/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/041116.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 16, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 227
Headlines
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Investors File Suit V. Firm's Suppliers
AIK COMP: Gallatin Health Lodges KY Suit Over Financial Problems
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 6976 CR-Vs Because Of Air Bag Defects
ARIZONA: Attorney General Secures TRO V. Fraudulent High School
ARIZONA: Hispanics File Suit Against Maricopa Community College
AVICI SYSTEMS: Submits Formal Settlement Documents To NY Court
BLOOMINGDALE'S: Women Lodge Suit Over Misleading Shoe Sale Flyer
DEY INC.: Reaches Drug-Pricing Lawsuit Settlement With AR A.G.
DIOMED HOLDINGS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
DRUGSTORE.COM: Submits Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
DRUGSTORE.COM: WA Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
FREIGHTLINER LLC: Recalls 45 UNIMOG U500s Due To Injury Hazard
HOMESTORE INC.: Approval of Securities Suit Settlement Appealed
HOMESTORE INC.: Dismissal of CA Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
HOMESTORE INC.: CA Account Executives Launch Overtime Wage Suit
HOMESTORE INC.: Named As Defendant in AOL Time Warner Fraud Suit
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Accepts NY Securities Suit Settlement
INTERNATIONAL TRADING: Recalls Turkey Meat For Underprocessing
KINGSWAY TRADING: Recalls Herbal Supplements Due To Health Risks
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Novell Inc. Lodges Suit Over WordPerfect
MILLER BREWING: Lodges Breach Of Contract Suit V. Insurers in WI
MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls 10,333 Fuso Trucks Due To Crash Hazard
PEOPLESOFT INC.: Shareholders Object To Oracle Suit Settlement
SALTON INC.: Settlement To Be Allocated To Food Bank of Alaska
SOUTH CAROLINA: Minority Lodges Race Bias Lawsuit V. Department
UNIVERSAL LIFE: NY Attorney General Launches Insurance Fees Suit
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in DE
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CT Securities Lawsuit
XEROX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Pomona CA Water Suits
XEROX CORPORATION: CT Court Yet To Hear Motion To Dismiss Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Asks CT Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
XEROX CORPORATION: NY Court Mulls Apartheid Lawsuit Dismissal
New Securities Fraud Cases
AON CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in N.D. IL
CHIRON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in PA
FANNIE MAE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DC
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
TOMMY HILFIGER: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CT
UNITED RENTALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CT
UNITED RENTALS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
*********
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Investors File Suit V. Firm's Suppliers
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of investors of Adelphia Communications Corporation
filed a lawsuit against two of the Company's suppliers and a
pair of finance executives at one of them after losing close to
$50 million after the Company filed for bankruptcy, the Fulton
County Daily Report reports.
The suit, filed on October 25 against the set-top, cable-box
manufacturers Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola, alleges that the
suppliers engaged in a "conspiracy" to inflate Adelphia's
earnings artificially. It named two finance executives from
Scientific-Atlanta, Wallace Haislip, senior vice president of
finance and operations, and Julian Eidson, CFO and treasurer.
According to Rickman Brown of Dietrick, Evans, Scholz &
Williams, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, "our clients
have suffered significant losses as a result of conduct
documented in sworn testimony in the Adelphia trial, and we look
forward to helping them recover their losses."
The suit, which is seeking class action status, specifically
charges that Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola overcharged
Adelphia for set-top boxes and "washed" the overcharges by
paying Adelphia for fictional "marketing support" services. The
revenues were then used by Adelphia to boost earnings by about
$91 million during 2000 and 2001 by immediately realizing the
"marketing support" payments as earnings while amortizing the
inflated cost of the set-top boxes over several years.
Citing corporate policy, Scientific-Atlanta spokeswoman Sara
Stutzenstein said she would not comment on the allegations,
according to the newspaper. Furthermore, the Fulton County Daily
reports that a different group of Adelphia investors brought a
similar suit against the same defendants last July, according to
the newspaper's account, which is also seeking class action
status.
AIK COMP: Gallatin Health Lodges KY Suit Over Financial Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gallatin Health Care, a north Kentucky health care Company filed
a class-action suit in Gallatin circuit Court against the
Associated Industries of Kentucky claiming that it should be
held liable for the financial problems of AIK Comp, the troubled
workers' compensation fund, the Associated Press reports.
Associated Industries of Kentucky is an alliance of more than
3,000 companies that promotes business interests and is the
sponsoring organization behind AIK Comp, which is under state
control and is assessing more than 3,700 current and former
members more than $58 million to overcome projected deficits.
Gallatin, an AIK Comp member that was assessed $76,700, filed
the suit on behalf of all employers who have received
assessments. According to Ron Parry of Parry, Deering, Futscher
& Sparks of Covington, one of several law firms representing
Gallatin Health Care, the suit is not designed to try to stop
the assessments.
Other defendants named in the suit were AIK Comp's six trustees
and the Ernst & Young accounting firm, which audited AIK Comp's
financial statements. AIK Comp itself is not named as a
defendant. Brien Shea, a spokesman for Associated Industries,
said the organization had not seen the lawsuit and would not
comment.
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 6976 CR-Vs Because Of Air Bag Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co. in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation is voluntarily recalling about 6976 Year 2005
Honda CR-Vs due to possible air bag defects.
According to the ODI on certain passenger vehicles, the occupant
position detection system's side sensor is not installed in the
correct position and may fail to shut off the passenger's side
impact airbag if the occupant is out-of-position. In the event
of a crash, such an out-of-position occupant maybe injured by a
deploying side airbag.
As a remedy, dealers will replace the passenger's seat-back
which includes the occupant position detection system on sensor.
The recall is expected to begin on November 17, 2004.
For more details, contact Honda by Phone: 1-800-999-1009 or
NHTSA by Phone: 1-888-327-4236.
ARIZONA: Attorney General Secures TRO V. Fraudulent High School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard's office secured a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Daniel Gossai, the
owner of California Alternative High School, which claims to
provide "a high school diploma" to participants in a 10-week
program.
Mr. Gossai allegedly targets primarily non-English speakers with
little formal education. He allegedly charged participants for
a 10-week course with class materials comprised of a 54-page
workbook with many typographical and factual errors throughout
the manual.
The Attorney General alleges that class instructors read the
questions or statements from the workbook and gave the answers
to students. The educational value of the program is
negligible, and it does not meet the requirements for an Arizona
High School diploma. At the end of the program, Mr. Gossai also
would rent caps and gowns to the participants and stage a
graduation ceremony.
"Unfortunately, students who pay tuition and attend classes at
California Alternative High School receive `degrees' that are
worthless," AG Goddard said. "Gossai preyed on their pride and
lack of knowledge of Arizona's educational process. These
`degrees' cannot help with jobs or getting into other
educational programs."
Arizona joins California, Nevada, Iowa and Nebraska in moving
against Gossai. The TRO issued by the Maricopa County Superior
Court requires that Gossai cease all operations in Arizona
including operations of a new school called "America Alternative
High School," which Gossai allegedly recently opened.
For more details, contact the Phoenix Office of the Attorney
General Consumer Information and Complaints by Mail: 1275 W.
Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 by Phone: (602) 542-
5763. Residents outside Phoenix can contact the Tucson Office
of the Attorney General, Consumer Information and Complaints by
Mail: 400 W. Congress - South Building, Suite 315,
Tucson, Arizona 85701-1367 or by Phone: (520) 628-6504 or 1-800-
352-8431.
ARIZONA: Hispanics File Suit Against Maricopa Community College
---------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles-based Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, a Latino civil rights group initiated a federal lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in Phoenix against the Maricopa Community
Colleges over racially charged messages a professor has posted
on the campus computer system, the Arizona Republic reports.
The class action suit, filed on behalf of several Latino faculty
members at Glendale Community College, accuses officials of
doing nothing to stop Walter Kehowski from using the computer to
send discriminatory messages and to create a Web site with links
to White supremacist sites. The lawsuit claims that, "the e-
mails transmitted by Mr. Kehowski have, among other things,
denounced 'multiculturalism' and 'd-d-d-diversity' and
encouraged recipients to acknowledge and celebrate the
superiority of Western Civilization. These e-mails also
contained excerpts from and links to articles denigrating
Latinos, immigrants and many other minority groups, with titles
such as 'California's Being Invaded, Too -- By Hispanic
Holidays.' "
However, college administrators say Mr. Kehowski has not
violated any school rules and they say his right to use the
computer is protected. According to Chris Chesrown, spokeswoman
for the community colleges, "the same freedoms that allow
faculty members to voice opposition to this and allow students
to have protests are the same laws that protect faculty members
and allow (Kehowski) to have his opinion. The college
environment is indeed supposed to be a marketplace of ideas.
