/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050124.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 16
Headlines
3C DVD PATENT: Chinese DVD Player Manufacturers Lodge Suit in CA
ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement Over Unsolicited Billing
ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement With WA Attorney General
BAY NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
CALIFORNIA: High Court Allows Review of Model's Late Fees Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Agrees To Be Enjoined Due To Deceptive Marketing
DE FIDE: To Hold News Conference On Heresy Suit V. Politicians
EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Lodge CA Securities Suits
FEDERAL AVIATION: Employees Plan Lawsuit To Challenge Pay Caps
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Reaches $5.2 Mil Settlement With "Agency Temps"
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended IL Stock Suit
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Canadians Launch Securities Fraud Suits
KENTUCKY: Closed-Door Talks Delays Covington Abuse Suit Trial
MARYLAND: Proposed HB15 To Ban Lawsuits Blaming Obesity On Food
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Declines To Reopen Fernald Development Case
MERRILL LYNCH: MA Appeals Court Upholds Ruling V. Henry Blodget
NORTEL NETWORKS: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suits in NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in Canada
NORTEL NETWORKS: Ontario Court Allows Amended Shareholder Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Suit in M.D. TN
PENNSYLVANIA: 100 Sign On For Suit V. Montour County's Tax Hike
PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Lodge OR Suit, Seeks $6M in Refunds
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Judge Grants Certification To Fraud Lawsuit
SEMPRA ENERGY: Trial Date Set For CA Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suit in WA
WAL-MART STORES: Disputes Suit's Manipulating Time Cards Claims
WEST VIRGINIA: State Joins Revised VIOXX Consumer Refund Program
New Securities Fraud Cases
AXIS CAPITAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CITADEL SECURITY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
IPASS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
IPASS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
IT GROUP: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA
SHURGARD STORAGE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in WA
SHURGARD STORAGE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in WA
SHURGARD STORAGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in WA
SOURCECORP INCORPORATED: Marc Henzel Lodges TX Securities Suit
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Sceurities Suit in CA
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Shepherd Finkelman Files AZ Securities Suit
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
*********
3C DVD PATENT: Chinese DVD Player Manufacturers Lodge Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese DVD player manufacturers, including Wuxi Multimedia and
Orient Power (Wuxi) Digital Technology have filed a class action
against the western consortium, 3C DVD Patent Group, who own
most of the patents related to the DVD technology, the Digitimes
reports.
The patent issues have been a hot topic during the last couple
of years. The biggest legal fight was launched by Philips in
2002 when it took the matters to courts in the U.S. and in the
European Union, threatening to ban imports of unlicensed DVD
players from China. Chinese manufacturers, such as Apex, had
already managed to take lion's share of global DVD player
markets, but refused to pay licensing fees for western patent
owners that include Philips, Sony and Pioneer.
Eventually, most Chinese manufacturers and the 3C alliance
formed a deal under which manufacturers pay a fixed fee of $20
for each sold DVD player, however as DVD players' prices have
plummeted, the fixed fee is now almost half of the average
wholesale price for basic DVD players.
The suit, filed in the US District Court in the Southern
District of California, accuses the 3C alliance of price-fixing,
unlawful tying of essential and non-essential patents together,
group boycott and conspiracy to monopolize. According to the
Chinese companies, typical U.S. patent licensing fees for other
products are between 3 and 5 percent of the item's wholesale
price, compared to the 50 percent for DVD players.
ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement Over Unsolicited Billing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just days after suing one of the world's worst email spammers,
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed an agreed judgment to
protect consumers from being billed for unsolicited online
pornography and other material.
Alyon Technologies, of New Jersey, Telconnect Inc., of Georgia,
and owner Stephane Touboul, which provide computer, billing and
collection services for video text services, including adult-
content Web sites, agreed to cease operating in a manner that
results in uncontrollable pop-up advertisements for fees.
These pop-up ads appeared on consumers' computers without
warning, and the companies billed consumers for accessing the
information. Many consumers did not even realize they had
accessed the material but were billed for it, and some parents
reported their children being exposed to pornographic sites.
"Unsolicited online pornography, like spam, is a menace that
must be stopped," said Attorney General Abbott. "Today's
judgment protects consumers from being assaulted by unwelcome
adult pop-up ads and gives parents the assurance that their
children cannot access pornographic content without their
knowledge. Online consumers deserve the same level of
protections that other consumers expect, and this action shows
that scam artists can no longer hide behind their computer
screens."
Alyon and Telconnect deny any wrongdoing, but agreed to clearly
disclose all terms and conditions of the products or services
sold to consumers, according to the agreed final judgment and
consent decree with Texas, several other states and the Federal
Trade Commission. Full credit or refunds will be given those
consumers who filed billing inquiries with the Company on or
before January 15, 2004, and a dispute resolution process will
be available to those who received bills after that date but
neglected to send the company an inquiry. The Company must also
correct any adverse credit information generated against
consumers who filed billing inquiries.
In addition, consumers who now seek the Company's services will
be required to provide uniquely identifying information, such as
a portion of their social security number, to avoid unauthorized
purchases or access by children.
During the investigation and prior to suing in May 2003, the
Attorney General found that the Company's numerous pop-up ads
invading a user's computer would trigger unauthorized downloads
of Alyon's modem dialer software into the computer. The dialer,
in turn, would force the computer to connect to a New Jersey
phone number operated by the company. Alyon charged consumers
$4.99 for the call, plus long-distance fees. Consumers reported
receiving bills ranging from $100 to $700.
ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement With WA Attorney General
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Attorney General's office settled with the
operators of Alyon Technologies, a New Jersey-based Internet
billing service which allegedly charged consumers for adult web
material they never intended to purchase. Parties to the
settlement also include the company's president, Stephane
Touboul, and its Georgia affiliate, Telcollect.
Nearly 200 Washington consumers filed complaints claiming they
were charged for time that they were unknowingly connected to
the service. Some consumer bills were as high as $600, charged
at the rate of $4.99 per minute. In some cases, consumers said
their children accessed the adult sites without their parents'
permission, and the parents were later billed.
The Company purported to provide a billing system that could be
used as an alternative to paying with a credit card when viewing
certain websites. According to the state's lawsuit, which was
originally filed on May 28, 2003, consumers complained that they
had neither gone to the websites nor agreed to be billed for
viewing them.
The settlement, filed in King County Superior Court, requires
that the defendants forgive any charges allegedly owed by
consumers who submitted complaints to the defendants before
January 15, 2004. Consumers who received bills before June 15,
2004, and have not submitted complaints have the right to do so
and request that their charges be forgiven.
The defendants have agreed to provide consumers with full
disclosure and clear information about their billing services,
as well as an easier way to settle bill discrepancies.
Additionally, they have agreed to require that all of the
companies' videotext service providers refrain from distributing
dialer programs that provide a direct link to the defendants'
billing system without the user's knowledge or permission.
Future customers will be assigned an identification number to
ensure accuracy in billing and verification that the consumer
has agreed to be charged. Furthermore, the companies will make
it more difficult for children to access adult sites.
The state's lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated
Washington's Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting that
consumers and telephone-line subscribers were legally obligated
to pay for access to content on mostly adult-oriented web sites.
The suit further alleged that consumers were bombarded with pop-
up boxes that caused them to unintentionally download a program
that switched their computers to the Alyon billing system. The
defendants then allegedly mailed bills demanding payment, even
if the subscribers did not authorize downloading the program and
did not purchase materials on the web sites.
Washington joins 22 other states in the settlement. Alyon and
its subsidiaries will pay Washington $15,000 in costs and
attorneys fees.
BAY NETWORKS: CA Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara dismissed
the shareholder class action filed against Bay Networks, Inc.
(which Nortel Networks Corporation acquired on August 31,1998.
On March 4, 1997, shareholders filed two separate lawsuits in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(the "Federal Court") and the California Superior Court, County
of Santa Clara (the "California Court"), against the Company and
ten of its then current and former officers and directors
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased
the Company's common shares during the period of May 1, 1995
through October 14, 1996.
On August 17, 2000, the Federal Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the federal complaint. On August 1, 2001, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
plaintiffs' appeal of that decision.
On April 18, 1997, a second lawsuit was filed in the California
Court, purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who
acquired the Company's common shares pursuant to the
registration statement and prospectus that became effective on
November 15, 1995. The two actions in the California Court were
consolidated in April 1998; however, the California Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In January
2000, the California Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs'
appeal of the decision. A petition for review was filed with
the California Supreme Court by the plaintiffs and was denied.
In February 2000, new plaintiffs who allege to have been
shareholders of Bay Networks during the relevant periods, filed
a motion for intervention in the California Court seeking to
become the representatives of a class of shareholders. The
motion was granted on June 8, 2001 and the new plaintiffs filed
their complaint-in-intervention on an individual and purported
class representative basis alleging misrepresentations made in
connection with the purchase and sale of securities of Bay
Networks in violation of California statutory and common law.
On March 11, 2002, the California Court granted the defendants'
motion to strike the class allegations. The plaintiffs were
permitted to proceed on their individual claims. The
intervenor-plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their class
allegations. On July 25, 2003, the California Court of Appeal
reversed the trial court's dismissal of the intervenor-
plaintiffs' class allegations. On September 3, 2003, the
defendants filed a petition for review with the California
Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal the Court of
Appeal decision. On October 22, 2003, the California Supreme
Court denied, without opinion, the defendants' petition for
review. On December 22, 2003, the plaintiffs served their
motion for certification of a class of purchasers of Bay
Networks' common shares from July 25, 1995 through to
October 14, 1996. Hearing of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was held on May 4, 2004. On July 27, 2004, the
Court entered an Amended Order Denying Motion of Intervenor
Plaintiffs for Class Certification and Setting Further Hearing.
