossing stock dropped $5.00 per share, or 27.7 percent on April 27, 2004 on heavy trading volume. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Anatoly Weiser by Phone: (877) 736-5411 by Fax: (858) 225-0838 or by E-Mail: info@classlawsuit.com NORTEL NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE: NT) publicly traded securities on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from April 24, 2003 to April 27, 2004, inclusive. The complaint charges Nortel, Frank A. Dunn, Douglas C. Beatty and Michael J. Gollogly 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, shortly before the start of the Class Period, Nortel advised investors that it would be restating its financial results for 2000, 2001 and 2002 and the first and second quarters of 2003. Then, after reporting solid fourth quarter results during the Class Period that far surpassed analysts' expectations, the Company shocked investors by announcing that it would be restating its financial results yet again, this time for the just-reported fourth quarter of 2003 as well. Subsequently, in a clear indication of the severity of the Company's problems, the Company announced that it would be placing defendants Beatty and Gollogly on paid leave of absence, pending the completion of the Company's independent review being undertaken by its audit committee. Following this announcement, shares of Nortel common stock fell $1.19 per share, or 18.5%, to close at $5.24 per share on extremely high trading volume. On April 28, 2004, the Company fired its CEO, CFO and Controller and disclosed that its previously announced restatement would be worse than earlier planned. In addition, the Company disclosed that its financial results for Q1 2004 would be indefinitely delayed. On this news, Nortel shares plunged to below $4.00 per share. The amended complaint also demands the executives return their ill-gotten bonuses for 2003. For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-Mail at info@sbclasslaw.com TITAN CORPORATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Titan Corporation (NYSE:TTN) between July 24, 2003 and March 22, 2004, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that Titan, along with Gene Ray (Chairman and CEO), Mark Sopp (CFO), and Deanna Lund (Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer) violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market. These misstatements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of Titan's securities. Much Shelist is currently investigating these claims. More specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose and indicate in their effort to ensure the merger with Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed Martin") was approved by shareholders and various regulators: (1) that foreign consultants for Titan were engaging in questionable and potentially illegal activities; (2) that foreign consultants for Titan made improper payments to foreign government officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; (3) that Titan improperly accounted for the funds used in these payments; and (4) as a result, Titan's improper accounting for such payments allowed Titan to enter into a definitive merger agreement with Lockheed Martin. On February 13, 2004, Titan announced that representatives of Lockheed Martin and Titan recently initiated meetings with the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to advise them of an internal review relating to certain agreements between Titan and international consultants and related payments in foreign countries. On Friday, March 5, 2004, Lockheed Martin announced that it had learned of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of value were provided by consultants for Titan or its subsidiaries to foreign officials. Also on March 5, 2004, Titan confirmed that it had learned of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of value were provided, by consultants for the company or its subsidiaries to foreign officials. The allegations were identified as part of an ongoing review conducted with Lockheed Martin of payments to Titan's international consultants in connection with the proposed acquisition of Titan by Lockheed Martin. As a result of these revelations, shares of Titan fell $1.82 per share, or almost 9%, to close at $19.11 per share. On March 22, 2004, The Wall Street Journal reported that internal investigators of both Titan and Lockheed Martin had found that Titan had made potentially improper payments overseas. According to the article, Titan made millions of dollars in suspicious payments, some as recently as last year, while competing for business in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Moreover, the article reported that the Company was scheduled to hold talks with the Department of Justice about a possible plea agreement. For more details, contact Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. (Carol V. Gilden, Esq.) by Phone: (800) 470- 6824 or by E-Mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.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. ********* 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 * * *