Some of those ideas will not be ideas that everyone adheres to."
Members of the Los Angeles-based Mexican-American Legal Defense
and Educational Fund though disagree with the community
college's statement and argue that the professor's e-mails and
Web site have negatively affected nearly 280,000 students and
faculty members at the district's 10 campuses. "Plaintiffs,
students and other employees complained directly to (college)
officials," according to the suit, which describes Mr.
Kehowski's computer transmissions as racially disparaging,
abusive, threatening and hostile.
Victor Viramontes, Mexican-American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund lawyer, also stated "employers have a
responsibility to keep employees free of a hostile work
environment." Aside from asking the Court to force the school to
take action, Mr. Viramontes is also seeking unspecified monetary
damages.
AVICI SYSTEMS: Submits Formal Settlement Documents To NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avici Systems, Inc. submitted formal settlement documents
relating to the consolidated securities class action filed
against it to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The suit also names as defendants one or
more of the Company's underwriters in its initial public
offering, and certain officers and directors of the Company.
Several suits alleging violations of the federal securities laws
were initially filed and docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. These suits were later
consolidated in a complaint captioned "In re Avici Systems, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (21 MC 92, 01 Civ.
3363 (SAS))."
The Complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges
violations of the federal securities laws, including among other
things, that the underwriters of Avici's initial public offering
(IPO) improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of Avici's stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of receiving shares in Avici's IPO. The Complaint
further claims that these supposed practices of the underwriters
should have been disclosed in Avici's IPO prospectus and
registration statement.
In addition to the Complaint against Avici, various other
plaintiffs have filed other substantially similar class action
cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies
and their IPO underwriters in New York City, which along with
the case against Avici have all been transferred to a single
federal district judge for purposes of case management.
On July 15, 2002, Avici, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of
the issuer defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed
without prejudice all claims against the individual current and
former officers and directors who were named as defendants in
the Company's litigation, and they are no longer parties to the
lawsuit.
On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants. In that ruling,
the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. As
to the claims brought against Avici under the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of
these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs
an opportunity to re-plead these claims against Avici.
As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of
the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud
be pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims
as to Avici and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well. The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.
In June 2003, Avici elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against Avici and against any of the other issuer
defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement,
together with the current or former officers and directors of
participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.
The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing. The proposed
settlement provides that the class members in the class action
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling less
than $1 billion are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, the class members will be entitled to
recover the difference between $1 billion and the aggregate
amount of those recoveries from the participating issuer
defendants. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are
obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants,
however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the
proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, Avici and
any other participating issuer defendants will be required to
assign to the class members certain claims that they may have
against the underwriters of their IPOs.
The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.
Formal settlement documents, including a stipulation of
settlement and related documents, have now been filed with the
Court. The plaintiffs in the case against Avici, along with the
plaintiffs in the other related cases in which issuer defendants
have agreed to the proposed settlement, have requested
preliminary approval by the Court of the proposed settlement,
including the form of the notice of the proposed settlement that
will be sent to members of the proposed classes in each settling
case. Certain underwriters who were named as defendants in the
settling cases, and who are not parties to the proposed
settlement, have filed an opposition to preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement of those cases. If preliminary Court
approval is obtained, notice of the proposed settlement will be
sent to the class members, and a motion will then be made for
final Court approval of the proposed settlement.
In mid-September, the Court asked lead counsel for the
plaintiffs and for the issuer defendants for additional
information concerning the adequacy of the settlement amount and
how plaintiffs intend to allocate any consideration paid under
the settlement among the more than 300 separate class actions
that are included in the settlement. Counsel for the plaintiffs
and for the issuer defendants are in the process of providing
the Court the information it has requested.
Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned on,
among other things, receipt of both preliminary and final Court
approval. If the Court preliminarily approves the proposed
settlement, it will direct that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and mailed to
all proposed class members and schedule a fairness hearing, at
which objections the proposed settlement will be heard.
Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final
approval to the proposed settlement.
The suit is styled "In Re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," docket number 01 Civ. 3363
(Sas)(Csh), filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, related to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS).
For more information, visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/AVCI01/20020508_r01c_013363.
pdf. The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail:
10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016,
Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,
(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) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor,
New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com,
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com,
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
BLOOMINGDALE'S: Women Lodge Suit Over Misleading Shoe Sale Flyer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. Lorraine Koppell, a lawyer and the wife of G. Oliver
Koppell, a city councilman and a lawyer himself is part of a
class-action lawsuit filed in Manhattan Civil Court against
Bloomingdale's over a misleading shoe sale flyer, the New York
Times reports.
Filed by Anita Morganstern, a neighbor of Mrs. Koppell, who went
to the same Bloomingdale's sale, the suit claims that the store
misled shoppers in a sale flyer last month that offered 35
percent to 40 percent off shoes in its "enormous" fall
collection, when in fact, only a small portion of the shoe
collection was sale-priced.
According to Mr. Koppell, who is representing the plaintiffs in
the suit with his wife, the shoe-sale skirmish began on October
29, when Mrs. Koppell went after work to Bloomingdale's in White
Plains, she and Ms. Morganstern had received the flyer in the
mail. However after going to the sale, Mr. Koppell stated that
the women quickly realized that it was "a fraudulent scheme"
involving "misleading, deceptive and unfair statements and
omissions."
The suit argues that the simplest and cheapest solution would be
for Bloomingdale's to reopen the sale. The Court originally gave
Bloomingdale's until last week to file its response to the suit,
but the deadline has been extended another week, according Mr.
Koppell. He further states that the store's lawyers have been in
talks with him, trying to come up with a solution.
DEY INC.: Reaches Drug-Pricing Lawsuit Settlement With AR A.G.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dey, Inc., of California, has paid the State of Arkansas
$600,000 to settle a drug-pricing lawsuit filed in January,
Arkansas, Attorney General Mike Beebe announced in a statement.
The lawsuit continues against three other companies: Warrick
Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Schering Corporation and Schering-
Plough Corporation, all New Jersey companies. AG Beebe sued all
four defendants for violating Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and for fraud.
Prescription-drug prices charged to Medicaid programs are based
on the average wholesale price (AWP) of drugs as reported by
their manufacturers. The defendants in this case fraudulently
inflated those reported numbers, which, in turn, increased the
amount of money Medicaid reimbursed health-care providers for
those drugs. This meant that the taxpayer-funded health program
paid higher prices for these drugs than they should have, and
individual consumers paid higher out-of-pocket co-payments.
In the settlement agreement, Dey admitted no wrongdoing, but
agreed to pay Arkansas $600,000. Of that money, $300,000 will
go back into state Medicaid programs, which means it could be
worth as much as $1,200,000 when combined with 3-to-1 federal
matching funds. The remaining settlement money will be used for
consumer education and enforcement initiatives, and for Arkansas
consumer-health programs.
"This settlement will help us protect more Arkansans in the
future," Beebe said. "We'll also be able to use money from this
case to go after other companies that try to defraud our
consumers. It's a cycle that can benefit everyone in the state
without placing an additional burden on taxpayers."
Fifteen states have filed average-wholesale-pricing lawsuits
against drug manufacturers. Arkansas is only the third state to
successfully resolve such a lawsuit.
For questions, contact the Attorney General's Office at 200
Catlett- Prien Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock,
AR 72201. The office can be reached by calling (501) 682-2341 or
1-(800) 482-8982 or by visiting our Web site at
www.arkansasg.gov. Spanish-speaking consumers can also call
(501) 683-3130. TDD service is available for the hearing-
impaired 682-6073.
DIOMED HOLDINGS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diomed Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and its former
chairman, styled "Kent Garvey vs. James Arkoosh, et. al., Civil
Action No.: 04-10438-RGS."
The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs
consisting of persons who acquired the Company's common stock
from February 1, 2002 through and including March 21, 2002. The
Company is named only in the count alleging violation of Section
10(b).
