/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050407.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 68 Headlines AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Settles Securities Litigation For $5.35M ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal NJ Securities Suit Dismissal ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Oppose Move To Appeal Suit Remand ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended MD Mutual Fund Suits ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in NY ALLIANCE CAPITAL: AllianceBerstein Investors Launch Suit in NY ARKANSAS: Lowell Council Approves Amendment 59 Suit Settlement CANADA: Ontario Government Asks Judge To Dismiss $600M SARS Suit DESA HEATING: Recalls 88T Propane Heaters Due To Fire Hazard DIGITAS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement DIRECT REVENUE: IL Spyware Complaint Alleges Computer Hijacking EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Reaches Consent Order For FTC Fraud Suit GENERAL REINSURANCE: Faces Lawsuits Due To Relationship With ROA GERMANY: E.ON Hanse Customers Lodges Suit Over Undue Price Hikes HUNTER'S VIEW: Recalls 500T Safety Harnesses For Injury Hazard IDT CORPORATION: Nears Settlement Of Prepaid Phone-Card Lawsuits INDONESIA: Newmont Nusa Denies Charges Of Polluting Senunu Bay MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of CA, DE Stock Lawsuits MICHIGAN: AG Mike Cox Warns Against VoIP Technology Limitations MODEM MEDIA: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement NEBRASKA: Judge Rules That Decision To Cut Benefits Unlawful NETFLIX INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated CA Securities Suit NETFLIX INC.: Consumers File Fraud Suit Over DVD Delivery in CA NETFLIX INC.: Firm Says Securities Suit Has Not Been Dismissed ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit OKLAHOMA: Senate Committee Amends, Passes Lawsuit Reform Bill PLUG POWER: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 19 in NY Court PRICELINE.COM: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suits in DE, CA Courts PRICELINE.COM: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement PRICELINE.COM: Plaintiffs Seek CT Securities Suit Certification PROFIT RECOVERY: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 26, 2005 SONUS NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative SONUS NETWORKS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit ST. THOMAS DEVELOPMENT: Anti-Quarry Groups Losses $49M Complaint UNITED STATES: FDA Halts Sales of Inhalers With CFC Propellants UNOCAL CORPORATION: Stockholder Lodges Suit Over Acquisition VERISIGN INC.: Jamster Service Sued in CA Over Selling Practices VIRGINIA: Industry Asks Appeals Court To Rehear Headset Lawsuits YANKEE CANDLE: Employees Launch Labor Laws Violations Suit in CA New Securities Fraud Cases BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in NJ COLLINS & AIKMAN: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MI COLLINS AIKMAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MI DELPHI CORPORATION: Keller Rohrback Lodges Securities Suit in MI DELPHI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NY MBIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY ********* AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Settles Securities Litigation For $5.35M --------------------------------------------------------------- Aerosonic Corporation (AMEX:AIM) and the other parties to the Aerosonic Corporation Securities Litigation filed a Notice of Settlement with the court on April 1, 2005, confirming that all parties had executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to settle its pending class action litigation. The MOU defines a total settlement of $5.35 million, of which Aerosonic will pay $800,000. This settlement is contingent upon preliminary and final court approval and could be voided if opt-outs exceed a certain agreed-upon threshold. "This agreement brings us much closer to resolving this litigation and will allow us to more fully concentrate on growing our business. Our Company's performance has allowed us to adequately prepare for this settlement, and we anticipate being able to satisfy this obligation without adversely affecting our liquidity. We are proud of the manner in which we have conducted our affairs during this difficult process and we sincerely appreciate the confidence and support shown to us by our shareholders, customers and employees throughout this period," stated David A. Baldini, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal NJ Securities Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey's dismissal of the class action filed against Alliance Capital Management L.P., styled `Patrick J. Goggins, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al." The suit also names as defendants Alliance Premier Growth Fund and individual directors and certain officers of Premier Growth Fund. The suit was originally filed in federal court in New York. On August 13, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to transfer the Complaint to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On December 5, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act because the Fund's registration statements and prospectuses contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts. More specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Fund's investment in Enron was inconsistent with the Fund's stated strategic objectives and investment strategies. Plaintiffs seek rescissionary relief or an unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares of Premier Growth Fund during the period October 31, 2000 through February 14, 2002. On January 23, 2004, the Company moved to dismiss the complaint. On December 10, 2004, the court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the case. On January 5, 2005, plaintiff appealed the court's decision. ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Oppose Move To Appeal Suit Remand -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs moved to dismiss Alliance Capital Management L.P.'s appeal of a court ruling remanding a class action entitled "Erb, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P." to the the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff, purportedly a shareholder in Alliance Premier Growth Fund, alleges that the Company breached unidentified provisions of Premier Growth Fund's prospectus and subscription and confirmation agreements that allegedly required that every security bought for Premier Growth Fund's portfolio must be a "1-rated" stock, the highest rating that the Company's research analysts could assign. Plaintiff alleges that the Company impermissibly purchased shares of stocks that were not 1-rated. On June 24, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois. The suit allegations are substantially similar to those contained in the previous complaint, however, the amended complaint adds a new plaintiff and seeks to allege claims on behalf of a purported class of persons or entities holding an interest in any portfolio managed by the Company's Large Cap Growth Team. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company breached its contracts with these persons or entities by impermissibly purchasing shares of stocks that were not 1-rated. Plaintiffs seek rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated stocks the Company made for Premier Growth Fund and other Large Cap Growth Team clients' portfolios over the past eight years, as well as an unspecified amount of damages. On July 13, 2004, the Company removed the Erb action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on the basis that plaintiffs' claims are preempted under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. On August 30, 2004, the District Court remanded the action to the Circuit Court. On September 15, 2004, the Company filed a notice of appeal with respect to the District Court's order. On December 23, 2004, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Company's appeal. These motions are pending. ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Amended MD Mutual Fund Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed amended class actions against Alliance Capital Management L.P., according to four claim types, in the United States District Court of Maryland. On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled, "Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.," was filed against the Company, Alliance Capital Management Holding, L.P., Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC), AXA Financial Corporation, the AllianceBernstein Funds, the registrants and issuers of those funds, certain officers of the Company and certain other defendants not affiliated with the Company, as well as unnamed Doe defendants. The Hindo Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of two of the AllianceBernstein Funds. The Complaint alleges that certain of the Alliance defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and "market-timing" of AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 206 and 215 of the Investment Advisers Act. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and rescission of their contracts with the Company, including recovery of all fees paid to Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts. Since October 2, 2003, forty-three additional lawsuits making factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint were filed in various federal and state courts against the Company and certain other defendants, and others may be filed. Such lawsuits have asserted a variety of theories for recovery including, but not limited to, violations of the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the Investment Company Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), certain state securities statutes and common law. All of these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages. On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") transferred all federal actions to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland ("Mutual Fund MDL"). On March 3, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the MDL Panel issued orders conditionally transferring the state court cases against the Company and numerous others to the Mutual Fund MDL. Transfer of all of these actions subsequently became final. Plaintiffs in three of these four actions moved to remand the actions back to state court. On June 18, 2004, the Court issued an interim opinion deferring decision on plaintiffs' motions to remand until a later stage in the proceedings. Subsequently, the plaintiff in the state court individual action moved the Court for reconsideration of that interim opinion and for immediate remand of her case to state court, and that motion is pending. Defendants are not yet required to respond to the complaints filed in the state court derivative actions. On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative claims brought on behalf of Alliance Holding; and claims brought under ERISA by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of Alliance Capital. All four complaints include substantially identical factual allegations, which appear to be based in large part on the SEC Order. The claims in the mutual fund derivative consolidated amended complaint are generally based on the theory that all fund advisory agreements, distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans between the Company and the AllianceBernstein Funds should be invalidated, regardless of whether market timing occurred in each individual fund, because each was approved by fund trustees on the basis of materially misleading information with respect to the level of market timing permitted in funds managed by the Company. The claims asserted in the other three consolidated amended complaints are similar to those that the respective plaintiffs asserted in their previous federal lawsuits. ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended class action against Alliance Capital Management LP in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al." The suit also names as defendants: (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P., (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation, (3) AXA Financial Corporation, (4) Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management, Inc. (ABIRM), (5) certain current and former directors of the AllianceBernstein Funds, and (6) unnamed Doe defendants The first suit filed names the AllianceBernstein Funds as nominal defendants. The Complaint was filed by an alleged shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund. The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things: (i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized the payment of excessive commissions and other fees from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for preferential marketing services, (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and omitted from registration statements and other reports material facts concerning such payments, and (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control persons of other defendants. The Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses. Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit were filed against the Company and certain other defendants. All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint, and are brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein Funds. On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint that asserts claims substantially similar to the lawsuits referenced above. ALLIANCE CAPITAL: AllianceBerstein Investors Launch Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance Capital Management LP faces a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Charles Davidson and Bernard Samson, et al. v. Bruce W. Calvert, et al." The suit also names as defendants Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management, Inc. (ABIRM), various current and former directors of Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC), and unnamed Doe defendants. Alleged shareholders of AllianceBernstein Funds filed the suit, which alleges that the Company, as investment adviser to the AllianceBernstein Funds, and the other defendants breached their fiduciary duties arising under Sections 36(a), 36(b) and 47(b) of the Investment Company Act by failing to ensure that the AllianceBernstein Funds participated in certain securities class action settlements for which the Funds were eligible. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages, and forfeiture of all commissions and fees paid to the defendants. Two additional lawsuits making factual allegations substantially similar to those in the Davidson Complaint were filed against the Company and certain defendants not affiliated with the Company, and others may be filed. One of the lawsuits was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of alleged shareholders of the Mass Mutual family of funds. The other lawsuit was brought as a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of alleged shareholders of the Vanguard family of funds. Both additional lawsuits: (i) assert claims against the Company in connection with sub-advisory services provided by the Company to the respective fund families; (ii) assert claims substantially identical to the Davidson Complaint; and (iii) seek relief substantially identical to the Davidson Complaint. ARKANSAS: Lowell Council Approves Amendment 59 Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The city of Lowell in Arkansas became the third of eight defendants to approve a settlement in a lawsuit seeking refunds for over-collected property taxes by area schools and governments, the Springdale Morning News reports. The Lowell City Council approved the settlement of $55,901.18 without discussion. According to Mary Mason, city finance director, the council still must approve an appropriation memo to describe from where in the budget the money will come. As previously reported in the April 1, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, NorthWest Arkansas Community College, who is one of the defendants had approved its own settlement in the Amendment 59 class-action lawsuit March 29, and Benton County approved a settlement in November. With the settlements, the only remaining defendants in the lawsuit are the city of Rogers and school districts in Rogers, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Gravette. The Amendment 59 lawsuit is set for trial April 26 in Benton County Circuit Court for those remaining in the suit. Stephen Lisle, the attorney representing the city, told the Morning News Lowell could have faced paying back up to $1.4 million, but that number was reduced to $820,000 since the suit was filed. Filed in 1997, the lawsuit had claimed that the local school districts and governments violated Amendment 59 of the Arkansas Constitution by over-collecting property taxes. Voters had enacted the amendment back in 1980, requiring school districts, local governments or other taxing entities to roll back tax collections when the entities' revenue collection increases by more than 10 percent. Specifically, attorneys Dale Evans and Kent Hirsch had filed the lawsuit in April 1997 on behalf of taxpayers claiming that Benton County and the other taxing entities overcharged them by not rolling back millage rates enough to satisfy Amendment 59. The Lowell council unanimously accepted Lowell's settlement on Mr. Lisle's recommendation. According to him, the current amount is based on a series of negotiations, which whittled the original settlement offer by the plaintiffs from $320,000 to $55,901. Mr. Leslie told the Morning News that final settlement terms require approval by the state and trial court. Twenty-five percent of the money Lowell pays will go to attorney fees, while the rest will go to a refund pool and will be divvied among the taxpayers. CANADA: Ontario Government Asks Judge To Dismiss $600M SARS Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for the Ontario government are attempting to persuade a judge to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that alleges health officials called a premature halt to their efforts to stop the spread of SARS before the deadly 2003 outbreak had taken its course, the Associated Press reports. Nurse Andrea Williams, who contracted SARS during the second phase of the Toronto outbreak in May 2003, launched the $600- million suit against the province, the federal government and the city of Toronto last year. In her suit, Ms. Williams alleges that officials, believing the end of the outbreak to be at hand, ceased protective measures for health-care workers when they ought to have known the risk and potential for another fatal flare-up of the disease. However, provincial lawyer Kim Twohig argued that governments are already accountable to the public through the democratic process and public health officials can't be held liable for damages in cases such as SARS, AP reports. He told Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity, "The law does not hold governments liable in damages to individuals who contract a disease." DESA HEATING: Recalls 88T Propane Heaters Due To Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), DESA Heating Products, of Bowling Green, Kentucky and Scheu Manufacturing Co., of Upland, California is voluntarily recalling about 88,000 "ALL-PRO", "Reddy Heater" and "MASTER" Infrared (Tank Top) Propane Heaters. The plastic ring on the heater's regulator can crack, causing gas to leak out if the propane tank and heater regulator are turned on. This can create a fire hazard if an ignition source is present. The firms have received four reports of incidents involving minor burns to the hand and two cases of minor property damage. DESA and Scheu portable propane infrared (tank top) heaters with the following model names and number are involved in this recall: All-Pro (SPC-15R & SPC-30R), Reddy Heater (HD15A & HD30A) and MASTER (TT15A & TT30A). Reddy, ALL-PRO and Master Heaters imported by DESA have serial numbers between 016,000,000 and 016,159,999. All-Pro heaters imported by Scheu have serial numbers beginning with a "C" or "D" prefix. The model and serial numbers are on the carton and on the heater. The designation "Made in China" is on the carton and warning label attached to the heater. This recall involves only heaters made in China with the serial numbers listed above and does not include those made in Mexico or in China with different serial numbers. The heaters made in Mexico have the same or similar model numbers, but show "Made in Mexico" on the carton and warning label and use the prefix "M" in the serial number. There have been no problems with the Mexican heaters and they are not to be returned. Manufactured in China, the heaters were sold at all home centers and hardware stores nationwide from September 2002 through January 2005 for between $45 and $120. Consumers should stop using this heater immediately and return it to the location where you purchased it to obtain a free replacement. If consumers have any questions concerning this recall, they should contact their local retailer or DESA. Consumer Contact: Contact DESA toll-free at (866) 279-3225 between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday. DIGITAS INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Digitas, Inc., several of its officers and directors and five underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO). Between June 26, 2001 and August 16, 2001, several stockholder class action complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock since March 13, 2000, the date of the Offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage commissions and also that this alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated the Company's stock price in the period after the Offering. The plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation. Effective October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice. Effective February 19, 2003, the Section 10(b) claims against the Company were dismissed. The terms of a settlement have been tentatively reached between the plaintiffs in the suits and most of the defendants, including the Company, with respect to the remaining claims. If completed and if then approved by the court, the settlement would dismiss those claims against the Company and is expected to result in no material liability to it. The suit is styled "In Re Digitas, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 5948 (Sas) (Mgc)," pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, related to the "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)." For more information, please visit http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/DTAS01/20020419_r01c_015948. pdf. The members of the plaintiff's executive committee are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail: 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com, (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119- 1065, Phone: 212.594.5300, (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com, (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com DIRECT REVENUE: IL Spyware Complaint Alleges Computer Hijacking -------------------------------------------------------------- Alleged spyware king Direct Revenue of New York faces a class action, alleging that the company has deceptively downloaded harmful and offensive spyware to unsuspecting users' computers, the eWEEK.com reports. Filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, the lawsuit alleges that DirectRevenue LLC "unlawfully used and damaged plaintiffs' computers to make money for themselves while willfully disregarding plaintiffs' rights to use and enjoy their personal property." According to the suit, the spyware infiltrated users' computers to learn their Internet browsing habits and track their Internet use. In addition, the suit also states that DirectRevenue deceptively prevents users from removing its spyware, thus overwhelming computers with unsolicited advertisements. The suit contends that DirectRevenue's business model is to pay independent distributors, which are often small companies that dropped out of the spam business or that develop peer-to-peer file sharing or screensavers, several cents per installation to install its software. Benjamin Edelman, a researcher studying spyware and a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard University told eWEEK.com, "Those guys love to bundle additional software that tracks what people are doing." Additionally, he said, "Sometimes we see that the affiliates that sign up design software that exploits security holes in Windows and Internet Explorer, and so as you are surfing a Web page, it installs the DirectRevenue software." Sometimes, Mr. Edelman asserts, the way the company goes about its business is downright offensive. In one video he made last month, a DirectRevenue ad on Yahooligans, a