/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040908.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 8, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 178
Headlines
ACI INC.: KS Court Enters Judgments, Levies Nearly $7.8 in Fines
ALASKA: State Attorneys To Challenge Ruling in Fisherman's Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Refining Settlement Of CA Overtime Wage Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Restores Sav-on Lawsuit Certification
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Continues Claims Process in ID Wage Lawsuit
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Discovery Proceeds in CA Grocery Managers Suit
ARGUS CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated Securities Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: NJ Court Approves SEC Plan For $150M Settlement
CLARUS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 2, 2004
DECODE GENETICS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. NY
FIRST VIRTUAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in CA
FOOTSTAR INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
FORD MOTOR: Firms Put More Pressure To Repair Defective Latches
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: American Parenta Launch $356M Suit Over Seroxat
LONGS DRUG: CA Wage Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 12,2004
LORILLARD TOBACCO: OH Court Issues Notice of Interpleader Action
MICHIGAN: Lansing City, Residents Ink Pact For Flood Dispute
POST PROPERTIES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 30, 2004
REMEDIA LTD. Settles Israel Suits Over Deficient Baby Formula
SALOMON SMITH: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MD
SARA LEE: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
SUKUMO LIMITED: SEC Institutes Proceedings V. Michael Newman
SYNOPSIS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
TECO ENERGY: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
TRADEWINDS INTERNATIONAL: SEC Obtains Asset Freeze Order in IL
TRINITY HOMES: Owners Dissatisfied, Says Publicity Killed Market
UNITED STATES: SEC Issues OIP V. Steven Bocchino, Sharon Harosh
WAL-MART STORES: Continues To Face Several FLSA Violations Suits
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Court To Review CA Suit Certification
WAL-MART STORES: Reaches Settlement For TX COLI Policies Suits
WAL-MART STORES: GA Court Refuses To Review Suit Certification
WAL-MART STORES: Continues To Face EEOC's Sex Bias Lawsuit in KY
WET SEAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
WET SEAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Extends Class Period in CA Suit
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Asks OR Court To Dismiss Alder Antitrust Suit
ZIX CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in TX
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
KVH INDUSTRIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in RI
NETOPIA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges VA Stock Suit
US UNWIRED: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA
WET SEAL: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
*********
ACI INC.: KS Court Enters Judgments, Levies Nearly $7.8 in Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable J. Thomas Maten, U.S. District Judge, District of
Kansas, entered a Final Judgment Granting Permanent Injunction
and Other Relief as to Defendants ACI, Inc. and Clarence E.
Long, a securities law recidivist. The Final Judgment orders
that ACI and Long are jointly and severally liable to pay
$7,756,750, the sum defendants fraudulently collected from
investors, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of
$1,253,700.
The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint, filed Sept.
25, 2003, alleges that ACI and Long, from October 2000 through
September 2001, engaged in the fraudulent offer and sale of
interests in high yield trading programs to at least 586
investors located throughout the United States. The Commission
alleged that defendants misrepresentations and omissions
concerning expected returns, use of investor funds, and the
safety of the investment and failed to disclose to investors
that Long had previously been civilly enjoined and criminally
convicted for securities fraud.
The Court entered a default judgment against ACI after it failed
to answer the Commission's complaint. Subsequently, the Court
entered an order striking Long's answer and entering default
against him, based on his willful failure to respond to
discovery and fulfill other pretrial obligations.
In addition to ordering the defendants to disgorge the funds
collected from defrauded investors, the Final Judgment orders
ACI to pay a civil penalty of $600,000 and Long to pay a civil
penalty of $120,000. Moreover, in addition to generally
enjoining the defendants from further violations of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, the Final
Judgment enjoins Long from engaging in the offer or sale of a
security in any unregistered transaction while acting in
association with an issuer, underwriter, broker, or dealer.
The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of
the U.S. Attorney's Office for Arizona and the Securities
Division of the Arizona Corporation Commission. The action is
titled, SEC v. Clarence E. Long et al., Civil Action No. 6:03-
CV-01343-JTM-DWB, USDC/D.Kansas/Wichita Division] (LR-18869).
ALASKA: State Attorneys To Challenge Ruling in Fisherman's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
State prosecutors are set to challenge a ruling by Superior
Court Judge Peter Michalski of Anchorage that orders the state
to refund money with interest to thousands of out-of-state
commercial fishermen who paid three times more for their annual
permits than Alaskan fishermen in a 20-year-old class action
lawsuit, the Associated Press reports.
Based on a complex formula designed by the courts, the amount of
the refund and the number of plaintiffs eligible has yet to be
calculated by the state, Assistant Attorney General Robert
Nauheim said. However, early estimates indicate that the cost
to Alaska could be between $30 million to $50 million in back
fees, interest and attorney fees, paid to about 11,000
plaintiffs. In light of this development, Mr. Nauheim and
Commercial Fisheries Entry Chairman Bruce Twomley said the state
was considering an appeal of the order all the way to the Alaska
Supreme Court.
The suit was filed in 1984 by non-resident commercial fishermen
who paid three times what Alaska fishermen did to fish Alaska
waters. The Alaska Supreme Court, which has ruled three times in
the case, has stated that the state may charge somewhat higher
fees for non-residents. The fishermen have twice tried to take
the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the federal court
declined to hear it.
Judge Michalski after almost 20 years issued an order in July
that laid out the formula ordered by the state Supreme Court for
how much a non-resident commercial fisherman should be charged
for an annual fishing permit and crew member license fees.
According to Plaintiffs' lawyer Loren Domke, commenting on the
state's legal moves said, he anticipated an appeal by the state
and suggested that prosecutors were purposely dragging the
process out. "The longer they pursue this, the fewer class
members are going to be alive," he said. "There are going to be
more unclaimed refunds the longer this goes on."
Attorney General Twomley called the claim "preposterous,"
according to AP.
Currently, non-resident fishermen are charged a flat $115 above
the rate of commercial permits and fees. Last year there were
4,725 non-resident permits and 16,289 resident permits issued,
according to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Refining Settlement Of CA Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's, Inc. is refining the settlement of the class action
filed against it and its wholly-owned subsidiaries Drug Stores,
Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles, California.
The suit was filed on behalf of bonus-eligible managers and
seeks recovery of additional bonus compensation based upon
plaintiffs' allegation that the calculation of profits on which
their bonuses were based improperly included expenses for
workers' compensation costs, cash shortages, premises liability
and "shrink" losses in violation of California law.
On May 26, 2004, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated case. The
Company is now working to resolve disagreements with the
plaintiffs incident to arriving at a definitive settlement
agreement. The final settlement agreement will need the
approval of the court.
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Restores Sav-on Lawsuit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court restored certification for the
class action filed against Albertson's, Inc.'s wholly-owned
subsidiary Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc., styled "Rocher Dahlin et
al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc."
The suit was filed on behalf of its assistant and operating
managers, seeking recovery of overtime pay based upon
plaintiffs' allegation that they were improperly classified as
exempt under California law. The suit also names as defendants
the wholly-owned subsidiary Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.
The court granted class certification to the suit. In April
2002 the Court of Appeal of the State of California Second
Appellate District reversed the Rocher class certification,
leaving only two plaintiffs. The California Supreme Court on
August 26, 2004, reversed the appellate court's decision.
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Continues Claims Process in ID Wage Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's, Inc. is awaiting further instructions from the
United States District Court in Boise, Idaho regarding the
settlement claims process for the eight class and/or collective
actions filed against it, over various issues including "off-
the-clock" work allegations and allegations regarding certain
salaried grocery managers' exempt status.
Under the settlement agreement, current and former employees who
met eligibility criteria have been allowed to present their off-
the-clock work claims to a settlement administrator.
Additionally, current and former grocery managers employed in
the State of California have been allowed to present their
exempt status claims to a settlement administrator.
The Company mailed notices of the settlement and claims forms to
approximately 70,500 associates and former associates.
Approximately 6,000 claim forms had been returned, of which
approximately 5,000 were deemed by the settlement administrator
to be incapable of valuation, presumed untimely, or both. The
claims administrator was able to assign a value to approximately
1,000 claims, which amount to a total of approximately $14,
although the value of many of those claims is still subject to
challenge by the Company.