On August 9, 2004, the intervenor-plaintiffs obtained Court
approval to dismiss their claims and this action and, on
September 30, 2004, the Court entered dismissal with prejudice
of the entire action of all parties and all causes of action.
CALIFORNIA: High Court Allows Review of Model's Late Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court agreed to review a ruling on
whether models that receive flat fees for one-day assignments
are "discharged" at the end of the day, thus triggering an
obligation on the part of their employer to pay them immediately
or face penalties, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.
At its weekly conference in San Francisco, the court voted
unanimously to review the October 19 decision of Div. Five of
this district's Court of Appeal in Smith v. Superior Court
(2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 128.
The plaintiff in the case, Amanza Smith, was working as a
salesperson in a Beverly Hills boutique and seeking acting and
modeling assignments when she was approached four years ago
about serving as a hair model at a show featuring L'Oreal
products. She accepted the assignment for $500 for one day of
work, receiving her pay two months later in the form of a check
sent from the company's main accounting office in New York.
She then filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in Los
Angeles Superior Court for her claims that the failure to pay
promptly constituted conversion, fraud, unfair business
practices, violation of Labor Code sections requiring immediate
payment upon discharge, breach of contract, and negligent
misrepresentation.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Frances Rothschild granted
summary adjudication on the Labor Code claims, concluding that
Ms. Smith was not "discharged," but rather "completed her
employment by its terms." Justice Margaret Grignon, who has
since retired, agreed with the trial judge in her opinion for
Div. Five.
Kevin Francis Ruf of Century City's Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
represents the plaintiff, while the San Francisco firm of
Morgenstein & Jubilerer represents L'Oreal. The state labor
commissioner urged depublication in the event review was not
granted, as did Bet Tzedek Legal Services.
CROSS COUNTRY: Agrees To Be Enjoined Due To Deceptive Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware-based Cross Country Bank and its collection subsidiary,
Applied Card Systems, agreed on December 9, 2004, to be enjoined
from engaging in deceptive marketing of its credit cards and
abusive debt collection practices in West Virginia, West
Virginia Darren McGraw announced.
The agreement, approved by the companies' owner, Rocco A.
Abessinio, resulted in the cancellation of the December 10
hearing on Attorney General Darrell McGraw's request for an
injunction before Kanawha Circuit Judge James C. Stucky.
In addition to the West Virginia injunction, the Abessinio-owned
companies are also subject to similar injunctions obtained by
the Attorneys General of New York and Minnesota as well as a
nationwide injunction entered by the Federal Trade Commission on
October 6, 2004. Suits by the Attorneys General of Wisconsin and
Texas also remain pending.
Cross Country Bank is a subprime credit card bank that markets
credit cards with high up-front fees and interest rates to
consumers with bad credit. The attorneys general of the five
states with cases pending against Cross Country Bank and Applied
Card Systems have relied upon the testimony of many former
employees of Applied Card Systems to support their claims of
unlawful activities, including employees from the company's
Beckley office that Mr. Abessinio closed in April, 2003.
The West Virginia order requires Cross Country Bank and Applied
Card Systems to put into place and enforce procedures reasonably
designed to ensure that the Bank complies with West Virginia
consumer protection law in the marketing of its credit cards and
in its debt collection practices. Among other things, the order
prohibits the Bank from debiting the accounts of consumers
without their express authorization; making repeated telephone
calls to consumers at home, at work, or at other times or places
known to be inconvenient with the intent to annoy, abuse,
oppress, or threaten them; using profane or obscene language or
other insulting or degrading conduct; falsely stating that a
collection call is "urgent" or an "emergency" or using other
deceptions to induce consumers to accept a call; and falsely
representing to consumers that the Bank will waive late charges
or over-the-limit fees in exchange for partial payments on
accounts.
The Bank is also prohibited from inducing consumers to purchase
related products or services such as "Credit Account Protection"
and "Applied Advantage" by representing that such products offer
benefits that they do not have; charging consumers for such
related products or services without their knowledge or consent;
and sending written solicitations to consumers representing that
the Bank's accounts are useful in building or improving credit.
The preliminary injunction also contains detailed provisions
requiring the Bank to monitor its own practices and authorizing
the Attorney General's office, upon request, to inspect and copy
documents to oversee compliance with the order. The monitoring
and inspection provisions in the West Virginia court order
mirror the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission's
nationwide order.
Attorney General McGraw stated, "I am pleased that we were able
to reach an agreement with Cross Country Bank and Applied Card
Systems that protects West Virginia consumers while the case is
pending. Now that this hurdle has been crossed, we can
concentrate on reaching a final resolution that will resolve all
remaining concerns of our office."
Although an agreement has been reached on the terms of a
preliminary injunction, the litigation remains pending and a
trial in the matter is scheduled for June 21, 2005, before Judge
Stucky in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Charleston, West
Virginia.
Any persons wishing to file a complaint about a consumer matter
or to alert the Attorney General about unfair or deceptive
practices may do so by calling the Consumer Protection Hotline,
1-800-368-8808, or by downloading a complaint form from this
site. (Complaint Form)
DE FIDE: To Hold News Conference On Heresy Suit V. Politicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Balestrieri, JCL, the canon lawyer and director of the non-
profit organization DE FIDE based in Los Angeles, who in an
unprecedented class-action ecclesiastical lawsuit filed last
summer, a Dual-Denunciation for Heresy and Complaint for
Reparation of Harm specifically, against Senator John F. Kerry
for his support of the civil right to choose abortion will be
holding a press conference on January 24, 2005, 9:00 a.m. at the
National Press Club, Lisagor Room, Washington D.C.
Under Roman Catholic Church law, support of abortion rights
constitutes the "Right-to-Murder" Heresy condemned by Pope John
Paul II in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae of 1995. Automatic
Excommunication is the penalty incurred for this offense.
Within 11 days of submitting a query with the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, Balestrieri received a
personal reply confirming the doctrinal merits of the case
written by an expert theologian at the request of a Vatican
official.
According to a press release published in the Christian News
Wire the purpose of the conference is to:
(1) Update the Press on the ongoing efforts to stop Kerry's
continuing propagation of the Right-to-Murder Heresy,
Sacrilege, and Scandal;
(2) Detail the new denunciations for Heresy, Sacrilege, and
Scandal to be filed against Senators Edward Kennedy,
Tom Harkin, Susan Collins, and former New York Governor
Mario Cuomo;
(3) Release to the Press for the first time ever the first
set of pending canonical briefs and documents
pertaining to the Heresy cases;
(4) Release canonical forms inviting Christians and non-
Christians alike to join in the class action
ecclesiastical lawsuit against all of the above-named
parties.
For more details, contact Marc Balestrieri, director of DE FIDE,
by Phone: 310-927-5414 or by E-mail: secretary@defide.com.
EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Lodge CA Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. and certain of its officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Each lawsuit purports to be filed on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's securities from April 20, 2004 through October 27,
2004, inclusive (the "class period"), and each lawsuit alleges
various violations of securities laws during the class period.
The lawsuits seek unspecified damages.
The complaint charges Embarcadero Technologies, Stephen Wong,
and Raj Sabhlok with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
9,2004) states. 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 had materially overstated its net
income and earnings per share;
(2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue in its
UK subsidiary, Embarcadero Europe Ltd.;
(3) that the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
condition of the Company; and
(5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
and financial results were materially overstated at all
relevant times.
The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Martin J.
Jenkins. The suits are styled:
(1) Sullivan v. Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. et al, case
no. 3:04-cv-04680-MJJ
(2) Garcia v. Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. et al, case
no. 3:04-cv-04729-MJJ
The lawyers for the plaintiffs are:
(i) Robert S. Green, Green Welling LLP, 235 Pine Street
15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415/477-
6700, Fax: 415-477-6710, E-mail:
CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM
(ii) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-
7056
(iii) Patrick J. Coughlin and William S. Lerach of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine
Street Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
415/288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534 or E-mail:
patc@mwbhl.com or billl@lerachlaw.com
FEDERAL AVIATION: Employees Plan Lawsuit To Challenge Pay Caps
--------------------------------------------------------------
Upset over their salaries being capped, a loose coalition of
Federal Aviation Administration employees have decided to launch
a class action lawsuit against the agency, according to the
group's unofficial leader, the Government Executive reports.
Under FAA's performance pay system, more than 800 long-term
employees are at the top of their pay band and are not eligible
for base salary increases. Those employees, however, can receive
annual awards for good performance. Thousands of other FAA
employees including air traffic controllers are exempt from this
rule because of union agreements, or they already were above the
maximum pay limit when the rule on pay caps went into effect.
Employees with frozen base salaries called the different
compensation regulations unfair, and said they are losing
thousands of dollars in retirement benefits, locality pay
increases and overtime pay. In a January 14 agency wide e-mail,
FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said she wants "compensation
policies to be as consistent as possible," but the agency will
not take action on the pay bands, because market surveys show
that FAA workers are paid more than their counterparts in the
aviation industry.
For the past year, disgruntled workers have been represented and
organized by Mark Lash, an FAA manager in Oklahoma City. But Mr.
Lash has grown tired of the intense research and communications
work and he is passing his leadership role on to Tim O'Hara, a
FAA manager in Washington. In an interview with Government
Executive, Mr. Lash stated, "My hope had always been that
through increased awareness and pressure, the agency would make
the adjustments necessary to fix the inequity ... that wasn't
the case. This is a relay race, and I was ready to hand off the
baton."