children's Web site, showed an American Express ad, while the Cartoon Network's Web site showed a gambling ad. Spyware has proliferated a great deal recent years, according to research from Meta Group Inc. (now part of Gartner) of Stamford, Connecticut. Research by Meta reveals that spyware is one of the most significant Internet-based security threats today, representing up to 40 percent of help desk calls. It even predicts that spyware will continue to remain a serious problem until at least 2008. Distinguishing the suit against DirectRevenue, Mr. Edelman told eWeek.com that it is somewhat different from other spyware cases, which have mainly been brought by Web sites protesting pop-up ads. "This case is different, because it's about sneaking on to people's computers in truly underhanded ways," Mr. Edelman said. He also adds, "In some senses, though, that makes it an easier case. It's easy to prove that they are installing without permission. It's a lot like trespassing." Mr. Edelman added that the case has a good chance of succeeding, and if it does, it should serve as a warning to others with similar business models. More importantly, a win could open the floodgates for lawsuits against similar companies, he points out. EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN: Reaches Consent Order For FTC Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Under the terms of a consent order with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a Chicago-area physicians' group has agreed to stop collectively bargaining on behalf of its members, as such joint negotiations allegedly led to reduced competition and higher prices paid by health plans and other payors to the group's salaried and independent doctors. The order settles the FTC's complaint against Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Corporation (ENH) and ENH Medical Group, Inc. (ENH Medical Group). The allegations against the respondents are contained in Count III of the Commission's larger complaint concerning ENH's acquisition of Highland Park Hospital in Highland Park, Illinois. Counts I and II of the complaint, which charge that the hospital acquisition was illegal and anticompetitive, have not been settled. A hearing on the merits of these charges is currently pending before an independent administrative law judge. ENH is a nonprofit corporation that owns ENH Faculty Practice Associates (Faculty Practice Associates), which also is a nonprofit corporation. Faculty Practice Associates employs about 460 salaried doctors who practice medicine in several offices in Cook and Lake Counties, Illinois, and primarily serve ENH's patients. Faculty Practice Associates is the sole shareholder of ENH Medical Group, a for-profit corporation that represents member physicians, negotiating on their behalf and entering into contracts with health plans and other third-party payors. The doctors then provide their medical services to patients insured by payors for the fees set by the Group. ENH Medical Group jointly represented two categories of doctors in its contract negotiations with payors: Faculty Practice Associates' salaried physicians and about 450 other doctors who also practiced in the counties but were considered independent practitioners. Without the contracts negotiated on their behalf by ENH, the FTC contends, the Group's physicians would compete in the same geographic area for the sale of comparable healthcare services. According to the Commission's complaint, the respondent violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by facilitating and implementing agreements among rival physicians to fix prices and other terms of dealing with health plans and other third-party payors, and by refusing to deal with such payors except on jointly determined terms. There was no physician practice integration that may have led to increased efficiency, the complaint states. As a result, the FTC contends, ENH Medical Group deprived payors, employers, and individuals of the benefits of physician competition. By eliminating this competition, ENH Medical Group was able to increase the prices that payors paid to the salaried and independent physicians in the Group. The consent order settles all allegations in Count III of the Commission's complaint against ENH and ENH Medical Group. It bars the respondent from entering into or facilitating any agreement between or among physicians: (1) to negotiate with payors on any physician's behalf; (2) to deal, not to deal, or threaten not to deal with payors; (3) to designate the terms on which to deal with any payor; or (4) to refuse to deal individually with any payor, or to deal with any payor only through the respondent's arrangements. The order reinforces these general provisions by prohibiting the respondent from facilitating information exchanges between or among any physicians concerning whether, or on what terms, to contract with a payor; and banning them from attempting to engage in any other actions prohibited by the order. The order provides that the respondents are not prohibited from participating in a "qualified risk-sharing joint arrangement" or a "qualified clinically integrated joint arrangement." As defined in the order, a "qualified risk-sharing joint arrangement" must satisfy two conditions. First, all physician participants must share substantial financial risk through the arrangement and thereby create incentives for the physician participants to jointly control costs and improve quality by managing the provision of services. Second, any agreement concerning reimbursement or other terms or conditions of dealing must be reasonably necessary to obtain significant efficiencies through the joint arrangement. As defined in the order, a "qualified clinically-integrated joint arrangement" also must satisfy two conditions. First, all physician participants must participate in active and ongoing programs to evaluate and modify their clinical practice patterns, creating a high degree of interdependence and cooperation among physicians, in order to control costs and ensure the quality of services provided. Second, any agreement concerning reimbursement or other terms or conditions of dealing must be reasonably necessary to obtain significant efficiencies through the joint arrangement. Finally, the consent order contains a number of record-keeping and reporting requirements designed to assist the FTC in monitoring compliance with its terms. It also requires the respondent to notify the FTC before entering into certain contracting or negotiating agreements, and to distribute the complaint and order to all doctors that have participated in ENH Medical Group since January 1, 2000, as well as to selected payors. ENH also is required to terminate its current contracts with any payor at the payor's request within one year after the order becomes final. The order will expire in 20 years. The Commission vote to place the consent order on the public record for comment and publish a copy in the Federal Register was 4-0-1, with Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras not participating. The Commission is accepting comments on the order for 30 days, until May 2, 2005, after which it will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20580. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of $11,000. For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or Elizabeth A. Piotrowski, Bureau of Competition by Phone: 202-326-2623 GENERAL REINSURANCE: Faces Lawsuits Due To Relationship With ROA ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Reinsurance Corporation and four of its current and former employees, along with numerous other defendants, faces a number of civil actions related to Reciprocal of America (ROA), a Virginia-based reciprocal insurer of physician, hospital and lawyer professional liability risks. The Company provided various reinsurance coverages to ROA from the late 1970's through 2002. The litigation includes seven purported class actions initiated by doctors, hospitals and lawyers that purchased insurance through ROA or certain of its risk retention groups, and actions brought by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, as Deputy Receiver of ROA, and the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance, as Liquidator for three Tennessee risk retention groups, which are collectively assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The first of these actions was filed in March 2003 and additional actions were filed in late March 2003 through July 2004. The Company is also a defendant in several lawsuits filed in Alabama state courts by hospital groups or doctors, including two lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County in April 2004 and July 2004 and one lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County in February 2005. Plaintiffs assert various claims in these ROA-related civil actions, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud and conspiracy, against the Company and others, arising from the various reinsurance coverages the Company provided to ROA and related matters. The relief sought in these actions includes compensatory damages and, in some case, treble and punitive damages. GERMANY: E.ON Hanse Customers Lodges Suit Over Undue Price Hikes ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fifty-two customers of the north German gas supplier E.ON Hanse, a subsidiary of energy giant E.ON, have filed a class-action suit with the Hamburg regional court against the firm for what they claim are excessive price hikes, according to the Hamburg's consumer association, the TurkishPress.com reports. In their suit, which the association is coordinating, the customers contend that a 10-percent price hike last October and a further increase of 2.8 percent with effect from February this year were unjustified and were hoping to force E.ON Hanse to publish its calculations. The class-action suit is believed to be the first of its kind filed against an energy supplier in Germany. At the end of last year, a series of steep price hikes for electricity and gas sparked fierce debate in Germany. Utilities though had argued that runaway oil prices were to blame for the price increases. However, critics suggest that energy suppliers are notching up their prices ahead of the creation of a new sector-wide regulatory body this year. HUNTER'S VIEW: Recalls 500T Safety Harnesses For Injury Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Hunter's View, of Peoria, Illinois is voluntarily recalling about 500,000 Safety Harnesses Sold with Tree Stands. The harnesses could fail during use, resulting in consumers falling from tree stands and suffering serious injuries or death. These 2004 model year Fall Arrest Systems (harnesses) have model number 3333 and Model Year 2004 written on a white label attached to the harness or the tree strap. They were included with every Hunters View and every Comfort Zone brand tree stand sold. Manufactured in China the harnesses were sold at all hunting and sporting good stores nationwide beginning in January 2004 for between $100 and $300. Consumers should stop using these harnesses immediately and contact Hunters View to receive a free replacement harness. Contact the Company by Phone: (888) 878-0440 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday. IDT CORPORATION: Nears Settlement Of Prepaid Phone-Card Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- IDT Corporation (NYSE: IDT) tentatively agreed to settle four lawsuits that claim the company charged hidden fees on its prepaid phone cards, the Newark Star Ledger reports. According to a recent filing IDT made with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a "settlement in principle" was reached during court-ordered mediation. The matter though, the filing stated, still requires approval in federal court in Newark, New Jersey. "We hope to get it done sooner than later," Krishnan Chittur, a Manhattan attorney who represents one of the plaintiffs, told the Star Ledger. The suits sought class-action status and estimated damages of more than $100 million. The suits had alleged that IDT failed to disclose certain service charges or connection fees that made per-minute calling rates much higher than advertised on the cards' packaging. Though calling cards are IDT's lifeblood, the Newark-based phone company also dabbles in a range of other activities, including the production of animated movies and radio broadcasting. However, 54 percent of its sales last year, which is around $1.19 