During the quarter ended July 29, 2004, there was a supplemental
mailing and in-store posting directed toward a narrow subset of
these current and former associates. At quarter-end, the
Company had not been advised by the settlement administrator of
the number of claims returned by these individuals. Prior to
the second quarter of 2004, and distinct from this supplemental
claims process, a second claim process was ordered by the Court,
but the Company is still waiting for final instructions from the
Court.
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Discovery Proceeds in CA Grocery Managers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the two class actions filed against
Albertson's, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda, on behalf of its
grocery managers.
Grocery managers filed the first suit, styled "Dunbar, et al. v.
Albertson's, Inc.," in March 2004, seeking recovery including
overtime pay based upon plaintiffs' allegation that they were
improperly classified as exempt under California law. In July
2004. A similar case was filed against Albertsons in the same
court, styled "Victoria A. Moore, et al. v. Albertson's, Inc."
ARGUS CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Argus Corporation, Ltd., numerous other individuals and
companies and KPMG LLP, including certain Directors and Officers
of the Company, in Illinois court.
Three suits were initially filed by the Teachers' Retirement
System of Louisiana, Kenneth Mozingo and the Washington Area
Carpenters Pension and Retirement Fund. The Company was served
with the Complaint of Kenneth Mozingo on July 19, 2004 and the
other two Complaints were served on Argus on July 20, 2004.
On August 2, 2004, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
continuing the Complaints of the Louisiana Teachers and the
Washington Carpenters, but not that of Kenneth Mozingo, was
filed. It has not been served on the Company.
BRISTOL-MYERS: NJ Court Approves SEC Plan For $150M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission through the Honorable
Faith S. Hochberg, United States District Court Judge for the
District of New Jersey obtained an order (Order) approving the
Commission's proposed plan (Plan) for distributing the money
paid by defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) in
connection with its settlement of the above matter to injured
shareholders. On August 4, 2004, BMS consented, without
admitting or denying liability, to a permanent injunction
enjoining it from violating certain provisions of the federal
securities laws, agreed to pay $150,000,001 million in monetary
remedies, and undertook to perform numerous remedial measures.
The Order provides that the $150,000,001 paid by BMS to settle
the SEC's claims against it (SEC Settlement Fund) will be
transferred to the claims administrator appointed in a similar
case, In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 02-CV-2251 (LAP), pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (BMS Securities
Litigation Settlement), by agreement of the parties in order to
save substantial administration and distribution costs. The
claims administrator is the Garden City Group, 105 Maxess Road,
Melville, NY 11747-3836, 1-800-327-3664. The $150,000,001 is
eligible to be distributed pro rata to persons and entities, who
purchased BMS common stock between Jan. 1, 2000, through and
including Dec. 31, 2001, the period of BMS' fraudulent earnings
management scheme. This recovery will be in addition to the
$300,000,000 recovered by the plaintiffs in BMS Securities
Litigation Settlement. Eligible shareholders must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release Form no later than Jan. 31, 2005.
The Commission's investigation is continuing. The action is
titled, SEC v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Civil Action No.
04-3680 (D.N.J.) Hochberg, J. (LR-18867).
CLARUS CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 2, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia - Atlanta Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $4.5 million settlement in the matter In Re: Clarus
Corporation Securities Litigation on behalf of all person who
purchased or acquired the common stock of Clarus Corporation
between December 8, 1999 and October 25, 2000.
The court has scheduled the hearing for December 2, 2004, at
2:00pm in the United States Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, S.W.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-3361 before the Honorable Charles A. Pannell,
Jr.
For more details, contact Maya Saxena, Esq. of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite
900, Boca Raton, FL 33486 or by Phone: (561) 161-5000 OR Sherrie
R. Savett, Esq. of Berger & Montague, PC by Mail: 1622 Locust
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 or by Phone: (215) 875-3000 OR
Dan Krasner, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
by Mail: 270 Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New York, NY 10016 or by
Phone: (212) 545-4600 OR Claims Administrator - Heffler Radetich
& Saitta, LLP by Mail: P.O. Box 160, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0160
or by Phone: (800) 528-7199
DECODE GENETICS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
deCODE genetics, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of deCODE genetics,
Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between
October 29, 2003 and August 26, 2004.
The complaints allege that during the Class Period, defendants
caused deCODE's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading statements,
including by concealing its continuing internal control
problems. As a result of this inflation, deCODE was able to
complete a public offering of $150 million worth of convertible
notes in April 2004, raising net proceeds of $144 million. The
complaint specifically alleges that defendants deCODE, and
certain of its officers and directors 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 October 29, 2003 and
August 26, 2004.
More specifically, the Complaints allege that the defendants'
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:
(1) that Company's period-end financial closing procedures
were materially deficient;
(2) as such, deCODE, during the Class Period, improperly
recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
(4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were materially inflated at all relevant
times.
Then, on August 26, 2004, deCODE filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
in which it disclosed the resignation of its outside accountant
(PricewaterhouseCoopers) and disclosed a 'reportable condition'
with respect to deCODE's closing procedures. On this news,
deCODE's stock collapsed to $5.70 per share on August 27, 2004,
58% below the Class Period high of $13.80 per share.
The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:
(1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
Diego), Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA,
92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com;
(2) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;
(3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
(Florida), Mail: 197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 20, Boca
Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-
3364;
(4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY),
Mail: 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173
FIRST VIRTUAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Virtual Communications, Inc. faces a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, styled "Dirks, et al. v. First
Virtual Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-3585," on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from March
29,2004 to August 23,2004.
The action is pending against the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors. According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a 'pump and dump' scheme that enabled
Company insiders to profit at the expense of class members by
selling over a million shares of their personally held First
Virtual securities at artificially inflated prices.
Specifically, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial condition and sales of
its real-time rich media communications software and services
and specialized networking hardware equipment worldwide, and a
contract to provide the United States Air Force with the
Company's proprietary Click to MeetTM web communications
infrastructure and solutions. In reaction to these statements,
the price of First Virtual stock skyrocketed 161% between
February 5, 2004 and April 6, 2004, allowing certain Company
insiders to sell over 1.98 million shares of their personally
held First Virtual stock for proceeds of more than $8.5 million.
On April 30, 2004, the truth about the Company's financial
condition began to emerge. On that day, defendants announced
that the Company's audit committee had commenced an
investigation into certain irregular sales transactions, and
that until the review was completed, the Company would not be
able to release its first-quarter earnings or file its Form 10-Q
with the SEC. In reaction to this news, the price of First
Virtual stock fell 37% from its previous day's closing price. As
a result of its failure to comply with the SEC's filing
requirements, First Virtual's securities were subject to
delistment from the Nasdaq SmallCap market. On August 5, 2004,
defendants announced that the Company had received a letter from
Nasdaq which granted the Company a conditional temporary
extension to file its first quarter 2004 report. On August 17,
2004, defendants disclosed that:
(1) the Company could not meet the conditions of its
temporary filing extension;
(2) the Company had incurred $2.1 million in expenses
directly related to the investigation;
(3) the Company was in danger of defaulting on a $3.0
million credit facility agreement; and
(4) based on the Company's profit and loss projections for
the remainder of 2004, its stockholder equity would
fall below Nasdaq's listing requirements.
On August 24, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
disclosed that the Company's request for an extension to comply
with Nasdaq's listing and filing requirements had been denied,
and that the Company's securities would be delisted from the
Nasdaq SmallCap at the commencement of trading on August 25,
2004. In reaction to that news, the price of First Virtual stock
fell 47 percent from its previous trading day's closing price,
to close at $0.37 per share.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles),
Mail: 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
mail: info@milbergweiss.com;
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), Mail:
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY,
10119, Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com
FOOTSTAR INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Footstar, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, J.M. Robinson, its
former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Stephen Wilson, an officer of the Company, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled
"Stephen Rush v. Footstar, Inc., et al., 02 Civ. 9130 (SRC)."