On September 3, 2004, the Plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint. On October 21, 2004, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint on the
ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
The suit is styled "Kent Garvey, et al. v. James Arkoosh, et
al.," pending in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts, under the docket number 04-CV-10438-RGS, under
Judge Richard G. Stearns. The plaintiff firm in this litigation
is The Law Office of Scott P. Lopez, Mail: 24 School Street -
8th Floor, Boston, MA, 02108, Phone: 617.742.5700, Fax:
617.742.5715, E-mail: Lopez@lopezlaw.com.
DRUGSTORE.COM: Submits Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drugstore.com, Inc. submitted the settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against
drugstore.com, certain of its present and former officers and
the underwriters, alleging violations of federal securities
laws, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
On and after July 6, 2001, eight stockholder class action
lawsuits were filed in connection with the Company's July 27,
1999 initial public offering and March 15, 2000 secondary
offering. The complaints against drugstore.com have been
consolidated into a single action and a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which is now the operative complaint, was filed on
April 19, 2002.
The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period July
28, 1999 to December 6, 2000. In general, the complaint alleges
that the prospectuses through which the Company conducted the
Offerings were materially false and misleading for failure to
disclose, among other things, that:
(1) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the underwriters allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of shares
issued in connection with the Offerings and
(2) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in
exchange for which customers agreed to purchase
additional drugstore.com shares in the after-market at
predetermined prices.
The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.
The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies or their
former officers and directors. On July 15, 2002, the Company
moved to dismiss all claims against the Company and the
Individual Defendants.
On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice based on stipulations
of dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual
Defendants. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion
to dismiss the complaint against drugstore.com.
The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
drugstore.com, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other issuer defendants or, in the case of bankrupt issuers,
their directors and officers. Among other provisions, the
settlement agreement provides for a release of drugstore.com and
the Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action
to be wrongful. The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims we may have against our
underwriters.
The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to the plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of
the approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the
underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1
billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference.
The suit is styled "In Re Drugstore.Com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
docket number 01 Civ. 5838 (Sas)(Akh), under Judge Shira N.
Scheindlin, related to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)." The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail:
10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016,
Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,
(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) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor,
New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com,
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com,
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
For more information, please visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/DSCM01/20020419_r01c_015838.
pdf
DRUGSTORE.COM: WA Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against drugstore.com, inc. and certain of its present and
and former officers for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.
The suits purport to have been filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock between January 14, 2004 and June 10,
2004. The complaints generally allege that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about our prospects for fiscal
year 2004 and failed to disclose, among other things:
(1) a negative impact on our gross margins from the
integration of the Company's acquisition of Vision
Direct and from its free 3-day shipping promotion, and
(2) a negative impact on sales growth arising from
cancellations of certain expired prescriptions.
On October 8, 2004, the Court issued an order consolidating the
individual actions. Motions for lead plaintiff are pending.
The suits are consolidated under "Frederick J. Elliot v.
Drugstore.com, Inc., et al.," Case No. CO$-1474RSM, pending
under Judge Ricardo Martinez.
FREIGHTLINER LLC: Recalls 45 UNIMOG U500s Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freightliner, LLC in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
is voluntarily recalling about 45 Year 2003 and 2004 UNIMOG U500
trucks due to possible tire defects.
According to the ODI, on certain trucks equipped with Michelin
365/85 R20 tires, the tires may not be compatible with the
maximum load and maximum speed ratings. Vehicle Overloading and
tire under-inflation will result in the vehicle rollover and
injury to occupant.
Dealers will replace the tires with Michelin 395/85 R20 and an
updated gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) certification label
will be affixed to the vehicle.
For more details contact Freightliner, LLC by Phone:
1-800-547-0712 or NHTSA by Phone: 1-888-327-4236.
HOMESTORE INC.: Approval of Securities Suit Settlement Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Homestore, Inc. has been appealed
over alleged deficiencies in the notice program for providing
notice to class members of the class settlement.
Beginning in December 2001, numerous separate complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors violated certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to the Company's 2000 and 2001 financial results
included in the Company's filings with the SEC, analysts
reports, press releases and media reports. The complaints
sought an unspecified amount of damages.
In March 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement System
was named lead plaintiff and the complaints were consolidated in
the United States District Court, Central District of
California. In July 2002, the Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint naming the Company, certain of
its former officers, directors and employees, along with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants.
In November 2002, the Plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint naming the Company, certain
of its current officers, directors and employees, certain of the
Company's former officers, directors and employees, and various
other parties, including, among others, PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, as defendants. The amended complaint made various
allegations, including that the Company violated federal
securities laws, and sought an unspecified amount of damages.
On March 7, 2003, the Court dismissed, with prejudice, the
Plaintiff's claims against a number of corporate and individual
defendants whom the Plaintiff alleged either assisted in the
planning and execution of the purportedly fraudulent
transactions at issue, or who were parties to those
transactions. The Court also dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claims against a number of the Company's current and
former officers and employees. At the same time, the Court
denied the motions to dismiss of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and
the Company's former chief executive officer. The Company did
not file a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against the
Company, but answered the complaint. Accordingly, the March 7,
2003 decision did not make any ruling with respect to the claims
asserted against the Company.
On August 12, 2003, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiff to resolve all outstanding claims
related to the Securities Class Action Lawsuit. On October 8,
2003, the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement.
A final hearing on the settlement was held on January 16, 2004,
after delivery of notice to class members. On February 5, 2004,
the Court issued an interim order generally approving the terms
of the settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable, but
directing additional briefing on two issues:
(1) whether certain objectors' proposal to "carve out"
certain claims from the settlement is feasible; and
(2) whether notice to class members was potentially
inadequate because of the short time period given to
file their claims.
The Court suggested that the parties consider allowing
additional time for class members to file claims, which would
not affect the total settlement fund. On March 16, 2004, the
Court issued its "Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of
Partial Class Settlement and Directing Renotice of the Class."
The Order directed that an abbreviated class notice be published
and extended the deadline for class members to opt out or submit
claims until May 31, 2004. On May 14, 2004, the District Court
entered final judgment and an order of dismissal with prejudice
as to the Company. The final judgment includes a bar order
providing for the maximum protection to which the Company is
entitled under the law with respect to all future claims for
contribution or indemnity by other persons, whether under
federal, state or common law. On June 10, 2004, an objector to
the settlement filed a notice of appeal.
As a part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $13.0
million in cash and issue 20.0 million new shares of the
Company's common stock valued at $50.6 million as of August 12,
2003. The Company placed $10.0 million in escrow in October
2003 and an additional $3.0 million in escrow in April 2004.
In May 2004, in accordance with an order entered by the District
Court, the Company issued the 20.0 million shares to counsel to
the Plaintiff as trustee. The shares must be voted in
proportion to the votes of all the other holders of the
Company's common stock who exercise their voting rights at a
stockholder meeting or by written consent in lieu of a meeting
until such time as they are distributed to the class. The
issuance of the shares was exempt from registration under
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933.
Assuming the District Court's final judgment is upheld on
appeal, the $13.0 million and the 20.0 million shares will be
distributed to the class and Plaintiff's counsel in accordance
with the judgment. The 20.0 million shares currently held in
trust have been reflected as issued and outstanding in the
Company's financial statements beginning in May 2004.
The suit is styled "In re HOMESTORE.COM, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION Case No. CV 01-11115 MJP (CWx)," pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Marsha Pechman.
HOMESTORE INC.: Dismissal of CA Securities Fraud Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Homestore, Inc., certain of its
former officers and certain current and former directors, and
certain underwriters.
In September 2002, Matt L. Brody filed a purported class action
in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County,
purporting to state claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Exchange Act, alleging that the Company's January 26, 2000,
registration statement contained materially false and misleading
statements. The complaint seeks rescission or an unspecified
amount of damages.
In October 2002, defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. In
June 2003, Mr. Brody filed a petition with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking the Ninth Circuit
to direct the District Court to vacate its order denying Mr.
Brody's motion to remand the action to state Court. The Ninth
Circuit heard oral arguments on the petition on July 14, 2004,
denied the petition by order filed on August 17, 2004, and
denied Brody's subsequent petition for rehearing by order filed
on September 28, 2004.
On August 11, 2003, the District Court issued an order
dismissing (without prejudice) Brody's claims and striking his
class action allegations. Brody filed an amended complaint on
September 12, 2003. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and to strike the class allegations with
prejudice. Separately, Brody's counsel filed a motion to amend
Brody's complaint to add Ronald Drucker (Drucker) as a
plaintiff. Brody filed a motion to stay his District Court
lawsuit pending final resolution of the Securities Class Action.