Mr. O'Hara, upon assuming the role, told the Government
Executive that the affected employees will file a class action
suit against FAA, and he is planning to issue a public call on
February 1 for workers who are interested in taking part in the
legal action. Several employees including Mr. O'Hara himself are
in the process of selecting a law firm to handle the case.
Mr. O'Hara, who has worked for FAA for two decades, further told
the Government Executive that he "never expected to see my name
in a newspaper," or "bring a complaint against the agency." He
added, however, that the disparity in pay regulations angered
him and he doesn't believe the situation will be resolved unless
employees resort to legal action. Mr. O'Hara has already
received commitments from about 40 FAA employees.
However, Greg Martin, a spokesman for the FAA, pointed out that
Ms. Blakey had explained in her e-mail that the organization is
dedicated to a compensation system that is linked to private
sector pay rates. Because of that, he said, the pay bands cannot
be adjusted. He even adds, "I think it's clear that we are not
going to take the expedient course of action and simply continue
to raise pay bands. They are market-based."
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Reaches $5.2 Mil Settlement With "Agency Temps"
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 1,300 GlaxoSmithKline workers, who were improperly
classified, as temporary employees by the Company will share in
a $5.2 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit that a
federal judge in Philadelphia approved recently, the Associated
Press reports.
Filed in 2000 against GlaxoSmithKline predecessor SmithKline
Beecham, the suit had alleged that workers in Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, South Carolina and Tennessee should have been designated
as permanent employees, which would have made them eligible to
participate in the drug maker's employee benefit plans.
The suit also alleged the workers should have been given
eligibility and service credits in the plans for the time they
were classified as "agency temps" after they were hired as full-
time employees.
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended IL Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated securities class
action against Hollinger International, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
styled "In re Hollinger Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04C-
0834."
In February and April 2004, three alleged stockholders of the
Company (Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, Kenneth
Mozingo, and Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund) initiated purported class actions suits against the
Company, its former chief executive officer and founder Conrad
Black, certain former executive officers and certain current and
former directors of the Company, Hollinger Inc., Ravelston and
certain affiliated entities and KPMG LLP, the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm.
On July 9, 2004, the Court consolidated the three actions for
pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint on August 2, 2004, and a second
consolidated amended class action complaint on November 19,
2004. The named plaintiffs in the second consolidated amended
class action complaint are Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana, Washington Area Carpenters Pension and Retirement
Fund, and E. Dean Carlson. They are purporting to sue on behalf
of an alleged class consisting of themselves and all other
purchasers of securities of the Company between and including
August 13, 1999 and December 11, 2002.
The second consolidated amended class action complaint asserts
claims under federal and Illinois securities laws and claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting in breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with misleading disclosures and
omissions regarding certain "non-competition" payments, the
payment of allegedly excessive management fees, allegedly
inflated circulation figures at the Chicago Sun-Times, and other
alleged misconduct. The complaint seeks unspecified money
damages, rescission, and an injunction against future
violations.
The suit is styled "In Re: Hollinger Intl Securities Litigation,
case no. 1:04-cv-00834," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge David
H. Coar. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,
(2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com
(4) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com
(5) Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC,
Chicago, IL, Phone: 800-470-6824, Fax: 312-621-1750,
(6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: Canadians Launch Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hollinger, International, Inc. faces several class actions filed
in Saskatchewan and Ontario Courts in Canada, on behalf of those
who purchased stock in one or more of the defendant
corporations.
The Saskatchewan claim, issued in that province's Court of
Queen's Bench, and the Ontario claim, issued in that province's
Superior Court of Justice, are identical in all material
respects. The defendants include the Company, certain current
and former directors and officers of the Company, Hollinger
Inc., Ravelston and certain affiliated entities, Torys LLP, the
Company's former legal counsel, and KPMG LLP. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, violation
of the Ontario Securities Act, 1988, S-42.2, and breaches of
obligations under the Canadian Business Corporations Act, R.S.O.
1985, c. C.-44 and seek unspecified money damages.
KENTUCKY: Closed-Door Talks Delays Covington Abuse Suit Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Before calling off a planned pre-trial hearing, attorneys for
the Diocese of Covington in Kentucky and for those suing it in a
multimillion-dollar, class-action lawsuit met behind closed
doors with the judge for nearly two hours, the Kentucky Post
reports.
Stan Chesley, the lead attorney for those suing over the
diocese's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse by its priests and
other workers, pronounced himself pleased with the progress in
the said talks. "There are many, many things that need to be
done, and we are cautiously optimistic," Chesley told a group of
more than two dozen victims and their families who were in Boone
Circuit Court for the expected hearing, the Post reports.
Mr. Chesley would not offer details about the talks with Special
Judge John Potter, and lawyers for the diocese had no comment.
While Mr. Chesley said the trial in the case is still scheduled
for April 11, he said it could be delayed because of the ongoing
negotiations.
A number of attorneys including Mr. Chesley and Robert Steinberg
of Cincinnati, Ann Oldfather of Louisville and Michael O'Hara of
Crestview Hills filed the lawsuit in Boone County claiming to
represent more than 100 victims, who say dozens of priests were
abusers.
The diocese denies the cover-up claim and maintains it was
simply handling the situation according to the dictates of the
times. More recently, it said it wanted to reach individual
settlements with victims. Over the years, the diocese and its
insurance company have paid out about $15 million to more than
50 victims.
That does not include the most recent settlement, reached last
week with Kay Montgomery, a Lexington homemaker and now a strong
advocate for abuse victims, who said a former priest, James
Edward Fritsch, abused her in the late 1960s. The amount of that
settlement, the last of the diocese cases that are outside the
class-action lawsuit was not made public.
Before he stepped down from the bench and the case, Boone
Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger ruled, over the diocese's
objections, that the case could proceed as a class-action
lawsuit. After Judge Bamberger's retirement, Judge Potter, a
retired circuit judge from Louisville, was assigned to the case.
The hearing was scheduled to be about trial procedures, however,
shortly before it was to begin, Judge Potter called the
attorneys back into his chambers, which is at least the second
time the judge has done so. But, this time, he never appeared in
court, and attorneys later announced that the hearing was being
delayed until March.
Experts believe that part of the delay is because of settlement
negotiations being overseen by Kenneth Feinberg, a nationally
known mediator, who is best known for being the special master
for the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund, has been
leading the talks since May. Neither side will discuss details
of the negotiations. Judge Potter has twice delayed the trial
though after attorneys requested more time to meet with Mr.
Feinberg.
MARYLAND: Proposed HB15 To Ban Lawsuits Blaming Obesity On Food
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore, Maryland lawmaker Del. John Arnick is pushing for
legislture seeking to ban lawsuits blaming obesity on food in
the state, the Associated Press reports.
Mr. Arnick, a Baltimore County Democrat, believes that people
should be responsible for the decisions they make about what
food they put in their mouths. Mr. Arnick's bill, HB15
otherwise known as the Common Sense Food Consumption Act, would
prohibit people who blame their obesity on the food they buy in
restaurants and grocery stores from filing suits to collect
damages for their health problems.
At a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Arnick
said, according to AP, "It would prohibit frivolous suits based
on, 'I got fat from eating your cookies or doughnuts.'"
His bill though got a skeptical reception from some committee
members who questioned whether there is a need for the law since
there is no evidence such a lawsuit has ever been filed in
Maryland. In the same hearing, Del. Luiz Simmons, D-Montgomery,
said, "I would agree with you that such a suit would be
frivolous. I don't think that we need, in the absence of any
demonstrable problem, to rush into legislation."
Mr. Arnick pointed out that 14 states have passed similar laws,
and at least 10 are considering bills on the subject this year.
The U.S. House of Representatives also passed similar
legislation last March, but the Senate did nothing.
Two class action suits filed in New York blaming McDonald's
Corp. for making people fat touched off the wave of proposed
bills. A federal judge though dismissed the suits.
Though committee members made light of the issue and questioned
the need for a law, witnesses for restaurants and grocery stores
say they take the threat of lawsuits seriously. According to
Melvin Thompson, vice president of the Restaurant Association of
Maryland, "We are very concerned about these cases." He adds,
that a lawsuit, even a frivolous one, could drive some small
restaurants out of business. Another witness, Bruce Bereano,
lobbyist for Safeway Inc., even pointed out that activists are
gearing up to make obesity the subject of the next wave of
lawsuits as they did for smoking. In his testimony, he conceded
that "There is nothing wrong with doing something that is
preventative," but he did state, "People love to file lawsuits.
Bills like this are needed."
MASSACHUSETTS: Judge Declines To Reopen Fernald Development Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro declined to resume oversight of
state care of the mentally retarded, dealing a setback to
advocates trying to halt the shutdown of the Fernald Development
Center, the Associated Press reports.
The federal judge directed two decades of reform of the state
system after a class action suit exposed abuses ranging from
vermin infestation to unexplained resident injuries. Last year,
the plaintiffs alleged conditions had badly deteriorated after
recent staffing and budget cuts, violating Judge Tauro's 1993
order to maintain high standards, which closed the case. The
plaintiffs also argued that the Romney administration's plan to
close Fernald would be profoundly traumatic for its severely
retarded residents, breaking a state guarantee of equal or
better care for any transferred resident. Judge Tauro declined
their motion to reopen the case without comment.