billion, came from prepaid cards. INDONESIA: Newmont Nusa Denies Charges Of Polluting Senunu Bay -------------------------------------------------------------- Copper and gold miner PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara (NNT) along with local villagers, have rejected claims by a group that calls itself the People's Lawyers Union (SPR) that its tailings have damaged the environment in the area around its operations, The Jakarta Post reports. In a press statement, Senior External Relations Manager Malik Salim said that there was no evidence that the two West Sumbawa residents, Salamudin Daeng and Heri Zakaria, who plan to file a class action through the SPR, represented the local community. "The people here support NNT's operation," Mr. Salim adds. Endang Arianto, the head of Jereweh district in West Sumbawa, West Nusa Tenggara, told the Jakarta Post where the open pit mine is located, none of the local residents had suffered from any sort of "strange ailment", similar to that reported in Buyat Bay in North Sulawesi. Several media outlets reported that Habiburokhman, a member of the SPR, had said that it planned to file a US$10 million class action against NNT with the South Jakarta District Court for causing environmental damage around Senunu Bay, where the company has been disposing of its tailings in a trench 3,000 meters under the water. SPR said the huge volume of the tailings estimated to be around 43.2 million tons a year had resulted in the majority of villagers in Keruak district, East Lombok regency, suffering from itching and other skin ailments. It also pointed out that fishermen along the regency's coast had seen a drop in fish catches over the past two years, the Post reports. However, Endang Arianto, who was accompanied by a number of other villagers at a press conference held at the NNT concession, countered the accusation by saying that the fish in Senunu Bay were not contaminated and were consumed on a daily basis by the villagers. "We should be the ones to feel the effects first," he stressed, the Post states. According to NNT, East Lombok is located 50 kilometers away from Senunu Bay. NNT, a local unit of U.S.-based mining giant Newmont, is currently trying to renew its license to dump tailings at sea, since its current license is only valid for three years and is set to expire next month. Non-governmental organizations have been urging the government to reconsider submarine tailing disposal, claiming that the method is unsafe, particularly in the light of the high profile case involving another Newmont subsidiary, Newmont Minahasa Raya, last year. MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of CA, DE Stock Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Magna Entertainment Corporation intends to seek the dismissal of six class actions filed in Delaware and California courts, in connection with MI Developments Inc.'s intention to make an unsolicited offer to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of Class A Subordinate Voting Stock not already owned by it. The suits name as defendants the Company, MI Developments Inc. and/or one or more of MI Developments and the Company's directors. The suits are styled: (1) Weisz v. Campbell, et al., filed on July 13, 2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court (2) Bedford v. Magna Entertainment Corp., et al., filed on July 13, 2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court; (3) Pill, et al v. Jerry D. Campbell, et al., filed on July 14, 2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court; (4) Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Magna Entertainment Corp., et al., filed on July 22, 2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court; (5) Cronk, et al. v. Campbell, et al., filed on July 22, 2004 in the Delaware Chancery Court; (6) Tolwin v. Frank Stronach, et al., filed on July 30, 2004 in the Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles Each of these lawsuits seeks injunctive relief to stop any proposed acquisition of the Company's outstanding Class A Subordinate Voting Stock by MI Developments Inc. and, in certain cases, damages if such transaction is completed as proposed by MI Developments Inc. All of the Delaware actions were consolidated by order dated August 30, 2004. As a result of the announcement by MI Developments Inc. on September 16, 2004, of its withdrawal of the offer, the Company believes that the lawsuits are moot and should be dismissed. On October 1, 2004, the plaintiffs in the previously announced class action lawsuit in California captioned "Feldman v. Magna Entertainment Corp. et al," filed a notice of dismissal of this action with the Superior Court, State of California, County of Los Angeles. MICHIGAN: AG Mike Cox Warns Against VoIP Technology Limitations --------------------------------------------------------------- Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox advised consumers about possible limitations regarding "Voice Over the Internet," or VoIP, technology. Advertised in Michigan, VoIP technology may not offer access to 9-1-1 emergency services. "While VoIP may offer less expensive telephone service, consumers should be seriously concerned about the possible risks of not having access to 9-1-1 emergency services," the Attorney General said. "I encourage every Michigan consumer to become informed about this new technology and the important differences between it and traditional telephone service, especially in regards to proper access to the 9-1-1 emergency system." VoIP technology allows consumers to make telephone calls using a broadband Internet connection instead of a regular telephone line. Some VoIP services do not provide access to emergency 9-1-1. A Consumer Alert detailing Mr. Cox's concerns is available at the Attorney General's Web site: http://www.michigan.gov/ag. "If the advertising, brochure, or other marketing materials are silent on this issue, it is likely that 9-1-1 is not being provided," he said. Even for those companies that do provide 9-1-1 service, it may not be the full service on which consumers rely. For example, the landline telephone system automatically provides 9-1-1 operators with the caller's location, while the VoIP service may not. Landline telephone systems also route 9-1-1 calls through emergency phone lines while VoIP may route these calls to a general call center. Even when the VoIP service includes traditional 9-1-1 access, it may not be automatically activated and consumers must take proactive steps in order to place a 9-1-1 call. Attorney General Cox advised VoIP subscribers to: (1) Verify that he can access 9-1-1 with his telephone by checking his VoIP provider's Web site, and not to dial 9-1-1 to test his access to the emergency response network; (2) be sure to activate the emergency calling feature of his service plan, if applicable; (3) consider purchasing a back up power supply, because the VoIP service may run out if the power is out; (4) Inform children, babysitters, and visitors about his VoIP service and relevant limitations; (5) Consider keeping a landline telephone to access 9-1-1 emergency services. Consumers with a questions or a complaint about VoIP may contact the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division toll- free at 1-877-765-8388, by writing to P.O. Box 30213, Lansing, MI 48909, or by visiting the Website: http://www.michigan.gov/ag. MODEM MEDIA: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Modem Media, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO). Beginning in August 2001, several stockholder class action complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of Modem’s common stock since the date of the Company Offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage commissions and also that this alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated the Company's stock price in the period after the Modem Offering. The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation. The suit is styled "In Re Modem Media, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, related to the "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)." For more information, please visit http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/DTAS01/20020419_r01c_015948. pdf. The members of the plaintiff's executive committee are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail: 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com, (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119- 1065, Phone: 212.594.5300, (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com, (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com NEBRASKA: Judge Rules That Decision To Cut Benefits Unlawful ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith-Camp ruled in a class action lawsuit, stating that the state of Nebraska was wrong to cut Medicaid payments to scores of single working parents last year, the WOWT reports. In her ruling, the judge stated that state wrongfully cut so-called "transitional Medicaid benefits" to Kelly Bowlin of Ogallala and others in similar situations. The lawsuit, which was initiated by the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, had accused the state of refusing to give Ms. Bowlin and other parents their temporary Medicaid benefits. Court records revealed that Ms. Bowling had actually lost her Medicaid in January 2004 as a result of a 50- cent-per-hour raise from her employer. According to the class-action lawsuit, Medicaid recipients who get new jobs, raises or begin working enough hours that they exceed income limits must be given "transitional benefits" so they can find an alternative to meet their medical needs. Removing the people from the Medicaid program was done during a special budget-cutting legislative session in 2002. NETFLIX INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated CA Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against certain of Netflix, Inc.'s officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The officers named in the suit are: (1) Reed Hastings, (2) W. Barry McCarthy, Jr., and (3) Leslie J. Kilgore The consolidated complaint was filed on February 24, 2005, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 1, 2003 and October 14, 2004. The plaintiffs allege that the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts based on the Company's disclosure regarding churn and delivery speed, claiming alleged violations by each named defendant of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and alleged violations by certain of its officers of Section 20A of Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit is styled "In re Netflix, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 3:04-cv-02978-FMS," filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Fern M. Smith. Representing the Company are Cynthia A. Dy and Cameron Powers Hoffman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650/493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 E-mail: cdy@wsgr.com, choffman@wsgr.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Arthur L Shingler, III, David R. Scott, Neil R. Rothstein, Scott + Scott, LLC 401 B Street Suite 401 San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619- 233-0508 E-mail: Ashingler@scott-Scott.com, Drscott@scott-Scott.com; (2) Brian O O'Mara, William S. Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 USA Phone: 619/ 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 Email: Briano@lerachlaw.com or Billl@lerachlaw.com NETFLIX INC.: Consumers File Fraud Suit Over DVD Delivery in CA --------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix, Inc. faces a class action filed in California Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco by Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The complaint asserts claims of, among other things, false advertising, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract as well as claims relating to the Company's statements regarding DVD delivery times. The complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement, damages, and injunction and specific performance and other relief. Case management conference was held on March 23,2005 before Judge Thomas J. Mellon, Jr. The conference will be continued to May 11,2005. The suit is styled "FRANK CHAVEZ VS. NETFLIX, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION et al, case no. CGC-04-434884." Representing the Company is Keith Eggleton of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto CA 94304-1050 USA Phone: (650) 493-9300. Representing the plaintiffs are Adam Gutride LAW OFFICES OF ADAM GUTRRIDE 835 Douglass Street, San Francisco CA 94114 USA Phone: (415) 271-6469; and Seth Safire, 6467 California, San Francisco CA 94121 USA Phone: (415) 876-4345. NETFLIX INC.: Firm Says Securities Suit Has Not Been Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Due to client and public reaction to an article dated March 15, 2005 stating, "that Netflix Inc. on Tuesday said a federal judge in California has dismissed a shareholder lawsuit brought against current and former members of the company's board of directors", Scott + Scott, LLC, Lead Counsel for the Netflix shareholders in the federal securities class action are advising its client shareholders, a substantial number of people and entities, and all absent class members who purchased Netflix stock from October 1, 2003 through October 14, 2004 that their case has not been dismissed. Scott + Scott, LLC had announced that it had filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix") (Nasdaq: NFLX) for alleged acts in violation of U.S. securities fraud laws. The article in Reuters stated: "In its annual report, Netflix said the lawsuit accusing Netflix Chief Executive Reed Hastings and other officers of insider trading and making false statements about churn, or the rate at which Netflix loses subscribers, was dismissed on Feb. 25. A similar case filed in Santa Clara Superior Court in October was stayed pending resolution of the federal case, the company said." While this statement is factually correct in that the Netflix annual report accurately states that a federal case as described was dismissed, Scott + Scott advises that it was not the class case brought for securities fraud violations brought by shareholders under the Securities Act of 1934 and that the other case has no bearing on this case. For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC, by Phone: +1-800-404-7770 or +1-619-251-0887. ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss the class action filed against it, certain of its current and former Chief Executive Officers and its current Chief Financial Officer. Plaintiff Francis Layher filed the first suit, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between May 5, 2003 and February 23, 2004. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff seeks an order determining that the action may proceed as a class action, awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees. Six similar lawsuits were also filed in May and June of 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, by plaintiffs Kenneth L. Friedman, Trudy J. Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss, Duane Liffrig and G.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same plaintiff class, making substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially similar damages. As of the date of this Form 10-K, the lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge and consolidated into a single action. Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel have been appointed. The consolidated complaint was filed on December 20, 2004, which, among other things, extended the putative class period to October 18, 2005. OKLAHOMA: Senate Committee Amends, Passes Lawsuit Reform Bill ------------------------------------------------------------- A Senate committee amended, and then approved a lawsuit reform bill that has passed the state House, the Associated Press reports. The reform bill, which was heavily backed by Democrats, included changes such as a $300,000 limit on pain and suffering damages, restricting testimony by expert witnesses and putting limits on class-action lawsuits. Originally authored by House Speaker Todd Hiett, the newly passed bill also included a 10-year limit for liability and limited contingency fees that are common when a lawyer takes a case with a promise of a share of any money awarded. Democrats said that the bill would reduce frivolous lawsuits, but would still give Oklahomans the chance to go to court when they're injured. The changes being advocated are similar to a bill supported by Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry, which had been killed in the Senate earlier. Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in the Senate were not as enthusiastic about the measure's passing. In fact, just hours after the bill passed, Sen. Glenn Coffee, the Senate's minority leader, issued a press release saying that the Democrats "gutted" the original proposals brought forth by House Republicans, AP reports. PLUG POWER: Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 19 in NY Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Plug Power, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors is set for April 19,2005 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In September 2000, a shareholder class action complaint was filed, alleging that the Company and various of its officers and directors violated certain federal securities laws by failing to disclose certain information concerning our products and future prospects. The action was brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Company stock who purchased the stock between February 14, 2000 and August 2, 2000. Subsequently, fourteen additional complaints with similar allegations and class periods were filed. By order dated October 30, 2000, the court consolidated the complaints into one action, entitled Plug Power Inc. Securities Litigation, CV-00- 5553(ERK)(RML). By order dated January 25, 2001, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. Subsequently, the plaintiffs served a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint extends the class period to begin on October 29, 1999 and alleges claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act. Subsequently, plaintiffs withdrew their claims under the Securities Act. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the state of development of the Company's technology in a registration statement issued in connection with our initial public offering (IPO) and in subsequent press releases. The Company served its motion to dismiss the claims in May 2001. By order dated January 21, 2003, the Court dismissed all claims relating to pre-IPO press releases, the IPO prospectus and all but three post-IPO press releases. The Court ruled that the three remaining press releases raised questions of fact that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The Court also denied the motion to dismiss the claims against the individual defendants at this time. On December 29, 2004, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which is subject to final approval by the Court. The settlement does not call for payment by the defendants and would be covered by directors and officers insurance. The Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement was submitted to the Court on January 5, 2005. On January 19, 2005, the Court entered an order certifying the class for the purposes of settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, setting forth procedures for notice to the plaintiff class, and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing for April 29, 2005. Pursuant to the Court's January 19, 2005 order, members of the plaintiff class who wish to be excluded from the class must mail a request to be excluded no later than April 11, 2005. The suit is styled "In re Plug Power Securities Litigation, case no. 1:00-cv-05553-ERK-RML," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Edward R. Korman. Representing the Company are Gregory A. Markel, Ronit Setton, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP One World Financial Center New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212-504-6000 Fax: 212-504-6666, E- mail: greg.markel@cwt.com, ronit.setton@cwt.com; and Nancy I. Ruskin Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2000 Fax: 212-225-3499, E- mail: nruskin@cgsh.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Lionel Z. Glancy, Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. 1801 Avenue of the Americas Los Angeles, CA 90067 (2) Mel E. Lifschitz 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 (3) Samuel H. Rudman, Steven G. Schulman Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, L.L.P. One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 PRICELINE.COM: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suits in DE, CA Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- priceline.com, Inc. and other online travel agencies face several antitrust class actions in various state courts over its taxes and services fees charged to its consumers. On December 30, 2004, the City of Los Angeles filed a putative class action complaint in Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, on behalf of itself and other allegedly similarly situated cities in California. The suit names as defendants the Company and: (1) Hotels.com, L.P.; (2) Hotels.Com GP., LLC; (3) Hotwire, Inc.; (4) Cheaptickets, Inc.; (5) Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.; (6) Expedia, Inc.; (7) Internetwork Publishing Corporation (d/b/a Lodging.com); (8) Lowestfare.com, Inc.; (9) Maupintour Holding LLC; (10) Orbitz, Inc.; (11) Orbitz, LLC; (12) priceline.com, Inc.; (13) Site59.com, LLC; (14) Travelocity.com, Inc.; (15) Travelocity.com LP; (16) Travelweb, LLC; (17) Travelnow.com, Inc. The suit, styled "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc. et al," alleges, among other things, that each of these defendants violated the Uniform Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance of the City of Los Angeles, and allegedly similar ordinances of other California cities, with respect to the charging and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under such ordinances, and that such violations also constitute acts of unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. ("Section 17200"). The complaint seeks payment of alleged unpaid taxes owed, relief from conversion, including punitive damages, and imposition of a constructive trust. On February 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in the same court by Ronald Bush and three other individuals on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated California consumers against several of the same defendants as named in the City of Los Angeles action, including the Company. The suit, styled "Bush et al. v. Cheaptickets, Inc. et al.," alleges each of the defendants engaged in acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 17200 relating to their respective disclosures and charging customers to cover taxes under the above ordinances of City of Los Angeles and other California cities, and service fees. The complaint seeks restitution under Section 17200, relief for alleged conversion, including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and imposition of a constructive trust. On February 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Delaware for New Castle County by Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals on behalf of themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated consumers nationwide against the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, 2523 relating to its disclosures and charging customers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances nationwide, and service fees. The complaint seeks damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and imposition of a constructive trust. PRICELINE.COM: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against priceline.com, Inc. and: (1) Richard S. Braddock, (2) Jay Walker, (3) Paul Francis, (4) Nancy B. Peretsman, (5) Timothy G. Brier, (6) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., (7) Goldman Sachs & Co., (8) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., (9) Robertson Stephens, Inc. (as successor-in-interest to BancBoston), (10) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. (as successor-in- interest to Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation), (11) Allen & Co., Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. Four suits were initially filed, alleging that that the Company and the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing and selling priceline.com common stock in priceline.com's March 1999 initial public offering without disclosing to investors that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had allegedly solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors. By Orders of Judge