On July 13, 2004, the Court denied Brody's motion to stay and by
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, filed August 11, 2004, the
District Court dismissed all causes of action against all
defendants. On September 2, 2004, Brody filed a notice of
appeal from dismissal of the lawsuit.
Drucker, separately, filed a motion in the Securities Class
Action requesting that the class purportedly represented by
Brody and Drucker be "carved out" of the settlement of the
Securities Class Action. On March 16, 2004, the Court issued an
order approving the Securities Class Action settlement and
determining that the Brody and Drucker claims would not be
"carved out"
HOMESTORE INC.: CA Account Executives Launch Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Homestore, Inc. faces a class action filed in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California, alleging violations of the state's
overtime wage laws.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Hathaway filed the suit on September 17,
2004, on behalf of herself and all current and former Account
Executives employed by the Company, alleging that the Company
misclassified account executives as exempt from overtime wage
requirements in violation of California law.
HOMESTORE INC.: Named As Defendant in AOL Time Warner Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Homestore, Inc. was added as a defendant in the amended class
action styled "Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. AOL Time Warner.
et. al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The suit was initially filed in July 2003 against Time Warner
(formerly, AOL Time Warner), current and former officers and
directors of Time Warner and America Online, Inc. (AOL), and
Time Warner's outside auditor, Ernst & Young, LLP, alleging that
Time Warner and AOL made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact in connection with the business of
AOL both before and after the merger of AOL and Time Warner in
violation of federal securities laws and constituting common law
fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
In adding the Company as a defendant, the plaintiff, a Dutch
pension fund, alleges that the Company and four other third
parties with whom AOL did business and who are also named as
defendants, aided and abetted the alleged common law fraud and
themselves engaged in common law fraud as part of a civil
conspiracy. The allegations against the Company, which are
based on the factual allegations in the first amended
consolidated class action complaint and other filings in the
Company's Securities Class Action Lawsuit, are that certain
former officers of the Company knew of the alleged fraud at AOL
and knowingly participated in and substantially assisted that
alleged fraud by negotiating, structuring and participating in
numerous "triangular" round trip transactions with AOL and
others. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Accepts NY Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation has accepted the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "In re Informatica Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."
Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
April 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000. It names as defendants
the Company, one of the Company's current officers, and one of
the Company's former officers and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April 29,
1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000 follow-on
public offering.
The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on
the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings
did not disclose that:
(1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and
(2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
predetermined prices.
The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued. No specific damages are claimed.
Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes. On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933. The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against
the Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.
The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants. In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by
the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters. The Informatica defendants will not
be required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless
the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement
exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a circumstance
which the Company does not believe will occur. The settlement
will require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured,
after class members are given the opportunity to object to the
settlement or opt out of the settlement.
The suit is styled "In re Informatica Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," and is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, under docket number 01 Civ.
9922 (Sas). The suit is related to In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). The
plaintiff firms in this suit are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail:
10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016,
Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com,
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,
(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) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor,
New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
For more information on this lawsuit, please visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1021/INFA01/20020419_r01c_019922.
pdf
INTERNATIONAL TRADING: Recalls Turkey Meat For Underprocessing
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Trading Co., a Houston, Texas, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 73,590 additional pounds of
turkey luncheon meat due to possible underprocessing, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.
The expanded recall includes:
(1) 12 oz. cans of "Al Haloub Cow, TURKEY LUNCHEON MEAT"
bearing the message "Best if Used by Date 061507" on
the top, and the code "40474 03 EST P7220A" and "1674
PTW" on the bottom. This product was distributed to
wholesale and retail establishments in California,
Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York
and Texas.
(2) 12 oz. cans of "PICNIC BRAND, HALAL, TURKEY Luncheon
Meat" bearing the message "Best if Used by Date 092807"
on the top, and the codes "40474 03 EST P7220A" and
"2724 PTW" on the bottom. This product was produced
solely for export to Holland.
(3) 12 oz. cans of "PICNIC BRAND, Turkey Luncheon Meat"
bearing the message "Best if Used by Date 062407" on
the top, and the codes "40434 03 EST P7220A" and "1764
PTW" on the bottom. This product was distributed to
wholesale and retail establishments in Puerto Rico.
(4) 12 oz. cans of "PICNIC BRAND, Turkey Luncheon Meat"
bearing the message "Best if Used by Date 080407" or
"Best if Used by Date 100507" on the top, and the codes
"40434 03 EST P7220A" and "2174 PTW" or "2794 PTW" on
the bottom. This product was distributed to wholesale
and retail establishments in Puerto Rico.
The products were produced on various dates between June 15 and
October 19, 2004 and were distributed to wholesale and retail
establishments in Puerto Rico, California, Florida, Illinois,
North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Amsterdam,
Holland.
The problem was discovered by a wholesale customer who notified
the Company. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses from
consumption of the product.
Media with questions about the recall may contact Director of
Media Relations Gary Mickelson at 1-479-290-6111. Consumers with
questions can call Consumer Representative Maricela De La Torre
at 1-866-658-0019.
Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at l-800-535-4555. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
KINGSWAY TRADING: Recalls Herbal Supplements Due To Health Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kingsway Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, is recalling the dietary
herbal supplements DOUBLE DEERS FORMULA brand EXPELLIN EXTRACT
(CONCENTRATED) and CARDIOFLEX as they contain Aristolochic Acid,
and present a serious health risk to consumers. Aristolochic
Acid is a potent carcinogen and nephrotoxin found in certain
plants and botanicals. Products that contain Aristolochic Acid
have been associated with several occurrences of kidney failure.
The use of Aristolochic Acid containing products has been linked
to increased risk of kidney cancer in people who have consumed
it.
DOUBLE DEERS FORMULA brand EXPELLIN EXTRACT (CONCENTRATED) and
CARDIOFLEX were imported from China, and distributed nationwide
to retail stores and acupuncture clinics from May 2000 to the
present. DOUBLE DEERS FORMULA brandEXPELLIN EXTRACT
(CONCENTRATED) pills are packed in amber plastic bottles with
safety caps and packaged into green cardboard boxes with black
lettering on the white panel & red line. CARDIOFLEX pills are
packed in white plastic bottles with safety caps and packaged
into white cardboard boxes with black lettering and pink & blue
colored stripes. The plastic bottles are labeled similarly to
the outer boxes. All lots are covered in this recall action.
This recall action is the result of notification by the US Food
and Drug Administration that the products contain Aristolochic
Acid. The Company has ceased distribution of these products.
Consumers who have purchased these products should immediately
discontinue their use and return them to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
Company at (718) 366-2300.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Novell Inc. Lodges Suit Over WordPerfect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novell Inc., which recently agreed to a $536-million antitrust
settlement with Microsoft Corporation, initiated a new suit
claiming that the world's largest software Company thwarted
competition for word processing software, the Bloomberg News
reports.
Novell, whose settlement with Microsoft covered claims for its
Netware operating system, but excluded WordPerfect accused the
software giant of trying to shut out WordPerfect, a word
processing software that Novell bought for $1 billion in 1994
and sold two years later for $170 million after it lost market
share to Microsoft's Word.
The suit claims Microsoft withheld technical information about
the Windows operating system, hurting Novell's ability to
develop the software.
MILLER BREWING: Lodges Breach Of Contract Suit V. Insurers in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Brewing Co., facing class action litigation claiming it
targets underage drinkers, initiated a lawsuit in Milwaukee
County Circuit Court against its insurers for allegedly refusing
to compensate the brewer for its legal defense costs, the
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.
The Company named as defendants in its suit liability insurers,
who were affiliated with four of the nation's largest insurance
companies namely; Ace American Insurance Co., Philadelphia;
American International Group Inc., New York; Kemper Insurance
Cos., Long Grove, Illinois; and The Hartford Financial Services
Group Inc., Hartford, Connecticut.
According to Miller's suit, the insurers issued liability
policies for the nation's second-largest brewer and that some of
the insurers are refusing to defend Miller in connection with
class action claims that Miller marketed beer to underage
consumers. Furthermore, the suit stated that those insurers have
refused to commit to paying future defense costs for the Company
and that they also have refused to agree to compensate Miller
for any potential settlement payments or damages that might
occur in connection with the class action claims.