According to Department of Mental Retardation Commissioner
Gerald Morrissey, Judge Tauro's decision affirms the high
quality of state care for the retarded and allows both sides to
focus on doing what's best for Fernald residents. He told AP, "I
think we're doing a great job. What this (decision) does is give
everybody a chance to take a deep breath and focus our energy
and our resources and make sure the people at Fernald get our
best every day."
Beryl Cohen, an attorney for the plaintiffs who filed the
original case, told AP his biggest disappointment is that unsafe
living and staffing conditions will be preserved, at least for
now.
The state move to close Fernald is part of a broad plan to
replace all its large residential facilities with smaller,
community-based centers. The plan has split advocates for the
retarded some of whom say smaller centers are more humane and
effective, while others say the support and staff available at a
place such as Fernald is better for residents with acute needs.
The Romney administration has also estimated $2.3 million in
savings from closing Fernald.
Filed last summer, the suit had asked for Judge Tauro to reopen
the case, but in November the federal judge instead asked the
two sides to work together to resolve the case in hopes of
avoiding a drawn out court battle. He also told them to focus on
the creation of the "individual service plans," which detail the
equal or superior service each resident is supposed to receive
at a new facility.
MERRILL LYNCH: MA Appeals Court Upholds Ruling V. Henry Blodget
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court agreed that a lower court was correct to
throw out a class-action lawsuit against Merrill Lynch (MER) and
Henry Blodget, its onetime analyst best known for hyping
Internet companies in research reports even as he denigrated
some of them in private, which gives investors seeking to blame
Wall Street analysts for the massive losses they suffered when
the technology bubble burst a harder time recouping their money
now, the CBS MarketWatch reports.
The three-judge panel ruled that Merrill and Mr. Blodget didn't
mislead investors, noting that their lawsuits failed to prove
that alleged misrepresentations and omissions in research
reports caused them to lose money on two Internet companies.
According to the suit, plaintiffs had alleged that Mr. Blodget
and other analysts recommended the stocks of 24/7 Real Media
Inc. and Interliant Inc. even though they privately regarded
them as poor investments. Such negative views would jeopardize
the firm's lucrative investment-banking business, so analysts
didn't reveal them, the investors in the lawsuit stated.
However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York
disagreed with the plaintiffs' arguments and instead ruled taht
conflicts of interest may create opportunities for fraud, but
they don't by themselves prove fraud exists. Effectively
upholding the decision of veteran U.S. District Judge Milton
Pollack, who died last year, the federal appeals court wrote in
its ruling, "Something more than conflicted interest is
required, no matter how well publicized the conflict may be."
The lawsuits were filed in the wake of New York Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer's efforts to expose conflicts of interest in Wall
Street stock research. In his investigation, Mr. Spitzer
uncovered e-mails showing some analysts privately voiced strong
misgivings about stocks they had recommended in their published
research reports.
Merrill Lynch in 2003 agreed to pay $200 million to settle
investigations by Mr. Spitzer and the Securities & Exchange
Commission. That same year, Mr. Blodget was barred from the
securities industry and was ordered to pay $4 million to settle
charges against him. Mr. Blodget now writes about Wall Street
and investing as a freelancer, and has authored pieces for
Slate.com.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation (NNC) is working to resolve two
shareholder class actions filed against it, subsequent to the
February 15, 2001 announcement in which NNC provided revised
guidance for financial performance for the 2001 fiscal year and
the first quarter of 2001.
The Company and certain of its then current officers and
directors were initially named as defendants in more than
twenty-five purported class action lawsuits, filed in the U.S.
District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, for the
Southern District of New York and for the District of New Jersey
and the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in
Canada. The suits were filed on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Nortel Networks Corporation securities as early as
October 24, 2000 and as late as February 15, 2001.
The suits uniformly alleged, among other things, violations of
U.S. federal and Canadian provincial securities laws. These
matters also have been the subject of review by Canadian and
U.S. securities regulatory authorities.
On May 11, 2001, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or
stay in connection with the three proceedings in Quebec
primarily based on the factual allegations lacking substantial
connection to Quebec and the inclusion of shareholders resident
in Quebec in the class claimed in the Ontario lawsuit. The
plaintiffs in two of these proceedings in Quebec obtained court
approval for discontinuances of their proceedings on January 17,
2002. The motion to dismiss and/or stay the third proceeding
was heard on November 6, 2001 and the court deferred any
determination on the motion to the judge who will hear the
application for authorization to commence a class proceeding.
On December 6, 2001, the defendants filed a motion seeking leave
to appeal that decision. The motion for leave to appeal was
dismissed on March 11, 2002. On October 16, 2001, an order in
the Southern District of New York was filed consolidating
twenty-five of the related U.S. class action lawsuits into a
single case, appointing class plaintiffs and counsel for such
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs served a consolidated amended
complaint on January 18, 2002.
On December 17, 2001, the defendants in the British Columbia
action served notice of a motion requesting the court to decline
jurisdiction and to stay all proceedings on the grounds that
British Columbia is an inappropriate forum. The motion has been
adjourned at the plaintiffs' request to a future date to be set
by the parties.
A class action lawsuit against NNC was also filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of shareholders who acquired the securities of JDS Uniphase
Corporation (JDS) between January 18, 2001 and February 15,
2001, alleging violations of the same U.S. federal securities
laws as the above-noted lawsuits.
On April 1, 2002, NNC filed a motion to dismiss both the above
consolidated U.S. shareholder class action and the above JDS
shareholder class action complaints on the grounds that they
failed to state a cause of action under U.S. federal securities
laws. With respect to the JDS shareholder class action
complaint, NNC also moved to dismiss on the separate basis that
JDS shareholders lacked standing to sue NNC. On January 3,
2003, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the JDS
shareholder class action complaint and denied the motion to
dismiss the consolidated U.S. class action complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the JDS shareholder class
action complaint. On November 19, 2003, oral argument was held
before the Second Circuit on the JDS shareholders' appeal of the
dismissal of their complaint. On May 19, 2004, the Second
Circuit issued an opinion affirming the dismissal of the JDS
shareholder class action complaint and on July 14, 2004 the
Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for rehearing. On
October 12, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. On November 12, 2004, the
defendants filed Brief for the Respondents in Opposition, and on
November 22, 2004, the plaintiffs filed Reply to Brief in
Opposition. With respect to the consolidated U.S. shareholder
class action, the plaintiffs served a motion for class
certification on March 21, 2003. On May 30, 2003, the
defendants served an opposition to the motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' reply was served on August 1, 2003.
The District Court held oral arguments on September 3, 2003 and
issued an order granting class certification on September 5,
2003. On September 23, 2003, the defendants filed a motion in
the Second Circuit for permission to appeal the class
certification decision. The plaintiffs' opposition to the
motion was filed on October 2, 2003. On November 24, 2003, the
Second Circuit denied the motion. On March 10, 2004, the
District Court approved the form of notice to the class which
was published and mailed.
The suit is styled "In re NORTEL NETWORKS CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, case no. 1:04-cv-02115-GBD," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge George B. Daniels.
Lawyer for the company is Elizabeth Robin Weiss of Shearman &
Sterling LLP (New York), 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212 848-5086, Fax: 646 848-5086 E-mail:
elizabeth.weiss@shearman.com. The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:
(1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net
(2) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
617.542.8300, Fax; 617.230.0903, e-mail:
info@bermanesq.com
(3) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(4) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,
(5) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
(6) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2900
Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999,
(7) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(8) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(9) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
info@whhf.com
(10) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com
(11) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax; 212.686.0114, e-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
NORTEL NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its then current and former officers and directors,
as a result of its March 10, 2004 announcement in which the
Company indicated it was likely that it and Nortel Networks
would need to revise its previously announced unaudited results
for the year ended December 31, 2003, and the results reported
in certain of its quarterly reports for 2003, and to restate its
previously filed financial results for one or more earlier
periods.
27 purported class action lawsuits were initially filed on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Nortel Networks Corporation
securities as early as February 16, 2001 and as late as May 15,
2004. The suits uniformly allege, among other things,
violations of U.S. federal securities laws. These matters are
also the subject of investigations by Canadian and U.S.
securities regulatory and criminal investigative authorities.
On June 30, 2004, the Court signed Orders consolidating the 27
class actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
September 10, 2004, alleging a class period of April 24, 2003,
through and including April 27, 2004. On November 5, 2004,
Nortel Networks Corporation and the Audit Committee Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action
complaint.
The suit is styled "Locals 302 and 612 of the International
Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry
Retirement Trust v. Blanchard et al., case no. 1:04-cv-05954-
GBD" filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge George B. Daniels.
Lawyer for the plaintiffs is Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach,
Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@cauleygeller.com. Lawyer for the
defendant is Autumn Ji Sun Hwang of Fish & Richardson P.C., 153
East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4611 Phone: 212-641-2260
Fax: 212-258-2291 E-mail: hwang@fr.com.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation, Nortel Networks Ltd., and certain
of their officers and directors face a purported class
proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice filed on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Nortel Networks Corporation
securities as early as November 12, 2002 and as late as July 28,
2004.
This lawsuit alleges, among other things, breaches of trust and
fiduciary duty, oppressive conduct and misappropriation of
corporate assets and trust property in respect of the payment of
cash bonuses to executives, officers and employees in 2003 and
2004 under the NNC Return to Profitability bonus program and
seeks damages of Canadian $250 and an order under the Canada
Business Corporations Act directing that an investigation be
made respecting these bonus payments.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Ontario Court Allows Amended Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed plaintiffs to file
an amended class action against Nortel Networks Corporation
(NNC), certain of its current and former officers and directors
and its auditors.
