/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050913.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, September 13, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 181
Headlines
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set November 18, 2005
ANDRYX CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005
ARIBA INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suits Settlements
ARIBA INC.: DE Court Mulls FreeMarkets Merger Lawsuit Dismissal
ARIBA INC.: Reaches Settlement For FreeMarkets Shareholder Suit
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Antitrust Law Violations Suit In E.D. TN
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues To Face Personal Injury Litigation
BECTON DICKINSON: Reaches Settlement For Canada Consumer Lawsuit
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Investor Suit V. Viacom Stock Swap in DE
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of CA Overtime Suit
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Conditional Certification For FL Suit Nixed
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Fraud Suits V. End of Late Fees Program
CREDIT CARDS: Firms Fail To Avail of VISA/Mastercard Settlement
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Working on Chemical Antitrust Settlement
DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Asks OR Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
ESPEED INC.: NY Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
FLORIDA: Verdict Obtained V. Defendants in SEC Fraud Suit Action
FLORIDA: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Michael Kogan, Eric Laucius
FREIGHTLINER LLC: Recalls 1.84T School Buses Due to Crash Hazard
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Canadian Law Firms Merge in $500M Battle
HANOVER DIRECT: Obtains Favorable Outcomes in Three Litigations
INTERMUNE INC.: CA Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Settlement Approval
ISUZU MOTORS: Judge Rejects Proposed Settlement Over Faulty SUVs
MERRILL LYNCH: CA Judge Gives Preliminary Approval For $37M Deal
MORGAN STANLEY: Ex-Broker Lodges Overtime Wage Suit in S.D. NY
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Court Reverses Wireless Phone Lawsuit Dismissal
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Appeal of Suit Settlement Filed With High Court
PRICELINE.COM: CA Court Allows Challenge To Consumer Fraud Suit
PRICELINE.COM: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Antitrust Suit in CA
PRICELINE.COM: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
PRICELINE.COM: Philadelphia Files Suit For Hotel Tax Violations
REDBACK NETWORKS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Amended Investor Suit
SINA CORPORATION: NY Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
SKYLINE CORPORATION: Recalls 65 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
STONEPATH GROUP: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TOYOBO CO.: Settles Lawsuit by LAPD Over Zylon-Based Body Armor
TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: AZ Court Dismisses Information Theft Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Legal Battle Over Insurance Looms After Hurricane
VISX INC.: Shareholder Settlement Hearing Set October 6, 2005
WASHINGTON: Court Certifies Lawsuit v. Virginia Mason Hospital
WORLDCOM LITIGATION: Judge Postpones Finalization of Settlement
New Securities Fraud Cases
DHB INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
DHB INDUSTRIES: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MN
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in PA
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in NY Over AIM Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over Columbia Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Lawsuit in NY Over John Hancock Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Lawsuit in NY Over Lord Abbett Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over Putnam Funds
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges NY Fraud Suit Over Van Kampen Funds
WORLD HEALTH: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
*********
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set November 18, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $5,350,000 settlement in the matter: In re Aerosonic
Corporation Securities Litigation, C.A. NO. 8:03-CV-2373-T-24
TBM, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
Aerosonic's (AMEX: AIM) common stock on the open market between
the period November 13, 1998 through September 24, 2003.
The hearing will be held on November 18, 2005 at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 14A, Sam M. Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida
Avenue, Tampa, FL 33602.
For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Aerosonic
Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler, Radetich &
Saitta L.L.P., P.O. Box 58249, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8249,
Phone: 800-768-8450, Web site:
http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.comand Merrill G. Davidoff
or Lane L. Vines of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St.,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (800) 424-6690 or (215) 875-3000,
Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com.
ANDRYX CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $2,500,000
settlement in the matter: In re Andryx Corporation Securities
Litigation, 03CV20593, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Andryx between march 1, 2002 and March 4,
2003.
The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jose E. Martinez,
United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 301
N. Miami Ave., Miami, FL 33128 at 9:30 a.m. on October 7, 2005
For more details, contact In re Andrx Securities Litigation, c/o
Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, L.L.P., P.O. Box 350, Philadelphia,
PA 19105-0350, Phone: 800-528-7199, Web site:
http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com;The Law Offices Bernard
M. Gross, P.C., Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.comand Kim Walker, Investor Relations
Manager of Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St.,
Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: (888) 891-2289, E-mail:
investorprotect@bm.net, Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com.
ARIBA INC.: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Stock Suits Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class actions filed against Ariba, Inc. and
FreeMarkets, Inc., which the Company acquired.
Between March 20, 2001 and June 5, 2001, a number of purported
shareholder class action complaints were filed against the
Company, certain of its former officers and directors and three
of the underwriters of our initial public offering. These
actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in the period from June 23, 1999, the
date of the Ariba IPO, to December 23, 1999 (in some cases, to
December 5 or 6, 2000), and make certain claims under the
federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
relating to the Ariba IPO.
In addition, since July 31, 2001, a number of purported
shareholder class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against FreeMarkets, Inc., certain of its officers and directors
(the "FreeMarkets Individual Defendants") and the underwriters
of FreeMarkets' initial public offering (the "FreeMarkets IPO").
These actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
FreeMarkets' common stock in the period from December 9, 1999,
the date of the FreeMarkets IPO, to December 6, 2000 (in some
cases, to July 30, 2001), and make claims relating to the
FreeMarkets IPO similar to the claims made in the Ariba IPO
actions.
On June 26, 2001, the Ariba IPO actions were consolidated into a
single action bearing the title "In re Ariba, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 01 CIV 2359." Similarly, the FreeMarkets IPO actions
were consolidated into a single action bearing the title
"Steffey v. FreeMarkets, Inc. et al., 01 CIV 7039." On August
9, 2001, those consolidated actions were further consolidated
(for pretrial purposes), with cases brought against additional
issuers (who numbered in excess of 300) and their underwriters
that made similar allegations regarding the IPOs of those
issuers.
On February 14, 2002, the parties signed and filed a stipulation
dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice against the
Company, FreeMarkets and certain Individual Defendants, which
the Court approved and entered as an order on March 1, 2002. On
April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
which they dropped their claims against Ariba, FreeMarkets and
all of the Ariba Individual Defendants and the FreeMarkets
Individual Defendants under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act, but elected to proceed with their claims against such
defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the prospectuses
pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Ariba
IPO and the FreeMarkets IPO, which were incorporated in
registration statements filed with the SEC, contained certain
false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the
practices of the Company's and FreeMarkets' underwriters with
respect to their allocations to their customers of shares of
common stock in the IPOs and their receipt of commissions from
those customers related to such allocations.
The complaint further alleges that the underwriters provided
positive analyst coverage of Ariba and FreeMarkets after their
respective IPOs, which had the effect of manipulating the market
for Company stock and FreeMarkets' stock, respectively.
Plaintiffs contend that such statements and omissions from the
prospectuses and the alleged market manipulation by the
underwriters through the use of analysts caused the post-IPO
stock prices of Ariba and FreeMarkets to be artificially
inflated. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts as well as other relief.
On July 15, 2002, Ariba, FreeMarkets and the Ariba Individual
Defendants and the FreeMarkets Individual Defendants, along with
other issuers and their related officer and director defendants,
filed a joint motion to dismiss based on common issues. On
November 18, 2002, during the pendency of the motion to dismiss,
the Court entered as an order a stipulation by which all of the
Individual Defendants were dismissed from the case without
prejudice in return for executing a tolling agreement. On
February 19, 2003, the Court rendered its decision on the motion
to dismiss, granting a dismissal of the remaining Section 10(b)
claims against Ariba and FreeMarkets without prejudice.
Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file an amended
complaint.
On June 24, 2003, a special litigation committee of the Ariba
Board of Directors approved a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") reflecting a settlement in which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the case against Ariba with prejudice in return for the
assignment by Ariba of claims that it might have against its
underwriters. No payment to the plaintiffs by Ariba was
required under the MOU.
On June 25, 2003, a special litigation committee of the
FreeMarkets Board of Directors approved a substantively
identical MOU with respect to FreeMarkets. After further
negotiations, the essential terms of the MOUs were formalized in
a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which has been
executed on Ariba's and FreeMarkets' behalf and on behalf of the
Ariba Individual Defendants and the FreeMarkets Individual
Defendants. The settling parties filed formal motions seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on June 25,
2004. The underwriter defendants, who are not parties to the
proposed settlement, filed a brief objecting to the settlement's
terms on July 14, 2004. In the meantime, the plaintiffs and
underwriters have continued to litigate the consolidated action.
The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
February 15, 2005, and a final fairness hearing on the
settlement has been scheduled for January 2006. In the
meantime, the plaintiffs and underwriters have continued to
litigate the consolidated action. The litigation is proceeding
through the class certification phase by focusing on six cases
chosen by the plaintiffs and underwriters. Neither the Company
nor FreeMarkets is a focus case.
ARIBA INC.: DE Court Mulls FreeMarkets Merger Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. asked the Delaware Chancery Court to dismiss the
shareholder class action filed against it and the former
FreeMarkets, Inc. board members. The suit was filed on behalf
of stockholders who held FreeMarkets common stock from January
23, 2004 through July 1,2004.
The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and a
violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law on the part of
the former FreeMarkets board members in connection with the
Company's merger with FreeMarkets, which was consummated on July
1, 2004. The plaintiff in this action contends, among other
things, that the FreeMarkets board members breached their
fiduciary duties to FreeMarkets' common stockholders by:
(1) negotiating the merger with the Company so as to
provide themselves with downside protection against a
decline in the Company's market price through a
beneficial option exchange formula while failing to
provide the common stockholders protection in the event
of a drop in the price of the Company's stock,
(2) contractually obligating themselves to recommend
unanimously that FreeMarkets' stockholders approve the
merger,
(3) failing to disclose to FreeMarkets' stockholders
certain material information before the merger closed,
and
(4) breaching their duties of loyalty to the common
stockholders in various other respects.
As FreeMarkets' corporate successor, the Company is alleged to
be liable for the FreeMarkets board member's violation of the
Delaware General Corporation Law. Plaintiff seeks disgorgement
of benefits by the individual defendants, as well as monetary
and rescissory damages from all of the defendants, jointly and
severally. The defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint was
submitted to the Delaware Chancery Court on January 14, 2005.
ARIBA INC.: Reaches Settlement For FreeMarkets Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against FreeMarkets, Inc., which the Company
acquired, and two of its executive officers in the United States
District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Beginning in April 2001, eleven securities fraud class action
complaints were filed, all of which assert the same claims, stem
from FreeMarkets' announcement on April 23, 2001 that, as a
result of discussions with the SEC, it was considering amending
its fiscal year 2000 financial statements for the purpose of
reclassifying fees earned by FreeMarkets under a service
contract with Visteon. All of the cases have been consolidated
into a single proceeding.
On October 30, 2001, FreeMarkets filed a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the cases in their entirety. On January 17,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On March 10,
2004, the Court certified the case as a class action. The
certification order is now on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In the quarter ended June 30, 2005, the parties agreed to terms
of settlement for this action. The settlement will be subject to
court review and approval, which should occur within the next 12
months.
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces Antitrust Law Violations Suit In E.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court in Greeneville, Tennessee alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws.
On June 3, 2005, Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., a business located in
Tennessee, filed the suit, alleging that the Company violated
federal and various state antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for certain BD products to plaintiff
and other proposed class members. The suit is filed on behalf
of indirect purchasers of the Company's products.
The suit is styled "Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson &
Company, case no. 2:05-cv-00162," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, under
Judge J. Ronnie Greer. Representing the plaintiffs is Gordon
Ball of Ball & Scott, 550 Main Avenue, 750 NationsBank Center,
Knoxville, TN 37902-2567, Phone: 865-525-7028, Fax:
865-525-4679, E-mail: filings@ballandscott.com.
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues To Face Personal Injury Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. and other manufacturers and distributors
of medical products continue to face class actions filed on
behalf of healthcare workers who allegedly sustained
needlesticks on conventional products, but have not become
infected with any disease.
Earlier, the courts in three of the cases issued decisions
favorable to the defendants. The first suit was filed in the
Montgomery Circuit County Court in Alabama. The court dismissed
the suit without prejudice on March 1, 2002. Another suit was
filed in Camden County Superior Court in New Jersey. On March
6, 2002, the court dismissed the case (including the individual
claims of all the named plaintiffs) with prejudice.
Generally, the remaining actions allege that healthcare workers
have sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices
manufactured by BD and, as a result, require medical testing,
counseling and/or treatment. Several actions additionally allege
that the healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish.
Plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions. We had
previously been named as a defendant in seven similar suits
relating to healthcare workers who allegedly sustained
accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been dismissed
with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn. Regarding the four
pending suits:
The Franklin County Superior Court in Ohio granted class
certification to the lawsuit filed against the Company, styled
"Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al., case no. 98CVB075616," on
June 6, 2005. The Company has filed an appeal of the trial
court's ruling.
Another suit, styled "McCaster vs. Becton Dickinson et al., Case
No. 98L09478," was filed in the Cook County Circuit Court in
Illinois. On November 22,2002, the court issued an order on
November 22, 2002, denying plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification. The plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice and with leave to re-file within one
year. The plaintiff re-filed the suit in November 2004 as an
individual personal injury case, was settled on July 5, 2005 for
an amount that is not material to the Company's results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.
In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf
of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class
action certification under the laws of these states, in state
court in Oklahoma, under the caption "Palmer vs. Becton
Dickinson et al. (Case No. CJ-98-685, Sequoyah County District
Court)," filed on October 27, 1998, and in state court in South
Carolina, under the caption "Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et al.
(Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of Common
Pleas)," filed on November 25, 1998.
BECTON DICKINSON: Reaches Settlement For Canada Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton Dickinson & Co. reached a tentative settlement with the
plaintiffs in the class action filed against it in the Supreme
Court in British Columbia, styled "Danielle Cardozo, by her
litigation guardian Darlene Cardozo v. Becton, Dickinson and
Company, case no. S83059. The suit alleged personal injury to
persons in British Columbia who received test results generated
by the BD ProbeTec ET instrument.
The tentative settlement is for an amount that is not material
to the Company's results of operations, financial condition or
cash flows. The settlement plan is subject to, among other
things, court approval. The Company expects the settlement plan
to be finalized during calendar year 2005, but there are no
assurances that the settlement will be finalized by the parties
or approved by the Court, the Company stated in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Investor Suit V. Viacom Stock Swap in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. was named as a defendant in the class action
filed in Newcastle County Chancery Court in Delaware, over a
stock swap mechanism expected to be announced by Viacom, Inc.
Howard Vogel filed the lawsuit against the Company, Viacom, John
Muething, Linda Griego, John Antioco, Jackie Clegg, and
Blockbuster's directors at that time who were also directors
and/or officers of Viacom as defendants. The suit alleges that
a stock swap mechanism anticipated to be announced by Viacom
would be a breach of fiduciary duty to minority stockholders and
that the defendants engaged in unfair dealing and coercive
conduct. The stockholder class action complaint asked the court
to certify a class and to enjoin the then-anticipated
transaction.
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Dismissal of CA Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Superior Court of California for Los
Angeles County to dismiss their claims in the overtime wage suit
filed against Blockbuster, Inc. without prejudice.
On July 9, 2004, Sheela Salazar and Alberto Vasquez filed a
putative class action complaint against the Company in Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of all
hourly-paid California employees for a period starting July 9,
2000. The plaintiffs claim the Company fails to pay overtime to
its California hourly-paid employees in violation of California
law, asserting fraud and violations of the California Labor
Code, Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions
Code, and certain California Industrial Welfare Commission wage
orders. Plaintiffs sought recovery of alleged unpaid money,
wages, penalties, costs and attorney fees in an unstated dollar
amount.
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Conditional Certification For FL Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification of the lawsuit filed against Blockbuster, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
On July 20, 2004, Joanne Miranda filed a putative collective
class action complaint under the FLSA on behalf of all
Blockbuster store managers who have worked for the Company since
July 2001. The plaintiff claims that she, and other store
managers, were improperly classified as exempt employees and
thus are owed overtime payments under the FLSA. Two additional
named plaintiffs were added. Plaintiffs seek recovery of
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, wages,
penalties, costs and attorneys fees.
The suit is styled "Miranda, et al v. Blockbuster, Inc., case
no. 1:04cv21810," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami), under Judge Adalberto
Jordan. Plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey Marc Herman and
Stuart S. Mermelstein of Herman & Mermelstein, 18205 Biscayne
Boulevard, Suite 2218, Miami, FL 33160, Phone: 305-931-2200.
The Company is represented by Anne Marie Estevez and Kathy B.
Houlihan of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 200 S Biscayne Boulevard,
Suite 5300 Wachovia Financial Center, Miami, FL 33131-2339,
Phone: 305-415-3400; and Kara S. Nickel of Stearns Weaver Miller
Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, Museum Tower, 150 W Flagler
Street, Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33130, Phone: 305-789-3200.