The suit alleged violations of securities laws and sought
unspecified monetary damages and costs and expenses associated
with the litigation. The suit alleges that beginning mid-May
2000, the Company and its officers misrepresented the Company's
financial performance.
With Bankruptcy Court approval, the Company and the named
plaintiffs have mutually agreed to resolve the claims made in
the suit, without any admission of liability, for the amount of
$14.3 million, all of which will be funded with insurance
proceeds. The Company is in the process of seeking approval
from class members and upon such approval, seeking an order
from the court before which this litigation is pending,
dismissing it with prejudice.
FORD MOTOR: Firms Put More Pressure To Repair Defective Latches
---------------------------------------------------------------
A coalition of consumer advocate law firms (Motley Rice LLC;
Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser PLC; Donaldson & Black PA; Thornton &
Naumes LLP; Garrison Scott; Heninger, Burge, Vargo & Davis;
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer; Ed Bell & Associates) are increasing
the pressure on Ford Motor Company to remedy approximately three
million vehicles with allegedly defective door handles. The
pressure on Ford is being exerted through a mounting number of
class action filings, as well as personal injury filings
relative to some of Ford's most popular selling pick-up trucks
and SUV's (the 1997-2000 model Ford F-150; Ford F-250- Super
Light Duty; Ford Expeditions; Lincoln Navigator and the 2000
Blackwood).
"We want Ford to do the right thing. They need to correct a
safety hazard that exists in its most popular vehicles before
more drivers or passengers are injured or killed. We will
continue filing these suits across the country until Ford
responds appropriately," stated Motley Rice transportation
attorney Fritz J. Jekel, on behalf of the coalition.
It is alleged in the complaints and demands that the defective
door latch issues have been known to Ford Motor Company and its
component part manufacturers for several years, that Ford had
made a decision to initiate a voluntary recall as a result of
the non-compliant door latches, and that due to liability and
financial considerations, Ford cancelled the recall. It is
alleged that the basis for canceling the voluntary recall is
unjustified.
"It is documented that Ford has known this problem existed and
had once determined that it was a problem that needed to be
addressed. Ford has the ability to stop unnecessary injury and
death. Until they do, consumers are needlessly being subjected
to a safety hazard," said Jekel.
To date Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and Canada are the
current sites for class action filings. Massachusetts counsel is
making a demand on Ford to establish a repair fund/program to
assist owners to identify and replace defective door latches.
If, within 30 days of the demand, Ford does not agree to
establish the repair fund/program, a class action will also be
filed in Massachusetts against Ford and the component part
manufacturers. The actions and demands involve allegations that
Ford breeched its warranty and along with its component part
manufacturers engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by
marketing and selling vehicles that are not compliant with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, failing to correct a
known safety-related defect and failing to notify the National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration and consumers of
the defect.
The defect in question is alleged to involve door latch systems
on the affected vehicles that do not comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Regulations and can result in an unintended door
opening and passenger ejection in motor vehicle accidents. To
date, it is believed that at least ten personal injury actions
have been filed against Ford alleging death or serious personal
injury as a result of the defective door latch.
For more details, contact Fritz Jekel of Motley Rice LLC by
Mail: Mount Pleasant, SC by Phone: 1-800-275-8909 or visit their
Web site: http://www.motleyrice.comOR Neil Overholtz of
Aylstock, Witkin & Sasser PLC by Mail: Gulf Breeze, FL by Phone:
1-877-810-4808 or visit their Web site: http://www.aws-law.com
OR Phyllis Lile-King of Donaldson & Black P.A. by Mail:
Greensboro, NC by Phone: 1-800-531-9191 or visit their Web site:
http://www.donaldsonandblack.comOR David Strouss of Thornton &
Naumes LLP by Mail: Boston, MA: 1-800-431-4600 or visit their
Web site: http://www.tenlaw.comOR Timothy Davis of Heninger
Burge Vargo & Davis by Mail: Birmingham, AL by Phone:
1-205-933-2345 or visit their Web site: http://www.hbvdlaw.com
OR Paul S. Miller of Wills Barrister: Morin & Miller by Mail:
Ontario, Canada by Phone: 1-416-360-1194 visit their Web site:
http://www.willbarristers.comOR for more information regarding
the defect visit http://www.defectivedoor.com
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: American Parenta Launch $356M Suit Over Seroxat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following an inquiry by New York state attorney general Eliot
Spitzer over the antidepressant, Seroxat, American parents
initiated a class action lawsuit against Glaxosmithkline (GSK),
the biggest drugmaker in the UK, over its antidepressants and
the company's alleged withholding of information that showed the
products could make under-18s suicidal,
Filed in a Minnesota district court by Minnesota-based
solicitors Meshbesher & Spence, the suit alleges that GSK hid
the results of two clinical trials that showed the drug was no
more effective than a placebo in treating depression and that
the mixed results from a separate study were published in a
scientific journal and used to promote the drug. The suit
further alleges that only one of five trials of Seroxat on
children suggested the drug might be effective against
depression, while the rest suggested it might increase suicidal
thoughts.
Meshbesher & Spence is aiming to recruit parents to a class
action suit seeking damages of an estimated $356 million
(œ200m).
GSK denies any wrongdoing, and the news will come as a blow to
its investors. They had hoped the company would be able to draw
a line under the controversy after last month settling a similar
lawsuit with the New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer.
Seroxat, which is also known as Paxil, has attracted controversy
over its side effects. Banned in the UK for under-18s last year
and a regulatory panel is set to decide whether the US should
follow suit.
LONGS DRUG: CA Wage Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 12,2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the class actions
filed against Longs Drug Stores Corporation is set for October
12,2004 in the Superior Court of California.
On February 17, 2004 and March 23, 2004, two purported class
actions entitled "Darien Goddard, et al v. Longs Drug Stores
Corporation, et al." and "David Robotnick v. Longs Drug Stores
California, Inc." were filed in the Superior Court of
California, Alameda County and the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, respectively.
The lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs who are current or former
store managers or assistant managers on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated California store managers and assistant
store managers. The lawsuits alleged that the Company
improperly classified such employees as exempt under
California's wage and hour and unfair business practice laws and
sought damages, penalties, restitution, reclassification and
attorneys' fees and costs.
After an initial exchange of information and investigation, the
parties agreed to pursue alternative dispute resolution. The
cases were mediated before a neutral third party on June 7,
2004. As a result of the mediation, the parties reached a
settlement agreement whereby the Company would pay $11 million
to settle all claims and causes of action of the plaintiffs. On
July 20, 2004, the court preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement.
LORILLARD TOBACCO: OH Court Issues Notice of Interpleader Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio - Eastern Division issued a notice of interpleader in the
matter Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al., v. Chester, Willcox &
Saxbe, LLP, et al. on behalf of all persons or entities with any
claimed direct or indirect interest in any tobacco fee
arbitration awards made pursuant to the November 23, 1998 global
settlement agreement.
Plaintiffs Lorillard Tobacco Company, Philip Morris USA and R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company commenced the interplaeder action
regarding a stake of attroneys' fees.
For more details, contact Derek J. Meyer, Mcdermott Will &
Emery, LLP by Mail 227 West Monroe St., Chicago, IL 60606 or by
Phone: (312) 372-2000
MICHIGAN: Lansing City, Residents Ink Pact For Flood Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Lansing and 100 residents in the Groesbeck area
reached an undisclosed settlement over the city's liability for
the damage inflicted on homes in a May 2001 flood, the
Associated Press reports.
According to Detroit-area attorney Phillip Bozzo, who
represented the plaintiffs, the suit was filed in Ingham County
Circuit Court in June 2001, which contends that the city is
liable because the area's new separation system should not have
broken down as it apparently did. The city is "separating" its
combined sewer and storm water system to end sanitary sewer
overflows prompted by heavy rains.
Attorney Bozzo also states that members of the class action suit
have been compensated, he however refused to comment further
since of a gag order was placed on the settlement.
Plaintiff Alexis Gage, who lives on Weber Street, said she was
glad to put the case behind her. She wouldn't say how much money
she received, but has estimated her damage at $25,000 to
$30,000.