Mukasey and Judge Scheindlin dated August 8, 2001, these cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes with hundreds of other cases, which contain allegations concerning the allocation of shares in the initial public offerings o companies other than priceline.com, Inc. By Order of Judge Scheindlin dated August 14, 2001, the suits were consolidated for all purposes. On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in these cases. This Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint makes similar allegations to those described above but with respect to both the Company's March 1999 initial public offering and its August 1999 second public offering of common stock. The defendants together with other issuer defendants in the consolidated litigation, filed a joint motion to dismiss on July 15, 2002. On November 18, 2002, the cases against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice and without costs. In addition, counsel for plaintiffs and the individual defendants executed Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements, which toll the statutes of limitations on plaintiffs' claims against those individuals. On February 19, 2003, Judge Scheindlin issued an Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part the issuers' motion. None of the claims against the Company were dismissed. On June 26, 2003, counsel for the plaintiff class announced that they and counsel for the issuers had agreed to the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum") to settle claims against the issuers. The terms of that Memorandum provide that class members will be guaranteed $1 billion dollars in recoveries by the insurers of the issuers and that settling issuer defendants will assign to the class members certain claims that they may have against the underwriters. Issuers also agree to limit their abilities to bring certain claims against the underwriters. If recoveries in excess of $1 billion dollars are obtained by the class from any non-settling defendants, the settling defendants' monetary obligations to the class plaintiffs will be satisfied; any amount recovered from the underwriters that is less than $1 billion will be paid by the insurers on behalf of the issuers. The Memorandum, which is subject to the approval of each issuer, was approved by a special committee of the Company's Board of Directors on Thursday, July 3, 2003. Thereafter, counsel for the plaintiff class and counsel for the issuers agreed to the form of a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Defendant Issuers and Individuals ("Settlement Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement implements the MOU and contains the same material provisions. On June 11, 2004, a special committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized its counsel to execute the Settlement Agreement on the Company's behalf. The Settlement Agreement is subject to final approval by the Court and the process to obtain that approval is still pending. The suit is styled "In Re: Priceline.com IPO Securities Litigation, 1:01-cv-02261-SAS," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing the defendants are: (i) Andrew B. Clubok of Kirkland & Ellis, 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 879- 5000, representing Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated (ii) Brendan Joseph Dowd of O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022-4611 Phone: (212) 326-2000, E-mail: bdowd@omm.com, representing Robertson Stephens, Inc. (iii) Howard Fetner of Kirkland & Ellis, 153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-446-4800, representing Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated (iv) Andrew Jay Frackman, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Seven Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: afrackman@omm.com, representing Robertson Stephens, Inc. (v) Mark Holland, Clifford Chance US LLP, 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, phone: (212) 878-8000, representing Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated (vi) Penny Shane, Sullivan & Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004-2498, Phone: (212) 558-4000, representing Goldman Sachs & Co. (vii) Kevin J. Toner, Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, L.L.P., 120 West 45th Street, New York, NY 10036, Phone: (212) 832-8300, E-mail: ktoner@HEWM.com, representing Allen & Co., Incorporated The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (a) 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 (b) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300 (c) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com (d) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com (e) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com (f) 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 PRICELINE.COM: Plaintiffs Seek CT Securities Suit Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut to grant class certification to the class actions filed against priceline.com, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, following its announcement on September 27, 2000 that revenues for the third quarter 2000 would not meet expectations. The suits are styled: (1) Weingarten v. priceline.com Incorporated and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1901 (2) Twardy v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1884 (3) Berdakina v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1902 (4) Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1924 (5) Fialkov v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1954 (6) Ayach v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2062 (7) Zia v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1968 (8) Mazzo v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1980 (9) Bazag v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2122 (10) Breier v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2146 (11) Farzam et al. v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2176 (12) Caswell v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2169 (13) Howard Gunty Profit Sharing Plan v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1917 (14) Cerelli v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1918 (15) Mayer v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1923 (16) Anish v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1948 (17) Atkin v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 1994 (18) Lyon v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2066 (19) Kwan v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2069 (20) Krim v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2083 (21) Karas v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2232 (22) Michols v. priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Daniel H. Schulman and Jay S. Walker, 3:00 CV 2280 All of these cases have been assigned to Judge Dominick J. Squatrito. On September 12, 2001, Judge Squatrito ordered that these cases be consolidated under the Master File No. 3:00cv1884 (DJS), and he designated lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel. On October 29, 2001, plaintiffs served a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 5, 2002, Amerindo Investment Advisors, Inc., who was one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action, made a motion for leave to withdraw as lead plaintiff. The Court granted that motion on May 30, 2002. On February 28, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On October 7, 2004, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Company's motion. A scheduling order was entered by the Court on November 2, 2004 and the parties are now proceeding with discovery. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on January 7, 2005, to which the Company's opposition is due on April 8, 2005. The master complaint is styled "Twardy, et al v. Priceline.com, Inc, et al, case no. 3:00-cv-01884-DJS," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Dominic J. Squatrito. Representing the plaintiffs are: (i) Michael D. Donovan, Donovan Searles 1845 Walnut St. Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-732-6067 Fax: 215-732-8060 E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com; (ii) Justin Scott Kudler, Schatz & Nobel-Htfd One Corporate Center 20 Church St., Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-493-6292 Fax: 860-493-6290 E-mail: justin@snlaw.net (iii) Patrick A. Klingman, Sheperd Finkelman Miller & Shah- Chester 65 Main St. Chester, CT 06412 Phone: 860-526- 1100 Fax: 860-526-1120 E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com Representing the Company are: (a) Evan R. Chesler, Kevin J. Kehoe, Daniel Slifkin, Cravath, Swaine & Moore 825 8Th Ave., Worldwide Plaza New York, NY 10019-7415 Phone: 212-474-1000 E-mail: dslifkin@cravath.com; (b) Joseph L. Clasen, William J. Kelleher Robinson & Cole Financial Centre, 695 E. Main St., Pobx 10305 Stamford, CT 06904-2305 Phone: 203-462-7510 Fax: 203-462-7599 E- mail: jclasen@rc.com; PROFIT RECOVERY: Securities Settlement Hearing Set May 26, 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia - Atlanta Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $6.75 million settlement in the matter: In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. Securities Litigation (Civil Action FILE No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC) on behalf of all persons or entities who brought Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. common stock between July 19, 1999 and July 26, 2000, inclusive. The Court will hold a Settlement Fairness Hearing at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 26, 2005, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Richard B. Russell Federal Building and Courthouse, 75 Spring Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. For more details, contact In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. - Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6143 Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone: 1(866) 354-7993 or David Brower, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-0165 by Phone: (212) 594-5300. SONUS NETWORKS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against the Company, two of its officers and the lead underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO) and seeking unspecified monetary damages. The purchaser seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased our common stock between the IPO on May 24, 2000 and December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed in April 2002. The amended complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement contained false or misleading information or omitted to state material facts concerning the alleged receipt of undisclosed compensation by the underwriters and the existence of undisclosed arrangements between underwriters and certain purchasers to make additional purchases in the after market. The claims against the Company are asserted under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and against the individual defendants under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions against the Company, have been transferred to a single federal judge for purposes of coordinated case management. On July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims against many of the individual defendants, including our officers named in the complaint. On February 19, 2003, the court granted a portion of the motion to dismiss by dismissing the Section 10(b) claims against certain defendants including the Company, but denied the remainder of the motion as to the defendants. In June 2003, a special committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized the Company to enter into a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs on terms substantially consistent with the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding negotiated among representatives of the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer defendants. On February 15, 2005, the court preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed settlement contingent on modifications to the proposed settlement. The settlement is subject to final approval by the court. No hearing date has been scheduled for final approval. SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Adequacy of Class Representative --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts will consider on April 29,2005 filings regarding the adequacy of the class representative in the class action filed against Sonus Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors and a former officer. Several of its shareholders filed suits in June 2002 under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between December 11, 2000 and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages. The complaints were essentially identical and alleged that the Company e made false and misleading statements about our products and business. On March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on various grounds. On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the motion, at the conclusion of which the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 30, 2004, and the Company filed its opposition on September 10, 2004, to which the plaintiffs replied on September 30, 2004. On February 16, 2005, the court certified the class and appointed a class representative. On March 9, 2005, the court appointed the law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel, and the court also ordered additional filings as to the adequacy of the class representative and has scheduled a further hearing on April 29, 2005. SONUS NETWORKS: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonus Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its current officers and directors. On December 1, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, relating to the Company's restatement of its financial results for 2001, 2002, and the first three quarters of 2003. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of false or misleading statements to the market concerning its revenues, earnings, and financial condition. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused our stock price to be artificially inflated. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from March 28, 2002, through March 26, 2004. On January 28, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 12(a) claims and joined the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim filed by the individual defendants. No hearing date for this motion has been scheduled. ST. THOMAS DEVELOPMENT: Anti-Quarry Groups Losses $49M Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit from a citizens group seeking $49 million in damages from a company proposing to dig a quarry in St. Thomas Township, the Public Opinion reports. The case, which was filed by Friends and Residents of St. Thomas Township Inc. (FROST), alleges injuries that are "hypothetical, indirect and . largely ephemeral," according to U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane's ruling. Court documents state, FROST had claimed that St. Thomas Development Inc. used its corporate constitutional rights to deny the civil rights of township residents and sought damages of $8,500 for each resident. Plaintiffs alleged that Bryan Salzmann, a Chambersburg attorney representing St. Thomas Development, wrote to the St. Thomas Township Supervisors on February 18, 2004, and asked Frank Stearn, who was elected to the post of township supervisor in 2003 to recuse himself from quarry matters because of bias. Mr. Salzmann hinted that the company might sue if Mr. Stearn voted on quarry matters. "Democracy in America requires that everyone is treated fairly and impartially," Mr. Salzmann said during the hearing, Public Opinion reports. He added, "The request was made to ensure that my client was treated fairly and impartially. Everyone, no matter where they are from or what their business involves, has the right to be treated fairly and impartially by public officials. I believe the court recognizes that." With the recent decision, FROST will still meet to decide whether to appeal the decision, according to Thomas A. Linzey, a Chambersburg attorney representing FROST. St. Thomas Township supervisors meanwhile asked Franklin County Court in June to offer an opinion on whether Mr. Stearn can vote on quarry matters. FROST and St. Thomas Township residents Michael Urban, Winfred Walls and Gloria Saberin had filed the class action suit a year ago in U.S. Middle District Court of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg against St. Thomas Development and its corporate officers Peter DePaul, Anthony DePaul and Donna DePaul-Bartynski and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Judge Kane indicated she came "very close" to declaring the case frivolous and nearly required FROST to pay St. Thomas Development's attorneys' fees. Mr. Linzey ignored scores of decisions in constitutional law establishing that corporations do enjoy rights, Judge Kane stated. "Many . (of his) arguments regard fundamental constitutional concerns about which there has been long-standing (scholarly) debate, albeit settled law contrary to (his) arguments," she adds, Public Opinion reports. UNITED STATES: FDA Halts Sales of Inhalers With CFC Propellants --------------------------------------------------------------- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has announced that albuterol metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) using chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants must no longer be produced, marketed or sold in the United States after December 31, 2008. In a final rule published today in the Federal Register, HHS said sufficient supplies of two approved, environmentally friendly albuterol inhalers will exist by December 31, 2008 to allow the phasing out of similar less environmentally friendly versions. HHS is encouraged that the manufacturers of three environmentally friendly albuterol inhalers are implementing programs to help assure access to these albuterol MDIs for patients for whom price could be a significant barrier to access to this important medicine. These programs include MDI giveaways, coupons for reducing the price paid and patient- assistance programs based on financial need. CFC-containing albuterol MDIs, as with other CFC-based MDIs for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis) were previously exempted from a general ban of CFC production and importation under an international agreement established through the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the U.S. Clean Air Act. The final rule also forms the basis for the phase-out of the CFC-containing albuterol products through the withdrawal of their "essential use" status as of December 31, 2008. This change in status is based on HHS' determination that: (1) At least two non-CFC products with the same active drug are marketed with the same route of administration, for the same indication, and with approximately the same level of convenience of use as the CFC product that contains that active ingredient; (2) Supplies and production capacity for the non-CFC product will exist by December 31, 2008 at levels sufficient to meet patient needs; (3) Adequate U.S. post marketing use data are available for the non-CFC product; and (4) Patients who are required to use the CFC product for medical reasons will be adequately served by the alternative non-CFC product and other available products. HHS sought and received public comment from a proposed rule in June 2004. This public comment, combined with feedback from a Pulmonary Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in June 2004, as well as consultation with other Federal agencies, helped the agency develop the final rule. For additional information, visit the Website: http://www.fda.gov/cder/mdi/default.htm. UNOCAL CORPORATION: Stockholder Lodges Suit Over Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------ A Unocal Corporation stockholder initiated lawsuit against the El Segundo-based oil company, alleging that Unocal's agreement to be acquired by ChevronTexaco Corporation was unfair to Unocal's investors, the Los Angeles Times reports. Unocal had recently agreed to be bought for cash and ChevronTexaco stock totaling $16.4 billion, or about $62 a share. The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Unocal shareholder Michael Lieb and other investors, who are seeking class-action status. VERISIGN INC.: Jamster Service Sued in CA Over Selling Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamster, a service owned by VeriSign Inc. that sells ring tones and other content to mobile phone subscribers, is facing a lawsuit seeking class action status for allegedly misleading young consumers into paying for expensive text messages, the The Industry Standard reports. Filed in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, the lawsuit accuses Jamster of fraud and false advertising, saying it falsely advertises that mobile customers can get a free ring tone by sending a text message to the company. However, according to the complaint, which was brought by Charles Ford, who has claimed that his daughter was lured into the service, those customers then get text messages from Jamster that each cost $1.99 plus the mobile operator's standard per-message charge. Mr. Ford's lawyers at Callahan, McCune & Willis APLC are seeking to make it a class action on behalf of Jamster customers around the world. Jamster is the U.S. name of Jamba AG, a German mobile content provider that VeriSign acquired in June 2004. The suit names VeriSign, Jamster, Jamba, and three U.S. mobile operators that Jamster says carry the service: T-Mobile USA Inc., AT&T Wireless Services Inc. and Cingular Wireless LLC. According to the complaint, which actually came after numerous gripes from consumers in the U.S. and Europe, some of it posted on Web sites, the Jamster service was launched in the United States late last year. The complaint goes on to states that Jamster advertises on TV and other media that mobile customers can get a free ring tone, if they send a text message to the number displayed on the ad. In fact, those who sent the text message got multiple messages back notifying them that content was available for download. The customers had to pay for all those messages though. Consumers who have contacted the company have reported monthly charges totaling as much as $75 for content they didn't want or even download, said Charles Russell, one of the attorneys representing Mr. Ford. In addition the complaint contends that, the service is advertised heavily on TV channels such as Nickelodeon that are aimed at children. It thus alleges that the company depended on young mobile users getting drawn into the service and on their parents paying the charges, which appear on the monthly cell phone bill. VIRGINIA: Industry Asks Appeals Court To Rehear Headset Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wireless carriers and manufacturers have asked the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear arguments in class-action headset lawsuits that was sent back to various state courts by a divided three-judge panel last month, the RCR Wireless News reports. According to the groups' 24-page rehearing petition, the Richmond, Virginia-based federal appeals court's 2-1 decision conflicts with other circuit court rulings and "seriously threatens the regulatory uniformity mandated by Congress" for the cell phone industry. The petition appears to lay the groundwork for a possible Supreme Court appeal. As previously reported in the March 18, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, a divided federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia reinstated five lawsuits claiming that the cell phone industry has failed to protect consumers from unsafe levels of radiation. The class-action lawsuits demand that cell phone manufacturers to provide headsets, which they say could reduce risks of brain tumors. In addition, they also seek punitive damages. The suits were originally filed in state courts in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, Georgia and Louisiana, but were consolidated and transferred to federal court in Baltimore. Ruling that federal standards regulating wireless phones including uniform national limits on radiation emissions pre- empt the state law claims, Judge Catherine Blake dismissed the lawsuits last March. However, a panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Blake's ruling in a recent 2-1 decision, thus four of the cases were returned to state courts while one was sent to federal district court for further proceedings. Though several studies have found no adverse health effects from cell phones, plaintiffs' claims included allegations that the industry's actions violated various state laws on consumer protection, product liability, implied warranty, negligence, fraud and civil conspiracy. According to Judge M. Blane