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Fraud Suits V. End of Late Fees Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is a defendant in several lawsuits filed in
various state and federal courts nationwide, arising out of its
"end of late fees" program.
On February 15, 2005, Anna Kane filed a putative class action
against the Company in Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean
County, alleging fraud, breach of contract, negligent
misrepresentation, an unfair trade practice and a violation of
the New Jersey consumer fraud laws regarding deceptive
advertising. The suit seeks compensatory and injunctive relief.
On February 18, 2005, Peter C. Harvey, New Jersey attorney
general, filed a lawsuit against the Company in Superior Court
of New Jersey asserting a violation of the New Jersey consumer
fraud statute. The Company removed the case to U.S. District
Court of New Jersey.
On February 22, 2005, Thomas Tallarino filed a putative class
action in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging conversion and a violation of California consumer
protection statutes prohibiting untrue and misleading
advertising. The suit seeks equitable and injunctive relief. The
Company removed the case to U.S. District Court, Central
District of California.
In February 2005, Gary Lustberg and Michael L. Galeno each filed
a putative class action against the Company in New York state
court, each of which the Company has removed to federal court in
New York. These two New York suits allege breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and a violation of New York's consumer
protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading
business practices. The suits seek compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief.
On March 1, 2005, Steve Galfano filed a putative class action in
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging
breach of express warranty, and a violation of California's
business and professions code as an unfair business practice and
misleading advertising claims. The suit seeks equitable,
injunctive, and compensatory relief.
On March 4, 2005, Ronit Yeroushalmi filed a putative class
action in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging fraud and a violation of California consumer protection
statutes prohibiting untrue and misleading advertising. The suit
also alleges unjust enrichment and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief and other equitable
remedies. The Company removed the case to U.S. District Court,
Central District of California.
On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class action
in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon alleging a
violation of Oregon's consumer protection statutes prohibiting
deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit alleges
fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and injunctive
relief. The Company removed the case to U.S. District Court of
Oregon.
On March 22, 2005, Gustavo Sanchez filed a putative class action
in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, alleging a
violation of California's business and professions code as an
unfair business practice and misleading advertising claim, and a
violation of the California rental-purchase act. The suit seeks
compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief. The Company
removed the case to U.S. District Court, Central District of
California.
On April 11, 2005, Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker filed an action in
District Court of Ingham County, Michigan asserting a violation
of Michigan consumer protection act and the advertising and
pricing act. The suit seeks actual or alternatively statutory
damages. The Company moved to compel arbitration, the court
agreed, and on July 25, 2005 dismissed the case with prejudice.
On April 13, 2005, Kenneth W. Edwards filed a putative class
action in District Court of Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, alleging
fraud and a violation of Oklahoma's consumer protection statute.
The suit seeks actual damages and civil penalties. The Company
removed the case to U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Oklahoma.
CREDIT CARDS: Firms Fail To Avail of VISA/Mastercard Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A large majority of the businesses eligible to recover money in
the $3 billion VISA/MasterCard class action settlement will miss
their opportunity for a refund, according to San Francisco-based
Spectrum Settlement Recovery, the nation's largest claim filing
and fund recovery service for commercial and securities class-
action settlements.
Millions of businesses in the U.S. are eligible for a refund
from the VISA/MasterCard settlement fund. The dollar amounts
could be sizable, based on the business's charge card volume.
This is the largest commercial class action settlement ever. The
announcement of the deadline for claiming a refund is expected
soon.
In 2003, VISA and MasterCard agreed to refund over $3 billion to
merchants who accepted the network companies' cards from October
1992 through June 2003 in settlement of a lawsuit filed by Wal-
Mart and other retailers. The lawsuit accused VISA and
MasterCard of forcing merchants who accepted their credit cards
also to honor their debit cards and overcharging them for
processing fees during that period.
The Claims Administrator in the case is dealing with a massive
quantity of data from dozens of databases. An eleventh hour
determination not to use MasterCard data to identify eligible
transactions and claimants is further complicating the
settlement notification process. Only the VISA data information
is being used.
"This isn't going to be the slam dunk that businesses were
promised," says Howard Yellen, Spectrum Settlement Recovery's
chairman. "There appear to be big holes in the Claims
Administrator's data that many large and small businesses are
going to fall through." Spectrum provides claims filing and
recovery services in class action settlements.
Originally, the Administrator indicated it would notify eligible
claimants and supply most of the data needed to make a claim for
a full refund. However, a recent filing in U.S. District Court
shows that the Administrator is dealing with considerably more
missing data than was initially estimated. Previously, the
Administrator had indicated that no more than 10 percent of the
settlement fund was owed to merchants whose data was missing
from the records being used for the distribution of notices to
eligible claimants in the settlement.
However, the document filed in court on August 22 by Garden City
Group, the Claims Administrator, shows as many as one-third of
the eligible businesses may not show up in data provided by the
credit card networks. The amount of the settlement fund
associated with this group, comprising approximately 2.8 million
claimants, could rise well above the earlier 10% estimate.
Further complicating efforts to get businesses to participate in
the settlement, the Garden City filing indicates that claimants
will receive a 6-page claim form and an instruction manual up to
8 pages long. The sheer complexity of the documents may scare
away many eligible companies from filing. Also, there is no
mechanism to ensure that the documents reach the right person in
any given company. "Many of these complex, expensive mailings
are going to end up in the circular file," said Mr. Yellen.
Motivating eligible class members to file a claim in class-
action settlements is always a problem. On average, only 10% to
20% of eligible claimants file because of complicated legal
forms and missed deadlines. That leaves billions of dollars on
the table, unclaimed or to be divided among those that do file.
In the Visa/MasterCard settlement, filing a claim is
particularly important because the entire $3 billion settlement
will be divided among class members who take the time to file a
claim. But those who do not file won't get any money from the
settlement.
"Every eligible business should file a claim in the
VISA/MasterCard case," says Spectrum's Mr. Yellen. "It may not
be as easy as it first appeared, but the refunds will be
significant for those who do."
For more details, contact Craig Wolfson of Spectrum Settlement
Recovery, Phone: 415-392-5900 ext. 245, E-mail:
cwolfson@spectrumsettlement.com.
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Working on Chemical Antitrust Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation has started implementing and providing for
the payment of the global settlement agreement of the litigation
filed against it, alleging that the Company, certain of its
subsidiaries and other chemical firms conspired to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices for plastics additives sold in the
United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The Company and certain of its subsidiaries are subjects of, and
continue to cooperate in, coordinated criminal and civil
investigations being conducted by the U.S. Department of
Justice, the Canadian Competition Bureau and the EC
(collectively, the "Governmental Authorities") with respect to
possible antitrust violations relating to the sale and marketing
of certain other products, including ethylene propylene diene
monomer (EPDM); heat stabilizers, including tin-based
stabilizers and precursors, mixed metal stabilizers, and
epoxidized soybean oil (ESBO); nitrile rubber; and urethanes and
urethane chemicals. The Company and its subsidiaries that are
subject to the investigations have received from each of the
Governmental Authorities verbal or written assurances of
conditional amnesty from prosecution and fines.
On August 11, 2004, the Company and plaintiff class
representatives entered into a settlement agreement that
resolves, with respect to the Company, a single, consolidated
direct purchaser class action lawsuit against the Company and
other companies, principally alleging that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for
plastics additives sold in the United States in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the
plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices for such
products as a result of such alleged anticompetitive activities.
Under this settlement agreement, the Company paid $5.0 million
to a settlement fund in exchange for the final dismissal with
prejudice of the lawsuit as to the Company and a complete
release of all claims against the Company set forth in the
lawsuit. The court granted final approval of this settlement
agreement in January 2005.
On January 11, 2005, the Company and plaintiff class
representatives entered into a global settlement agreement that
is intended to resolve, with respect to the Company, three
consolidated direct purchaser class action lawsuits against the
Company, its subsidiary Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. (now
known as Crompton Manufacturing) and other companies,
principally alleging that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize prices for EPDM, nitrile rubber and
rubber chemicals, as applicable, sold in the United States in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that this caused
injury to the plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices
for such products as a result of such alleged anticompetitive
activities.
Under this global settlement agreement, the Company agreed to
pay $97.0 million to a settlement fund in exchange for the final
dismissal with prejudice of the foregoing three lawsuits as to
the Company and a complete release of all claims against the
Company set forth in the lawsuits. After the plaintiffs were
unable to agree upon the allocation of the settlement funds, a
neutral party established the allocation among the product
classes, with $62.0 million allocated to rubber chemicals, $30.0
million to EPDM and $5.0 million to nitrile rubber. The parties
entered into Implementing Settlement Agreements for the
applicable affected actions.
Following an initial payment of $0.5 million to an escrow
account, the Company will pay the settlement funds to an escrow
account in three installments, without interest, beginning at
preliminary approval of the Implementing Settlement Agreements
by the applicable courts and continuing through the later of 20
days following final approval of the settlement by each
applicable court or June 30, 2006. The Implementing Settlement
Agreements were preliminarily approved by the applicable courts
in April 2005. As a result, the Company made a payment of $58.0
million into court escrow in May 2005. The Company has the right
to rescind the global settlement agreement in its entirety under
certain circumstances. Members of the plaintiff classes have the
right to opt out of their applicable class, and under certain
circumstances relating to such opt-outs, the Company has the
option to terminate the global settlement agreement in whole or
in part. There can be no assurance as to the number of members
of any class who will request exclusion or whether the Company
will exercise its option to terminate the global settlement
agreement in whole or in part. The Company recorded a pre-tax
antitrust charge of $93.1 million in the fourth quarter of 2004
to reserve for the payment of the expected settlement of the
three direct purchaser class action lawsuits. This charge is
only partially deductible for tax purposes.
DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Asks OR Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Digimarc Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its current and
former directors.
Beginning in September 2004, three purported class action
lawsuits were commenced against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers by or on behalf of
persons claiming to have purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities during the period from April 17, 2002 to
July 28, 2004. These lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Oregon and were consolidated
into one action for all purposes on December 16, 2004.
On May 16, 2005, plaintiffs filed an 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, relating to the Company's announcement that it had
discovered errors in its accounting for software development
costs and project capitalization and other project cost
capitalization accounting practices, and that it likely would be
required to restate its previously reported financial statements
for full fiscal year 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004.
Specifically, the action alleges that the Company issued false
and misleading financial statements and created a misperception
regarding the profitability of the Company in order to inflate
the value of Company stock, which resulted in insider sales of
personal holdings at inflated values, and that the Company
maintained insufficient accounting controls, which created an
environment where improper accounting could be used to
manipulate financial results. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages.
On June 15, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. Plaintiffs filed a response on August 1, 2005. Due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the
lawsuits are still at a preliminary stage, the ultimate outcome
of the matter cannot be predicted.
ESPEED INC.: NY Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York consolidated the securities class action complaints
filed against eSpeed, Inc., Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and certain
affiliated entities, as well as two of the Company's executive
officers, Howard Lutnick and Lee Amaitis, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's securities from August 12,
2003, to July 1, 2004.
Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the Company
made "material false positive statements during the class
period" and violated certain provisions of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain rules and
regulations thereunder.
On April 8, 2005, the district court consolidated the purported
class action complaints. The action is in its preliminary
phase, and no discovery has occurred.
The suit is styled, In Re eSpeed, Inc. Securities Litigation, 05
Civ. 2091, which is pending the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, before the Honorable Shira
Scheindlin. Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates
represented the Adib group. Samuel Rudman of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robin acted as plaintiffs' counsel. Lionel
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg in Los Angeles acted as
plaintiffs' counsel. Eric Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer acted
as plaintiffs' counsel. Dennis Orr and Joseph De Simone of
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw's New York office represented eSpeed.
FLORIDA: Verdict Obtained V. Defendants in SEC Fraud Suit Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a jury verdict
of securities fraud liability in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against defendant
Jonathan G. Fink, of Beverly Hills, California, a former
consultant to the now defunct Boca Raton-based holding company
Converge Global, Inc. and its subsidiary, TeleWrx, Inc., a Boca
Raton-based telecommunications company. After a three-day trial
presided over by the Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S.
District Court Judge, the jury found that Fink violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.
The Court's determination of appropriate relief against Mr. Fink
remains pending. The Commission is seeking an order imposing a
permanent injunction from any future violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, a civil monetary
penalty, a penny-stock bar, and such other relief as the Court
deems appropriate.
The Commission's complaint, filed on Sept. 2, 2004, charged
Converge, TeleWrx, CEO Michael P. Brown, of Boca Raton, Florida,
and Fink with violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that Converge and TeleWrx jointly issued a press release
on June 24, 2002, which falsely claimed in its headline that as
a result of its recent weekend "national launch," TeleWrx had
raised "over $1 million." The complaint further alleged that
Mr. Brown and Mr. Fink were responsible for drafting and issuing
the false press release. Also named as a defendant in the
action was Keith B. Laggos, of Homer Glen, Illinois, the owner
and publisher of Illinois-based newspaper Money Maker's Monthly,
who was charged with violations of Section 17(b) of the
Securities Act of 1933. The complaint alleged that Mr. Laggos
was compensated by Converge and/or TeleWrx for publishing
laudatory press releases concerning TeleWrx on June 10 and June
25, 2002 and a laudatory article concerning TeleWrx in Money
Maker's Monthly's July 2002 issue, and failed to disclose said
compensation.
Previously, on July 22, 2005, the Court entered final judgments
by consent against Defendants Mr. Brown, Converge and TeleWrx
whereby, without admitting or denying liability, they are
permanently enjoined from violating Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Brown is subject to
a two-year penny stock bar. Additionally, on August 29, 2005,
the Court entered a final judgment by consent against Keith B.
Laggos, whereby, without admitting or denying liability, Mr.
Laggos is permanently enjoined from violating Section 17(b) of
the Securities Act. Additionally, the final judgment entered
against Mr. Laggos provides for disgorgement of $11,989.87, plus
prejudgment interest in the amount of $1,996.77, for a total of
$13,986.64; the imposition of a civil penalty of $19,500; and a
five-year penny stock bar. The suit is styled, SEC v. Converge
Global, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, No. 04-80841, CIV-Middlebrooks, D. So. Fla.
FLORIDA: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Michael Kogan, Eric Laucius
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Michael Kogan, who is currently
incarcerated, and Eric J. Laucius, of Fort Myers, Florida. Mr.
Kogan was the founder and president of Kogan & Company, Inc., an
unregistered entity that purportedly engaged in day trading.
Mr. Laucius was the founder, president, and chief executive
officer of Penn Financial Group, Inc. (Penn Financial), a now
defunct broker-dealer previously registered with the Commission.
Both entities were formerly located in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.
Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint,
Mr. Kogan and Mr. Laucius have consented to the settlement terms
described below.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Kogan perpetrated a
fraudulent scheme to misappropriate more than $5.6 million from
more than 80 investors who were customers of Penn Financial and
Kogan & Company. From as early as 1999 and continuing until
March 2003, Mr. Kogan, while not licensed to sell securities,
falsely held himself out as being associated with Penn Financial
to deceive investors into investing funds with him. Mr. Laucius
aided and abetted Mr. Kogan's fraudulent scheme by providing Mr.
Kogan with access to Penn Financial's facilities as well as its
customer accounts. In particular, Laucius improperly provided
Mr. Kogan with access that Penn Financial had, as an introducing
broker, to its clearing broker's computer system, which gave Mr.
Kogan the means to conduct his scheme.
The complaint further alleges that, using this access, Mr. Kogan
engaged in unauthorized transactions while telling investors
that their funds were secure. Mr. Kogan used the funds he stole
to trade in the market, to repay earlier investors, and to pay
his own personal expenses. In order to conceal his conduct, Mr.
Kogan gave investors false monthly account statements purporting
to show that their funds had been invested as agreed and were
making profits.
The complaint alleges that Mr. Kogan violated Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that Mr.
Laucius aided and abetted violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Complaint seeks
permanent injunctions against both defendants, and disgorgement,
together with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties against
Mr. Laucius.
Both defendants have consented to the entry of final judgments
permanently enjoining them from engaging in the above
violations. Mr. Laucius has also been ordered to pay
disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the amount of $141,669,
but payment of all but $90,000 is waived, and no civil penalties
are imposed, based on his financial condition. Mr. Kogan has
previously pled guilty to criminal charges arising out of the
fraud described in the Complaint. He is currently serving an
87-month prison sentence and was ordered to pay restitution in
the amount of $5.6 million.
Mr. Kogan and Mr. Laucius have also agreed to Commission Orders
barring each from association with any broker or dealer. The
suit is styled, SEC v. Michael Kogan, et al., Civil Action No.
05 CV 4805, CRW, E.D. Pa.
FREIGHTLINER LLC: Recalls 1.84T School Buses Due to Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freightliner, LLC in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 1,840 units of 2004-05
Thomas Built / SAF-T-LINER C2 school buses due to crash hazard.
NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V387000.
According to the ODI, on certain 2004 and 2005 Thomas built SAF-
T-LINER C2 school buses manufactured between July 2004 and
August 26, 2005 have a upper steering shaft pinch bolt that may
not be correctly tightened, resulting in the possible loss of
the bolt, thus allowing joint separation and loss of steering.
Sudden loss of steering without warning could result in a
vehicle crash, possibly resulting in serious injury or death.
As a remedy, Thomas built and Freightliner dealers and direct
warranty customers were called on August 26, 2005, and notified
not to drive these buses until they have been inspected. The
remedy procedure calls for the inspection of the steering pinch
bolts for the presence of torque seal. Bolts without torque seal
will be tightened to factory specifications and torque seal
added. Follow up notification by mail is expected to begin on
September 9, 2005.
For more details, contact Freightliner, Phone: 1-800-547-0712
and NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY)
1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov.
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Canadian Law Firms Merge in $500M Battle
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three leading law firms in Quebec and Ontario have combined
forces in a national class action on behalf of all Canadians who
received potentially defective defibrillators and pacemakers
manufactured by Guidant Corporation.
The three firms have commenced legal proceedings in Ontario and
Quebec. The lawsuits seek approximately $500,000,000.00 in
damages. Lauzon, Belanger, Quebec's most experienced class
action law firm, recently commenced legal proceedings in
Montreal. Mr. James Bolton, a retired businessman and English
teacher, is seeking the authorization from the Superior Court of
Quebec to act as a representative plaintiff on behalf of the
Quebec Class. James Newland of Lerners LLP and Greg Monforton
of Greg Monforton & Partners commenced Ontario legal proceedings
in Toronto a few days earlier.
All three of the law firms issued this statement: "As our
investigation unfolds, we are increasingly concerned about the
conduct of Guidant Corporation. This company knew of significant
problems with certain models of defibrillators and pacemakers
yet did nothing to warn medical professionals and patients of
these problems. As a result, patients do not know if their
implant will work or if it will fail. We believe Guidant misled
the public, the medical community and its own shareholders by
marketing and distributing devices that it knew carried a
significant risk of failure. We also believe that Guidant
pursued profit at the expense of the safety and well being of
the general public".
For more detailas contact James Newland of Lerners, LLP, Phone:
(519) 601-2640, Web site: http://www.lerners.ca;Greg Monforton,
Greg Monforton & Partners, Phone: (519) 258-6490, Web site:
http://www.gregmonforton.com;and Anna Vetere, Lauzon, Belanger,
Phone: (514) 844-4646 or 1-800-287-8587, Web site:
http://www.lauzonbelanger.qc.ca/or
http://guidant.gregmonforton.com.
HANOVER DIRECT: Obtains Favorable Outcomes in Three Litigations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Direct, Inc. (PINK SHEETS: HNVD.PK) reports that it
obtained favorable outcomes in three litigations in which it was
a defendant.
Previously the Company was named as a defendant in four class
action and representative lawsuits involving allegations that
the Company's charges for insurance on merchandise shipments was
a deceptive trade practice under various state consumer
protection statutes. Two of these lawsuits have had favorable
outcomes.
In Jacq Wilson v. Brawn of California, Inc., filed under a
California statute that permitted suits to be brought by non-
class representatives of the general public, the Company had
appealed a 2003 adverse decision where the trial court directed
the Company to refund insurance charges and awarded plaintiff's
counsel approximately $445,000 of attorneys' fees. On September
2, 2005 the California Court of Appeals reversed both the trial
court's findings on the merits and its award of attorneys' fees.
The plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the decision.
In John Morris v. Hanover Direct, Inc., the plaintiff alleged
that the Company improperly added a charge for insurance on
merchandise shipments that violated the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act. Class certification was denied and the Company and
plaintiff agreed to settle the action for approximately $40,000
comprised of a nominal amount of damages and attorneys' fees.
The Company is also a defendant in a class action filed in
California, Teichman v. Hanover Direct, Inc., which has been
stayed pending the outcome of the Wilson case and a class action
filed in Oklahoma, Martin v. Hanover Direct, Inc. The Company
appealed the class certification in Martin in 2002. To date, the
Oklahoma Supreme Court has not ruled on the pending appeal.
The Company also prevailed in a case against a former CEO,
Rakesh K. Kaul, who sued for post employment benefits following
termination of his employment in 2000. Kaul had appealed a
January 2004 decision granting the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment which dismissed a majority of his claims. On June 28,
2005 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Summary
Judgment decision; the period of time to appeal the Second
Circuit's decision has expired.
For more details, contact John W. Swatek, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of Hanover Direct, Inc., Phone:
1-201-272-3389.
INTERMUNE INC.: CA Court Mulls Stock Lawsuit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard motions seeking final approval of the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against InterMune, Inc., its former chief executive officer and
former chief financial officer.
On June 25, 2003, several suits were filed, namely:
(1) Johnson v. Harkonen and InterMune, Inc., No. C 03-2954-
MEJ,
(2) Lombardi v. InterMune, Inc., Harkonen and Surrey-
Barbari, No. C 03 3068 MJJ
(3) Mahoney Jr. v. InterMune Inc., Harkonen and Surrey-
Barbari, No. C 03-3273 SI and
(4) Adler v. Harkonen and InterMune Inc., No. C 03-3710 MJJ
On November 6, 2003, the various complaints were consolidated
into one case by order of the court, and on November 26, 2003, a
lead plaintiff, Lance A. Johnson, was appointed. A consolidated
complaint titled "In re InterMune Securities Litigation, No. C
03-2954 SI," was filed on January 30, 2004. The consolidated
amended complaint named the Company, and its former chief
executive officer and its former chief financial officer, as
defendants and alleges that the defendants made certain false
and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from January 7, 2003 through June
11, 2003.
The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on April 2, 2004, which was granted in part and
denied in part. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
August 23, 2004, and the defendant filed in a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on October 7, 2004.
On May 6, 2005 the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement of the litigation pursuant to which the plaintiff
class would receive $10.4 million in exchange for a complete
release of claims set forth in the complaint that arose during
the period August 8, 2002 to June 11, 2003. On June 27, 2005,
the court granted preliminary approval of the Stipulation of
Settlement, ordered that notice be given to the affected
shareholders, and set a date of August 26, 2005 for a hearing on
final approval. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, including but not limited to, court
approval.
ISUZU MOTORS: Judge Rejects Proposed Settlement Over Faulty SUVs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent nine-page order, Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge
Mark I. Bernstein rejected a proposed settlement of a tentative
class action stemming from the recall of approximately 162,000
Isuzu SUVs due to defective brake systems, The Legal
Intelligencer reports.
In the suit styled, Parker v. American Isuzu Motors Inc., Judge
Bernstein cited that certain requirements of the proposed
settlement such as that class members would need to produce a
police report that supported their claim in order to receive
compensation might cause plaintiffs undue difficulty. Judge
Bernstein also called attention to the fact that the proposal
only guaranteed a total payment by Isuzu of $300,000, with class
counsel being reimbursed up to $150,000 for fees and expenses,
writing, "Since the proposed settlement abandons most claims and
clearly minimizes recovery to class members and maximizes the
difficulty of even submitting a claim, the proposed settlement
fails to be within the parameters of a reasonable settlement."
Serving as class counsel in the matter are Sherrie Savett and
Michael Fantini of Berger & Montague. Joseph Kernen of DLA Piper
Rudnick Gray Cary is representing Isuzu.
According to Judge Bernstein's order, the Parker class action
was filed in September 2003 and sought to include all people in
the United States who leased or purchased a 1998 or 1999 Isuzu
Rodeo or Amigo and wound up paying money due to a car accident
caused by the defective brake system. "Five years after the
vehicles were first marketed the defendant issued a recall
notice stating that as a result of the brake system, drivers
'may encounter extended stopping distances,'" Judge Bernstein
wrote. "The notice further advised: 'This could lead to a
crash.'" Over 161,927 Amigos and Rodeos were recalled.
The Judge's order recounts that before the issue of
certification could be reached, both parties submitted in
February a joint motion for Judge Bernstein's approval of a
proposed settlement agreement. Under the settlement proposal
class members are required to submit multiple sworn statements
and documents before receiving a payment, according to the order
with compensation ranging from $75 to $1,750, and the named
plaintiffs of which there are two listed on the common pleas
docket would receive payments of $3,000 apiece.
Judge Bernstein wrote in his order that this was the second time
he has declined to approve a settlement proposal put forward by
the parties in the Parker case. The first, he wrote, involved no
guaranteed minimum payout by Isuzu, and recommended notification
by post card. He further wrote, "The current proposed
settlement, otherwise substantially the same, is deficient in
that it abandons most of the claims presented and imposes
onerous proof requirements for recovery by class members."
Judge Bernstein's order revealed that under the current
settlement proposal multiple claims arising from a defect within
a single vehicle would be abandoned.
The judge also wrote, "A defective braking system could easily
cause the owner of a vehicle to be involved in more than one
accident. Likewise, if the vehicle had been sold one or more
times prior to the recall, damages could have been sustained by
multiple owners of the same vehicle. Nonetheless, the proposed
settlement provides for a single payment per vehicle and a
single payment per owner. No system is provided for resolving
conflicts among multiple claimants for the same vehicle."
However, the "arduous claims procedure," Judge Bernstein found,
was "even more egregious" than the proposal's abandonment of
certain types of claims. He continued that in order to be
eligible for minimal compensation under the proposal, class
members would have to provide a sworn statement that discloses
details of the accident and weather conditions on the day it
occurred, as well as an explanation of out-of-pocket losses
incurred.
In addition, according to the order, claimants also need to
present a sworn statement of a passenger present during the
accident in which it is asserted that the accident was caused by
brake failure. Finally, the order revealed that the claimant
would need to produce documentation of out-of-pocket expenses
stemming from an accident, such as a canceled check for payment
of an insurance deductible or a bill for auto body repair work.
Judge Bernstein wrote, "If the accident occurred at the
beginning of the class period, 1998, the documentation required
is from seven years ago." He goes on to write, "Upon receipt of
all these proofs and sworn statements, the claimant will receive
a grand total of $75. While it is extremely unlikely that any
significant number of class members will undergo the
difficulties and aggravation to obtain the documentation needed
to receive $75, it is a virtual certainty that only a tiny
fraction, if any, of the 161,000 potential class members will
comply with the additional burdensome requirement to obtain any
greater recovery."
He explains that in order to obtain compensation of more than
$75 under the proposal, a class member would have to go through
the added step of obtaining a police report that indicates that
the accident was caused by a brake failure. He also wrote,
"Investigating police officers are neither auto mechanics nor
accident reconstruction experts," and latter added, "This court
is also very concerned about the difficulty, aggravation and
expense in obtaining a police report for an accident which [may
have] occurred five years earlier in a jurisdiction far from
home. This difficulty is itself significant further
discouragement to presenting a claim."
In concluding his order, Judge Bernstein also noted that under
proposal, Isuzu would have reserved the right to withdraw from
the settlement if 75 class members, or .04 percent of the class,
chose to opt out.
MERRILL LYNCH: CA Judge Gives Preliminary Approval For $37M Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge gave preliminary approval for a $37 million
settlement giving overtime pay to stockbrokers working at
Merrill Lynch & Co. in California, according to a lawyer
involved in the case, The Reuters reports.
Filed in June 2004 and seeking class action status, the suit
contends that Merrill Lynch was required under federal and state
laws to pay stock brokers overtime for working more than 40
hours a week or eight hours a day. It also contends that Merrill
failed to reimburse brokers for certain expenses.
Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California said the settlement could move forward
once lawyers for the plaintiffs change some language identifying
the members of the class and to clarify a few items, according
to Mark Thierman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Mark Herr, a spokesman for Merrill Lynch, told Reuters, "We're
pleased the judge found this preliminarily to be a fair and
reasonable settlement, and that we can proceed to move on." The
final hearing for the settlement is scheduled for February 2006.
MORGAN STANLEY: Ex-Broker Lodges Overtime Wage Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Andrew Gasman, a former Morgan Stanley stockbroker
initiated a $450,000,000 lawsuit claiming that the securities
firm failed to properly pay overtime to its brokers, Finance24
reports. Mr. Gasman, who no longer works for a broker-dealer,
but continues to work in a securities-related business, filed
the suit seeking class action status in the Southern District of
New York.
According to Max Folkenflik, who is representing Mr. Gasman,
"The labor law both on the state and federal level is extremely
clear in providing basis for the claims in the case," and added,
"The surprising thing is Morgan Stanley and the securities
industry, in general, has ignored the requirements of the law."
The suit claims that Mr. Gasman and others similarly situated
regularly worked overtime at the firm and weren't compensated at
the overtime rate as required by New York state and federal
labor laws. It also claims that Mr. Gasman regularly worked 45
hours to 50 hours a week at the firm and was paid on a
commission basis without a premium for overtime. In addition,
the suit alleges that Morgan Stanley made a number of unlawful
deductions from the wages of Mr. Gasman and other brokers,
including the deduction of wages paid to "cold callers" hired to
obtain business for the firm, deductions for the pay of a
broker's secretary or sales assistants and deductions for
"broken trades," where a customer challenges a transaction and
the trade is canceled.
A Morgan Stanley spokesperson told Finance24, "We have not seen
it yet and when we do see it we will review and respond in due
course."
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Court Reverses Wireless Phone Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed lower
court rulings refusing to remand to state court and dismissing
the class action filed against Nextel Partners, Inc. and several
other wireless carriers and manufacturers of wireless telephones
in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, captioned "Riedy Gimpelson vs. Nokia, Inc., et al,
Civil Action No. 2001-CV-3893."
Reidy Gimpelson filed the suit on June 8, 2001 in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia, alleging that the defendants,
among other things, manufactured and distributed wireless
telephones that cause adverse health effects. The plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, reimbursement for certain costs
including reasonable legal fees, punitive damages and injunctive
relief. The defendants timely removed the case to Federal court
and this case and related cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland.
The district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the
consolidated cases back to their respective state courts, and on
March 5, 2003, the court granted the defendants' consolidated
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs
appealed the district court's remand and dismissal decisions to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On
March 16, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's remand and
dismissal decisions. The Fourth Circuit's Order remanded the
Gimpelson case to the State Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia. On April 16, 2005, the Fourth Circuit denied a motion
to reconsider its March 16, 2005 decision.
The suit is styled "In re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation, case no. 1:01-md-01421-
CCB," filed in the United States District Court in Maryland,
under Judge Catherine C. Blake. Representing the plaintiffs is
Mayer Morganroth, Morganroth and Morganroth PLLC, 3000 Town Cntr
Ste 1500, Southfield, MI 48075, Phone: 1-248-355-3084, Fax:
1-248-355-3017, E-mail: jgurfinkel@morganrothlaw.com.
Representing the Company is Kenneth L. Thompson and Michael E.
Yaggy, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, 6225 Smith Ave,
Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone: 1-410-580-3000, Fax:
1-410-580-3001, E-mail: kenneth.thompson@dlapiper.com,
michael.yaggy@dlapiper.com; Anthony Michael Conti, Conti and
Fenn LLC, 36 S Charles St Ste 2501, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone:
1-410-837-6999, Fax: 1-410-510-1647, E-mail: tony@contifenn.com.
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Appeal of Suit Settlement Filed With High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
An objector to the settlement of the amended class action filed
against Nextel Partners, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc. and
Nextel West Corporation, and other Nextel companies filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme
Court, after the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the settlement.
Several suits were initially filed, namely:
(1) Rolando Prado v. Nextel Communications, et al, Civil
Action No. C-695-03-B, filed on April 1, 2003, in the
93rd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas;
(2) Steve Strange v. Nextel Communications, et al, Civil
Action No. 01-002520-03, filed May 2, 2003, in the
Circuit Court of Shelby County for the Thirtieth
Judicial District at Memphis, Tennessee;
(3) Christopher Freeman and Susan and Joseph Martelli v.
Nextel South Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 03-CA1065,
filed on May 3, 2003, in the Circuit Court of the
Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida
against Nextel Partners Operating Corporation d/b/a
Nextel Partners and Nextel South Corporation d/b/a
Nextel Communications;
(4) Nick's Auto Sales, Inc. v. Nextel West, Inc., et al,
Civil Action No. BC298695, filed on July 9, 2003 in Los
Angeles Superior Court, California against the Company,
Nextel Communications, Nextel West, Inc., Nextel of
California, Inc. and Nextel Operations, Inc;
(5) Andrea Lewis and Trish Zruna v. Nextel Communications,
Inc., et al, Civil Action No. CV-03-907, filed on
August 7, 2003, in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama against the Company and Nextel
Communications, Inc.