The suit was initially filed on July 17, 2002, on behalf of all
Canadian residents who purchased Nortel Networks Corporation
securities (including options on Nortel Networks Corporation
securities) between October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001. The
plaintiffs claim damages of Canadian $5,000, plus punitive
damages in the amount of Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and
postjudgment interest and costs of the action.
On September 23, 2003, the Court issued an order allowing the
plaintiffs to proceed to amend the Ontario Claim and requiring
that the plaintiffs serve class certification materials by
December 15, 2003. On September 24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed
a notice of discontinuance of the original action filed in
Ontario. On December 12, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel requested an
extension of time to January 21, 2004 to deliver class
certification materials. On January 21, 2004, plaintiffs'
counsel advised the Court that the two representative plaintiffs
in the action no longer wished to proceed, but counsel was
prepared to deliver draft certification materials pending the
replacement of the representative plaintiffs.
On February 19, 2004, the plaintiffs' counsel advised the Court
of a potential new representative plaintiff. On February 26,
2004, the defendants requested the Court to direct the
plaintiffs' counsel to bring a motion to permit the withdrawal
of the current representative plaintiffs and to substitute the
proposed representative plaintiff. On June 8, 2004, the Court
signed an order allowing a Second Fresh as Amended Statement of
Claim that substituted one new representative plaintiff, but did
not change the substance of the prior claim.
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Suit in M.D. TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation faces an amended class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).
A class action was initially filed on December 21, 2001, on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Networks
Long-Term Investment Plan (the "Plan") at any time during the
period of March 7, 2000 through the filing date and who made or
maintained Plan investments in Nortel Networks Corporation
common shares. The suit makes claims under ERISA, alleging,
among other things, material misrepresentations and omissions to
induce Plan participants to continue to invest in and maintain
investments in Nortel Networks Corporation common shares in the
Plan.
A second purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
purchased Nortel Networks Corporation common shares during the
period from October 27, 2000 to February 15, 2001 and making
similar allegations was filed in the same court on March 12,
2002. A third purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of
persons who are or were Plan participants or beneficiaries at
any time since March 1, 1999 to the filing date and making
similar allegations, was filed in the same court on March 21,
2002.
The first and second purported class action lawsuits were
consolidated by a new purported class action complaint, filed on
May 15, 2002 in the same court and making similar allegations,
on behalf of Plan participants and beneficiaries who directed
the Plan to purchase or hold shares of certain funds, which held
primarily Nortel Networks Corporation common shares, during the
period from March 7, 2000 through December 21, 2001.
On September 24, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a motion to consolidate all the actions and to transfer
them to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The plaintiffs then filed a motion to withdraw the
pending motion to consolidate and transfer. The withdrawal was
granted by the District Court on December 30, 2002.
A fourth purported class action lawsuit, on behalf of the Plan
and Plan participants for whose individual accounts the Plan
held Nortel Networks Corporation common shares during the period
from March 7, 2000 through March 31, 2001 and making similar
allegations, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on March 12, 2003. On March 18,
2003, plaintiffs in the fourth purported class action filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPMDL) to transfer all the actions to the Southern District of
New York for coordinated or consolidated proceedings pursuant to
28 U.S.C. section 1407. On June 24, 2003, the JPMDL issued a
transfer order transferring the Southern District of New York
action to the Middle District of Tennessee (the "Consolidated
ERISA Action"). On September 12, 2003, the plaintiffs in all
the actions filed a consolidated class action complaint. On
October 28, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and a motion to stay discovery pending disposition of
the motion to dismiss.
On March 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a class consisting of participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the Plan who held shares of the NNC Stock Fund
during the period from March 7, 2000 through March 31, 2001. On
April 27, 2004, the Court granted the defendants' motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of defendants' motion to dismiss.
On June 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint that added additional
current and former officers and employees as defendants and
expanded the purported class period to extend from March 7, 2000
through to June 15, 2004.
On May 18, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan at any time
during the period of December 23, 2003 through the filing date
and who made or maintained Plan investments in Nortel Networks
Corporation common shares. The suit makes claims under the
ERISA for Plan-wide relief and alleges, among other things,
breaches of fiduciary duty. On September 3, 2004, the Court
signed a stipulated order consolidating this action with the
Consolidated ERISA Action described above.
On June 16, 2004, a second purported class action lawsuit, on
behalf of the Plan and Plan participants for whose individual
accounts the Plan purchased Nortel Networks Corporation common
shares during the period from October 24, 2000 to June 16, 2004,
and making similar allegations, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. On August 6, 2004,
the JPMDL issued a conditional transfer order to transfer this
action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee for coordinated or consolidated proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. section 1407 with the Consolidated ERISA Action
described above. On August 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed a notice
of opposition to conditional transfer order with the Judicial
Panel. On December 6, 2004, the Judicial Panel denied the
opposition and ordered the action transferred to the U. S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for
coordinated or consolidated proceedings with the Consolidated
ERISA Action above.
The suit is styled "In re Nortel Networks Corporation ERISA
Litigation, Case No. 03-MD-1537," filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, under Judge
John T. Nixon.
PENNSYLVANIA: 100 Sign On For Suit V. Montour County's Tax Hike
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 100 Montour County property owners have signed up to be
part of a class-action lawsuit challenging Montour County's
recent decision to increase real estate taxes by 10 percent, the
Sunbury Daily Item reports.
Pat O'Connell, a Bloomsburg attorney, who is offering his
services for free to property owners in the county, told the
Daily Item he will file the lawsuit in Montour County Court
within the next two weeks. He also stated his reasons for
filing the suit by saying, "This tax is illegal. It just has to
be turned into a court action. It's one of those situations
where I just had to step up to the plate and do the right
thing."
This year, the Montour County commissioners changed the
assessment ratio on real estate from 75 percent of value to 100
percent of value. After such a ratio change, the County can only
increase taxes by 5 percent, not 10 percent, Mr. O'Connell said.
Attorney Mike Dennehy, one of the lawyers representing the
county and borough, told the Daily Item last week he believes
the 10 percent tax increase is legal and justified. He further
states, "There are differing opinions on this matter. If it's
wrong, we'll deal with it. But I'm not going to go through how
we reached the 10 percent figure now. I'm not going to litigate
this case in the newspaper."
Two state laws, Act 254 and Act 91, may apply to the lawsuit.
Act 254, which was passed in 1943 and sets limits for fourth-
through eighth-class counties to a 5 percent tax increase the
year after an assessment ratio change. On the other hand, Act
91, passed in July, says certain counties can't raise taxes by
more than 10 percent the year after a ratio change.
Mr. Dennehy pointed out that when legal conflicts arise,
officials always go by the most recent law.
Mr. O'Connell, who is a member of the Columbia-Montour Bar
Association for the past five years and has practiced law for 10
years, specializing in civil cases, insisted that he was certain
of winning the lawsuit. He revealed, "I've talked to the senator
(who wrote the law), and he's provided me with a written history
that shows it doesn't apply to Montour County." Furthermore, he
stated, "I know this is a situation that is making the average
taxpayer very irate. I also know the average taxpayer is not in
a position to hire a lawyer and challenge this tax. That's why
I'm offering my services at no charge."
PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Lodge OR Suit, Seeks $6M in Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class-action lawsuit, which seeks at least $6 million
in refunds, stemming from county business income taxes collected
by Portland General Electric after Enron purchased the utility
in 1997 has been filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court, the
OregonLive.com reports.
According to Linda Williams, an attorney for the plaintiffs, PGE
should not have collected the county tax from its customers
because the utility didn't actually pay the tax. Ms. Williams,
who is an attorney for the Utility Reform Project, which for
years has battled PGE over the taxes collected from ratepayers,
pointed out that state and federal taxes, which amounts to more
than $90 million annually, are rolled into rates as part of the
calculation of PGE's revenue requirements. The much smaller
county tax is assessed separately and shows up as a line item on
monthly bills, and for that reason, she said, PGE should have
added on the charge only if it paid the tax.
Kregg Arntson, a spokesman for PGE, told OregonLive.com the
utility was properly following state regulatory policy and tax
law. He adds, "We are doing what is required of us. We wrote
that check to our parent company. We'd love to write it to the
taxing authority, but we'd be violating the rules."
The lawsuit represents the latest eruption of discontent over
PGE billings for taxes. Because PGE is part of Enron's
consolidated tax group, it sends its federal, state and local
tax obligations to its parent company, which then calculates the
final taxes due.
Enron, whose scandalous behavior sent it into bankruptcy in
2001, seldom, if ever, paid taxes. It was able to wipe out its
tax liability by offsetting the gains of subsidiaries such as
PGE with the losses of other subsidiaries and business ventures.
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Judge Grants Certification To Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a major opinion in one of the hottest areas of securities
litigation, U.S. District Judge Gerard E. Lynch certified a
class of plaintiffs in a securities fraud lawsuit against
investment bank Robertson Stephens, Inc. (currently a Bank of
America unit) and Robertson Stephens managing director and
senior equity research analyst Paul Johnson.
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP is co-lead counsel
to the newly certified plaintiff class. Patrick V. Dahlstrom of
Pomerantz's Chicago office briefed and argued the class
certification motion.
In his class certification decision, Judge Lynch declared that
class counsel had "ably and zealously represented the interests
of the class."
Plaintiffs charge that from August 22, 2000 through April 27,
2001, Robertson Stephens and Johnson repeatedly issued false and
misleading research reports that fraudulently recommended that
investors buy Corvis Corporation stock. As Judge Lynch's opinion
explains, Plaintiffs allege that defendants' motive for issuing
the fraudulent research reports was "to inflate the market price
of Corvis stock, which Johnson and certain (Robertson Stephens)
officers owned through partnerships and other means."