POST PROPERTIES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 30, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia will hold
a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement of the class
action filed against Post Properties, Inc. and certain of its
officers on behalf of all persons, entities and groups who are
Company shareholders and who were beneficial owners of the
Company's common stock on May 22, 2003.
The hearing will be held before Judge Bensonetta Lane on
September 30, 2004 at 12:00nn, in Courtroom 1-D of the Superior
Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, 136 Pryor St.,
Atlanta, GA 30303.
For more details, contact Michael I. Fister, Jr. of Holzer
Holzer & Cannon, LLC by Mail: 1117, Perimeter Center West Suite
E-107, Atlanta, GA 30338 OR Martin D. Chitwood of CHITWOOD &
HARLEY, LLP by Mail: 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street,
N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone: (404) 873-3900 or
(888) 873-3999 or 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888 by Fax:
(404) 876-4476 or by E-mail: lsa@classlaw.com OR M. Robert
Thornton, Esq. of King & Spalding, LLP by Mail: 191 Peachtree
St., Atlanta, GA 30303 OR John L. Latham of Alston & Bird, LLP
by Mail: 1201 West Peachtree St., Atlanta, GA 30309
REMEDIA LTD. Settles Israel Suits Over Deficient Baby Formula
-------------------------------------------------------------
Remedia Ltd. settled three class action lawsuits for about $1.6-
1.8 million (NIS 7-8 million) with customers who purchased
Remedia's Super Soya 1 baby formula last year, the Haaretz Daily
reports.
The plaintiffs claimed the company misled them by failing to
inform them that the formula lacked vitamin B1, which harmed
their babies. The suits does not cover the families whose babies
were seriously harmed by the formula but rather consumers who
suffered emotional damage, distress and concern, as well as
economic loss, due to purchasing the damaged formula.
The settlement was passed on to the State Prosecutor's Office,
on behalf of the Health Ministry, which is leading the class
actions, for approval before being presented in court.
Days after the Super Soya 1 baby formula fiasco broke in
November 2003, the three class action lawsuits totaling nearly
NIS 1.2 billion were submitted. Attorney Michael Bach filed the
first lawsuit, valued around NIS 1 billion. Two smaller lawsuits
of NIS 115 million and NIS 56 million followed soon thereafter.
The term of the settlement, consumers who can prove they
purchased the defective formula as well as suffered emotional
damages are entitled to receive refunds and compensation.
However, unclaimed funds will not be returned to Remedia, but
will be designated as damages for the general public and be
addressed in a manner yet to be determined.
Remedia's German parent company Humana, which produced the
defective formula, recently signed an agreement with Remedia to
assume responsibility for compensating most of the damages
stemming from the lack of vitamin B-1 in its soy formula.
Remedia estimated that the extent of damages caused to families
of the babies harmed in the affair to be $15.5-22 million (NIS
70-100 million).
SALOMON SMITH: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MD
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salomon Smith Barney Mutual Funds face a securities class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired or hold shares of several Salomon Smith
Barney mutual funds between January 1, 1999 and July 1, 2003,
inclusive.
The lawsuit was filed against certain Salomon Smith Barney
entities, certain Canary Capital entities, and John Does 1-100.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 206 of the Investment Advisors Act, Sections
34(b), 36(a) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act and several
common law causes of action.
Specifically, the Complaint charges Defendants with engaging in
an unlawful and deceitful course of conduct designed to
improperly financial advantage Defendants. The Defendants, in
clear contravention of their fiduciary responsibilities, and
disclosure obligations, failed to properly disclose that select
favored customers were improperly allowed to 'time' their mutual
fund trades. Such timing improperly allowed favored investors to
trade in and out of a mutual fund to exploit short-term moves
and inefficiencies in the manner in which mutual funds price
their shares. Defendants' improper acts caused damage to the
Funds themselves and persons who purchased shares of the funds
during the Class Period.
This matter is related to In re Mutual Fund Timing Litigation,
MDL-1586, now pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland before the Honorable J. Frederick Motz,
the Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, the Honorable Catherine C.
Blake and the Honorable Andre Davis. In re Mutual Fund Timing
Litigation is a consolidated and coordinated group of cases
brought against eighteen separate mutual fund families, all
involving allegations of 'late trading' and 'market timing' in
the mutual fund industry.
The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws and engaged in a course of business which
operated as a fraud and deceit on members of the class, as
defined above, in the following SSB Funds:
(1) Salomon Brothers All Cap Value Fund (Sym: SUBAX, SUBBX,
SUBZX)
(2) Salomon Brothers Balanced Fund (Sym: STRAX, STRBX,
STRCX)
(3) Salomon Brothers California Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
CCAIX, SCUBX, SCULX)
(4) Salomon Brothers Capital Fund (Sym: SCCAX, SPABX,
SACPX, SCCCX)
(5) Salomon Brothers High Yield Bond (Sym: SAHYX, SBHYX,
SHYOX, SHYCX)
(6) Salomon Brothers International Equity Fund (Sym: SAIEX,
SAIBX, SAICX)
(7) Salomon Brothers Investors Value Fund (Sym: SINAX,
SBINX, SAIFX, SINOX)
(8) Salomon Brothers Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SLCAX,
SALBX, SALCX)
(9) Salomon Brothers Mid Cap Fund (Sym: SMDAX, SMDBX,
SMDZX)
(10) Salomon Brothers National Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
CFNIX, SNABX, SNALX)
(11) Salomon Brothers New York Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
CFTNX, SNFBX, SNFLX)
(12) Salomon Brothers SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
SJRAX, SJRBX, SJRZX)
(13) Salomon Brothers SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym:
SOLAX, SOLBX, SOLZX)
(14) Salomon Brothers SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SVEAX,
SVEBX, SCEZX)
(15) Salomon Brothers SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: SSWAX,
SSWBX, SSWZX)
(16) Salomon Brothers Short/Intermediate U.S. Government
Fund (Sym: SUSAX, SUSBX, SUSCX)
(17) Salomon Brothers Small Cap Growth (Sym: SASMX, SBSMX,
SCSMX)
(18) Salomon Brothers Strategic Bond Fund (Sym: SSTAX,
SBSBX, SSTCX)
(19) Smith Barney Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym: SHRAX, SAGBX,
SAGCX)
(20) Smith Barney All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym: SPAAX,
SPBBX, SPBLX)
(21) Smith Barney Appreciation Fund (Sym: SHAPX, SAPBX,
SAPCX, SAPYX)
(22) Smith Barney Arizona Municipals Fund (Sym: SLAZX,
SAZBX, SAZLX)
(23) Smith Barney Balanced Portfolio (Sym: SBBAX, SCBBX,
SCBCX)
(24) Smith Barney California Municipals Fund (Sym: SHRCX,
SCABX, SCACX)
(25) Smith Barney Classic Values Fund (Sym: SCLAX, SCLBX,
SCLLX)
(26) Smith Barney Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SBCPX, SBCBX,
SBCLX)
(27) Smith Barney Diversified Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:
CFLGX, CLCBX, SMDLX)
(28) Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income Fund (Sym:
SDSAX, SLDSX, SDSIX)
(29) Smith Barney Dividend and Income Fund (Sym: SUTAX,
SLSUX, SBBLX)
(30) Smith Barney Financial Services Fund (Sym: SBFAX,
SBFBX, SFSLX)
(31) Smith Barney Florida Portfolio (Sym: SBFLX, FLABX,
SFLLX)
(32) Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund (Sym: SHFVX, SFVBX,
SFVCX)
(33) Smith Barney Georgia Portfolio (Sym: SBGAX, SBRBX,
SGALX)
(34) Smith Barney Global All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
SPGAX, SPGGX, SPGLX)
(35) Smith Barney Global Government Bond Portfolio (Sym:
SBGLX, SBGBX, SGGLX)
(36) Smith Barney Global Portfolio (Sym: CAGAX, CAGBX,
SGPLX)
(37) Smith Barney Government Securities Fund (Sym: SGVAX,
HGVSX, SGSLX)
(38) Smith Barney Group Spectrum Fund (Sym: SGSAX, SGSBX,
SFTLX)
(39) Smith Barney Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCGRX, SGRBX,
SCGCX)
(40) Smith Barney Hansberger Global Value Fund (Sym: SGLAX,
SGLBX, SGLCX)
(41) Smith Barney Health Sciences Fund (Sym: SBIAX, SBHBX,
SBHLX)
(42) Smith Barney High Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCHAX, SCHBX,
SCHCX)
(43) Smith Barney High Income Fund (Sym: SHIAX, SHIBX,
SHICX)
(44) Smith Barney Income Portfolio (Sym: SCAAX, SCIAX,