On October 3, 2003, an amended complaint for a purported class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri. The amended complaint named
the Company and Nextel Communications, Inc. as defendants;
Nextel Partners was substituted for the previous defendant,
Nextel West Corporation. The lawsuit is captioned "Joseph
Blando v. Nextel West Corp., et al, Civil Action No. 02-0921."
All of these complaints allege that the Company, in conjunction
with the other defendants, misrepresented certain cost-recovery
line-item fees as government taxes. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin
such practices and seek a refund of monies paid by the class
based on the alleged misrepresentations. Plaintiffs also seek
attorneys' fees, costs and, in some cases, punitive damages.
On October 9, 2003, the court in the Blando Case entered an
order granting preliminary approval of a nationwide class action
settlement that encompasses most of the claims involved in these
cases. On April 20, 2004, the court approved the settlement.
On May 27, 2004, various objectors and class members appealed to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On
February 1, 2005, the appellate court affirmed the settlement.
On February 15, 2005, one of the objectors petitioned for a
rehearing.
On March 11, 2005, the Eighth Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing and rehearing en banc. On March 17, 2005, one of the
objectors filed a motion to stay the mandate for 90 days. The
Eighth Circuit denied that motion on April 1, 2005. On June 2,
2005, that objector filed with the United States Supreme Court a
petition for writ of certiorari. Distribution of settlement
benefits is stayed until the Supreme Court issues a final order
either dismissing the petition or accepting the petition and
resolving the appeal.
PRICELINE.COM: CA Court Allows Challenge To Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California set
a schedule for filing of motions challenging the class action
filed against priceline.com, inc. and other internet travel
firms, alleging violations of the state's consumer fraud laws,
for misjoinder grounds.
On December 30, 2004, the City of Los Angeles filed the suit on
behalf of itself and other allegedly similarly situated cities
in California, naming as defendants the Company and:
(1) Hotels.com, L.P.;
(2) Hotel.com GP, LLC;
(3) Hotwire, Inc.;
(4) Cheaptickets, Inc.;
(5) Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
(6) Expedia, Inc.;
(7) Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
(8) Lowestfare.com, Inc.;
(9) Maupintour Holding LLC;
(10) Orbitz, Inc.;
(11) Orbitz, LLC;
(12) Site59.com, LLC;
(13) Travelocity.com, Inc.;
(14) Travelocity.com LP;
(15) Travelweb, LLC;
(16) 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 charges to 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.
The complaint seeks payment of alleged unpaid taxes owed, relief
from conversion, including punitive damages, and imposition of a
constructive trust.
The Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Lowestfare.com
and Travelweb, have been served with the complaint. A case
management conference was held on May 19, 2005 at which the
Court scheduled a hearing for motions challenging the Complaint
on misjoinder grounds for September 14, 2005 and ordered limited
discovery. The Company and other Defendants are in the process
of briefing the misjoinder issue and are taking the necessary
steps to begin producing documents in accordance with the
Court's order.
PRICELINE.COM: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Antitrust Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against priceline.com,
inc. and other internet travel firms in the California Superior
Court in Los Angeles, on behalf of similarly situated California
consumers. The suit is styled "Bush et al. v. Cheaptickets,
Inc. et al."
The complaint alleges each of the defendants engaged in acts of
unfair competition in violation of Section 17200 relating to
their respective disclosures and charges to 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.
The Company was served with the complaint on February 25,
2005. The defendants removed this action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
On May 9, 2005, the District Court issued an order remanding the
action to state court. Defendants timely appealed to the Ninth
Circuit, which on July 13, 2005 agreed to hear the appeal. The
Company and other Defendants are in the process of preparing
briefs on this appeal. These briefs are to be filed on August
19, 2005. In the meantime, the Company anticipates that the
state court will schedule a case management conference similar
to the conference in the City of Los Angeles action.
On July 1, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
claims pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Civil Code 1750, et seq. and claims for breach of contract and
the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The Company
and other Defendants are currently seeking the scheduling of a
case management conference before the state court to determine a
schedule for motions challenging the amended complaint.
PRICELINE.COM: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com, inc. asked the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware for New Castle County to dismiss the amended class
action filed against it by Jeanne Marshall and three other
individuals on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
allegedly similarly situated consumers nationwide against the
Company, styled "Marshall, et al. v. priceline.com, Inc."
The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Delaware
Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Sections 2511, et
seq., relating to its disclosures and charges to customers to
cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances
nationwide, and service fees.
The Company was served with the complaint on March 2, 2005 and
moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005. The Company
was also moved to stay discovery until a determination of its
motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court granted that stay
on May 11, 2005. On June 10, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud
Act and for beach of contract and the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing. The amended complaint seeks compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. On
July 15, 2005, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on the basis that it fails to allege sufficient facts
to state a cause of action. A hearing on the Company's motion
to dismiss is scheduled for November 4, 2005.
PRICELINE.COM: Philadelphia Files Suit For Hotel Tax Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com, inc. faces a complaint filed in the Court of
Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania by the City
of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the hotel
tax provisions of the city's municipal code. The suit also
names as defendants:
(1) Hotels.com;
(2) Hotels.com GP, LLC;
(3) Hotwire.com;
(4) Cheaptickets, Inc.;
(5) Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
(6) Expedia, Inc.;
(7) Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
(8) Lowestfare.com, Inc.;
(9) Maupintour Holding LLC;
(10) Orbitz, Inc.;
(11) Orbitz, LLC;
(12) Site59.com, LLC;
(13) Travelocity.com, Inc.;
(14) Travelocity.com LP;
(15) Travelweb, LLC and
(16) Travelnow.com, Inc.
The suit, styled "City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania v.
Hotels.com, et al.," alleges, among other things, that each of
these defendants violated the hotel room rental tax provisions
of Section 19-2401, et seq., of the Philadelphia Municipal Code
with respect to the charges to and remittance of amounts to
cover taxes under the Code. The complaint also asserts claims
for conversion, imposition of a constructive trust, and a demand
for a legal accounting.
The complaint seeks payment of alleged unpaid taxes owed,
disgorgement and restitution of all funds allegedly owed to
Plaintiff, an accounting, attorneys' fees, and other relief.
The Company has been served with the suit, but its wholly owned
subsidiaries, Lowestfare.com and Travelweb, have not.
REDBACK NETWORKS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Amended Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Redback Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California to dismiss the second
amended class action filed against certain of its officers and
directors, styled "In re Redback Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case number 03-05642."
On December 15, 2003, the first of several putative class action
complaints, "Robert W. Baker, Jr., et al. v. Joel M. Arnold, et
al., No. C-03-5642 JF," was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. At least ten
nearly identical complaints have been filed in the same court.
Several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors are named as defendants in these complaints, but the
Company is not named as a defendant.
The complaints are filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from April 12, 2000 through October 10,
2003 and purport to allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the alleged failure to timely disclose
information allegedly relating to certain transactions between
the Company and Qwest Communications International, Inc. The
complaints sought damages in an unspecified amount.
On August 24, 2004, the Court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint asserting claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from April 12, 2000 through
October 10, 2003 against 16 of the Company's current or former
officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. The consolidated complaint sought damages in
an unspecified amount.
On January 21, 2005, the Court entered an order dismissing the
consolidated complaint without leave to amend with regard to
five of the Redback-related defendants and with leave to amend
with regard to the remaining 11 Redback-related defendants. On
March 29, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint asserting claims on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from November 27, 1999 through
October 10, 2003 against 11 of the Company's current or former
officers and directors for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. On May 6, 2005, lead plaintiff filed a revised
first amended consolidated complaint to add and change its
allegations regarding loss causation. On May 25, 2005, the Court
granted lead plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal
regarding one of the Redback-related defendants. The current
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On June 10,
2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second revised
first amended consolidated complaint.
The suit is styled "In re Redback Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, docket number 03-05642," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Jeremy Fogel. Lead counsel for the plaintiffs are:
(1) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com
(2) Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot, 400 S. El
Camino Real, San Mateo, CA, 94402, Phone: 650-348-010,
Fax: 650-348-096, E-mail: Info@Afelaw.com
SINA CORPORATION: NY Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ordered consolidated the multiple purported securities
class action complaints filed against Sina Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors, following the Company's
announcement of anticipated financial results for the first
quarter of 2005 ending on March 31, 2005.
The complaints seek unspecified damages on alleged violations of
federal securities laws during the period from October 26, 2004
to February 7, 2005. The complaints allege violations of the
federal securities laws through the issuance of false or
misleading statements during the class period covered. 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 was increasingly relying on services
related to "fortune telling" advertising, like
horoscopes and astrology, in order to meet its earnings
forecasts and generate a positive revenue stream;
(2) that the Chinese government had clamped down on
"fortune telling" advertising and the resulting
clampdown on "fortune telling" advertising would have a
material effect on the Company's revenue stream;
(3) that China Mobile Communication Corp.'s recent change
in its billing process for multimedia messaging
services SINA provides to China Mobile subscribers had
a material effect on the Company's business; and
(4) that as a result of the above, the defendants' positive
statements about the growth and prospectus of SINA were
lacking in any reasonable basis when made.
On July 1, 2005, Judge Naomi Buchwald consolidated the cases
under the caption "In re SINA Corporation Securities Litigation"
and appointed City of Sterling Heights General Employee's
Retirement System, City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire
Retirement System, and Charter Township of Clinton Police and
Fire Retirement System (collectively the "MAPERS Funds Group")
as lead plaintiff. The Company expects the MAPERS
Funds Group to file an amended consolidated complaint in
September 2005.
The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Xianglin
Shi, et al. v. SINA Corporation, et al., case no. 05-CV-2268."
The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Naomi Buchwald.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(i) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(ii) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417 Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E-
mail: info@dyershuman.com
(iii) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (NY) 1501 Broadway, Suite
1416, New York, NY, 10036 Phone: (917) 510-000, Fax:
(646) 366-089, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
(iv) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046 Phone:
215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net
(v) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119
Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
info@milbergweiss.com
(vi) Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106 Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com
(vii) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004 Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(viii) Seeger Weiss LLP 40 Wall Street, The Trump Building ,
New York, NY, 10005 Phone: 212.584.0700,
(ix) Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
info@whhf.com
SKYLINE CORPORATION: Recalls 65 Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Skyline Corporation in cooperation with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation
(ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 65 units of 2005-06 Aljo
Rampage, 2006 Freestyle, 2005-06 Nomad Rampage, 2005-06 Layton
Rampage, 2006 Rampage and 2006 Trailblazer trailers due to crash
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V386000.
According to the ODI, on certain fifth wheel trailers equipped
with Tredit rims, the rim may have poor wled quality and
insufficient press fit between the wheel rim and disc. The
center of the wheel could separate from the rim. The wheel may
wobble and cause a vibration or the mounted tire could lose air
causing the tire to go flat, resulting in a loss of control of
the vehicle and increasing the risk of a crash.
As a remedy, Skyline is working with Tredit Tire to notify
owners and have the wheels replaced with a 16" aluminum wheel.
The recall is expected to begin on September 6, 2005.
For more details, contact Skyline, Phone: 574-294-6521 and NHTSA
Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or (TTY) 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.
STONEPATH GROUP: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stonepath Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, styled "In re
Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 04-
4515." The suit also names as defendants officers Dennis L.
Pelino and Thomas L. Scully and former officer Bohn Crain.
Eight purported class action complaints were initially filed
between September 24, 2004 and November 19, 2004, and later
consolidated. The plaintiffs initially sought to represent a
class of purchasers of the Company's shares between May 7, 2003
and September 20, 2004, and allege claims for securities fraud
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. These claims were based upon the allegation that certain
public statements made during the period from May 7, 2003
through August 9, 2004 were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the Company's Domestic
Services operations had improperly accounted for accrued
purchased transportation costs. The plaintiffs sought
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further
relief as may be determined by the Court.
The Court has consolidated the eight lawsuits into a single
action and the lead plaintiff has filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint seeks to represent a class of purchasers
of the Company's shares between March 29, 2002 and September 20,
2004 based upon public statements made during that period.
The suit is styled, "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 2:04-cv-04515-SD," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
under Judge Stewart Dalzell. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Stephanie M. Beige, U. Seth Ottensoser, BERNSTEIN
LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York,
NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414
(2) Deborah R. Gross, Susan R. Gross, LAW OFFICES BERNARD
M. GROSS, PC 100 Penn Square West, Juniper & Market St.
John Wanamaker Bldg Suite 450, Philadelphia PA 19107
Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail:
debbie@bernardmgross.com or susang@bernardmgross.com;
(3) Timothy J. Macfall, LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO 310
Madison Avenue, 14th Floor, New York NY 10017;
Representing the Company are Kendra Lee Baisinger, Steven E.
Bizar, Thomas P. Manning, Howard D. Scher, BUCHANAN INGERSOLL PC
1835 Market St., 14th Floor, Philadelphia PA 19103 Phone:
215-665-3878 E-mail: baisingerkl@bipc.com, bizarse@bipc.com,
manningtp@bipc.com, scherhd@bipc.com.
TOYOBO CO.: Settles Lawsuit by LAPD Over Zylon-Based Body Armor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyobo Co., a Japanese textile maker, whose material was used in
allegedly ineffective body armor sold to the Los Angeles Police
Department agreed to pay the city $647,000 to $1.3 million to
settle a class action lawsuit, The Associated Press reports.
The payment, which was recently approved by the City Council, is
part of Toyobo Co.'s $29 million settlement with police
departments and officers nationwide.
Toyobo used the synthetic fiber Zylon in about 2,900 bullet-
resistant vests sold to the LAPD by Second Chance Body Armor
Inc., which replaced the vests in fall 2003 with those made with
Kevlar. Second Chance though related reported that tests were
showing that the material was degrading from sweat and heat
before reaching its supposed five-year life expectancy.
Separate federal government tests also revealed that bullets
penetrated about half of Zylon-fortified vests. The test thus
prompted the government to no longer help fund vests made with
the fiber. According to the Fraternal Order of Police, an
estimated 200,000 of the nation's 700,000 police officers wore
Zylon vests last year. Questions about the safety of Zylon
vests arose in 2003 after a Pennsylvania officer, Edward
Limbacher, was wounded in the stomach when a .40-caliber bullet
penetrated his vest. The same year, a California officer, Tony
Zeppetella, was shot and killed while wearing a vest made with
Zylon. Toyobo though maintains that the vests are effective.
Jonathan Diamond, spokesman for the city attorney's office told
The Associated Press that the amount Los Angeles will receive
depends on how many plaintiffs agree to the settlement.
TRIWEST HEALTHCARE: AZ Court Dismisses Information Theft Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriWest Healthcare Alliance reports that the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the lawsuit
against it relating to the December 2002 theft of computer
equipment from a company facility.
"TriWest is very pleased that this lawsuit is finally behind
us," said David J. McIntyre Jr., TriWest's president and chief
executive officer. "From the beginning, TriWest made
extraordinary efforts to openly and honestly inform our
beneficiaries of this theft, and steps they might take to
protect their information from misuse. To this day, nearly three
years later, not a single instance of identity theft
attributable to the burglary has taken place."
The lawsuit was filed in January 2003 as a putative class action
on behalf of more than 500,000 TriWest beneficiaries. Previous
rulings by the court limited plaintiffs' claims to a negligence
claim. The court's Sept. 8, 2005, order disposed of that claim,
ruling on TriWest's motion for summary judgment that there was
no genuine issue of material fact and that TriWest was entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.
Following the theft, McIntyre immediately became a passionate
advocate for stronger legal protections against information
theft, as well as for stronger punishment against perpetrators
of such crimes. He has repeatedly testified before Congress to
champion this issue and TriWest has been frequently cited as an
example of how companies should responsibly inform their
customers when an information theft occurs. Additionally,
TriWest was characterized by the national media, including U.S.
News & World Report, as responding quickly to inform its
customers so they could take appropriate steps to protect
themselves.
"TriWest exemplifies what a good corporate citizen should do,"
said U.S. Representative John Shadegg in a statement before
Congress. "Mr. McIntyre has been recognized nationally as the
standard for companies faced with a serious crisis."
"This was an opportunistic lawsuit from the beginning," said
Barry Halpern, partner at Snell & Wilmer and lead counsel for
TriWest. "The plaintiffs filed this lawsuit approximately a
month after the burglary, with no indication they had suffered
any identity theft, let alone any attributable to the burglary.
The court found that the plaintiffs had not suffered any actual
injury. This ruling does justice to TriWest, which acted
responsibly from beginning to end."
For more details, contact Elizabeth Perrine of TriWest
Healthcare Alliance, Phone: 602-644-8356, E-mail:
eperrine@triwest.com and Barry Halpern of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.,
Phone: 602-315-3700 or 928-525-9741, E-mail: bhalpern@swlaw.com.
UNITED STATES: Legal Battle Over Insurance Looms After Hurricane
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a decision that will spark fears of a battle for residents to
get payouts for lost homes and businesses, insurance companies
in the U.S. indicated that most damage caused by Hurricane
Katrina was due to flooding, which they do not pay for, The
Brisbane Courier Mail reports.