As the opinion indicates, Plaintiffs charge that while Robertson
Stephens and Johnson were publishing fraudulent research reports
recommending that investors buy Corvis stock, Johnson was
"privately advising the partnerships to sell their Corvis
shares."
In short, as Judge Lynch notes, "Plaintiffs claim that
(Robertson Stephens) and Johnson committed securities fraud
through a kind of 'pump-and-dump' scheme to keep the price of
Corvis artificially inflated until they could dispose of their
shares."
The scheme with which Robertson Stephens and Johnson have been
charged first came to light on Sunday, May 27, 2001, when the
New York Times published an article by Gretchen Morgenson
entitled "Buy, They Say. But What Do They Do?; I.P.O. Conflicts
Bedevil Analysts." As Judge Lynch indicates, the article
"revealed that Johnson and other (Robertson Stephens) executives
had been selling Corvis while advising the public to buy."
A critical ruling in Judge Lynch's opinion was his determination
that plaintiffs bringing class action securities fraud cases
against research analysts like Johnson do not have to meet a
higher standard of proof in order to obtain class certification
than plaintiffs in other securities fraud cases.
The question of what showing plaintiffs bringing securities
fraud claims against research analysts must make in order to
achieve class certification is one of the most hotly contested
issues in securities litigation today.
In ruling that plaintiffs bringing cases against research
analysts do not have to meet a higher standard of proof to
obtain class certification, Judge Lynch considered and rejected
an earlier decision by Manhattan U.S. District Judge Jed S.
Rakoff. In contrast to Judge Lynch, Judge Rakoff held that
plaintiffs bringing claims against research analysts do, indeed,
have to make a special, higher, showing to certify a class than
other securities fraud plaintiffs. Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP is representing plaintiffs in an appeal
from Judge Rakoff's decision.
Judge Lynch's decision yesterday includes a thoughtful review of
the prior opinions that address the relevant legal issues. Judge
Lynch's thorough and insightful analysis marks his decision as a
potential landmark in this important area of securities
litigation. The official title of the case is DeMarco v.
Robertson Stephens Inc. and Paul Johnson, 03 Civ. 590 (GEL)
(S.D.N.Y.).
For more details, contact Russel N. Jacobson, Esq. of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (212) 661-1100 by E-
mail: rnjacobson@pomlaw.com.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Trial Date Set For CA Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit alleging that Sempra Energy conspired with a natural
gas company to manipulate the market, leading to California's
energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, will go to trial September 2,
according to Sempra officials, the CBS MarketWatch reports.
The class action suit, which was originally filed in December
2000 against Sempra and its Southern California Gas Co. and San
Diego Gas & Electric units alleged that they conspired with El
Paso Natural Gas Corp. to prevent competition for cheaper and
more plentiful Canadian natural gas. Furthermore, the suit
alleges that Sempra and its companies conspired to protect their
respective market dominance over the supply and transportation
of natural gas into and within California, reaping enormous
profits at the expense of California consumers and businesses.
On June 3, Judge Ronald Prager may decide what issues will be
decided by a jury, Sempra officials stated. According to W.
Davis Smith, general counsel for the subsidiaries "After years
of legal discovery, including the review of millions of pages of
documents, Sempra Energy and our subsidiaries -- Southern
California Gas Co. and San Diego Gas & Electric -- are confident
of refuting the plaintiffs' fictional theories and insupportable
allegations." He further stated, "the filings in this case make
it clear there is no factual basis for the plaintiffs' claims.
When appropriate, we expect to demonstrate in court that the
plaintiffs' unfounded theories are contradicted by their own
evidence. We also expect to prove that their monetary claims --
grossly inflated to attract media attention -- are baseless."
Economists estimate that damages caused by excessive energy
costs in 2000 and 2001 amount to more than $9 billion, an amount
that would be tripled under California's antitrust law, the
plaintiffs contend.
The evidence against Sempra that plaintiffs said they would
present includes details of a clandestine meeting at a Phoenix
hotel involving 11 senior SoCalGas, SDG&E and El Paso executives
in September 1996. Without any legal counsel present, The
plaintiffs said they will offer evidence that the executives
unlawfully agreed to cooperate rather than compete with each
other in supplying and delivering natural gas, resulting in an
artificially constrained supply of natural gas and escalating
prices to Californians for gas and the electricity it was used
to generate.
SHURGARD STORAGE: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. (NYSE:SHU) a leading self-storage
real estate investment trust (REIT) in the United States and
Europe, faces a proposed class action securities lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington.
"We do not believe that the claims in the lawsuit have any merit
and we will defend the Company vigorously against the suit,"
said Jane A. Orenstein, Shurgard Vice President and General
Counsel.
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., which is headquartered in
Seattle, Washington specializes in all aspects of the self-
storage industry and operates a network of over 600 operating
storage centers located throughout the United States and in
Europe.
WAL-MART STORES: Disputes Suit's Manipulating Time Cards Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
In response to a lawsuit that was filed by three former
employees in Alameda County Superior Court, a Wal-Mart
spokeswoman stated that the retail giant takes "very seriously"
allegations that it failed to pay the employees for all the time
they worked, the Associated Press reports.
The employees, including an Oakland man who worked at the
company's San Leandro store, charge that Wal-Mart manipulated
their time cards to cut their pay. Filed by Jessica Grant of the
well-known Fred Furth plaintiff's law firm in San Francisco, the
lawsuit seeks class-action status for about 215,000 current or
former employees who worked at Wal-Mart or Sam's Club stores in
California since 1997. It seeks millions of dollars in back pay
and punitive damages.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Christi Gallagher told AP, "These types of
allegations are counter to everything the company stands for"
and go against what she described as its "three basic beliefs,"
which are "respect for individuals, providing great service for
our customers and striving for excellence."
She further stated, "Wal-Mart's policy is to pay our associates
for every minute they work."
As previously reported in the January 21, 2005 edition of the
Class Action reporter, the suit alleges that the Bentonville,
Arkansas-based company "deleted thousands of hours of time
worked from employees' payroll records" by erasing overtime
hours and by penalizing employees who forgot to punch in after
their meal breaks by denying them pay for the remainder of those
days, according to court documents.
The suit further alleges that the plaintiffs Jerrilyn Newland,
Charlotte Johnson, and James Davis, became aware of such
practices, known as "time shaving," after a New York Times
newspaper report last April said companies including Wal-Mart
had engaged in them. In that report, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman said
company policy was to pay hourly workers for all their time, but
that there were "inevitably instances of managers doing the
wrong thing."
Ms. Grant stated that Wal-Mart is in effect "stealing from its
employees." She alleged that Wal-Mart "is not the best place to
work" despite a recent public relations campaign in which the
company placed full-page ads in more than 100 newspapers across
the country to counter what it claims is misinformation about
the company's wages and benefits. Ms. Grant also stated that she
obtained Wal-Mart documents that support the new lawsuit as part
of her work on a pending suit against the company in Alameda
County Superior Court that was filed in February 2001 and is
scheduled to go to trial on June 6.
Wal-Mart is also currently facing a number of employment-related
lawsuits across the country, including a class-action suit in
federal court in San Francisco charging that it discriminated
against women. That suit is the largest civil rights class-
action case in U.S. history.
WEST VIRGINIA: State Joins Revised VIOXX Consumer Refund Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw announced that the
state is joining Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio,
Oregon, Texas, and Vermont in the new revised consumer refund
program started by pharmaceutical giant Merck for unused Vioxx,
the popular prescription pain medication that the company
withdrew from global markets earlier this year. The
improvements to the consumer refund program are applicable to
West Virginia residents and provide greater protections for
consumers in all 50 states.
On September 30, 2004, Merck agreed to immediately withdraw
Vioxx from the market because of reports that the drug
substantially increased some users' risks of heart attacks and
strokes. At that time, approximately 1.6 million Americans were
taking the drug.
After Merck announced it was withdrawing Vioxx from the market,
the company created a consumer refund program. The program was
designed to reimburse consumers for Vioxx they had on hand at
the time of the recall. The program, however, required consumers
to return all unused Vioxx to Merck to qualify for a refund.
Several Attorneys General became concerned that Merck's refund
program contained too many hurdles for consumers to jump before
a consumer could receive reimbursement. The Attorneys General
contacted Merck and asserted that the refund program could
unfairly exclude consumers who might have immediately destroyed
Vioxx either on doctors' orders or because they were worried
about keeping an unsafe drug in their medicine cabinets.
As a result of the Attorneys Generals' efforts, Merck has now
agreed to significantly alter its consumer refund program for
unused Vioxx, effective December 10, 2004. Specifically, Merck
has agreed to do the following for former Vioxx users:
(1) Allow consumers who destroyed unused Vioxx to certify
in writing that they had unused Vioxx on September 30,
2004, but that they later destroyed the product under
doctors' orders or otherwise;
(2) Allow consumers to file claims for a refund by March
31, 2005 (the previous deadline was December 31, 2004);
(3) Upon request, provide consumers who still have Vioxx
with prepaid UPS mailers that Merck can arrange to pick
up at consumers' homes to avoid the consumer having to
take the mailer to a UPS facility or drop box;
(4) Directly contact any consumers whose refund claims were
rejected because the consumers did not return the
product and inform those consumers they are eligible to
make a refund claim without returning the product;
(5) Make a good faith effort to notify consumers about the
refund program in future advertisements or print
notices about Vioxx;
(6) Have Merck's sales staff contact rheumatologists and
primary care doctors who would have prescribed Vioxx
and inform them about the modified refund program. The
staff will also ask that the doctors then distribute
this information to their patients who were taking
Vioxx; and
(7) Assist HMOs and pharmacies in mailing out updated
refund notices to consumers who purchased Vioxx and who
may be eligible for a product refund.