Miller spokesman Michael Hennick said the lawsuit is aimed
primarily at the Hartford group, which according to the suit
breached its contract with Miller and acted in bad faith by
failing to defend the brewer. The lawsuit also said Ace American
breached its contract with Miller. It is seeking an unspecified
amount of money to compensate the Company for its attorney's
fees, consultant's fees and other legal defense costs. Finally,
Miller in its suit wants a declaration that all the insurers are
liable for future expenses Miller might face for defending
itself against the class action claims.
In February, Miller and Anheuser-Busch Inc., the nation's
largest brewer, were sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court
on behalf of Lynne and Reed Goodwin, a California couple whose
20-year-old daughter, Casey, was killed in a 2003 traffic
accident involving an 18-year-old man who was drunk on beer and
high on methamphetamine. This suit asks a judge to halt alleged
underage marketing practices and seeks damages equivalent to the
money it says Miller and Anheuser-Busch received by selling
alcohol to underage consumers, which according to Steve Berman,
whose Seattle-based Hagens Berman law firm filed the suit, could
be around $4 billion to $5 billion.
MITSUBISHI FUSO: Recalls 10,333 Fuso Trucks Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America Inc. in cooperation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of
Defects Investigation is voluntarily recalling about 10333 Year
1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Mitsubishi Fuso FE639, Year 1996, 1997,
1998, 1999 Mitsubishi Fuso FE649 and Year 1998, 1999 Mitsubishi
Fuso FG639 trucks due to possible suspension defects.
According to the ODI, on certain trucks, the tie rod end ball
joint dust boot was designed with insufficient sealing ability.
This condition could allow contamination to enter into the tie
rod end ball joint, abnormally wearing the resin bearing located
inside the joint. The tie rod end ball joint could separate from
the tie rod end, disabling the steering system, and causing a
crash.
As a remedy dealers will install modified tie rod end
assemblies. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner
notification schedule.
For more details, contact Mitsubishi Fuso by Phone: 856-467-3917
or NHTSA by Phone: 1-888-327-4236.
PEOPLESOFT INC.: Shareholders Object To Oracle Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two PeopleSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq:PSFT) shareholders namely the West
Virginia laborers Pension Trust Fund and the RINIS Travel
Service Inc. Profit Sharing Trust filed objections to the
Company's agreement to settle a class-action lawsuit over Oracle
Corporation's $8.8 billion hostile takeover bid, the San Mateo
County Times reports.
PeopleSoft was sued by investors in Delaware Chancery Court in
June 2003 after Oracle said it would buy the Company. The
investors had contended that PeopleSoft officials violated
duties to maximize shareholder value by adopting a potentially
expensive program to give customers license rebates if Oracle
took over and failed to support PeopleSoft products.
As reported in the June 1, 2004 edition of the CAR Newsletter,
PeopleSoft, Inc. had reached a memorandum of understanding to
settle all class actions filed by stockholder plaintiffs. Under
the memorandum of understanding, if the current Customer
Assurance Program is extended past June 30, 2004, the terms in
new contracts will be limited to actions by Oracle.
Based upon the actions of the Department of Justice and the
European Commission and the current status of their antitrust
reviews, discovery to date, and subject to customary
confirmatory discovery, the stockholder class action plaintiffs
believe that PeopleSoft's Customer Assurance Program, as it
relates to Oracle, serves a legitimate purpose in light of
Oracle's tender offer and other conduct. The plaintiffs have
agreed to dismiss all claims against PeopleSoft and its Board.
The settlement is subject to the execution of definitive
settlement documents and approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.
Additional terms of the settlement include that PeopleSoft will
amend its shareholder rights plan to provide that redemption
decisions during the next two years will be made by its
independent directors, and will amend its bylaws to allow
stockholder nominations for election of directors until 95 days
before the anniversary of the previous year's annual meeting.
The settlement also provides for the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses of the stockholder plaintiffs in an amount to be
determined by the Court as fair and reasonable.
SALTON INC.: Settlement To Be Allocated To Food Bank of Alaska
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Food Bank of Alaska will receive a check for over $12,000 as
part of a multistate settlement with Salton, Inc., the
manufacturer of the George Foreman contact grill, Alaska
Attorney General Greg Renkes announced.
"The settlement agreement required attorneys general for each
state to submit a proposal to the Court for distributing their
state's share of the proceeds," said A.G. Renkes. "Under the
agreement the funds are required to benefit health or nutrition-
related causes. The Food Bank of Alaska fills a critical
function in Alaska and was an obvious choice to put these
proceeds to good use."
The lawsuit, filed in New York, alleged that Salton, Inc.
engaged in anticompetitive conduct through an illegal resale
price maintenance, exclusive dealing and monopolization scheme.
The purpose of this activity was to maintain artificially
inflated prices for George Foreman grills by preventing
retailers from discounting and by excluding rivals from the
marketplace.
Alaska's prorated share of the settlement was for $17,623. AG
Renkes approved a distribution providing for $12,323 to go to
the Food Bank of Alaska. The remaining $5300 will go to the
Department of Health and Social Services, Office of Children's
Services, Family Nutrition Unit to reprint the Alaska Native
Foods Resource Guide and to create and distribute food demo kits
to promote healthy eating in Alaska communities.
"This contribution comes at a great time for us as we approach
the Thanksgiving holiday," said Susannah Morgan, Executive
Director for the Food Bank of Alaska. "Every dollar we receive
means five pounds of food we can distribute. This distribution
translates into over 63,000 pounds of food and over 42,000 meals
for Alaskans."
In FY04 the Food Bank distributed 4.3 million pounds of food to
over 300 partner agencies in over 70 communities across the
state. The Food Bank partners with soup kitchens, tribal
organizations, domestic violence shelters, faith-based programs,
day care programs, senior centers and other anti-hunger
agencies.
For more details, contact Mark Morones, by Mail:
P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0001 by Phone: 907-269-6393
by Fax: 907-269-6305 or visit the Website:
http://www.law.state.ak.us.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Minority Lodges Race Bias Lawsuit V. Department
---------------------------------------------------------------
The S.C. Human Affairs Commission ruled "there is reasonable
cause to believe" the S.C. Transportation Department had
discriminated by denying promotions and salary increases against
engineer Malzone M. Russell of Ridgeland because he was black,
the Beaufort Gazette reports.
According to Bill Harvey of Beaufort, Mr. Russell's attorney,
the ruling was kept under wraps while the department was given
an opportunity to negotiate a settlement with his client.
However, the Transportation Department's settlement offer was
less than the wages his client would have earned had he received
promotions, and thus he rejected it opting instead to file a
lawsuit against them, Mr. Harvey said.
The eventual lawsuit was filed on October 25 in U.S. District
Court in Columbia, seeking lost wages and a Court order to
expand promotion opportunities for black workers within the
department. The lawsuit further stated that Mr. Russell's
repeated attempts to get promotions and salary increases have
been rejected, "while similar promotions, raises, advancements,
transfers, positions and other employment enhancements have been
given to white employees with less education and/or
qualifications and/or experience."
Arguing his client's right to sue, Mr. Harvey pointed out that
under federal law, the only way for Mr. Russell to receive
damages or to change the hiring and promoting system at the
Transportation Department is to file a lawsuit and use the Human
Affairs Commission's ruling as supporting evidence.
The lawsuit, which was filed by Mr. Russell and Wendell M.
Mulligan of Beaufort County, both of whom are engineers with the
Transportation Department, is only seeking actual damages for
the wages they would have received had they been given
promotions.
Mr. Harvey also adds that the suit is asking the Court to grant
class-action status, which could include 100 additional
employees who faced similar discrimination.
Mr. Russell is an engineer who has been with the state
Transportation Department for more than 10 years and has a
bachelor's degree in engineering, while Mr. Mulligan is the
Transportation Department's resident maintenance engineer in
Beaufort County and has been with the department for more than
21 years and has a bachelor's degree in engineering, the lawsuit
states.
UNIVERSAL LIFE: NY Attorney General Launches Insurance Fees Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer recently initiated a
lawsuit against Universal Life Resources (ULR), charging the
life and disability insurance broker with taking fraudulent
kick-backs for steering business to insurers MetLife, Prudential
and UnumProvident. It was the latest move by the attorney
general in his probe into price-fixing in the insurance
industry, and follows a similar suit against broker Marsh &
McLennan Cos. Inc.