Initial comments from the insurance firms indicated that they
believe that the hurricane's effects constitute flood damage,
which they do not pay out for. Standard homeowner policies only
talk about wind, hail and rain, while an optional government
program, at additional cost, covers flooding.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates only 40
percent of those hit by Katrina had flood insurance, including
the hundreds of thousands from sodden New Orleans, which would
mean that many people would not have the ability to rebuild
their ruined homes and thus risk bankruptcy.
Already bands of survivors are already joining forces and
considering bringing class action cases against the insurers
unless they offer full compensation for a disaster that the
locals say was triggered by the ferocious winds. Though the
full extent of the damage caused by Katrina is not yet clear one
catastrophe-risk modeler estimated that insured losses could be
between $40 billion and $60 billion ($53 billion and $79
billion), while uninsured losses could be at least that much
again. Even those people who did take out flood insurance are
girding themselves for legal action, saying flood cover alone
will not be enough to pay for the damage. These people pointed
out that the Government flood program pays up to $250,000 for
residences, but many destroyed beachfront properties were worth
much more than that.
VISX INC.: Shareholder Settlement Hearing Set October 6, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
in the matter: In re VISX, Inc. Shareholder Litigation on behalf
of all persons who owned VISX stock as of November 9, 2004, or
at any time from November 9, 2004 through and including the
completion of the acquisition on May 27, 2005.
The hearing will be held on October 6, 2005, before the
Honorable William J. Elfving, Department 2, Santa Clara County
Superior Court, 191 North First St., San Jose, CA.
For more details, contact Jeffrey D. Light of LERACH COUGHLIN
STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP, Phone: (800) 449-4900, E-
mail: jeffl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/.
WASHINGTON: Court Certifies Lawsuit v. Virginia Mason Hospital
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Mill's lawsuit filed against the Virginia Mason Medical
Center, which challenges a section of a hospital's $1,133 bill
to clip a toenail and run tests was recently certified as a
class action that could include other patients charged similar
fees by the hospital, The Associated Press reports.
In her suit, Ms. Mill is challenging a $418 fee included in the
bill for "miscellaneous hospital charges," because she had her
toenail clipped to check for fungus at Virginia Mason Medical
Center's downtown complex rather than at one of its other
clinics.
According to Ms. Mill's lawyer, John Phillips, the hospital has
not yet provided how many patients were assessed such a fee.
Virginia Mason Medical Center though maintains that its downtown
complex is authorized by Medicare to charge higher fees because
it is licensed as a hospital and that such charges are standard
practice elsewhere.
Judge Gregory P. Canova said the main question is whether those
charges were properly disclosed, or were unfair or deceptive.
Court filings indicated that Mr. Phillips obtained internal e-
mails showing Virginia Mason doctors and staff have complained
about the charges.
WORLDCOM LITIGATION: Judge Postpones Finalization of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citing that she needs to review details of how the money will be
distributed, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, the presiding
judge in the WorldCom fraud case, who praised the massive
settlement reached with investors that lost billions of dollars,
postponed finalizing the deal, The Associated Press reports.
After a three-hour hearing in federal court in Manhattan, a lead
attorney for the plaintiffs, John Coffey, predicted that Judge
Cote would sign off on the settlement sometime next week.
Court documents revealed that the class action suit netted more
than $6 billion for investors thanks to what Judge Cote called a
"historical settlement" that she said helped restore faith in
the stock market after the $11 billion fraud at WorldCom.
In postponing her approval for the settlement, the judge asked
lawyers for more information about a distribution formula for
the roughly 830,000 parties that have filed claims. In theory,
the current formula greatly restricts the amount that can be
claimed by investors who sold their WorldCom stock before
January 2002, when evidence of the fraud began to surface.
People in the restricted category are "not getting a slice of
the pie," complained one attorney, Joseph Weiss. "They're not
even getting crumbs."
Judge Cote already had given preliminary approval to a deal that
would force WorldCom's former finance chief, Scott Sullivan, to
sell the Boca Raton mansion, which was an ornate Mediterranean-
style lakefront home with 10 bedrooms and seven fireplaces and
turn over the proceeds to WorldCom investors. Aside from turning
over the home, Mr. Sullivan was sentenced last month to five
years in prison.
In his own settlement with investors, former WorldCom CEO
Bernard Ebbers agreed to sell his mansion in Mississippi and
various business holdings and turn over the proceeds, a total
that could approach $40 million. Mr. Ebbers though is appealing
his 25-year sentence.
WorldCom, which went bankrupt in 2002, has emerged under the
name MCI and now operates out of Ashburn, Virginia. Verizon
Communications Inc. has agreed to buy MCI for $8.5 billion in a
deal expected to close by early 2006.
New Securities Fraud Cases
DHB INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of DHB Industries ("DHB" or the
"Company") (AMEX:DHB) publicly-traded securities during the
period between April 21, 2004 and August 29, 2005 (the "Class
Period").
The complaint charges DHB and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. DHB designs, manufactures and markets protective armor,
through its subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. ("Point
Blank") and Protective Apparel Corporation of America ("PACA").
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements concerning the quality of
the Company's bulletproof vests. Recently, DHB announced it
would stop manufacturing and selling certain of its vests due to
their being decertified by a government agency and took a write-
off. Following this announcement, shares of DHB stock declined
in value.
For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/dhbindustries/.
DHB INDUSTRIES: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of DHB Industries, Inc. (AMEX:DHB)
("DHB" or the "Company") between April 21, 2004 and August 29,
2005 (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that DHB violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous statements concerning the quality of the Company's
bulletproof vests. Recently, DHB announced it would stop
manufacturing and selling certain of its vests due to their
being decertified by a government agency and took a write-off.
Following this announcement, DHB stock declined in value.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Hutchinson Technology, Inc.
("Hutchinson" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM: HTCH), between
October 4, 2004 and August 29, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action, case no. 05-CV-2095, is pending before the Honorable
Michael J. Davis in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendants Hutchinson, Wayne M.
Fortun (President and CEO), John A. Ingleman (CFO and Vice
President), and Jeffrey W. Green (Chairman). According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
The complaint alleges that Hutchinson designs, manufactures, and
supplies suspension assemblies that hold magnetic read-write
heads at microscopic distances above disks in disk drives.
According to the Company, the smaller the distance between a
read-write head and the surface of a disk, the greater the
storage capacity of a disk drive. During the Class Period,
Hutchinson presented itself as a company that successfully
manufactured and marketed suspension assemblies, and a company
that was consistently beating guidance issued by defendants. As
a result of the defendants' positive statements, the price of
Hutchinson common stock was artificially inflated during the
Class Period. Defendants took advantage of the artificial
inflation by selling their personally-held shares of Hutchinson
stock for more than $12.1 million in proceeds. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants overstated the demand for the
Company's products, defendants failed to disclose that a shift
in the mix of products toward new, low-yielding products was
negatively impacting the Company's business and prospects, and
defendants failed to disclose that they had not implemented an
adequate system of internal controls. As a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements that Hutchinson was operating
according to plan, and their guidance lacked any reasonable
basis in fact.
On August 30, 2005, before the market opened, Hutchinson issued
a press release announcing lowered guidance for the fourth
quarter 2005. The Company stated that earnings would be $0.05
per share, compared to previous guidance of $0.65, and that the
Company's gross margins would fall as low as 19%, significantly
lower than the Company's previous estimate of as high as 30%. In
reaction to this news, the price of Hutchinson stock fell $5.35
per share, or 17%, from its closing price of $31.51 on August
29, 2005, to $26.16 on August 30, 2005.
For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.
HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Fraud Suit in MN
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., filed a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Hutchinson Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:HTCH)
("Hutchinson" or the "Company") between October 4, 2004 and
August 29, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Hutchinson violated federal
securities laws. Specifically, Hutchinson made positive
statements concerning its history of beating guidance issued by
the defendants and its success in manufacturing and marketing
its products. Defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because defendants overstated the demand for
Hutchinson's products, defendants failed to disclose that a
shift in the mix of products toward new, low-yielding products
was negatively impacting the Company's business and prospects,
and defendants failed to disclose that they had not implemented
an adequate system of internal controls. As a result of the
foregoing, defendants' statements that Hutchinson was operating
according to plan, and their guidance lacked any reasonable
basis in fact. While, the price of Hutchinson common stock was
artificially inflated, defendants sold their personally-held
shares of Hutchinson stock for more than $12.1 million in
proceeds.
On August 30, 2005, Hutchinson issued a press release announcing
lowered guidance for the fourth quarter 2005. The Company stated
that earnings would be $0.05 per share, compared to previous
guidance of $0.65, and that the Company's gross margins would
fall as low as 19%, significantly lower than the Company's
previous estimate of as high as 30%. On this news, Hutchinson
stock fell $5.35 per share, or 17%, from its closing price of
$31.51 on August 29, 2005, to $26.16 on August 30, 2005.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol" or the "Company") (NYSE:SBL)
securities between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A copy of the complaint filed in this
action can be viewed on the firm's website at www.faruqilaw.com
The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning Symbol's
financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Symbol failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company was materially overstating its financial
results by engaging in improper accounting practices;
(2) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the
Company's true financial condition; and
(3) as a result, defendants' opinions and statements
concerning the Company's current and future earnings
lacked a reasonable basis at all times.
Consequently, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On November
8, 2004, however, Symbol announced that it would delay filing
its quarterly report for the third quarter of 2004 with the SEC
after an internal investigation revealed that the Company had
improperly recognized revenue in the first and/or second
quarters of 2004. Subsequently, the Company's announced the
resignation of Bill Nuti, the Company's president and chief
executive officer, as well as disappointing financial results
for the second quarter of 2005.
For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. or Beth A.
Keller, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th St., New
York, NY 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, E-mail:
Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or Bkeller@faruqilaw.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Securities Suit in NY Over AIM Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased AIM Funds
from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective AIM Funds named
below, are as follows:
IAGHX AIM Advantage Health Sci A
IGHBX AIM Advantage Health Sci B
IGHCX AIM Advantage Health Sci C
AAGFX AIM Aggressive Growth A
AAGBX AIM Aggressive Growth B
AAGCX AIM Aggressive Growth C
AAGVX AIM Aggressive Growth I
ARRGX AIM Aggressive Growth R
ASIAX AIM Asia Pacific Growth A
ASIBX AIM Asia Pacific Growth B
ASICX AIM Asia Pacific Growth C
BBLAX AIM Basic Balanced A
BBLBX AIM Basic Balanced B
BBLCX AIM Basic Balanced C
BBLIX AIM Basic Balanced Inst
BBLTX AIM Basic Balanced Inv
BBLRX AIM Basic Balanced R
GTVLX AIM Basic Value A
GTVBX AIM Basic Value B
GTVCX AIM Basic Value C
GTVVX AIM Basic Value I
GTVRX AIM Basic Value R
ABCAX AIM Blue Chip A
ABCBX AIM Blue Chip B
ABCCX AIM Blue Chip C
ABCVX AIM Blue Chip I
BCIVX AIM Blue Chip Inv
ABCRX AIM Blue Chip R
ACDAX AIM Capital Development A
ACDBX AIM Capital Development B
ACDCX AIM Capital Development C
ACDVX AIM Capital Development I
ACDIX AIM Capital Development Inv
ACDRX AIM Capital Development R
CHTRX AIM Charter A
BCHTX AIM Charter B
CHTCX AIM Charter C
CHTVX AIM Charter I
CHRRX AIM Charter R
ACNAX AIM Conservative Allocation A
ACNBX AIM Conservative Allocation B
ACNCX AIM Conservative Allocation C
ACNIX AIM Conservative Allocation Inst
ACNRX AIM Conservative Allocation R
CSTGX AIM Constellation A
CSTBX AIM Constellation B
CSTCX AIM Constellation C
CSITX AIM Constellation I
CSTRX AIM Constellation R
GTDDX AIM Developing Markets A
GTDBX AIM Developing Markets B
GTDCX AIM Developing Markets C
LCEAX AIM Diversified Dividend Fund A
LCEDX AIM Diversified Dividend Fund B
LCEVX AIM Diversified Dividend Fund C
LCEIX AIM Diversified Dividend Inv
IDYAX AIM Dynamics A
IDYBX AIM Dynamics B
IFDCX AIM Dynamics C
IDICX AIM Dynamics Instl
FIDYX AIM Dynamics Inv
IDYKX AIM Dynamics K
IENAX AIM Energy A
IENBX AIM Energy B
IEFCX AIM Energy C
FSTEX AIM Energy Inv
IENKX AIM Energy K
AEDAX AIM European Growth A
AEDBX AIM European Growth B
AEDCX AIM European Growth C
EGINX AIM European Growth Inv
AEDRX AIM European Growth R
ESMAX AIM European Small Company A
ESMBX AIM European Small Company B
ESMCX AIM European Small Company C
IFSAX AIM Financial Services A
IFSBX AIM Financial Services B
IFSCX AIM Financial Services C
FSFSX AIM Financial Services Inv
FSFKX AIM Financial Services K
XAFRX AIM Floating Rate B
XFRCX AIM Floating Rate C
AGAAX AIM Global Aggressive Growth A
AGABX AIM Global Aggressive Growth B
AGACX AIM Global Aggressive Growth C
GTNDX AIM Global Equity A