SCILX)
(45) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity CA Municipals Fund
(Sym: ITCAX, STDBX, SIMLX)
(46) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity NY Municipals Fund
(Sym: IMNYX, SNMBX, SINLX)
(47) Smith Barney International All Cap Growth Portfolio
(Sym: SBIEX, SBIBX, SBICX)
(48) Smith Barney International Large Cap Fund (Sym: CFIPX,
SILCX, SILLX)
(49) Smith Barney Investment Grade Bond Fund (Sym: SIGAX,
HBDIX, SBILX)
(50) Smith Barney Large Cap Core Fund (Sym: GROAX, GROBX,
SCPLX)
(51) Smith Barney Large Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
SPSAX, SPSBX, SPSLX)
(52) Smith Barney Large Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBCIX, SBCCX,
SBGCX)
(53) Smith Barney Large Capitalization Growth Fund (Sym:
SBLGX, SBLBX, SLCCX, SBLYX)
(54) Smith Barney Limited Term Portfolio (Sym: SBLTX, STMBX,
SMLLX)
(55) Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund (Sym: SHMGX,
MGVBX, SMGLX)
(56) Smith Barney Managed Municipals Fund (Sym: SHMMX,
SMMBX, SMMCX)
(57) Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund (Sym: SLMMX,
SMABX, SMALX)
(58) Smith Barney Mid Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBMAX, SBMDX,
SBMLX, SMBYX)
(59) Smith Barney Municipal High Income Fund (Sym: STXAX,
SXMT, SMHLX)
(60) Smith Barney National Portfolio (Sym: SBBNX, SBNBX,
SBNLX)
(61) Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund (Sym: SHNJX,
SNJBX, SNJLX)
(62) Smith Barney New York Portfolio (Sym: SBNYX, SMNBX,
SBYLX)
(63) Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund (Sym: SHORX, SORBX,
SORLX)
(64) Smith Barney Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym: SBPAX, SBPBX,
SPALX)
(64) Smith Barney S & P 500 Index Fund (Sym: SBSPX)
(65) Smith Barney SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
ARMZX, ARMBX, ARMGX)
(66) Smith Barney SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym: SOPAX,
SOPTX, SBPLX)
(67) Smith Barney SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SCRAX, SCVSX,
SMCLX, SCVYX)
(68) Smith Barney SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: GRIAX,
GRIBX, SGAIX)
(69) Smith Barney Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
SHDAX, SHDBX, SHDLX)
(70) Smith Barney Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund
(Sym: SBSTX, SHBBX, SSTLX)
(71) Smith Barney Small Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBDSX, SBDBX,
SBDLX)
(72) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SBSGX, SBYBX,
SBSLX)
(73) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym:
CFSGX, SMOBX, SGOLX)
(74) Smith Barney Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBVAX, SBVBX,
SBVLX)
(75) Smith Barney Social Awareness Fund (Sym: SSIAX, SESIX,
SESLX)
(76) Smith Barney Technology Fund (Sym: SBTAX, SBTBX, SBQLX)
(77) Smith Barney Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TRBAX, TRBBX,
SBTLX)
(78) Smith Barney U.S. Government Securities Fund (Sym:
SBCGX, SBUBX, SBULX)
The plaintiff firm in this litigation is Stull, Stull & Brody
(New York). They can be contacted by Mail: 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, by Phone: 310.209.2468, by Fax:
310.209.2087 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.
SARA LEE: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of Sara
Lee common stock between and including August 1, 2002 and April
24, 2003. The complaint also names as defendants C. Steven
McMillan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Lambertus M. de Kool, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer.
The complaint contains allegations that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
allegedly misstating or omitting material adverse facts
regarding the Company's business, operations and management and
the value of Sara Lee common stock, which allegedly enabled Sara
Lee to complete securities offerings, enabled the individual
defendants and other insiders to sell their personally-held Sara
Lee stock to the public, and caused the plaintiff to purchase
Sara Lee common stock at artificially inflated prices. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action certification,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of
costs and expenses, including counsel fees.
The consolidated suit is styled "In re Sara Lee Corp. Securities
Litigation." On January 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended
complaint contains similar allegations that the same defendants
allegedly misstated or omitted material adverse facts regarding
Sara Lee Corporation's business operations, management and
financial statements, and the value of Sara Lee's common stock,
which allegedly enabled Sara Lee to complete securities
offerings, enabled the individual defendants to increase their
bonus compensation and caused the purported class to purchase
Sara Lee common stock at artificially inflated prices. The
consolidated amended complaint, however, omitted the previous
allegations that the individual defendants or other insiders
sold their personally held Sara Lee stock to the public at
artificially inflated prices.
SUKUMO LIMITED: SEC Institutes Proceedings V. Michael Newman
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Michael S. Newman pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Division of
Enforcement alleges that on Dec. 12, 2003, Newman was enjoined
from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint in the underlying injunctive action alleged that
from in or about October 2002, until the filing of the
complaint, Newman through Sukumo Limited, conducted an unlawful
scheme to mislead and defraud more than one thousand overseas
investors, located primarily in the United Kingdom, in
connection with sales of stock in five United States microcap
issuers. It is further alleged that Newman directed the
activities of Sukumo raising more than $16.3 million from Jan.1,
2003 through Sept. 30, 2003.
The complaint also alleged that in selling those securities,
Newman and others made numerous misrepresentations to investors,
including that the sales commission Sukumo received was only 2%,
not the 70% commission Sukumo Limited actually received; the
shares investors purchased were free-trading shares not
restricted shares; and misrepresentations about the operations
and prospects of the companies they were marketing. Finally, the
complaint alleged that neither Newman nor Sukumo was registered
with the Commission as a broker or dealer at the time they were
selling the stock of the microcap issuers.
In the instant proceeding, a hearing will be scheduled before an
administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations
contained in the Order are true, to provide Newman an
opportunity to dispute these allegations, and to determine what
sanctions, if any, are appropriate with respect to Newman's
association with any broker or dealer. The Commission directed
that an administrative law judge should issue an initial
decision in this matter within 210 days from the date of service
of the Order Instituting Proceedings.
SYNOPSIS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsys, Inc. and certain of its officers face securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, charging them 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 Complaints allege that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
that renewals of up-front license bookings, which the
Company had touted as being strong, were not
materializing and were in fact becoming substantially
more averse to its customer base due to the large up-
front cash payments that the Company required;
(2) that the Company was not able to achieve substantial
growth and was not able to capture market share gains
through the technological advancements in the Company's
products, which defendants touted as a means for
achieving such an end;
(3) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
that demand for the Company's products would not
continue to be strong despite a conservative spending
environment; and
(4) that as a result of the above, the defendants' positive
statements about the Company were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.
On August 2, 2004, Synopsys announced preliminary results for
its third fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004. The Company
expected total revenues to be $279 million to $283 million,
compared to its previous target range of $300 million to $320
million. Then on August 18, 2004, Synopsys reported fiscal
third-quarter earnings that were slightly ahead of reduced
estimates, and it also warned that results for the current
period and fiscal year would fall far short of Wall Street's
expectations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Synopsys fell $6.63 per share, or 31.16 percent, to close at
$14.65 per share.