Mr. Spitzer's suit, filed just recently at the New York State
Supreme Court in Manhattan, charges that ULR had secret
agreements with MetLife Inc., Prudential Financial Inc. and
UnumProvident Corporation. In those deals, the suit stated,
millions of dollars were paid to ULR in exchange for steering
the business of its clients to those insurers.
A lawyer representing ULR could not be reached for comment,
while each of the insurers would say only that they are co-
operating with Spitzer's investigation.
"Today's case demonstrates that the corrupt practices first laid
bare in the Marsh suit are present in additional sectors of the
industry," A.G. Spitzer said in a statement. "What is
particularly egregious in this case is that the costs of ULR's
concealed payments were ultimately borne by individual
employees, who were in no position to know about or contest
these illegal practices."
The suit names ULR and its founder, owner and Chief Executive
Douglas Cox. It also names two affiliated corporations
identified as Universal Life Resources and Benefits Commerce.
According to the suit, ULR got more than $17 million -- about
two-thirds of its $25 million total revenue last year -- in
undisclosed fees from insurers in return for steering business
to those insurers and for providing questionable services for
their clients.
A.G. Spitzer said the secret arrangements artificially pumped up
insurance prices for ULR clients and their employees, including
those of high-profile corporations Viacom Inc., Marriott
International Inc. and others.
The suit demands an end to the secret agreements, disgorgement
of improper payments, restitution for injured parties and
punitive damages. ULR, a closely held Company based in San
Diego, is already being sued by a consumer organization, United
Policyholders, for allegedly taking undisclosed payments from a
group of insurers. According to a USA Today report, a class
action suit on behalf of an Intel Corp. employee has also been
filed against ULR.
Earlier on Friday, Spitzer told the Reuters Finance Summit that
his office could file a lawsuit against an unidentified
insurance Company stemming from his seven-month investigation
into bid-rigging.
News of the suit sent shares of insurers lower. MetLife lost 3.5
percent to close at $38.40, UnumProvident fell 5.3 percent to
$13.45 and Prudential slid 3.6 percent to $48.00, all on the New
York Stock Exchange. Shares of health insurer Aetna Inc. fell 1
percent to $107.31. A.G. Spitzer's suit asserts that Aetna
dropped an agreement with ULR in 2001, and had virtually no
success in winning business handled by the broker since then.
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS Software Corporation faces several class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled
"Paul Kuck, et al. v. VERITAS Software Corporation, et al.," was
filed. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's announcement on July 6,
2004 that it expected its results of operations for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004 to fall below estimates that were
earlier provided by the Company. The complaint generally seeks
an unspecified amount of damages.
Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have
been filed in Delaware federal Court against the same defendants
named in the Kuck lawsuit. These complaints are based on the
same facts and circumstances as the Kuck lawsuit.
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERITAS Software Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers.
After the Company announced in January 2003 that it would
restate its financial results due to transactions entered into
with AOL in September 2000, numerous separate complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed alleging the Company
and some of its officers and directors violated provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaints allege the Company made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to its 2000, 2001 and 2002
financial results included in its filings with the SEC, press
releases and other public disclosures.
On May 2, 2003, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were
appointed. A consolidated complaint entitled "In Re VERITAS
Software Corporation Securities Litigation" was filed by the
lead plaintiff on July 18, 2003. On December 10, 2003, the
District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, with leave to amend. On May 19, 2004,
the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint, with leave to amend.
On June 30, 2004, a second amended complaint was filed with the
Court in this matter and defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. The second amended
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
The suit is styled "In Re VERITAS Software Corporation
Securities Litigation," and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Case No. C-03-283-MMC. The suit is pending under Judge Maxine
M. Chesney. KMF Advisers, LLC was appointed lead plaintiff in
this litigation, while Andrew L. Barroway, Stuart L. Berman and
Darren J. Check of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP have been appointed
lead counsel. Robert S. Green and Robert Jigarjian of Green &
Jigarjian LLP has been appointed local co-counsel for the
plaintiffs.
For more information contact Schiffrin & Barroway bt Mail: 3
Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, by Phone: 610.667.7706, by
Fax: 610.667.7056 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or contact
Green & Jigarjian, by Mail: 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
Francisco, CA, 94104, by Phone: 415.477.6700 or by Fax:
415.477.6710. For more information also visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1026/VRTS03-
01/20030121_f01c_PETRONE.pdf
XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CT Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action, consisting of 17 cases, filed against Xerox Corporation
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut. The suit, styled "In re Xerox Corporation
Securities Litigation," also names as defendants Barry Romeril,
Paul Allaire and G. Richard Thoman.
The consolidated action purports to be a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock
of the Company during the period between October 22, 1998
through October 7, 1999. The amended consolidated complaint in
the action alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had
on the Company's operations and revenues.
The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:
(1) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;
(2) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
common stock of the Company while in possession of
materially adverse, non-public information; and
(3) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
Company at inflated prices.
The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.
On September 28, 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion
for dismissal of the complaint. On November 5, 2001, the
defendants answered the complaint. On or about January 7, 2003,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. That
motion has not yet been fully briefed or argued before the
Court.
The suit is styled "In Re Xerox Corporation Securities
Litigation, MDL No. MDL-1463," and is pending under Hon. Alvin
W. Thompson of the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut.
XEROX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Pomona CA Water Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation reached a settlement in principle for the
lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles, alleging damages as a result of
its alleged disposal and/or release of hazardous substances into
the soil and groundwater.
The first suit is styled "Christine Abarca, et al. v. City of
Pomona, et al.," and was filed on behalf of 681 individual
plaintiffs claiming damages as a result of our alleged disposal
and/or release of hazardous substances into the soil and
groundwater. Subsequently, six additional complaints were filed
in the same Court on behalf of another 459 plaintiffs, with the
same claims for damages as the June 1999 action. All seven
cases have been served on the Company.
Currently there are approximately 540 plaintiffs remaining in
the case, as many plaintiffs have been dismissed from the
litigation. Plaintiffs in all seven cases allege that hazardous
substances from the Company's operations entered the municipal
drinking water supplied by the City of Pomona and the Southern
California Water Company, and as a result they were exposed to
the substances by inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact.
Plaintiffs' claims against the Company include personal injury,
wrongful death, property damage, negligence, trespass, nuisance,
and violation of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Damages are unspecified. The seven cases against the Company
have been coordinated with approximately 13 unrelated cases
against other defendants which involve alleged contaminated
groundwater and drinking water in the San Gabriel Valley area of
Los Angeles County.
In all of those cases, plaintiffs have sued both the providers
of drinking water and the industrial defendants who they contend
contaminated the water. The body of groundwater involved in the
Abarca cases, and allegedly contaminated by the Company, is
separate and distinct from the body of groundwater that is
involved in the San Gabriel Valley cases, and there is no
allegation that the Company is involved in the San Gabriel
Valley cases. Nonetheless, the Court ordered both groups of
cases to be coordinated because both groups concern allegations
of groundwater and drinking water contamination, have similar
theories of liability alleged against the defendants, and
involve a number of similar legal issues, thus apparently making
it more efficient, in the view of the Court, for all of them to
be handled by one judge.
XEROX CORPORATION: CT Court Yet To Hear Motion To Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
has yet to rule on the consolidated securities class action,
consisting of 21 cases, against Xerox Corporation, styled
"Carlson v. Xerox Corporation, et al." The suit also names as
defendants:
(1) KPMG LLP,
(2) Paul A. Allaire,
(3) G. Richard Thoman,
(4) Anne M. Mulcahy,
(5) Barry D. Romeril,
(6) Gregory Tayler and
(7) Philip Fishbach
On September 11, 2002, the Court entered an endorsement order
granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended
complaint. The defendants' motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot.
According to the third consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on
behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and/or
entities who purchased Xerox common stock and/or bonds during
the period between February 17, 1998 through June 28, 2002 and
who were purportedly damaged thereby. The third consolidated
amended complaint sets forth two claims: one alleging that each
of the Company, KPMG, and the individual defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder; the
other alleging that the individual defendants are also allegedly
liable as "controlling persons" of the Company pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.
Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a
fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on
purchasers of the Company's common stock and bonds by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the
Company's accounting and reporting practices and financial
condition.