Michael, who wrote in the majority opinion, which was also joined by Judge Michael Luttig, "We have thoroughly examined the claims ... and one thing is clear: the elements of each of the claims depend only on the resolution of questions of state law." Dissenting against the ruling was Judge Jackson L. Kiser, who said that the claims require the courts to explore the adequacy of the Federal Communications Commission's radiation emission standards. Additionally, he wrote in his opinion, "It is well- settled that a suit to invalidate a federal regulation arises under federal law." "... This thinly disguised attack on the validity of the FCC standards raises a substantial federal question." Neither Michael R. Allweiss, lawyer for the plaintiffs or cell phone industry attorney Kenneth W. Starr immediately returned phone calls seeking comment, RCR News reports. YANKEE CANDLE: Employees Launch Labor Laws Violations Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yankee Candle Co., Inc. faces a class action filed in California State Court, charging it with violations of certain California state wage and hour and employment laws with respect to certain employees in its California retail stores. This complaint was filed in February 2005 and the Company has therefore only begun to investigate the allegations and have yet to file its answer. While the Company intends to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations, it is too early in the litigation process for it to fully evaluate or predict the outcome of the litigation, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. New Securities Fraud Cases BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in NJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley" or the "Company") (NYSE: BDY) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded securities of Bradley between October 8, 2003 and February 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition that caused Bradley's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels. On February 25, 2005, Bradley issued a press release in which it disclosed that the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was conducting an informal inquiry relating to the Company to determine whether there had been violations of the federal securities laws and that in connection with such inquiry, the SEC had requested that the Company provide it with certain information and documents concerning revenue recognition and the capitalization of certain payments. The Company also stated that in light of the SEC inquiry and a review being conducted by Bradley's Audit Committee, Bradley would not be releasing its 2004 earnings numbers as scheduled. On this shocking news, the price of the Company's stock dropped on massive trading volume to close on February 28, 2005 at $9.75 per share, down more than 26% from the closing price for the stock on the prior trading day of $13.25 per share on February 25, 2005. For more details, contact Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit their Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com. COLLINS & AIKMAN: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MI -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all securities purchasers of Collins & Aikman Corp. (NYSE: CKC) ("Collins & Aikman" or the "Company") between May 6, 2004 and March 17, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Collins & Aikman, David Stockman, J. Michael Stepp, and Bryce Koth 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 known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company improperly accounted for certain supplier rebates; (2) that the Company's financial statements required net adjustments of approximately $10 - $12 million; (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 consequence of the foregoing, the Company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On March 17, 2005, Collins & Aikman announced that after the review of vendor rebates covered an aggregate of approximately $88 million of vendor transactions in fiscal years 2002 through 2004, the company's management believes that net adjustments of approximately $10 - $12 million are required primarily occurring during fiscal 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Collins & Aikman fell $0.39 per share or 23.93 percent, on March 17, 2005, to close at $1.24 per share. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com. COLLINS AIKMAN: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MI ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of Collins & Aikman Corp. ("Collins & Aikman" or the "Company'') (NYSE:CKC), between May 6, 2004 and March 17, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period''). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Collins & Aikman securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com. DELPHI CORPORATION: Keller Rohrback Lodges Securities Suit in MI ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a class action lawsuit against Delphi Corporation ("Delphi" or the "Company") (NYSE:DPH) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The class action focuses on investments in DPH stock by the Delphi Savings-Stock Purchase Program for Salaried Employees (the "Plan") from May 28, 1999, through March 11, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint: (1) the Defendants who administered the Plan had a duty to disclose to and inform the other fiduciaries of the Plan of information, which the other fiduciaries reasonably needed to know to fulfill their fiduciary duties to Plan participants and beneficiaries; (2) that Defendants who communicated with participants regarding the Plan's assets, or had a duty to do so, failed to provide participants with complete and accurate information regarding DPH stock sufficient to advise participants of the true risks of investing their retirement savings in DPH stock; (3) that Defendants made affirmative, material misrepresentations to the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan about the appropriateness of investing in Company stock and about Delphi's financial condition through incorporation of the material, untruthful information contained in the Company's SEC filings into the Plan's summary plan description; and (4) that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs in violation of ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's investment in DPH stock when the stock was no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement savings. For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal at Keller Rohrback L.L.P. by Phone: 800/776-6044 by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit their Web sites: http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.seattleclassaction.com. DELPHI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Delphi Corporation ("Delphi" or the "Company") (NYSE:DPH) between January 17, 2001 and March 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Delphi and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Delphi is a global supplier of vehicle electronics, transportation components, integrated systems and modules, and other electronic technology to vehicle manufacturers. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading financial statements as a result of Delphi's improper accounting for off-balance sheet financing and vendor rebates. On March 4, 2005, the Company reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the preliminary results of an ongoing internal investigation by the Company's Audit Committee indicate "certain prior transactions involving the receipt of rebates, credits or other lump-sum payments from suppliers and off- balance sheet financing of certain indirect materials and inventory were accounted for improperly." The Company further stated that, based on information to date, the improper accounting for off-balance sheet financing transactions may have resulted in the Company overstating cash flow from operations for 2000 by approximately $200 million, and that the improper accounting for rebate transactions resulted in the Company overstating its 2001 pre-tax income under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by approximately $61 million. The Company also reported that the Audit Committee has concluded, as a result of its continuing investigation, that "audited financial statements and related independent auditors' reports for 2001 and subsequent periods as a result of the unwinding of the improperly recorded transactions, should no longer be relied upon and a restatement will be required." This news shocked the market, causing Delphi stock to fall 14% on March 4, 2005, closing at $5.46, which was 68% below the Class Period high of $17.40. For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com. MBIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of MBIA Inc., (NYSE: MBI) ("MBIA" or the "Company") between August 5, 2003 and March 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges MBIA, Joseph W. Brown, Gary C. Dunton, Nicholas Ferreri, Neil G. Budnick, and Douglas C. Hamilton 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 MBIA, during the Class Period, overleveraged itself, deeply under-reserved against possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to guaranteeing risky structured financings; (2) that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current income, by classifying many of its upfront guarantee fees as advisory fees taken at closing, rather than as accounted for over the life of the bonds insured; (3) that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment received from Converium Re (then called Zurich Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan; (4) that as a result of this, MBIA financial statements were materially overstated by $60 million; (5) that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the secondary market that were attracting prices lower than their stale credit ratings would dictate; (6) that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the Company's practice to defer recognizing problems rather than providing layers of excess collateral, other underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed prowess at restructurings; (7) that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation ("AHERF") bond issuance, with a retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of the future AHERF interest and principal payments, which resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in pretax income that year -- $565 million over what the income figure would have been without resort to the reinsurance; (8) that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest, performing but troubled policies from its existing portfolio, with the proviso that it could make up any quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet in order make its financial results appear better; and (9) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the Company. On November 18, 2004, MBIA issued a press release wherein it announced that "it received identical document subpoenas today from the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General's office requesting information with respect to non-traditional or loss mitigation insurance products developed, offered or sold by MBIA to third parties from January 1, 1998 to the present." On March 8, 2005, MBIA announced that it had decided to restate its financial statements for 1998 and subsequent years. The restatement was being made to correct the accounting treatment for two reinsurance agreements that MBIA entered into in 1998 with Converium Re (previously known as Zurich Reinsurance North America). Then on March 9, 2005, MBIA announced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking information related to the reinsurance agreements it entered into in connection with the loss it incurred in 1998 on bonds insured by MBIA Insurance Corp. that were issued by Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation ("AHERF"). On March 30, 2005, after the market closed, MBIA announced that it received additional requests from the New York Attorney General's Office (NYAG) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that supplement the subpoenas it received in late 2004. On this news, shares of MBIA fell $4.36 per share, or 7.7 percent, to close at $52.28 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.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 Senorin, 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 * * *