The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from December 3,2003 to August 18,2004. The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Green & Jigarjian LLP, Mail: 235 Pine Street, 15th
Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700,
Fax: 415.477.6710;
(2) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford,
CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-
mail: sn06106@AOL.com;
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
TECO ENERGY: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
TECO Energy, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of TECO Energy, Inc. (NYSE:TE)
publicly traded securities during the period between October 30,
2001 and February 4, 2003. The complaints charge the Company
and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaints allege that during the Class Period, defendants
concealed problems with several independent power plant
construction ventures for which TECO would ultimately be fully
responsible, including the Company's full exposure to the demise
of Enron Corporation and the vulnerability of the Company's
large cash dividend, causing TECO shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels, permitting defendants to sell over
$4.2 million of their own personally held stock and to raise
over $792 million selling equity securities in the capital
markets.
Then, through a series of events in late 2002 and early 2003,
the Company's complex financing scheme began to unravel as
several of these large projects and their liabilities were 'put'
to TECO, moving hundreds of millions of dollars of off-balance
sheet debt onto TECO's balance sheet, resulting in the Company
taking over a billion dollars in impairment charges and causing
the price of its common stock to plummet from a Class Period
high of over $28 per share on April 23, 2002 to below $13 per
share on February 4, 2003, erasing hundreds of millions of
dollars in market capitalization.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Brian Felgoise, Mail: 230 South Broad Street, Suite
404, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
215/735.5185;
(2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
Diego), Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA,
92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com;
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;
(4) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
(Florida), Mail: 197 S. Federal Highway, Suite 20, Boca
Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 561-750-
3364;
(5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY),
Mail: 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY,
11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173
TRADEWINDS INTERNATIONAL: SEC Obtains Asset Freeze Order in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained an order in
federal court in Chicago freezing the assets of Charles L.
Harris, of Winnetka, Illinois, Tradewinds International II, LP
and Tradewinds International, L.L.C. based on their fraudulent
offer and sale of securities in violation of federal securities
laws. The Court also ordered the Defendants to preserve all
documents. The Commission's complaint and Motions further
request orders of temporary, preliminary and permanent
injunction, disgorgement, civil penalties and other relief
against the Defendants. In coordination with the SEC, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission simultaneously obtained an
order of similar relief for commodities and futures fraud. The
Court has set a hearing for Tuesday, September 7 on the other
relief sought.
The complaint alleges the Defendants fraudulently raised at
least $10 million from at least 30 investors for Tradewinds II,
a private investment "hedge fund," since July 2001. The
complaint further alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements to investors regarding Tradewinds II's
past rates of return, net asset value and the use of investor
funds.
The complaint alleges that, in July 2004, Harris sent certain
investors e-mails and a DVD in which he confessed that he had
falsely reported a 12% annual profit to investors in Tradewinds
II for 2003, when in reality, Tradewinds II lost a significant
amount of money. Harris also claimed to have fled the country
and to have taken the claimed remaining investor assets
offshore.
The complaint also alleges that, while Harris told investors in
2003 that Tradewinds II's net asset value was between $18 and
$23 million, trading account statements reflect a total value of
at most $1.1 million during 2003, and approximately $30,000 at
the end of the year.
The complaint further alleges that, contrary to representations
to investors, Harris used investor funds for purposes other than
trading. The complaint alleges that, in 2003 and 2004, at least
$2.4 million of investor funds were never transferred to the
trading accounts, but were used instead for Harris' personal and
business expenses and to repay investors at artificially
inflated rates, while Tradewinds II secretly incurred losses.
The Court's Order finds that there is good cause to believe that
Defendants have violated and will continue to engage in fraud
in violation of Section17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder unless immediately restrained and enjoined. The
action is titled, SEC v. Charles L. Harris, Tradewinds
International, L.L.C. and Tradewinds International II, L.P.,
Civil Action No. 04 C 5725, N.D.Ill. (LR-18868).
TRINITY HOMES: Owners Dissatisfied, Says Publicity Killed Market
----------------------------------------------------------------
On the verge of settling their class action lawsuit against
Trinity Homes, which is owned by Atlanta-based Beazer Homes USA,
Inc. (NYSE: BZH), homeowners who claim poor construction helped
produce mold in their houses say they are trapped, since no one
will buy their homes, and their investments are too big to walk
away from, the Indianapolis Star reports.
According to Richard Felton, president of a neighborhood
association in the area that has Trinity-built homes, "By the
time they were put up for sale, the negative publicity (about
the mold) had killed the market."
Other residents contend their home values are also plummeting
due to Trinity's failure to maintain the vacant houses. The
grass was cut recently, but in some places the fine touches so
often a part of suburban life were missing, such as edging and
trimming.
However, Trinity contends that a "vocal minority" of residents
is exaggerating the situation. Trinity reiterates that it is
maintaining the vacant homes sufficiently and is confident they
will sell as remediation work now under way is completed, said
Michael Rosiello, a lawyer for Trinity. The attorney further
adds, "Trinity is doing a great deal. There will always be
people who are dissatisfied. Trinity is going the extra mile."
Filed in August 2003 after hundreds of homeowners' complaints
alleged that water seeped under some exterior brick veneers,
causing extensive damage and mold.
Once approved, the settlement would require Trinity Homes to pay
for the repairs and allow the law firm representing the owners
to hire an independent engineering company to oversee the work.
The settlement would also require Trinity to guarantee all
repairs for 2 years and if work extends beyond an agreed upon
completion date, homeowners would receive $60 per day until it's
done. Aside from the aforementioned prerequisites the settlement
also calls for the establishment of a dispute resolution panel
that would address any conflicts that develop between the
builder and the homeowners.
Those affected by the suit are scheduled to receive a 10-page
synopsis of the settlement document with a full copy of the
proposal available from Hamilton Superior Court No. 2 at a cost
of $80. Judge Bernard L. Pylitt of Hamilton Superior Court will
consider the fairness of the proposed settlement at an Oct. 18,
2004 hearing.
The 2,100 homeowners have until Sept. 27, 2004 to opt out of the
class-action suit and refuse to participate in the settlement.
They also can object to the settlement in writing by that
deadline but remain in the class action.
According to company officials, Beazer, which has denied any
wrongdoing in the suit, has set aside $24 million to address any
problems in relation to the settlement.
UNITED STATES: SEC Issues OIP V. Steven Bocchino, Sharon Harosh
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Steven Bocchino and Sharon Harosh. The Order
Instituting Proceedings (OIP) alleges that, during the relevant
period, Bocchino was employed as a registered representative of
Raike Financial Group and that both Bocchino and Harosh
participated in penny stock offerings. Harosh was also
associated with Goldman Lender Co. Holdings and Blackwell Co.,
both of which operated as unregistered broker-dealers.
According to the Order, on Dec. 8, 2002 and July 15, 2002,
respectively, Bocchino and Harosh were permanently enjoined by
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York from violating the broker-dealer registration and
antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint in the civil
injunctive action alleged that Bocchino and Harosh participated
in fraudulent offerings through several phony private
placements, including offers of stock of Goldman Lender Co.
Holdings, Traderz Associates Holding Inc., and Blackwell Co.
In May 2002, Harosh was convicted of criminal charges arising
out of the same conduct that gave rise to allegations against
him in the civil injunctive action. In particular, Harosh was
convicted, based on his guilty plea, of securities fraud and
conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, money
laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide Bocchino and Harosh an opportunity to dispute
these allegations, and to determine what remedial sanctions, if
any, are appropriate and in the public interest. The Commission
directed that the Administrative Law Judge issue an initial
decision no later than 210 days from the date of service of the
Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice.
WAL-MART STORES: Continues To Face Several FLSA Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face several lawsuits
containing class action allegations in which the plaintiffs have
brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
corresponding state statutes, or other laws.
The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former hourly
Associates who allege, among other things, that the Company
forced them to work "off the clock" and failed to provide work
breaks. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, or both.
Class certification has yet to be addressed in a majority of the
cases. Class certification has been denied or overturned in
North Carolina, Georgia, Texas (state court), Ohio, Louisiana,
Wisconsin, West Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Indiana, and Michigan. Some or all of the
requested classes have been certified in Minnesota, California,
Oregon, Texas (federal court), and Colorado.