The changes to the consumer refund program do not in any way
impact potential claims regarding marketing and promotion of
Vioxx.
Vioxx belongs to a sub-group of non steroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs called COX-2 inhibitors and was originally approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1999 to treat
arthritis pain, menstrual pain and other severe pain in adults.
The FDA subsequently approved Vioxx as a treatment for
rheumatoid arthritis for adults and later for use by children.
Merck marketed Vioxx as being gentler on the stomach than other
pain relief medication.
Consumers seeking a refund for unused Vioxx should contact the
Merck Refund Center (National Notification Center) at
1-800-805-9542. Additional refund information can be found at:
www.vioxx.com/rofecoxib/vioxx/consumer/patient_refund_informatio
n.jsp.
Attorney General Darrell McGraw urges any former Vioxx users who
have difficulty filing claims with Merck under the new program
to contact his Consumer Hotline at 1-800-368-8808 or
304-558-8986.
New Securities Fraud Cases
AXIS CAPITAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of AXIS Capital
Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: AXS) publicly traded securities during the
period between August 6, 2003 and October 14, 2004 (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges AXIS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AXIS is a holding company that through its subsidiaries
provides a range of insurance and reinsurance products on a
world-wide basis.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's results and operations. The true facts,
which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from
the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) that the Company was paying illegal and concealed
"contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
"contingent commission agreements;"
(2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants
violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties
totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions
of dollars; and
(3) that as a result, the Company's prior reported revenue
and income was grossly overstated.
On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer
announced that he had charged several of the nation's largest
insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and
pay-offs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. On
these revelations, the Company's shares fell to $23.36 from
$25.89 per share, a drop of 10%.
For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com
CITADEL SECURITY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
all securities purchasers of Citadel Security Software, Inc.
(Nasdaq: CDSS) from February 12, 2004 through December 16, 2004
inclusive.
The complaint charges Citadel Security, Steven B. Solomon, and
Richard Connelly with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Citadel Security Software Inc. develops and markets
computer security and privacy software. Its information
technology ("IT") security computer software products include
security and management solutions for networks and personal
workstations designed to secure and manage personal computers
and local area networks. According to the complaint, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:
(1) that customer demand in the commercial portion of the
Company's business was slowing;
(2) that the much touted, sizable pipeline of potential
contracts failed to materialize due to poor management
execution;
(3) that as a consequence of the above the Company's growth
was lagging; and
(4) therefore, the defendants' statements about the Company
were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants sold a total of 754,500 shares for proceeds
totaling more than $3 million.
On December 17, 2004, Citadel Security provided a financial
update for its year-ended December 31, 2004. More specifically,
the Company stated that based upon preliminary estimates,
Citadel now expects its revenue for the full year 2004 to be
between $15.2 million and $16.0 million, compared to previous
guidance of full-year revenue of $18.5 million to $21 million.
As a result, the Company will not meet its previously released
net income guidance for the second half of 2004 which was for
net income of $1.0 million to $2.0 million. The Company expects
to end 2004 with approximately $4.9 million of deferred
revenues, most of which will be earned in 2005.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Citadel Security fell
$1.80 per share, or 41.96 percent, to close at $2.49 per share
on unusually high trading volume.
For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.
IPASS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of iPass, Inc. (Nasdaq: IPAS)
between April 22, 2004 and June 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that at all relevant times, iPass
purported to provide "simple, secure and manageable connectivity
services" by connecting mobile workers' computers to the Web
through partnerships with local Internet service providers using
"narrowband" telephone dial-up access. With high-speed broadband
access to the Internet getting cheaper and more common among
consumers, it was vitally important to iPass that it make the
transition from "narrow band" dial-up service to broadband
service, and that the transition be executed properly. This
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose a major
operational snafu that occurred in connection with defendants'
attempt to expand the Company's broadband service offerings and
that this snafu, which hindered access to the iPass service,
resulted in the loss of a material number of customers, and a
concomitant decline in the Company's revenue, earnings, and
growth prospects.
Before investors found out about the snafu, and its effect on
iPass's business, Company insiders, who knew of the snafu and
its materially adverse effects on the Company's business but did
not let on, sold more than 170,000 shares of their personally
held iPass securities at prices within a one-week period between
$10.94 to $12.16 for proceeds well in excess of $2 million. Upon
disclosure of the snafu, on June 30, 2004, iPass shares fell to
$6.91.
For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com
IPASS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of iPass, Inc. (Nasdaq: IPAS) ("iPass" or the
"Company") between April 22, 2004 and June 30, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
The complaint charges iPass, Kenneth D. Denman, and Donald C.
McCauley with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company, in an industry that thrives on
reliability, failed to provide its customers with
adequately reliable services;
(2) that in an effort to "optimize its operations," the
Company consolidated portions of its dial network,
which resulted in significant numbers of clients unable
to access their networks;
(3) that the interruption of service caused many defections
in the Company's client base;
(4) as such, the Company suffered a material decrease in
revenue and earnings; and
(5) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
statements about the Company were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.
On June 30, 2004, iPass announced preliminary financial results
for the second quarter ending June 30, 2004, which were lower
than the Company's previously announced projections. The news
shocked the market. Shares of iPass fell $3.68 per share, or
34.75 percent, on July 1, 2004, to close at $6.91 per share.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.
IT GROUP: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:03cv00288, on
behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of IT
Group, Inc. ("The IT Group" or the "Company") between October
21, 1998 and February 23, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case, filed by Plaintiffs Howard G. Clair, Ralph S. Weaver
and Carol S. Pintek, and captioned "Howard G. Clair et al. vs.
Anthony J. DeLuca et al.," is currently pending before Judge
William L. Standish at the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
located at Seventh Avenue and Grant Street, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15219.
The Complaint charges IT Group and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of the Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs claim
defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations concerning
IT Group's financial performance, in Company quarterly press
releases and Form 10-K annual reports and Form 10-Q quarterly
reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
between October 21, 1998 and February 23, 2000, artificially
inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on
investors. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants
(1) overstated IT Group's accounts receivable by improper
inclusion of unapproved change orders and purchase
price adjustments made in connection with acquisitions;
(2) misrepresented the quality of IT Group's accounts
receivable, by overstating billed receivables and
understating unbilled receivables;
(3) concealed that the IT Group was undergoing a liquidity
crisis due to the failure of its acquisitions strategy,
(4) failed to disclose that the government contracts, which
IT Group claimed provided it with a multi-billion
dollar backlog, were actually awarded to multiple
vendors, and
(5) failed to disclose that the quality of IT Group's
receivables was impaired due to the Company's violation
of the U.S. Government's Federal Acquisition
Regulations "pay-when-paid" requirements.
For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
or by E-mail: http://www.glancylaw.com.
SHURGARD STORAGE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Shurgard
Storage Centers, Inc. (NYSE:SHU) between May 9, 2001 and March
26, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against defendant Shurgard and
one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.
For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.
SHURGARD STORAGE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. ("Shurgard" or the "Company")
(NYSE:SHU) between May 9, 2001 and March 26, 2004, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Shurgard,
Charles K. Barbo and Harrell L. Beck ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, Defendants materially misled the
investing public by issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the business and financial results of Shurgard. More
specifically the complaint alleges:
(1) the Company lacked sufficient internal controls and
therefore was unable to ascertain its true financial
standing;
(2) the Company's U.S. owned entities should have been
accounted for using a consolidated accounting method
since the inception of each entity;
(3) the Company's European operations incurred operating
losses which were not supported but sufficient evidence
of future profitability to recognize loss carry
forwards;
(4) net income for 2001, 2002 and for the nine-month period
ended September 30, 2003 had been seriously overstated
due to the improper accounting for the Tax Retention
Operating Lease;
(5) because of these errors, the value of the Company's
balance sheet and income statement had been materially
overstated at all relevant times;
(6) Shurgard's quarterly and annual filings and press
releases had not conformed to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"), and;
(7) at the time the Company presented its earnings
guidance, it knew or should have known that it had no
adequate basis to make those statements.
On March 26, 2004 Shurgard began to reveal the extent of its
accounting irregularities by announcing that it would be unable
to file its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. It
further stated that as a result of its audit process certain
accounting adjustments having a material effect on reported
financials would have to be made. The on May 17, 2004, Shurgard
announced that management had reviewed previously reported
historical financial data and related descriptions for certain
accounting errors. Shurgard announced that it had conducted a
re-audit of the financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2001 and 2002 and for the quarters ended March 31,
June 30, September 30, 2003 and 2002 as well as the quarter
ended December 21, 2002. It also indicated that it had
incorrectly assessed certain accounting policies applied to its
consolidated financial statements which were required to be
restated. In addition, the Company's newly appointed auditors,
PricewaterhoseCoopers, had identified other accounting errors
impacting prior periods which were required to be restated.
Shurgard's shares fell to $33.30 per share in response to the
news that the Company's previously-reported financial results,
which had already been restated, may not in fact be what they
seemed.
For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: (800) 321-0476 or visit
their Web Site: http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Shurgard.