GNDBX AIM Global Equity B
GNDCX AIM Global Equity C
GNDIX AIM Global Equity Inst
AGGAX AIM Global Growth A
AGGBX AIM Global Growth B
AGGCX AIM Global Growth C
GGHCX AIM Global Health Care A
GTHBX AIM Global Health Care B
GTHCX AIM Global Health Care C
GTHIX AIM Global Health Care Inv
AGREX AIM Global Real Estate A
BGREX AIM Global Real Estate B
CGREX AIM Global Real Estate C
IGREX AIM Global Real Estate Instl
RGREX AIM Global Real Estate R
AWSAX AIM Global Value A
AWSBX AIM Global Value B
AWSCX AIM Global Value C
IGDAX AIM Gold & Precious Metals A
IGDBX AIM Gold & Precious Metals B
IGDCX AIM Gold & Precious Metals C
FGLDX AIM Gold & Precious Metals Inv
AADAX AIM Growth Allocation A
AAEBX AIM Growth Allocation B
AADCX AIM Growth Allocation C
AADIX AIM Growth Allocation I
AADRX AIM Growth Allocation R
AHMAX AIM High Income Municipal Bond A
AHMBX AIM High Income Municipal Bond B
AHMCX AIM High Income Municipal Bond C
AMHYX AIM High-Yield A
AHYBX AIM High-Yield B
AHYCX AIM High-Yield C
AHIYX AIM High-Yield Inst
HYINX AIM High-Yield Inv
AMIFX AIM Income A
ABIFX AIM Income B
ACIFX AIM Income C
AIIVX AIM Income Inv
AMIRX AIM Income R
AGOVX AIM Intermediate Government A
AGVBX AIM Intermediate Government B
AGVCX AIM Intermediate Government C
AGOIX AIM Intermediate Government Instl
AGIVX AIM Intermediate Government Inv
AGVRX AIM Intermediate Government R
AIIEX AIM International Growth A
AIEBX AIM International Growth B
AIECX AIM International Growth C
AIEVX AIM International Growth I
AIERX AIM International Growth R
IEGAX AIM International Small Company A
IEGBX AIM International Small Company B
IEGCX AIM International Small Company C
IBVAX AIM Intl Core Equity A
IBVBX AIM Intl Core Equity B
IBVCX AIM Intl Core Equity C
IBVIX AIM Intl Core Equity Inst
IIBCX AIM Intl Core Equity Inv
IIBRX AIM Intl Core Equity R
LCBAX AIM Large Cap Basic Value A
LCBBX AIM Large Cap Basic Value B
LCBCX AIM Large Cap Basic Value C
LCBIX AIM Large Cap Basic Value Inst
LCINX AIM Large Cap Basic Value Inv
LCBRX AIM Large Cap Basic Value R
LCGAX AIM Large Cap Growth A
LCGBX AIM Large Cap Growth B
LCGCX AIM Large Cap Growth C
LCIGX AIM Large Cap Growth Inst
LCGIX AIM Large Cap Growth Inv
LCRGX AIM Large Cap Growth R
ILSAX AIM Leisure A
ILSBX AIM Leisure B
IVLCX AIM Leisure C
FLISX AIM Leisure Inv
ILEKX AIM Leisure K
SHTIX AIM Limited Maturity Treasury A
LMTAX AIM Limited Maturity Treasury A3
ALMIX AIM Limited Maturity Treasury I
MDCAX AIM Mid Cap Basic Value A
MDCBX AIM Mid Cap Basic Value B
MDCVX AIM Mid Cap Basic Value C
MDICX AIM Mid Cap Basic Value Inst
MDCRX AIM Mid Cap Basic Value R
GTAGX AIM Mid Cap Core Equity A
GTABX AIM Mid Cap Core Equity B
GTACX AIM Mid Cap Core Equity C
GTAVX AIM Mid Cap Core Equity I
GTARX AIM Mid Cap Core Equity R
AMCAX AIM Mid Cap Growth A
AMCBX AIM Mid Cap Growth B
AMCVX AIM Mid Cap Growth C
AMIGX AIM Mid Cap Growth Inst
AMGRX AIM Mid Cap Growth R
AMKAX AIM Moderate Allocation A
AMKBX AIM Moderate Allocation B
AMKCX AIM Moderate Allocation C
AMLIX AIM Moderate Allocation Inst
AMKRX AIM Moderate Allocation R
AAMGX AIM Moderate Growth Allocation A
AMBGX AIM Moderate Growth Allocation B
ACMGX AIM Moderate Growth Allocation C
AIMGX AIM Moderate Growth Allocation Instl
RAMGX AIM Moderate Growth Allocation R
CAAMX AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc A
CMBAX AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc B
CACMX AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc C
CMAIX AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc Instl
CMARX AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc R
IAMSX AIM Multi-Sector A
IBMSX AIM Multi-Sector B
ICMSX AIM Multi-Sector C
IIMSX AIM Multi-Sector Inst
AMBDX AIM Municipal Bond A
AMBBX AIM Municipal Bond B
AMBCX AIM Municipal Bond C
AMBIX AIM Municipal Bond Inv
ASCOX AIM Opportunities I A
SCPBX AIM Opportunities I B
SCOCX AIM Opportunities I C
AMCOX AIM Opportunities II A
MCOVX AIM Opportunities II B
MCODX AIM Opportunities II C
LCPAX AIM Opportunities III A
LCPBX AIM Opportunities III B
LCPCX AIM Opportunities III C
AVLFX AIM Premier Equity A
AVLBX AIM Premier Equity B
AVLCX AIM Premier Equity C
AVLVX AIM Premier Equity I
AVLRX AIM Premier Equity R
IARAX AIM Real Estate A
AARBX AIM Real Estate B
IARCX AIM Real Estate C
IARIX AIM Real Estate Inst
REINX AIM Real Estate Inv
IARRX AIM Real Estate R
ISIIX AIM S&P 500 Index Instl
ISPIX AIM S&P 500 Index Inv
AGWFX AIM Select Equity A
AGWBX AIM Select Equity B
AGWCX AIM Select Equity C
XRREX AIM Select Real Estate Income Fund
STBAX AIM Short Term Bond A
STBCX AIM Short Term Bond C
ISTBX AIM Short Term Bond Inst
STBRX AIM Short Term Bond R
SMEAX AIM Small Cap Equity A
SMEBX AIM Small Cap Equity B
SMECX AIM Small Cap Equity C
SMEIX AIM Small Cap Equity Instl
SMERX AIM Small Cap Equity R
GTSAX AIM Small Cap Growth A
GTSBX AIM Small Cap Growth B
GTSDX AIM Small Cap Growth C
GTSVX AIM Small Cap Growth I
GTSRX AIM Small Cap Growth R
ISGAX AIM Small Company Growth A
ISGBX AIM Small Company Growth B
ISGCX AIM Small Company Growth C
IIEGX AIM Small Company Growth Fund Insititutional Class
FIEGX AIM Small Company Growth Inv
ISCKX AIM Small Company Growth K
SMMIX AIM Summit
AITFX AIM Tax-Free Intermediate A
ATFAX AIM Tax-Free Intermediate A3
ATFIX AIM Tax-Free Intermediate Inst
ITYAX AIM Technology A
ITYBX AIM Technology B
ITHCX AIM Technology C
FTPIX AIM Technology Instl
FTCHX AIM Technology Inv
ITHKX AIM Technology K
TBRAX AIM Total Return Bond A
TBRDX AIM Total Return Bond B
TBRCX AIM Total Return Bond C
TBRIX AIM Total Return Bond Inst
TBRRX AIM Total Return Bond R
ATKAX AIM Trimark A
ATKBX AIM Trimark B
ATKCX AIM Trimark C
ATDAX AIM Trimark Endeavor A
ATDBX AIM Trimark Endeavor B
ATDCX AIM Trimark Endeavor C
ATDIX AIM Trimark Endeavor Inst
ATDRX AIM Trimark Endeavor R
ATKIX AIM Trimark Inst
ATKRX AIM Trimark R
ATIAX AIM Trimark Small Companies A
ATIBX AIM Trimark Small Companies B
ATICX AIM Trimark Small Companies C
ATIIX AIM Trimark Small Companies Inst
ATIRX AIM Trimark Small Companies R
IAUTX AIM Utilities A
IBUTX AIM Utilities B
IUTCX AIM Utilities C
FSTUX AIM Utilities Inv
WEINX AIM Weingarten A
BWEIX AIM Weingarten B
CWEIX AIM Weingarten C
IWEIX AIM Weingarten I
RWEIX AIM Weingarten R
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included AIM Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over Columbia Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Columbia
Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Columbia Funds
named below, are as follows:
Columbia Acorn Fund (Nasdaq:LACAX), (Nasdaq:LACBX),
(Nasdaq:LIACX),
(Nasdaq:ACRNX)
Columbia Acorn Select (Nasdaq:LTFAX), (Nasdaq:LTFBX),
(Nasdaq:LTFCX),
(Nasdaq:ACTWX)
Columbia Acorn USA (Nasdaq:LAUAX), (Nasdaq:LAUBX),
(Nasdaq:LAUCX),
(Nasdaq:AUSAX)
Columbia Asset Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:LAAAX), (Nasdaq:LAABX),
(Nasdaq:LAACX), (Nasdaq:GBAAX), (Nasdaq:GAAAX), (Nasdaq:GAATX)
Columbia Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:CBLAX), (Nasdaq:CBLBX),
(Nasdaq:CBLCX),
(Nasdaq:CBLDX), (Nasdaq:CBALX)
Columbia Common Stock Fund (Nasdaq:CMSAX), (Nasdaq:CMSBX),
(Nasdaq:CCSCX), (Nasdaq:CMSDX), (Nasdaq:CMSTX)
Columbia Disciplined Value Fund (Nasdaq:LEVAX), (Nasdaq:LEVBX),
(Nasdaq:LEVCX), (Nasdaq:GEVBX), (Nasdaq:GALEX), (Nasdaq:GEVTX)
Columbia Dividend Income Fund (Nasdaq:LBSAX), (Nasdaq:LBSBX),
(Nasdaq:LBSCX), (Nasdaq:GEQBX), (Nasdaq:GEQAX), (Nasdaq:GSFTX)
Columbia Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq:CFGAX), (Nasdaq:CFGBX),
(Nasdaq:CFGDX), (Nasdaq:LGISX)
Columbia Growth Fund (Nasdaq:CGWAX), (Nasdaq:CGWBX),
(Nasdaq:CGWCX),
(Nasdaq:CGWDX), (Nasdaq:CGWGX), (Nasdaq:CLMBX)
Columbia Growth Stock Fund (Nasdaq:CGSAX), (Nasdaq:CGSBX),
(Nasdaq:CGSCX), (Nasdaq:SRFSX)
Columbia Large Cap Core Fund (Nasdaq:LCCAX), (Nasdaq:LCCBX),
(Nasdaq:LCCCX), (Nasdaq:GGRBX), (Nasdaq:SGIEX), (Nasdaq:SMGIX)
Columbia Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:LEGAX), (Nasdaq:LEGBX),
(Nasdaq:LEGCX), (Nasdaq:GBEGX), (Nasdaq:GAEGX), (Nasdaq:GEGTX)
Columbia Large Company Index Fund (Nasdaq:LLIAX),
(Nasdaq:LLIBX),
(Nasdaq:LLICX), (Nasdaq:ILCIX)
Columbia Liberty Fund (Nasdaq:COLFX), (Nasdaq:CCFBX),
(Nasdaq:CTCCX),
(Nasdaq:CTCFX)
Columbia Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:CBSAX), (Nasdaq:CBSBX),
(Nasdaq:CMCCX), (Nasdaq:CBSDX), (Nasdaq:CBSGX), (Nasdaq:CBSTX),
(Nasdaq:CLSPX)
Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:COLGX), (Nasdaq:COGBX),
(Nasdaq:CSVCX), (Nasdaq:LSVSX)
Columbia Real Estate Equity Fund (Nasdaq:CREAX),
(Nasdaq:CREBX),
(Nasdaq:CRECX), (Nasdaq:CREDX), (Nasdaq:CREEX)
Columbia Small Cap Fund (Nasdaq:LSMAX), (Nasdaq:LSMBX),
(Nasdaq:LSMCX), (Nasdaq:GBSMX), (Nasdaq:SSCEX), (Nasdaq:SMCEX)
Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:CMSCX)
Columbia Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:CSMIX), (Nasdaq:CSSBX),
(Nasdaq:CSSCX), (Nasdaq:CSCZX)
Columbia Small Company Equity Fund (Nasdaq:LSEAX),
(Nasdaq:LSEBX),
(Nasdaq:LSECX), (Nasdaq:GERBX), (Nasdaq:GASEX), (Nasdaq:GSETX)
Columbia Small Company Index Fund (Nasdaq:LBIAX),
(Nasdaq:LBIBX),
(Nasdaq:LBICX), (Nasdaq:ISCIX)
Columbia Strategic Investor Fund (Nasdaq:CSVAX),
(Nasdaq:CSVBX),
(Nasdaq:CSRCX), (Nasdaq:CSVDX), (Nasdaq:CSVFX)
Columbia Tax-Managed Aggressive Growth Fund (Nasdaq:LTMAX),
(Nasdaq:LTAGX), (Nasdaq:LTACX), (Nasdaq:LTAZX)
Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund (Nasdaq:STMAX),
(Nasdaq:CTMBX),
(Nasdaq:CTMCX), (Nasdaq:LMGZX)
Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund II (Nasdaq:LTGAX),
(Nasdaq:LTIIX),
(Nasdaq:LTGCX), (Nasdaq:LTGZX)
Columbia Tax-Managed Value Fund (Nasdaq:SRVAX),
(Nasdaq:CTMVX),
(Nasdaq:LTVCX), (Nasdaq:LTMZX)
Columbia Technology Fund (Nasdaq:CTCAX), (Nasdaq:CTCBX),
(Nasdaq:CTHCX), (Nasdaq:CTCDX), (Nasdaq:CMTFX)
Columbia Thermostat Fund (Nasdaq:CTFAX), (Nasdaq:CTFBX),
(Nasdaq:CTFDX), (Nasdaq:COTZX)
Columbia Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:CUTLX), (Nasdaq:CUTBX),
(Nasdaq:CUTFX), (Nasdaq:LUFZX)
Columbia Young Investor Fund (Nasdaq:LYIAX), (Nasdaq:LYIBX),
(Nasdaq:LYICX), (Nasdaq:SRYIX)
Columbia Acorn International Fund (Nasdaq:LAIAX),
(Nasdaq:LIABX),
(Nasdaq:LAICX), (Nasdaq:ACINX)
Columbia Acorn International Select Fund (Nasdaq:LAFAX),
(Nasdaq:LFFBX), (Nasdaq:LFFCX), (Nasdaq:ACFFX)
Columbia Europe Fund (Nasdaq:NEUAX), (Nasdaq:LNEBX),
(Nasdaq:LNECX),
(Nasdaq:LNEZX)
Columbia European Thematic Equity Fund (Nasdaq:LSREX)
Columbia Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:CGUAX), (Nasdaq:CGUBX),
(Nasdaq:CGUCX)
Columbia Global Thematic Equity Fund:(Nasdaq:LSRGX)
Columbia International Equity Fund (Nasdaq:LIEAX),
(Nasdaq:LIEBX),
(Nasdaq:LIECX), (Nasdaq:GBIEX), (Nasdaq:GAIEX), (Nasdaq:GIETX)
Columbia International Stock Fund (Nasdaq:CISAX),
(Nasdaq:CISBX),
(Nasdaq:CSKCX), (Nasdaq:CISDX), (Nasdaq:CMISX)
Columbia Newport Asia Pacific Fund (Nasdaq:NWAPX),
(Nasdaq:LNABX),
(Nasdaq:LNACX), (Nasdaq:LAPSX)
Columbia Newport Japan Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:NJOAX),
(Nasdaq:NJOBX), (Nasdaq:NJOCX), (Nasdaq:LNJZX)
Columbia Newport Greater China Fund (Nasdaq:NGCAX),
(Nasdaq:NGCBX),
(Nasdaq:NGCCX), (Nasdaq:LNGZX)
Columbia Newport Tiger Fund (Nasdaq:CNTAX), (Nasdaq:CNTBX),
(Nasdaq:CNTDX), (Nasdaq:CNTTX), (Nasdaq:CNTZX)
Columbia Contrarian Income Fund (Nasdaq:CHINX), (Nasdaq:LCIBX),
(Nasdaq:LCICX), (Nasdaq:LCIZX)
Columbia Corporate Bond Fund (Nasdaq:LBCAX), (Nasdaq:LBCBX),
(Nasdaq:LBCCX), (Nasdaq:GCBTX)
Columbia Daily Income Company Fund CDIXX
Columbia Federal Securities Fund (Nasdaq:CFSAX),
(Nasdaq:CFSOX),
(Nasdaq:CFSCX), (Nasdaq:LFSZX)
Columbia Fixed Income Securities Fund (Nasdaq:CFIAX),
(Nasdaq:CFIBX),
(Nasdaq:CISCX), (Nasdaq:CFIDX), (Nasdaq:CFISX)
Columbia Floating Rate Advantage Fund (Nasdaq:XSFRX),
(Nasdaq:XSFBX),
(Nasdaq:XLACX), (Nasdaq:XLAZX)
Columbia Floating Rate Fund (Nasdaq:XLFAX), (Nasdaq:XLSBX),
(Nasdaq:XLFCX), (Nasdaq:XLFZX)
Columbia High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:CHGAX), (Nasdaq:CHGBX),
(Nasdaq:CHDCX), (Nasdaq:CHGDX), (Nasdaq:CMHYX)
Columbia High Yield Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq:COLHX),
(Nasdaq:COHBX),
(Nasdaq:CHYCX), (Nasdaq:LHYZX)
Columbia Income Fund (Nasdaq:LIIAX), (Nasdaq:CIOBX),
(Nasdaq:CIOCX),
(Nasdaq:SRINX)
Columbia Intermediate Bond Fund (Nasdaq:LIBAX), (Nasdaq:LIBBX),
(Nasdaq:LIBCX), (Nasdaq:SRBFX)
Columbia Intermediate Government Income Fund (Nasdaq:LIGAX),
(Nasdaq:LIGBX), (Nasdaq:LIGCX), (Nasdaq:GGIBX), (Nasdaq:GALBX),
(Nasdaq:GIBTX)
Columbia Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:CMMXX), (Nasdaq:CMBXX),
(Nasdaq:CMCXX), (Nasdaq:LMZXX)
Columbia Quality Plus Bond Fund (Nasdaq:LQPAX), (Nasdaq:LQPBX),
(Nasdaq:LQPCX), (Nasdaq:GBHQX), (Nasdaq:GAHQX), (Nasdaq:GHQTX)
Columbia Short Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:CTBAX), (Nasdaq:CTBBX),
(Nasdaq:CSHCX), (Nasdaq:CTBDX), (Nasdaq:CTBGX), (Nasdaq:CTBTX),
(Nasdaq:CUGGX)
Columbia Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:COSIX), (Nasdaq:CLSBX),
(Nasdaq:CLSCX), (Nasdaq:LSIZX)
Columbia US Treasury Index Fund (Nasdaq:LUTAX), (Nasdaq:LUTBX),
(Nasdaq:LUTCX), (Nasdaq:IUTIX)
Columbia California Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:CLMPX),
(Nasdaq:CCABX),
(Nasdaq:CCAOX)
Columbia Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond
(Nasdaq:LCTAX),
(Nasdaq:LCTBX), (Nasdaq:LCTCX), (Nasdaq:GCBBX), (Nasdaq:GCBAX),
(Nasdaq:SCTEX)
Columbia Connecticut Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:COCTX),
(Nasdaq:CCTBX),
(Nasdaq:CCTCX)
Columbia Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:LFIAX),
(Nasdaq:LFIBX), (Nasdaq:LFICX), (Nasdaq:SFTEX)
Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund (Nasdaq:LHIAX),
(Nasdaq:CHMBX),
(Nasdaq:CHMCX), (Nasdaq:SRHMX)
Columbia Intermediate Tax-Exempt Bond Fund (Nasdaq:LITAX),
(Nasdaq:LITBX), (Nasdaq:LITCX), (Nasdaq:GIMBX),
(Nasdaq:GIMAX), (Nasdaq:SETMX)
Columbia Managed Municipals Fund (Nasdaq:LMMAX),
(Nasdaq:LMMBX),
(Nasdaq:LMMCX), (Nasdaq:SRMMX)
Columbia Massachusetts Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:LMIAX), (Nasdaq:LMIBX), (Nasdaq:LMICX), (Nasdaq:GMBBX),
(Nasdaq:GMBAX), (Nasdaq:SEMAX)
Columbia Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:COMAX),
(Nasdaq:CMABX), (Nasdaq:COMCX)
Columbia Municipal Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:CXMXX),
(Nasdaq:CMNXX),
(Nasdaq:CMXXX), (Nasdaq:CMZXX)
Columbia National Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:CNLAX),
(Nasdaq:CNLBX),
(Nasdaq:CNBCX), (Nasdaq:CNLDX), (Nasdaq:CLNMX)
Columbia New Jersey Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:LNIAX),
(Nasdaq:LNIBX), (Nasdaq:LNICX), (Nasdaq:GNJBX), (Nasdaq:GNJAX),
(Nasdaq:GNJTX)
Columbia New York Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:LNYAX),
(Nasdaq:LNYBX), (Nasdaq:LNYCX), (Nasdaq:GBNYX), (Nasdaq:GANYX),
(Nasdaq:GNYTX)
Columbia New York Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:COLNX),
(Nasdaq:CNYBX),
(Nasdaq:CNYCX)
Columbia Oregon Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:COEAX),
(Nasdaq:COEBX),
(Nasdaq:CORCX), (Nasdaq:COEDX), (Nasdaq:CMBFX)
Columbia Pennsylvania Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:LPIAX), (Nasdaq:LPIBX), (Nasdaq:LPICX), (Nasdaq:GTPAX)
Columbia Rhode Island Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
(Nasdaq:LRIAX), (Nasdaq:LRIBX), (Nasdaq:LRICX), (Nasdaq:GRBBX),
(Nasdaq:GRBAX), (Nasdaq:GRITX)
Columbia Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:COLTX), (Nasdaq:CTEBX),
(Nasdaq:COLCX)
Columbia Tax-Exempt Insured Fund (Nasdaq:CEXIX),
(Nasdaq:CEIBX),
(Nasdaq:CEINX)
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which include
Columbia Funds, that provided financial incentives and rewards
to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint alleges
that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Lawsuit in NY Over John Hancock Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased John
Hancock Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through