Two putative class actions have been filed in California
challenging the methodology of payments made under various
Associate incentive bonus plans, and a third putative class
action in California asserts that the Company has omitted to
include bonus payments in calculating Associates' regular rate
of pay for purposes of determining overtime.
The Company is currently a defendant in three putative class
actions brought on behalf of assistant store managers who
challenge their exempt status under the FLSA, two of which are
pending in federal court in Michigan, and one of which is
pending in federal court in New Mexico. A similar putative
class action challenging the exempt status of Wal-Mart assistant
store managers under California law has been filed in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. No determination has been made
as to class certification in any of these cases.
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Court To Review CA Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to
review the class certification granted to a lawsuit filed
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.," in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
The case was brought on behalf of all past and present female
employees in all of the Company's retail stores and wholesale
clubs in the United States. The complaint alleges that the
Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating
against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments.
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages including front pay and back pay, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.
Following a hearing on class certification on September 24,
2003, on June 21, 2004, the District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The class, certified by the District Court
for purposes of liability, injunctive and declaratory relief,
punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to certain exceptions,
includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail
store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or may
be subjected to the pay and management track promotions policies
and practices challenged by the plaintiffs. The class as
certified currently includes approximately 1.6 million present
and former female associates.
WAL-MART STORES: Reaches Settlement For TX COLI Policies Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores reached a settlement for three class actions
filed against it in Texas state court, relating to its
Corporate-Owned Life Insurance (COLI) policies.
In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that
Wal-Mart and the other defendants who purchased COLI policies
lacked an insurable interest in the lives of the employees who
were insured under the policies, and seek to recover the
proceeds of the policies under theories of unjust enrichment and
constructive trust. In some of the suits, the plaintiffs assert
other causes of action, and seek punitive damages.
In January 2004, the parties to the first-filed Texas lawsuit
signed a settlement agreement, which received preliminary
approval from the court on July 30, 2004. If finally approved
by the court, the settlement will include all Texas COLI
claimants who do not opt out of the settlement class. The
amount to be paid by Wal-Mart under the contemplated settlement
will not have a material impact on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.
The Company faces a similar suit in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma
court has deferred ruling on plaintiffs' request to add 11
additional states to the litigation, pending a ruling on the
Company's motion for summary judgment.
WAL-MART STORES: GA Court Refuses To Review Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division refused Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s motion
to reconsider the class certification granted to the lawsuit
filed against the Company, styled "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc."
The class was certified on August 23, 2002. The class is
composed of female Wal-Mart Associates who were participants in
the Associates Health and Welfare Plan at any time from March 8,
2001, to the present and who were using prescription
contraceptives. The class seeks amendment of the Plan to
include coverage for prescription contraceptives, back pay for
all members in the form of reimbursement of the cost of
prescription contraceptives, pre-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees.
The complaint alleges that the Company's Health Plan violates
Title VII's prohibition against gender discrimination in that
the Health Plan's Reproductive Systems provision does not
provide coverage for prescription contraceptives.
WAL-MART STORES: Continues To Face EEOC's Sex Bias Lawsuit in KY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
styled "EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."
The suit is brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) on behalf of Janice Smith and all other
females who made application or transfer requests at the London,
Kentucky, Distribution Center from 1995 to the present, and who
were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for
which they applied. The class seeks back pay for those females
not selected for hire or transfer during the relevant time
period. The class also seeks injunctive and prospective
affirmative relief.
The complaint alleges that the Company based hiring decisions on
gender in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as
amended. The EEOC can maintain this action as a class without
certification.
WET SEAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wet Seal, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between January 8, 2004 and August 19, 2004 inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaints charge Wet Seal, and certain of its officers and
directors 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 Complaints allege that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company's strategic initiatives plan was not
strengthening the Company's corporate standing. In
fact, the Company's strategic initiatives plan was a
complete and total disaster that was leading the
Company into financial ruin;
(2) that demand for the Company's products was based on
deep-discounting and that without deep-discounting its
products, demand for such was at an all time low; and
(3) that as a result of the above, the Company's
projections, outlooks, and positive statements, were
lacking in any reasonable basis when made.
Under the cover of these misleading statements, Defendants Gross
and Teitelbaum sold almost $15 million of Wet Seal stock under
their control to deceived and mislead investors.
On August 19, 2004, after the market closed, Wet Seal shocked
the market by reporting a net loss from continuing operations of
$3.20 per share for the second quarter ended July 31, 2004.
Following this post-market announcement, shares of Wet Seal shed
$1.25 per share, or 59.52 percent, to close at $0.85 per share
on unusually high trading volume on August 20, 2004.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton),
Mail: The Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900,
Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax:
561.367.8400, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com;
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles),
Mail: 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-
mail: info@milbergweiss.com;
(iii) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), Mail:
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY,
10119, Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com
WET SEAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Extends Class Period in CA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP Extends the class
period for the class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all securities purchasers of The Wet Seal, Inc. (Nasdaq:
WTSLA) ("Wet Seal" or the "Company"). The new class period is
January 9, 2003 through August 19, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges Wet Seal, Peter D. Whitford, Joseph E.
Deckop, and Irving Teitelbaum 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 the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company's strategic initiatives plan was not
strengthening the Company's corporate standing. In
fact, the Company's strategic initiatives plan was a
complete and total disaster that was leading the
Company into financial ruin;
(2) that demand for the Company's products was based on
deep-discounting and that without deep-discounting its
products, demand for such was at an all time low; and
(3) that as a result of the above, the Company's
projections, outlooks, and positive statements, were
lacking in any reasonable basis when made.
On August 19, 2004, Wet Seal, after the market closed, shocked
the market by reporting that net loss from continuing operations
of $3.20 per share for the second quarter ended July 31, 2004.
Following this post-market announcement, shares of Wet Seal shed
$1.25 per share, or 59.52 percent, to close at $0.85 per share
on unusually high trading volume on August 20, 2004.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Asks OR Court To Dismiss Alder Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. asked the United States District Court in Oregon
to dismiss the civil antitrust lawsuit filed against it,
alleging that, as a result of the company's alleged
monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific
Northwest, the company monopolized the market for finished alder
lumber in the Pacific Northwest and, as a consequence, has been
able to charge monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.
The lawsuit requests class certification primarily for
businesses that sold finished alder products manufactured with
finished alder lumber produced by the company from 2000 to the
present. The lawsuit claims that the purported class may have
realized over $100 million in direct damages, and seeks direct
and treble damages under the antitrust laws in an amount to be
determined at trial. The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief
to ensure the availability of alder sawlogs for sawmills
competing with the company, which could include termination of
certain of the company's contracts to purchase alder logs or the
company's control over certain timberlands.
The court has issued an order to show cause why the case should
not be dismissed and has stayed discovery. The company has also
filed a motion to dismiss, scheduled for hearing August 23,
2004.
ZIX CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Zix Corporation (ZixCorpr), (Nasdaq: ZIXI) faces a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, which seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the ZixCorp common stock
during the period from October 30, 2003 to May 4, 2004. The
suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's officers
and directors.
The suit, which has not yet been served, alleges that defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or omissions in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and prospects. The defendants
concealed from the investing public the following facts during
the Class Period:
(1) the Company was experiencing sluggish doctor adoption
to e-prescribing;
(2) the Company's claim that it would achieve 1,000
deployed active doctors by the end of Q4 2003 was false
and misleading because physicians would be required to
reconfigure their patient data, obtain wireless
coverage and implement a wireless LAN, which were
severely undercutting physician acceptance and
deployment;
(3) the Company's claim it had 4,000 deployments already on
order was false because, at the time of claim, the
physicians' sites had not even been surveyed to
evaluate wireless/LAN needs, all of which would
drastically impact not only the timing of these
"ordered" deployments but also whether these so-called
ordered deployments would ever be truthfully ordered
and deployed; and
(4) new offerings from its Elron acquisition were delayed
as a result of integration problems.
As a result of the defendants' false statements, Zix's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $17.33 on April 12, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors sold more than $4.6 million worth of
their own shares and raised an additional $10 million through
the conversion of warrants.