The plaintiffs further allege this scheme deceived the investing
public regarding the true state of the Company's financial
condition and caused the plaintiffs and other members of the
alleged Class to purchase the Company's common stock and bonds
at artificially inflated prices, and prompted a SEC
investigation that led to the April 11, 2002 settlement which,
among other things, required the Company to pay a $10 penalty
and restate its financials for the years 1997-2000 (including
restatement of financials previously corrected in an earlier
restatement which plaintiffs contend was improper).
The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
Class members against all defendants, jointly and severally,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.
XEROX CORPORATION: Asks CT Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (Hartford) to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against it, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
On July 1, 2002, a class action complaint captioned Patti v.
Xerox Corp. et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (Hartford) alleging violations
of the ERISA. Three additional class actions were subsequently
filed in the same Court making substantially similar claims.
On October 16, 2002, the four actions were consolidated as "In
Re Xerox Corporation ERISA Litigation." On November 15, 2002, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed. A fifth class action
(Wright) was filed in the District of Columbia. It has been
transferred to Connecticut and consolidated with the other
actions.
The purported class includes all persons who invested or
maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox
401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed
class period, May 12, 1997 through November 15, 2002, and
allegedly exceeds 50,000 persons. The defendants include Xerox
Corporation and the following individuals or groups of
individuals during the proposed class period: the Plan
Administrator, the Board of Directors, the Fiduciary Investment
Review Committee, the Joint Administrative Board, the Finance
Committee of the Board of Directors, and the Treasurer.
The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA and, as such, were obligated
to protect the Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan
participants. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to do so and thereby breached their fiduciary duties.
Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to
provide accurate and complete material information to
participants concerning Xerox stock, including accounting
practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value
of the stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of
the stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets
in Xerox stock. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to
invest Plan assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries
and to disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known
were imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest.
The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.
However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which
it describes as "millions of dollars." It also seeks other
legal and equitable relief, as appropriate, to remedy the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.
The Company moved to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion for class certification and a motion
to commence discovery. Defendants have opposed both motions,
contending that both are premature before there is a decision on
their motion to dismiss.
The suit is styled "In Re Xerox Corporation ERISA Litigation,"
and is pending under Judge Alvin W. Thompson of the United
States District Court in Connecticut. Mr. Lynn Sarko of Keller
Rohrback LLP and Charles R. Watkins of Susman & Watkins are lead
counsel for the plaintiffs, while John F. McKenna of Goodman,
Rosenthal & McKenna,PC is liaison counsel for the plaintiffs.
For more information, contact Mr. Sarko by Mail: 1201 Third
Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, Washington 98101-3052 by Phone:
206-623-1900 or contact Mr. Watkins by Mail: Two First National
Plaza, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 or by Phone: 312-346-3466.
XEROX CORPORATION: NY Court Mulls Apartheid Lawsuit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on Xerox Corporation's motion to
dismiss the class action filed against it, styled "Digwamaje et
al. v. IBM et al."
The defendants include the Company and a number of other
corporate defendants who are accused of providing material
assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948
to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the
South African government and by employing forced labor, thereby
violating both international and common law.
Specifically, plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort
Claims Act, the Torture Victims Protection Act and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). They also
assert human rights violations and crimes against humanity.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion
and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion. The foregoing
damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and
severally.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. Oral argument of the motion was heard on November 6,
2003.
The suit is styled "Digwamaje v. IBM Corp., et al 02-CV-6218
(S.D.N.Y. 2002)," and is being coordinated with other apartheid
suits in "In REF SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION MDL NO.
1499(JES)."
New Securities Fraud Cases
AON CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in N.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a lawsuit in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of participants in the Aon Corporation ("Aon") 401(K) Savings
Plan (the "Plan") for violations of the federal pension law
(ERISA) in connection with the loss of value in Aon stock (NYSE:
AOC) acquired and held by present and former employees of Aon
through the Plan. The goal of this litigation is to recover
damages sustained by employees in the Plan. The complaint can be
viewed on Wolf Popper's website or obtained from the Court.
The lawsuit alleges that the fiduciaries of the Aon Plan
violated their fiduciary duties by investing Plan assets in Aon
stock from November 1, 1998 to the present (the "Class Period"),
during which time Aon failed to disclose certain improper
business practices. In particular, during the Class Period, Aon
touted itself as experiencing outstanding, sustainable growth,
and as continuing to demonstrate positive results, when in
truth, Aon was engaged in a plan whereby Aon steered business
toward certain insurers, and shielded such companies from
competition, in exchange for so-called "contingent commissions"
or kick-backs. This arrangement created improper incentives for
Aon to steer business towards those insurers who were, in
effect, providing kickbacks to Aon.
For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. or James
Kelly Kowlowitz of Wolf Popper LLP by Mail: 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703 or by
Fax: 212-486-2093 or Fax: 877-370-7704 by E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.wolfpopper.com.
CHIRON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Chiron Corporation (Nasdaq:CHIR) ("Chiron" or the
"Company") from January 12, 2004 through October 13, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Chiron, Howard Pien, John Lambert, and
David Smith with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Chiron is a global pharmaceutical Company focused on
developing products for cancer and infectious diseases. It
commercializes its products through three business units: blood
testing, vaccines and biopharmaceuticals. Chiron Vaccines offers
more than 30 vaccines including flu, meningococcal, travel and
pediatric vaccines. According to the complaint, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:
(1) that equipment and staff training at the Company's
Liverpool plant were inadequate;
(2) that the Company's vaccine manufacturing process was
wrought with microbial and sterility issues;
(3) that the Company's Liverpool plant had systemic
quality-control issues which the Company failed to
address in a timely manner;
(4) that the Company's Liverpool plant was not in
compliance with British health and safety regulations;
and
(5) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
statements about being able to supply 50 million
vaccines to the United States was lacking in a
reasonable basis when made.
On August 26, 2004, Chiron announced the following bombshell:
that, in conducting final internal release procedures for its
Fluvirin(R) influenza virus vaccine, the Company's quality
systems have identified a small number of lots that do not meet
product sterility specifications. Following this announcement,
defendant Pien reiterated Chiron's expectation that Chiron would
supply between 46 million and 48 million Fluvirin(R) influenza
virus vaccine doses to the U.S. market for the 2004-2005
influenza season, beginning in early October. Then on October 5,
2004, Chiron shocked the market when it announced "that the UK
regulatory body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency ("MHRA"), has today temporarily suspended the
Company's license to manufacture Fluvirin(R) influenza virus
vaccine in its Liverpool facility, preventing the Company from
releasing any of the product during the 2004-2005 influenza
season. Chiron has not released any Fluvirin into any territory,
and therefore there is no requirement to recall or withdraw any
vaccine."
Following this revelation, shares of Chiron fell $7.44 per
share, or 16,38 percent, to close at $37.98 per share on
unusually high trading volume.
Thereafter, on October 11, 2004, The Wall Street Journal
reported U.S. regulators found "deviations" from good
manufacturing standards at Chiron's U.K.-based flu-vaccine plant
in June 2003. According the article, the Food and Drug
Administration officials documented "deviations" from best
practices at Chiron's Liverpool plant in the middle of last
year, John Taylor, the FDA's associate commissioner for
regulatory affairs, told the Journal. The regulator said that
"systemic quality-control issues" led inspectors to conclude
that Chiron wouldn't necessarily be able to discover problems,
identify the root cause and take steps to prevent similar issues
from arising again.
Then on October 12, 2004, Chiron stated it had received a grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York,
seeking documents related to the U.K. authorities' decision to
shut down the manufacturing of its flu vaccine Fluvirin.
The final blow to the Company occurred on October 13, 2004. At
about 12:00 noon, The Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC
was launching an informal probe into whether Chiron failed to
properly alert investors to on-going problems with British
regulators. The Company later confirmed that this was in fact
true.
News of this sent the stock further down. Shares of Chiron fell
$1.87 per share, or 5.54 percent, on unusually heavy trading
volume on October 13, 2004 to close at $31.87 per share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
FANNIE MAE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of all those who purchased
publicly traded securities of the Federal National Mortgage
Association (operating as Fannie Mae) (NYSE:FNM) ("Fannie Mae"
or the "Company") between October 11, 2000 and September 22,
2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Fannie Mae, Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard, and Leanne G. Spencer 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 applied accounting methods and
practices that do not comply with GAAP in accounting
for the enterprise's derivatives transactions and
hedging activities;
(2) that the Company had materially understated its accrued
cost-of-access liability by $50-$80 million;
(3) that the Company used "cookie jar" accounting wherein
Fannie Mae arbitrarily distributed current gains to
subsequent quarters in a bid to keep its revenue and
earnings growth steady;
(4) that the Company deferred expenses to achieve bonus
compensation targets;
(5) that the Company had insufficient and inadequate
internal controls; and
(6) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
and financial results was materially understated at all
relevant times.