April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1993 (the
"Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective John Hancock Funds
named below, are as follows:
JINDX John Hancock 500 Index Fd Cl R
SVBAX John Hancock Balanced A
SVBBX John Hancock Balanced B
SVBCX John Hancock Balanced C
SVBIX John Hancock Balanced I
XBTOX John Hancock Bank and Thrift Opportunity Fund
JBTAX John Hancock Biotechnology Fund Class A
JBTBX John Hancock Biotechnology Fund Class B
JBTCX John Hancock Biotechnology Fund Class C
JHNBX John Hancock Bond A
JHBBX John Hancock Bond B
JHCBX John Hancock Bond C
JHBIX John Hancock Bond I
JHBRX John Hancock Bond R
TACAX John Hancock CA Tax-Free Income A
TSCAX John Hancock CA Tax-Free Income B
TCCAX John Hancock CA Tax-Free Income C
PZFVX John Hancock Classic Value A
JCVBX John Hancock Classic Value B
JCVCX John Hancock Classic Value C
JCVIX John Hancock Classic Value I
JCVRX John Hancock Classic Value R
JHDCX John Hancock Core Equity A
JHIDX John Hancock Core Equity B
JHCEX John Hancock Core Equity C
JHCIX John Hancock Core Equity I
JHDPX John Hancock Dividend Performers Fund
FIDAX John Hancock Financial Industries A
FIDBX John Hancock Financial Industries B
FIDCX John Hancock Financial Industries C
FIDIX John Hancock Financial Industries I
JFVAX John Hancock Focused Equity A
JFVBX John Hancock Focused Equity B
JFVCX John Hancock Focused Equity C
JCGYX John Hancock Focused Small Cap Growth Fund
JHGIX John Hancock Government Income A
TSGIX John Hancock Government Income B
TCGIX John Hancock Government Income C
JCOAX John Hancock Greater China Opp A
JCOBX John Hancock Greater China Opp B
JCOCX John Hancock Greater China Opp C
JCOIX John Hancock Greater China Opp I
JGTAX John Hancock Growth Trends A
JGTBX John Hancock Growth Trends B
JGTCX John Hancock Growth Trends C
JHGRX John Hancock Health Sciences A
JHRBX John Hancock Health Sciences B
JHRCX John Hancock Health Sciences C
JAHIX John Hancock High Income A
JBHIX John Hancock High Income B
JCHIX John Hancock High Income C
JIHIX John Hancock High Income I
JHHBX John Hancock High-Yield A
TSHYX John Hancock High-Yield B
JHYCX John Hancock High-Yield C
JHTFX John Hancock High-Yield Muni Bond A
TSHTX John Hancock High-Yield Muni Bond B
JCTFX John Hancock High-Yield Muni Bond C
XJHSX John Hancock Income Securities Trust
COREX John Hancock Indep Divers Core Eq II
FINAX John Hancock International A
FINBX John Hancock International B
JINCX John Hancock International C
JINIX John Hancock International I
TAUSX John Hancock Investment Grade Bond A
TSUSX John Hancock Investment Grade Bond B
TCUSX John Hancock Investment Grade Bond C
TIUSX John Hancock Investment Grade Bond I
XJHIX John Hancock Investors Trust
TAGRX John Hancock Large Cap Equity A
TSGWX John Hancock Large Cap Equity B
JHLVX John Hancock Large Cap Equity C
JLVIX John Hancock Large Cap Equity I
MSBFX John Hancock Large Cap Select A
JHLBX John Hancock Large Cap Select B
JHLCX John Hancock Large Cap Select C
JHLIX John Hancock Large Cap Select I
JHLRX John Hancock Large Cap Select R
JLSAX John Hancock Large Cap Spectrum Fund Class A
JLSBX John Hancock Large Cap Spectrum Fund Class B
JLSCX John Hancock Large Cap Spectrum Fund Class C
JHMAX John Hancock MA Tax-Free Income A
JHMBX John Hancock MA Tax-Free Income B
JMACX John Hancock MA Tax-Free Income C
SPOAX John Hancock Mid Cap Growth A
SPOBX John Hancock Mid Cap Growth B
SPOCX John Hancock Mid Cap Growth C
SPOIX John Hancock Mid Cap Growth I
JMGAX John Hancock Multi-Cap Growth A
JMGBX John Hancock Multi-Cap Growth B
JMGCX John Hancock Multi-Cap Growth C
JHNYX John Hancock NY Tax-Free Income A
JNTRX John Hancock NY Tax-Free Income B
JNYCX John Hancock NY Tax-Free Income C
XPGDX John Hancock Patriot Global Dividend Fund
XPPFX John Hancock Patriot Preferred Dividend Fund
XPDFX John Hancock Patriot Premium Dividend Fund I
XPDTX John Hancock Patriot Premium Dividend Fund II
XDIVX John Hancock Patriot Select Dividend Trust
XHPFX John Hancock Preferred Income Fd II
XHPIX John Hancock Preferred Income Fund
XHPSX John Hancock Preferred Income Fund III
JREAX John Hancock Real Estate A
JREBX John Hancock Real Estate B
JRECX John Hancock Real Estate C
FRBAX John Hancock Regional Bank A
FRBFX John Hancock Regional Bank B
FRBCX John Hancock Regional Bank C
DSISX John Hancock Small Cap A
DSBSX John Hancock Small Cap B
DSCSX John Hancock Small Cap C
SPVAX John Hancock Small Cap Equity A
SPVBX John Hancock Small Cap Equity B
SPVCX John Hancock Small Cap Equity C
SPVIX John Hancock Small Cap Equity I
SPVRX John Hancock Small Cap Equity R
TAEMX John Hancock Small Cap Growth A
TSEGX John Hancock Small Cap Growth B
JSGCX John Hancock Small Cap Growth C
JSGIX John Hancock Small Cap Growth I
DSIIX John Hancock Small Cap I
SOVIX John Hancock Sovereign Investors A
SOVBX John Hancock Sovereign Investors B
SOVCX John Hancock Sovereign Investors C
SOIIX John Hancock Sovereign Investors I
SVIRX John Hancock Sovereign Investors R
JHFIX John Hancock Strategic Income A
STIBX John Hancock Strategic Income B
JSTCX John Hancock Strategic Income C
JSTIX John Hancock Strategic Income I
JSTRX John Hancock Strategic Income R
XHTDX John Hancock Tax Advantaged Dividend Income Fd
TAMBX John Hancock Tax-Free Bond A
TSMBX John Hancock Tax-Free Bond B
TBMBX John Hancock Tax-Free Bond C
NTTFX John Hancock Technology A
FGTBX John Hancock Technology B
JHTCX John Hancock Technology C
JHTIX John Hancock Technology I
LUXRX John Hancock Technology Leaders A
JTLBX John Hancock Technology Leaders B
JTLCX John Hancock Technology Leaders C
JTLIX John Hancock Technology Leaders I
USGLX John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr A
USLBX John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr B
USLCX John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr C
USLIX John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr I
UGLRX John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr R
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included John Hancock Funds, that provided financial incentives
and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The
complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices
created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing
substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to
their clients, even though such investments were not in the
clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives
constituted violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Files Lawsuit in NY Over Lord Abbett Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Lord
Abbett Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April
30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act")
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Lord Abbett Funds
named below, are as follows:
LAFFX Lord Abbett Affiliated A
LAFBX Lord Abbett Affiliated B
LAFCX Lord Abbett Affiliated C
LAFPX Lord Abbett Affiliated P
LAFYX Lord Abbett Affiliated Y
LDFVX Lord Abbett All Value A
GILBX Lord Abbett All Value B
GILAX Lord Abbett All Value C
LAVPX Lord Abbett All Value P
LAVYX Lord Abbett All Value Y
ALFAX Lord Abbett Alpha A
ALFBX Lord Abbett Alpha B
ALFCX Lord Abbett Alpha C
LAMAX Lord Abbett America's Value A
LAMBX Lord Abbett America's Value B
LAMCX Lord Abbett America's Value C
LAMPX Lord Abbett America's Value P
LAMYX Lord Abbett America's Value Y
LABFX Lord Abbett Balanced A
LABBX Lord Abbett Balanced B
BFLAX Lord Abbett Balanced C
LABPX Lord Abbett Balanced P
LBNDX Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture A
LBNBX Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture B
BDLAX Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture C
LBNPX Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture P
LBNYX Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Y
LCFIX Lord Abbett CA Tax-Free Income A
CALAX Lord Abbett CA Tax-Free Income C
LACFX Lord Abbett Convertible A
LBCFX Lord Abbett Convertible B
LACCX Lord Abbett Convertible C
LCFPX Lord Abbett Convertible P
LCFYX Lord Abbett Convertible Y
LCRAX Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income A
LCRBX Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income B
LCRCX Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income C
LCRPX Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income P
LCRYX Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Y
LACTX Lord Abbett CT Tax-Free Income A
LAGWX Lord Abbett Developing Growth A
LADBX Lord Abbett Developing Growth B
LADCX Lord Abbett Developing Growth C
LADPX Lord Abbett Developing Growth P
LADYX Lord Abbett Developing Growth Y
LAFLX Lord Abbett FL Tax-Free Income A
FLLAX Lord Abbett FL Tax-Free Income C
LAGAX Lord Abbett GA Tax-Free Income A
LAGEX Lord Abbett Global Equity A
LAGBX Lord Abbett Global Equity B
LAGCX Lord Abbett Global Equity C
LGEYX Lord Abbett Global Fund Equity Series Class Y
LAGIX Lord Abbett Global Income A
LAIBX Lord Abbett Global Income B
GBLAX Lord Abbett Global Income C
LGIPX Lord Abbett Global Income P
LMGAX Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities A
LMGBX Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities B
LMGCX Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities C
LGOPX Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities P
LMGYX Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities Y
LAHIX Lord Abbett HI Tax-Free Income A
LHYAX Lord Abbett High Yield A
LHYBX Lord Abbett High Yield B
LHYCX Lord Abbett High Yield C
HYMAX Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond A
HYMBX Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond B
HYMCX Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond C
HYMPX Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond P
LHYPX Lord Abbett High Yield P
LAHYX Lord Abbett High Yield Y
LISAX Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr A
LISBX Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr B
LISCX Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr C
LISPX Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr P
LAIEX Lord Abbett International Opp A
LINBX Lord Abbett International Opp B
LINCX Lord Abbett International Opp C
LINPX Lord Abbett International Opp P
LINYX Lord Abbett International Opp Y
LICAX Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity A
LICBX Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity B
LICCX Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity C
LICPX Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity P
LICYX Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity Y
ISFAX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett Income Strategy Fd
Cl A
ISFBX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett Income Strategy Fd
Cl B
ISFCX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett Income Strategy Fd
Cl C
ISFPX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett Income Strategy Fd
Cl P
ISFYX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett Income Strategy Fd
Cl Y
LWSAX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett World Gwth
& Incm Strategy Fd Cl A
LWSBX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett World Gwth
& Incm Strategy Fd Cl B
LWSCX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett World Gwth
& Incm Strategy Fd Cl C
LWSPX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett World Gwth
& Incm Strategy Fd Cl P
LWSYX Lord Abbett Invest Tr, Lord Abbett World Gwth
& Incm Strategy Fd Cl Y
LABYX Lord Abbett Investment Trust Balanced Series Class Y
LRLCX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core A
LARBX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core B
LLRCX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core C
LRLPX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core P
LARYX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core Y
LALCX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth A
LALBX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth B
LACGX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth C
LLCPX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth P
LALYX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth Y
LALAX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value A
LLCBX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value B
LLCCX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value C
LALPX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value P
LLCYX Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value Y
LALDX Lord Abbett Ltd Dur U.S. Govt Secs A
LLTBX Lord Abbett Ltd Dur U.S. Govt Secs B
LDLAX Lord Abbett Ltd Dur U.S. Govt Secs C
LAMIX Lord Abbett MI Tax-Free Income A
LAVLX Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value A
LMCBX Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value B
LMCCX Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value C
LMCPX Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value P
LMCYX Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value Y
LAMNX Lord Abbett MN Tax-Free Income A
LAMOX Lord Abbett MO Tax-Free Income A
LANSX Lord Abbett Natl Tax-Free Income A
LANBX Lord Abbett Natl Tax-Free Income B
LTNSX Lord Abbett Natl Tax-Free Income C
LANJX Lord Abbett NJ Tax-Free Income A
LANYX Lord Abbett NY Tax-Free Income A
NYLAX Lord Abbett NY Tax-Free Income C
LAPAX Lord Abbett PA Tax-Free Income A
ALFYX Lord Abbett Securities Trust Alpha Series Class Y
LSBAX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend A
LSBBX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend B
LSBCX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend C
LSBPX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend P
LSBYX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend Y
LRSCX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value A
LRSBX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value B
LSRCX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value C
LRSPX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value P
LRSYX Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value Y
LTRAX Lord Abbett Total Return A
LTRBX Lord Abbett Total Return B
LTRCX Lord Abbett Total Return C
LTRPX Lord Abbett Total Return P
LTRYX Lord Abbett Total Return Y
LATIX Lord Abbett TX Tax-Free Income A
LAGVX Lord Abbett U.S. Gov & Gov Spnsd Entpr A
LAVBX Lord Abbett U.S. Gov & Gov Spnsd Entpr B
LAUSX Lord Abbett U.S. Gov & Gov Spnsd Entpr C
LAWAX Lord Abbett WA Tax-Free Income
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Lord Abbett Funds, that provided financial incentives
and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The
complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices
created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing
substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to
their clients, even though such investments were not in the
clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives
constituted violations of federal securities laws. The action
also includes a subclass of persons who held any shares of UBS
Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges that the
investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges Fraud Suit in NY Over Putnam Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Putnam
Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Putnam Funds named
below, are as follows:
Putnam American Government Income Fund (Nasdaq:PAGVX)
(Nasdaq:PAMBX)
(Nasdaq:PAMMX)
Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PTAZX)
(Nasdaq:PAZBX)
Putnam Asset Allocation:Balanced Portfolio (Nasdaq:PABAX)
(Nasdaq:PABBX) (Nasdaq:AABCX) (Nasdaq:PABMX)
Putnam Asset Allocation:Conservative Portfolio (Nasdaq:PACAX)
(Nasdaq:PACBX) (Nasdaq:PACCX) (Nasdaq:PACMX)
Putnam Asset Allocation:Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq:PAEAX)
(Nasdaq:PAEBX)
(Nasdaq:PAECX) (Nasdaq:PAGMX)
Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PCTEX)
(Nasdaq:PCTBX)