On May 4, 2004, the Company announced its results for Q1 2004,
including larger loss than market expectations. On this news,
the Company's shares were sent into a freefall, tumbling 50% in
the following trading days to below $7 per share.
ZixCorp believes that the allegations are without merit.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
September 20-21, 2004
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 20-21, 2004
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 21, 2004
ADVANCED E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 21, 2004
PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin City Center, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 23, 2004
MOLD LITIGATION & MANAGEMENT UPDATE
BridgeportCE
Millennium Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: (818) 505-1490; Fax: (818) 505-1497
September 27-28, 2004
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 27-28, 2004
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
September 29-30, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
October 4-5, 2004
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 7-8, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, West Palm Beach
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 15, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New York, NY
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
October 21, 2004
PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 25-26, 2004
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 26, 2004
ADVANCED E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 15, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New Orleans
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
November 1-2, 2004
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2004: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
PLI New York Center -- New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 212-824-5865; sgreenblatt@pli.edu
November 4-5, 2004
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES,
TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 8, 2004
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 8, 2004
ZYPREXA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
SULFATE ATTACK ON CONCRETE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
ARTHRITIS DRUG LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 11-12, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
December 2-3, 2004
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
December 6-7, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 6-7, 2004
MTBE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 13-14, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 15-16, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
New Orleans
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago Tuition $
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
AVOIDING MALPRACTICE CLAIMS: THINGS TO DO (AND NOT DO)
ON THE FIRST DAY YOU REPRESENT A CLIENT
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
KVH INDUSTRIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of KVH Industries, Inc.
(NASDAQ: KVHI) publicly traded securities during the period
between January 6, 2004 and July 2, 2004 (the "Class Period").
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding KVH's increasing financial results and the strong
demand for its newly developed TracVision A5 and G8 satellite TV
systems (the "TracVision systems"). As alleged in the complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose, among other things:
(1) that defendants had "stuffed" the retail channels with
overpriced TracVision systems;
(2) that the Company's revenues were not growing by
millions of dollars per quarter and the purported
growth trends in the Company's revenues could not be
sustained; and
(3) that KVH had not realized any material cost reduction
in the manufacture of its TracVision systems and would
be forced to write-down its inventory of manufactured
goods by millions of dollars.
The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose
these adverse facts in order to complete a public offering of
KVH common stock, raising more than $51.5 million in much needed
capital.
On or about July 6, 2004, before the market opened for trading,
KVH stunned the investing public by announcing that it was
slashing the retail price of its TracVision systems by more than
34% and taking a multi-million dollar write down of vendor
purchase commitments and on-hand inventories to reflect the true
value of KVH's TracVision systems sales. In pre-opening market
trading, KVH common stock declined more than 19%, to open at
$9.51 per share on July 6, 2004, a 49% decline from the public
offering price just 4 months prior.
For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of the law
offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
NETOPIA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (Case No. 04-3364RMW,
before Judge Ronald M. Whyte) on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Netopia, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NTPA) ("Netopia") between November 6, 2003 and July 6,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Netopia and certain of its officers
and directors knowingly or recklessly made a series of material
misrepresentations concerning Netopia's earnings, product costs,
and sales to its largest customer. Moreover, Defendants and
employees of Netopia profited handsomely from those
misrepresentations, selling over $9 million of Netopia stock
during the Class Period. Netopia is a company that, among other
things, develops, markets and supports broadband and wireless
(Wi-Fi) products and services, as well as produces server
software products that enable remote support and centralized
management of installed broadband gateways.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Justin S. Kudler
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges VA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of PRIMUS Telecommunications Group, Inc.
("PRIMUS") (NASDAQ:PRTL) publicly traded securities during the
period between November 11, 2003 and July 29, 2004 (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges PRIMUS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. PRIMUS is a global facilities-based telecommunications
services provider offering an integrated portfolio of
international and domestic voice, Internet, voice-over-Internet
protocol, data and hosting services to business and residential
retail customers and other carriers located primarily in the
United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, PRIMUS's
shares traded at inflated levels due to materially false and
misleading statements issued by defendants to the investing
public regarding the Company's business and prospects. The true
facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:
(1) the Company was experiencing massive pricing pressures
on its standalone international long distance business
and the Company's minutes of use were not growing, but
actually declining;
(2) contrary to its projections, the Company, on a
consolidated basis, would actually lose money for the
second half of 2004 and even the Company's second
quarter projections were grossly overstated;
(3) the Company's business model was incredibly weak and,
as a result, combined with the Company's second quarter
2004 revelations and the fact that the Company was
already highly leveraged ($580 million), its ability to
raise the necessary monies for capital expenditures to
achieve even the newly projected results was severely
hampered if not taken away altogether;
(4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Company was
drowning in competition; and
(5) as a result, the value of the Company as an enterprise
was actually less than the Company's debt.
As a result of these false statements, PRIMUS's shares traded at
inflated prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high
as $13.15 on January 26, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors completed a $240 million note offering.
On July 29, 2004, after the market closed, PRIMUS issued a press
release announcing its second quarter results, posting a loss of
$14.9 million, or $0.17 per share, which reversed the year-ago
profit of $18.7 million, or $0.21 per share. The numbers fell
far short of Wall Street's expectations. Defendants had forecast
earnings of $.10 per share on revenue of $348 million. The
Company blamed the industry-wide price war for its troubles and
said it would push to roll out more integrated services in an
effort to defend its turf. PRIMUS shares dropped $1.70 to $1.52
per share -- a 50% drop in a single day.
For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Phone:
800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/primus/
US UNWIRED: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Louisiana on behalf of all securities purchasers of
US Unwired, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: UNWR) ("US Unwired" or the
"Company") from May 23, 2000 through August 13, 2002, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The complaint charges US Unwired, William L. Henning Jr., Robert
W. Piper, and Jerry E. Vaughn with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. US Unwired holds direct or indirect
ownership interests in five Sprint PCS affiliates: Louisiana
Unwired, Texas Unwired, Georgia PCS, IWO Holdings and Gulf Coast
Wireless. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) the Company was increasing its subscriber base by
signing up high-credit-risk customers;
(2) that accounting changes implemented by the Company were
done in order to conceal the Company's declining
revenues;
(3) that the Company had been experiencing high involuntary
disconnections related to its high-credit- risk
customers;
(4) that the Company experienced lower subscription growth
as a result of its policy that required credit-
challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon
the initiation of services; and
(5) that the Company was engaged in a dispute with Sprint
PCS regarding its business relationship with Sprint PCS
and Sprint PCS was pressuring the Company.
On August 13, 2002, US Unwired announced in a press release the
financial results for the second quarter period ended June 30,
2002. The Company revealed that it experienced lower
subscription growth as a result of its policy that required
credit-challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon the
initiation of services. In response to this string of negative
announcements, on August 13, 2002, the price of US Unwired
common stock closed at $.90 per share, down 94.8% from its Class
Period high of $17.25 per share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com
WET SEAL: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all securities purchasers of
The Wet Seal, Inc. (Nasdaq: WTSLA) from January 7, 2004 through
August 19, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Wet Seal, Peter D. Whitford, Joseph E.
Deckop, and Irving Teitelbaum 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 the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company's strategic initiatives plan was not
strengthening the Company's corporate standing. In
fact, the Company's strategic initiatives plan was a
complete and total disaster that was leading the
Company into financial ruin;
(2) that demand for the Company's products was based on
deep-discounting and that without deep-discounting its
products, demand for such was at an all time low; and
(3) that as a result of the above, the Company's
projections, outlooks, and positive statements, were
lacking in any reasonable basis when made.
On August 19, 2004, Wet Seal, after the market closed, shocked
the market by reporting that net loss from continuing operations
of $3.20 per share for the second quarter ended July 31, 2004.
Following this post-market announcement, shares of Wet Seal shed
$1.25 per share, or 59.52 percent, to close at $0.85 per share
on unusually high trading volume on August 20, 2004.
For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-
Mail: mhenzel182@aol.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. Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, 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 * * *