SHURGARD STORAGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in WA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Shurgard Storage
Centers, Inc. (NYSE: SHU) ("Shurgard") between May 9, 2001 and
March 26, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including purchasers in the
July 10, 2003 and June 25, 2002 stock offerings and the March
24, 2003 debt offering.
The Complaint alleges that Shurgard violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements. On May
17, 2004, Shurgard announced that it was restating its financial
results after a re-audit of its financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2001 and 2002 and for the first three
quarters of 2003. Shurgard indicated that its new auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, had identified accounting errors
impacting prior periods, which had to be restated.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.
SOURCECORP INCORPORATED: Marc Henzel Lodges TX Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of SOURCECORP,
Incorporated (NASDAQ:SRCP) common stock during the period
between May 7, 2003 and October 27, 2004.
The complaint charges SOURCECORP and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. SOURCECORP provides value-added business process
outsourcing solutions to clients across the United States. The
Company targets information intensive industry segments such as
healthcare, legal, financial services and government.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly reports with the SEC which described the Company's
increasing financial performance. These statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:
(1) that the Company had improperly and prematurely
recognized revenue prior to the delivering
contractually required output to a certain customer;
(2) that the Company improperly and prematurely recognized
revenue for services that were performed and delivered
to customers that were in excess of the volume and/or
revenue limits set by the contract with the customer
and of which there is no assurance that the customer
will ever make payment;
(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
condition; and
(4) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
Company's revenues and earnings for 2003 and the first
two quarters of 2004 were materially overstated at all
relevant times and will now have to be restated.
On October 27, 2004, the Company shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing that based on information
provided by, and the recommendation of, corporate management,
the Company's Audit Committee concluded on October 25, 2004 that
the Company's previously-issued financial statements and related
independent auditors' report for the year ended December 31,
2003, as well as its previously-issued financial statements for
the 2004 quarterly periods ended March 31, 2004 and June 30,
2004, should no longer be relied upon.
Specifically, the Company admitted that the Information
Management Division of its Information Management and
Distribution reportable segment had improperly and prematurely
recognized revenue prior to the delivery of contractually
required output to a certain customer; and for services which
were performed and delivered to certain customers in excess of
the volume and/or revenue limits set by the contract. Due to its
improper revenue recognition practices, the Company will have to
adjust its revenues and diluted earnings per share for 2003 by
at least $5.4 million and $0.19 respectively. For the six months
ended June 30, 2004, the Company may have to adjust its revenues
and diluted earnings per share by at least $2.8 million and
$0.10 respectively.
Upon this shocking news, shares of the Company's stock fell
$5.96 per share, or almost 30%, to close at $16.25 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons
(the "Class") who purchased the securities of Supportsoft, Inc.
("Supportsoft" or the "Company")(Nasdaq:SPRT) between January
20, 2004 and October 1, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint
names the following Defendants: Supportsoft, Radha R. Basu and
Brian M. Beattie.
The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market
regarding its financial performance. The Complaint alleges that
Defendants' statements were false and misleading because the
Company failed to disclose that its business model was in fact
not materially differentiated from other enterprise software
companies, that its customers were implementing additional
hurdles to contract approvals and that it was experiencing
execution difficulties. On October 4, 2004, the Company
announced its preliminary financial results for the third
quarter 2004, which ended on September 30, 2004. The Company
announced that it now expected total revenues for the third
quarter of 2004 to be between $11.9 million and $12.3 million --
as compared to $13.5 million for the same period in 2003. The
Company claimed that an alleged "tightness in IT spending" and
"more complex approval processes" were the reasons for this
significant miss in earnings. On this news, the Company's share
price dropped precipitously from $9.62 per share to $6.21 per
share -- a drop of 35.4% on extremely heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone: (877) 534-2590 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of SupportSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPRT) between January
20, 2004 and October 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges SupportSoft, Radha R. Basu, and Brian M.
Beattie with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:
(1) that the Company failed to close two $4.5 million
transactions, due to major flaws in SupportSoft's
internal controls;
(2) that the Company was experiencing sales execution
issues;
(3) that SupportSoft's product pipeline was heavily
weighted toward perpetual deals;
(4) that due to the saturation of the domestic broadband
market, the Company was facing a more challenging
software spending environment of authorization
signatures and longer sales cycles; and
(5) that as a result of the above, the defendants' fiscal
2004 projections were lacking in any reasonable basis
when made.
On October 4, 2004, SupportSoft announced preliminary financial
results for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. The Company
expected total revenues for the third quarter 2004 to be in the
range of $11.9 million to $12.3 million versus $13.5 million for
the same period last year. GAAP loss per share was expected to
be in the range of $0.01 to $0.04, this was well below
expectations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
SupportSoft fell $3.41 per share, or 35.45 percent, to close at
$6.21 per share.
For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-
mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Sceurities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling
Schachter") initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the securities
of SupportSoft, Inc. ("SupportSoft" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
SPRT) between January 20, 2004 and October 1, 2004, inclusive.
The deadline to file a motion seeking to be appointed lead
plaintiff is February 7, 2005.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, it alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them that:
(1) SupportSoft's business model was in fact not materially
differentiated from other enterprise software
companies;
(2) SupportSoft's product pipeline was weighted heavily
toward perpetual deals;
(3) SupportSoft was experiencing sales execution
difficulties;
(4) SupportSoft was encountering a more challenging
software spending environment that required
authorization signatures and longer sales cycles; and
(5) as a result, the defendants, fiscal 2004 financial
projections were lacking in any reasonable basis when
made.
On October 4, 2004, the Company announced its preliminary
financial results for the third quarter 2004, ended September
30, 2004. The Company announced that it expected total revenues
for the third quarter 2004 to be in the range of $11.9 million
to $12.3 million as compared to $13.5 million for the same
period in the prior year. On this news, SupportSoft's share
price fell from $9.62 per share to $6.21 per share, representing
a decline of approximately 35%.
For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
of Zwerling Schachter by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail:
sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com.
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired Taser International, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASR)
("Taser" or the "Company") securities (the "Class") between May
29, 2003 and January 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market concerning the safety of
its Taser guns and by engaging in channel stuffing at the end of
the fourth quarter of 2004 in order to meet sales projections
and analysts' expectations.
On January 6, 2005, Taser announced that it had received an
informal inquiry letter from the Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding the Company's statements concerning the
safety of its products and a $1.5 million order of Taser devices
received from one of the Company's distributors, which was
booked in late December 2004. As a result of the January 6th
announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell $4.90
per share, or 18%, to close at $22.72 per share. Then, on
January 11, 2005, Taser announced that orders for the first half
of 2005 might be delayed while law enforcement agencies test
competitors' products. In the wake of this announcement, shares
of the Company's common stock fell an additional $5.95 per
share, or 30%, to close at $14.10 per share. During the Class
Period, while in possession of material, non-public information
concerning the Company, Defendants and other insiders sold off
huge amounts of their Taser shares.
For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: TASR@bernlieb.com.
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Shepherd Finkelman Files AZ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona against Taser
International, Inc. ("Taser" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: TASR),
Dr. Phillips W. Smith, Patrick W. Smith, Thomas P. Smith,
Kathleen Hanrahan and Daniel Behrendt, on behalf of all
purchasers of Taser securities between April 6, 2004 and January
10, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, the Company issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
concerning the safety of its Taser guns. The Complaint also
alleges the Defendants engaged in channel stuffing at the end of
the fourth quarter of 2004 in order to meet sales projections
and analyst's expectations.
On January 6, 2005, after the market closed, the Company
announced that it had received an informal inquiry letter from
the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's
statements concerning the safety of its products and a $1.5
million order of Taser devices received from one of its
distributors, which was booked in late December 2004. As a
result of the January 6 announcement, shares of Taser's common
stock fell $4.90, or 18%, to close at $22.72 per share. Taser
further shocked investors on January 11, 2005, when it announced
that orders for the first half of 2005 may be delayed while law
enforcement agencies test competitors' products. As a result of
this news, shares of the Company's common stock fell an
additional $5.95, or 30%, to close at $14.10 per share. Also,
during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in massive insider
trading.
For more details, contract James E. Miller, Esq. or James C.
Shah, Esq. of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC by Phone:
866-540-5505 or 877-891-9880 or visit their Web site:
http://www.classactioncounsel.com.
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
purchasers of TASER International, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASR) common
stock during the period between November 4, 2004 and January 6,
2005.
The complaint charges TASER and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. TASER purports to provide advanced non-lethal devices for
use in the law enforcement, military, private security and
personal defense markets.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements concerning the increasing
demand for the Company's Taser devices; and the positive results
of studies that were conducted regarding the safety of the
Company's products. As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose:
(1) that, contrary to defendants' representations, the
studies conducted on the Company's Taser devices were
inconclusive as to the safety of the devices;
(2) that the Company's revenues and earnings would be
negatively impacted once the truth of these studies
became known;
(3) that the "last minute" order of Taser devices the
Company had received from one of its distributors was
done to help the Company meet its sales goals for the
quarter and was not indicative of the true demand for
the Company's products; and
(4) based on the foregoing, defendants had no reasonable
basis for their positive statements regarding the
safety of, and demand for, the Company's products.
On January 6, 2005, after the close of the market, defendants
disclosed that they were in receipt of an informal inquiry
letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the
Company's statements about the safety of its products and a
recent order received from one of its distributors. Market
reaction to this announcement was swift and severe. On January
7, 2005, shares of TASER common stock closed at $22.72 per
share, a decline of $4.90 per share, or 18%, from the previous
day's close.
For more details, contact Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail:
273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2005. 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 * * *