(Nasdaq:PCLMX)
Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq:PCAPX) (Nasdaq:PCABX)
(Nasdaq:PCAMX)
Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:PCOAX) (Nasdaq:POPBX)
(Nasdaq:PCOCX)
Putnam Classic Equity Fund (Nasdaq:PXGIX) (Nasdaq:PGIIX)
(Nasdaq:PGTCX) (Nasdaq:PGIMX)
Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust (Nasdaq:PCONX)
(Nasdaq:PCNBX)
(Nasdaq:PCNMX)
Putnam Discovery Growth Fund (Nasdaq:PVIIX) (Nasdaq:PVYBX)
(Nasdaq:PVYCX) (Nasdaq:PVYMX)
Putnam Diversified Income Trust (Nasdaq:PDINX) (Nasdaq:PSIBX)
(Nasdaq:PDVCX) (Nasdaq:PDVMX)
Putnam Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq:PEYAX) (Nasdaq:PEQNX)
(Nasdaq:PEQCX)
(Nasdaq:PEIMX)
Putnam Europe Equity Fund (Nasdaq:PEUGX) (Nasdaq:PEUBX)
(Nasdaq:PEUMX)
Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PTFLX)
(Nasdaq:PFLBX)
Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Nasdaq:PGRWX) (Nasdaq:PGIBX)
(Nasdaq:PGRIX) (Nasdaq:PGRMX)
George Putnam Fund of Boston (Nasdaq:PGEOX) (Nasdaq:PGEBX)
(Nasdaq:PGPCX) (Nasdaq:PGEMX)
Putnam Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:PEQUX) (Nasdaq:PEQBX)
(Nasdaq:PUGCX)
(Nasdaq:PEQMX)
Putnam Global Income Trust (Nasdaq:PGGIX) (Nasdaq:PGLBX)
(Nasdaq:PGGMX)
Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (Nasdaq:EBERX)
(Nasdaq:PNRBX)
(Nasdaq:PGLMX)
Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:POGAX) (Nasdaq:POGBX)
(Nasdaq:POGCX) (Nasdaq:PGOMX)
Putnam Health Sciences Trust (Nasdaq:PHSTX) (Nasdaq:PHSBX)
(Nasdaq:PCHSX)
(Nasdaq:PHLMX)
Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (Nasdaq:PHYIX) (Nasdaq:PHYBX)
(Nasdaq:PHYMX)
Putnam High Yield Trust (Nasdaq:PHIGX) (Nasdaq:PHBBX)
(Nasdaq:PCHYX)
(Nasdaq:PHIMX)
Putnam Income Fund (Nasdaq:PINCX) (Nasdaq:PNCBX) (Nasdaq:PUICX)
(Nasdaq:PNCMX)
Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund (Nasdaq:PBLGX)
(Nasdaq:PBGBX) (Nasdaq:PVICX)
Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:PNVAX)
(Nasdaq:PVNBX)
(Nasdaq:PUVCX) (Nasdaq:PIVMX)
Putnam International Equity Fund (Nasdaq:POVSX) (Nasdaq:POVBX)
(Nasdaq:PIGCX) (Nasdaq:POVMX)
Putnam International Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:PNGAX)
(Nasdaq:PGNBX)
(Nasdaq:PIGRX) (Nasdaq:PIGMX)
Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:PINOX)
(Nasdaq:PINWX)
(Nasdaq:PIOCX) (Nasdaq:PINMX)
Putnam Investors Fund (Nasdaq:PINVX) (Nasdaq:PNVBX)
(Nasdaq:PCINX)
(Nasdaq:PNVMX)
Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PXMAX)
(Nasdaq:PMABX)
Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PXIMX)
(Nasdaq:PMEBX)
Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:PMVAX)(Nasdaq:PMVBX)
(Nasdaq:PMPCX)
Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PXMNX)
(Nasdaq:PMTBX)
Putnam Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:PDDXX) (Nasdaq:PTBXX)
(Nasdaq:PFCXX)
(Nasdaq:PTMXX)
Putnam Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq:PTFHX) (Nasdaq:PFHBX)
(Nasdaq:PMUMX)
Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PTNJX)
(Nasdaq:PNJBX)
Putnam New Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:PNOPX) (Nasdaq:PNOBX)
(Nasdaq:PNOMX)
Putnam New Value Fund (Nasdaq:PANVX) (Nasdaq:PBNVX)
(Nasdaq:PNVCX)
(Nasdaq:PMNVX)
Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PTEIX)
(Nasdaq:PEIBX)
Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:PTNHX)
(Nasdaq:PTNBX) (Nasdaq:PNYMX)
Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:POEGX) (Nasdaq:POTBX)
(Nasdaq:POEXC) (Nasdaq:POEMX)
Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PHOHX)
(Nasdaq:POXBX)
Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PTEPX)
(Nasdaq:PPNBX)
Putnam Research Fund (Nasdaq:PNRAX) (Nasdaq:PRFBX)
(Nasdaq:PRACX)
Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:PNSAX)
Putnam Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:PSLAX) (Nasdaq:PSLBX)
(Nasdaq:PSLCX) (Nasdaq:PSLMX)
Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq:PTAEX) (Nasdaq:PTBEX)
(Nasdaq:PTXMX)
Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:PTXXX)
Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund (Nasdaq:PATSX) (Nasdaq:PBTSX)
(Nasdaq:PCSMX)
Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:PTHAX) (Nasdaq:PTHYX)
(Nasdaq:PTYMX)
Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund (Nasdaq:PPNAX) (Nasdaq:PTFIX)
Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust (Nasdaq:PGSIX)
(Nasdaq:PGSBX)
(Nasdaq:PGVCX) (Nasdaq:PGSMX)
Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:PUGIX)
(Nasdaq:PUTBX)
(Nasdaq:PUTMX)
Putnam Vista Fund (Nasdaq:PVISX) (Nasdaq:PVTBX) (Nasdaq:PCVFX)
(Nasdaq:PVIMX)
Putnam Voyager Fund (Nasdaq:PVOYX) (Nasdaq:PVOBX)
(Nasdaq:PVFCX)
(Nasdaq:PVOMX
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Putnam Funds, that provided financial incentives and
rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The complaint
alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices created an
insurmountable conflict of interest by providing substantial
monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to their clients,
even though such investments were not in the clients' best
interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives constituted
violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
UBS-AG: Murray Frank Lodges NY Fraud Suit Over Van Kampen Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased Van Kampen
Funds from UBS-AG ("UBS"), from May 1, 2000 through April 30,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1993 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Van Kampen Funds
named below, are as follows:
VAGAX Van Kampen Aggressive Growth A
VAGBX Van Kampen Aggressive Growth B
VAGCX Van Kampen Aggressive Growth C
VAGDX Van Kampen Aggressive Growth I
MSAIX Van Kampen America Value Fund Class I
VAFAX Van Kampen American Franchise Fund Class A
VAFBX Van Kampen American Franchise Fund Class B
VAFCX Van Kampen American Franchise Fund Class C
VAFIX Van Kampen American Franchise Fund Class I
MSAVX Van Kampen American Value A
MGAVX Van Kampen American Value B
MSVCX Van Kampen American Value C
VKCIX Van Kampen CA Insured Tax-Free A
VCIBX Van Kampen CA Insured Tax-Free B
VCICX Van Kampen CA Insured Tax-Free C
VCIIX Van Kampen California Insured Tax Free Fund Class
I
ACSTX Van Kampen Comstock A
ACSWX Van Kampen Comstock B
ACSYX Van Kampen Comstock C
ACSDX Van Kampen Comstock I
ACSRX Van Kampen Comstock R
ACCBX Van Kampen Corporate Bond A
ACCDX Van Kampen Corporate Bond B
ACCEX Van Kampen Corporate Bond C
ACCHX Van Kampen Corporate Bond Fund Class I
ACEGX Van Kampen Emerging Growth A
ACEMX Van Kampen Emerging Growth B
ACEFX Van Kampen Emerging Growth C
ACEDX Van Kampen Emerging Growth I
ACEEX Van Kampen Emerging Growth R
MSRAX Van Kampen Emerging Markets A
MSRBX Van Kampen Emerging Markets B
MSRCX Van Kampen Emerging Markets C
MSRIX Van Kampen Emerging Markets Fund Class I
ACENX Van Kampen Enterprise A
ACEOX Van Kampen Enterprise B
ACEPX Van Kampen Enterprise C
ACEUX Van Kampen Enterprise Fund Class I
ACEIX Van Kampen Equity and Income A
ACEQX Van Kampen Equity and Income B
ACERX Van Kampen Equity and Income C
ACETX Van Kampen Equity and Income I
ACESX Van Kampen Equity and Income R
VEGAX Van Kampen Equity Growth A
VEGBX Van Kampen Equity Growth B
VEGCX Van Kampen Equity Growth C
VEGIX Van Kampen Equity Growth Fund Class I
ACEHX Van Kampen Exchange
MIMCX VAN KAMPEN FUND INTERNATIONAL M
MSGAX Van Kampen Global Equity Alloc A
MSGBX Van Kampen Global Equity Alloc B
MSGCX Van Kampen Global Equity Alloc C
MSGDX Van Kampen Global Equity Allocation Fund Class I
VGFAX Van Kampen Global Franchise A
VGFBX Van Kampen Global Franchise B
VGFCX Van Kampen Global Franchise C
VGFIX Van Kampen Global Franchise Fund Class I
MGEAX Van Kampen Global Value Equity A
MGEBX Van Kampen Global Value Equity B
MGECX Van Kampen Global Value Equity C
MGEDX Van Kampen Global Value Equity Fund Class I
ACGVX Van Kampen Government Securities A
ACGTX Van Kampen Government Securities B
ACGSX Van Kampen Government Securities C
ACGUX Van Kampen Government Securities Fund Class I
ACGIX Van Kampen Growth and Income A
ACGJX Van Kampen Growth and Income B
ACGKX Van Kampen Growth and Income C
ACGMX Van Kampen Growth and Income I
ACGLX Van Kampen Growth and Income R
ACHBX Van Kampen Harbor A
ACHAX Van Kampen Harbor B
ACHCX Van Kampen Harbor C
ACHIX Van Kampen Harbor I
ACHYX Van Kampen High Yield A
ACHZX Van Kampen High Yield B
ACHWX Van Kampen High Yield C
VKHYX VAN KAMPEN HIGH YIELD FD A
VHYBX VAN KAMPEN HIGH YIELD FUND CL B
VHYCX VAN KAMPEN HIGH YIELD FUND CL C
ACHVX Van Kampen High Yield I
ACTDX Van Kampen High Yield Municipal Fund Class I
ACTHX Van Kampen High-Yield Municipal A
ACTGX Van Kampen High-Yield Municipal B
ACTFX Van Kampen High-Yield Municipal C
VMTIX Van Kampen Insured Tax Free Fund Class I
VKMTX Van Kampen Insured Tax-Free Inc A
VMTBX Van Kampen Insured Tax-Free Inc B
VMTCX Van Kampen Insured Tax-Free Inc C
VKLMX Van Kampen Interm-Term Muni A
VKLBX Van Kampen Interm-Term Muni B
VKLCX Van Kampen Interm-Term Muni C
VKLIX Van Kampen Intermediate Term Municipal Income
Fund Class I
VKIAX Van Kampen International Advantage A
VKIBX Van Kampen International Advantage B
VKICX Van Kampen International Advantage C
VKIIX Van Kampen International Advantage Fund Class I
MIMAX VAN KAMPEN INTERNATIONAL MAGNUM
MSNBX VAN KAMPEN INTERNATIONAL MAGNUM
ACFMX Van Kampen Limited Duration A
ACFTX Van Kampen Limited Duration B
ACFWX Van Kampen Limited Duration C
ACFYX Van Kampen Limited Duration Fund Class I
VGRAX Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth A
VGRBX Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth B
VGRCX Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth C
VGRDX Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth Fund Class I
VKMMX Van Kampen Municipal Income A
VMIBX Van Kampen Municipal Income B
VMICX Van Kampen Municipal Income C
VMIIX Van Kampen Municipal Income Fund Class I
VNYDX Van Kampen New York Tax Free Income Fund Class I
VNYAX Van Kampen NY Tax-Free Income A
VBNYX Van Kampen NY Tax-Free Income B
VNYCX Van Kampen NY Tax-Free Income C
VKMPX Van Kampen PA Tax-Free Income A
VKPAX Van Kampen PA Tax-Free Income B
VKPCX Van Kampen PA Tax-Free Income C
ACPAX Van Kampen Pace A
ACPBX Van Kampen Pace B
ACPCX Van Kampen Pace C
ACPDX Van Kampen Pace Fund Class I
VKPIX Van Kampen Pennsylvania Tax Free Income Fd Class I
ACREX Van Kampen Real Estate Secs A
ACRBX Van Kampen Real Estate Secs B
ACRCX Van Kampen Real Estate Secs C
ACRDX Van Kampen Real Estate Securities Fund Class I
VSGAX Van Kampen Select Growth A
VBSGX Van Kampen Select Growth B
VSGCX Van Kampen Select Growth C
VBSIX Van Kampen Select Growth Fund Class I
VSLAX Van Kampen Senior Loan Fund Class A
VSLBX Van Kampen Senior Loan Fund Class B
VSLCX Van Kampen Senior Loan Fund Class C
XPRTX Van Kampen Senior Loan IB
XSLCX Van Kampen Senior Loan IC
VASCX Van Kampen Small Cap Growth A
VBSCX Van Kampen Small Cap Growth B
VCSCX Van Kampen Small Cap Growth C
VISCX Van Kampen Small Cap Growth Fund Class I
VSCAX Van Kampen Small Cap Value A
VSMBX Van Kampen Small Cap Value B
VSMCX Van Kampen Small Cap Value C
VSMIX Van Kampen Small Cap Value Class I
VKMHX Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Inc A
VKTFX Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Inc B
VMHCX Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Inc C
VMHIX Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Income Fd Class I
VTFAX Van Kampen Technology A
VTFBX Van Kampen Technology B
VTFCX Van Kampen Technology C
VTFIX Van Kampen Technology Fund Class I
VKMGX Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage A
VUSBX Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage B
VUSCX Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage C
VUSIX Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage Fund Class I
VKUAX Van Kampen Utility A
VKUBX Van Kampen Utility B
VKUCX Van Kampen Utility C
VKUIX Van Kampen Utility Fund Class I
VVOAX Van Kampen Value Opportunities A
VVOBX Van Kampen Value Opportunities B
VVOCX Van Kampen Value Opportunities C
VVOIX Van Kampen Value Opportunities I
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
served as financial advisors who purportedly provided unbiased
and honest investment advice to their clients. Unbeknownst to
investors, defendants, in clear contravention of their
disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities, failed to
properly disclose that they had engaged in a scheme to
aggressively push UBS sales personnel to steer clients into
purchasing certain UBS Funds and UBS Tier I Funds, which
included Van Kampen Funds, that provided financial incentives
and rewards to UBS and its personnel based on sales. The
complaint alleges that defendants' undisclosed sales practices
created an insurmountable conflict of interest by providing
substantial monetary incentives to sell Shelf-Space Funds to
their clients, even though such investments were not in the
clients' best interest. UBS' failure to disclose the incentives
constituted violations of federal securities laws.
The action also includes a subclass of persons who held any
shares of UBS Mutual Funds. The complaint additionally alleges
that the investment advisor subsidiary of UBS, UBS Global Asset
Management created further undisclosed material conflicts of
interest by entering into revenue sharing agreements with UBS
financial Advisors to push investors into UBS proprietary funds,
regardless of whether such investments were in the investors'
best interests. The investment advisors financed these
arrangements by illegally charging excessive and improper fees
to the fund that should have been invested in the underlying
portfolio. In doing so they breached their fiduciary duties to
investors under the Investment Company Act and state law and
decreased shareholders' investment returns.
The action includes a second subclass of persons who purchased a
UBS Financial Plan that held Tier I mutual funds. The UBS
Financial Plans include, but are not limited to UBS Personalized
Asset Consulting and Evaluation Plan, InsightOne accounts,
and/or a resource management accounts.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Christopher Hinton or
Bradley P. Dyer of MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER, LLP, Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, Fax: (212) 682-1892, E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com, Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com.
WORLD HEALTH: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of World
Health Alternatives, Inc. ("World Health" or the "Company")
(OTCBB: WHAIE) securities between June 26, 2003 and August 19,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning World
Health's financial results and business prospects. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that World Health failed to disclose that:
(1) there were recording discrepancies in the amount of the
Company's shares outstanding;
(2) the Company was manipulating financial statement
recognition of a convertible debenture and warrant
agreement associated with the Company's preferred
stock;
(3) the Company had underpaid certain tax liabilities in
excess of $4 million;
(4) the Company was submitting irregular reports to the
Company's lenders that resulted in excess funding under
the Company's lending arrangements of approximately
$6.5 million; and
(5) therefore, defendants' opinions and statements
concerning the Company's current and future earnings
lacked a reasonable basis at all times.
As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.
For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. or Beth A.
Keller, Esq. of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th St., New
York, NY 10016, Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, E-mail:
Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or Bkeller@faruqilaw.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 * * *