On September 22, 2004, Fannie Mae, prior to the opening of the
market, disclosed, in brief, the findings of the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO") report. The
report revealed that Fannie Mae was engaged in inappropriate
accounting practices. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Fannie Mae fell $4.96 per share, or 6.56 percent, to close at
$70.69 per share on unusually high trading volume. After the
market closed on September 22, 2004, OFHEO released the complete
report detailing Fannie Mae's inappropriate accounting
practices. The market reacted swiftly. The next trading day
shares of Fannie Mae fell an additional $3.24 per share, or 4.58
percent, by noon on September 23, 2004.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. ("IMPAX")
(NASDAQ:IPXL) common stock during the period between May 5, 2004
and November 3, 2004 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges IMPAX and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. IMPAX is a technology-based, specialty pharmaceutical
Company focused on the development and commercialization of
generic and brand name pharmaceuticals.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused IMPAX shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, defendants were able
to engage in an insider-trading scheme for proceeds of more than
$32 million.
On November 3, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the "Company has postponed its release of 2004
third quarter financial results to Tuesday, November 9, 2004 in
order to allow its independent auditors more time to complete
their review of the Company's third quarter financial
statements, including the timing of certain customer credits on
bupropion products marketed by a strategic partner." On this
news, the Company's shares plummeted from $13 to $10.07, a one
day decline of 23% on volume of 4.6 million shares. Then, on
November 9, 2004, IMPAX announced that its 2004 results would be
restated.
For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/impax/.
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities 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 on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. (NasdaqNM:
IPXL) ("IMPAX") between May 5, 2004 and November 3, 2004. (the
"Class Period"), including all purchasers in the October 1, 2004
debt offering.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, IMPAX
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false or
misleading public statements. On November 3, 2004, IMPAX
announced that the "Company has postponed its release of 2004
third quarter financial results to Tuesday, November 9, 2004 in
order to allow its independent auditors more time to complete
their review of the Company's third quarter financial
statements, including the timing of certain customer credits on
bupropion products marketed by a strategic partner." On this
news, IMPAX shares fell from a close of $13.00 per share on
November 3, 2004, to close at $10.07 on November 4, 2004. On
November 9, 2004, IMPAX announced that its 2004 results would be
restated.
For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.
TOMMY HILFIGER: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Tommy Hilfiger Corporation (NYSE:TOM) ("Tommy
Hilfiger" or the "Company") from November 3, 1999 through
September 24, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Tommy Hilfiger, Joel J. Horowitz, Joseph
Scirocco, Joel H. Newman, Silas K.F. Chou, Lawrence S. Stroll,
James P. Reilly, and David F. Dyer 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 defendants shifted profits to lower-tax
jurisdictions by paying buying-agency commissions to
other Tommy Hilfiger subsidiaries;
(2) more specifically, the defendants reported revenue
generated in the United States as if it were earned in
a foreign division, thereby effectively lowering the
Company's tax rate;
(3) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
results were in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles ("GAAP");
(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and
(5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
results were materially inflated at all relevant times.
On September 24, 2004, after the market closed, Tommy Hilfiger
announced that Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. ("THUSA"), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Tommy Hilfiger had received a grand jury
subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York seeking documents generally relating to
THUSA's domestic and/or international buying office commissions
since 1990. Certain of THUSA's current and former employees had
also received subpoenas. According to the Company, THUSA pays
buying office commissions to a non-U.S. subsidiary of Tommy
Hilfiger Corporation to provide or otherwise secure certain
services, including product development, sourcing, production
scheduling and quality control functions. It appears that the
investigation is focused on whether the commission rate is
appropriate.
News of this shocked the market. On September 27, 2004, shares
of Tommy Hilfiger fell $2.87 per share, or 21.79 percent, to
close at $10.30 per share on unusually high trading volume.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or acquired United Rentals, Inc. (NYSE: URI)
("United" or the "Company") securities (the "Class") between
October 23, 2003 and August 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Plaintiff alleges that United, Wayland R. Hicks, Bradley S.
Jacobs, John N. Milne, and Joseph B. Sherk violated 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) the Company, in an effort to generate a more favorable
stock price and raise capital, manipulated its
financial results through the use of restructuring
charges, asset writedowns, and debt refinancing;
(2) the Company improperly delayed recognition of bad
accounts receivable;
(3) as a result of these manipulations, the Company's
announced financial results were in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and
(4) the Company's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times.
On August 30, 2004, United Rentals announced that it had
received notice that the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") was conducting a non-public, fact-finding inquiry of the
Company. The notice was accompanied by a subpoena requesting the
production of documents relating to certain of the Company's
accounting records. After this announcement, shares of United
Rentals fell $4.39 per share, or 21.53%, to close at $16.00 per
share on August 30, 2004 on unusually heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212)
779-1414 by E-mail: URI@bernlieb.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bernlieb.com.
UNITED RENTALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of all securities purchasers
of the United Rentals, Inc. (NYSE:URI) ("United Rentals" or the
"Company") from October 23, 2003 through August 30, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges United Rentals, Wayland R. Hicks, Bradley
S. Jacobs, John N. Milne, and Joseph B. Sherk 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, in an effort to generate a more
favorable stock price and raise capital, manipulated
its financial results through the use of restructuring
charges, asset writedowns, and debt refinancing;
(2) that the Company improperly delayed recognition of bad
accounts receivable;
(3) that as a result of these manipulations, the Company's
announced financial results were in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and
(4) that the Company's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times.
On August 30, 2004, United Rentals announced that it had
received notice that the SEC was conducting a non-public, fact-
finding inquiry of the Company. The notice was accompanied by a
subpoena requesting the production of documents relating to
certain of the Company's accounting records. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of United Rentals fell $4.39 per
share, or 21.53 percent, to close at $16.00 per share on August
30, 2004 on unusually heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
UNITED RENTALS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against Greenwich, Connecticut based United Rentals, Inc.
("United Rentals") (NYSE:URI) on behalf of all purchasers of
securities from October 23, 2003 to August 30, 2004 (the "Class
Period") inclusive. The Company states that it is the number one
equipment renter in North America, serving approximately 1.9
million commercial and industrial customers. From more than 730
locations in Canada, Mexico, and 47 states in the US, the
Company rents approximately 600 different equipment items.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, certain
officers and directors issued numerous positive statements
concerning the Company's financial performance. These statements
were materially false and misleading because defendants knew,
but failed to disclose, that the Company, in an effort to
generate a more favorable stock price and raise capital,
manipulated its financial results through the use of
restructuring charges, asset write-downs and debt refinancing.
Further, the complaint alleges that the Company improperly
delayed recognition of bad accounts receivable and that as a
result of these manipulations, the Company's announced financial
results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"). Finally, the complaint charges that during
the relevant time periods the Company's financial results were
materially inflated. It is alleged that this conduct violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
On August 30, 2004, United Rentals announced that it had
received notice that the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") was conducting a non-public, fact-finding inquiry into
the Company. The SEC notice was accompanied by a subpoena
requesting the Company to produce documents relating its
accounting practices. United Rentals stated it "intends to
cooperate fully with the SEC." News of the SEC inquiry shocked
the stock market causing United Rental share to fall 21.53 %, to
close at $16 per share on August 30, 2004 on unusually heavy
trading volume. On November 9, 2004, United Rentals announced in
its Form 10-Q, among other things, that it was no longer
permitted to amortize goodwill of the Company as previously
done, that it would incur a non-cash impairment charge of
approximately $139.3 to write off the remaining goodwill, that
it would sustain $172.2 million related to debt-refinancings
completed in 2004 and that $7.0 million was related to the
vesting of restricted stock granted to executives in 2001. The
Company posted a third-quarter loss of $64.4 million, or 83
cents per share, substantially below last year's earnings of
$31.9 million, or 34 cents per share.
For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC
by Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone:
800-404-7770 (EDT) or 800-332-2259 (PDT) or 619-233-4565
(California) by Fax: 860-537-4432 or by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or UnitedRentalsLitigation@scott-
scott.com or visit their Web site: http://www.scott-scott.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 * * *