/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050927.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 27, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 191 Headlines ACRES GAMING: NV Court Considers Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit AGWAY INC.: NJ-Based Investors Sue Former Executives, Auditors ALABAMA: Court Orders Return of $4.3M in Contempt Fines to State AVERY DENNISON: Continues To Face PA Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger AVERY DENNISON: CA Court OKs Stay of Securities Fraud Lawsuits AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Label Stock Antitrust Lawsuits AVERY DENNISON: Pamco Tape Drops Antitrust Lawsuit V. UPM Merger AVERY DENNISON: Faces Lawsuit For ERISA Violations in C.D. CA BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Suit Alleges That Company Misled Investors CALIFORNIA: Men Launch Suit V. City Over Public Strip Searches CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: Judge Rejects Request to Notify Consumers CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits CERNER CORPORATION: Appeals Court Mulls Appeal of Suit Dismissal DUDUESNE LIGHT: Reaches $12M Securities Fraud Settlement in PA FINOVA CAPITAL: Enters Mediation For SC Thaxton Entities Suits GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: PA Court Certifies Shareholder Fraud Suit HORIZON HEALTH: Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA State Court ILLINI CORPORATION: Ousted Trial Attorney To Appeal IL Suit Pact ILX RESORTS: AZ Court OKs Unfair Trade Practices Suit Settlement LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in OR LOUISIANA: Attorneys Sue Oil Firms, Blames Them For Devastation NASHUA CORPORATION: Court Mulls Summary Judgment, Certification NORTH CAROLINA: Settlement Proposed For Tobacco Farmers' Suit ORANGE 21: Shareholders Launch Investor Fraud Suits in S.D. CA PENTAIR INC.: Working To Settle M/V Horizon Disease Litigation SEITEL INC.: TX Court Approves Shareholder Fraud Suit Settlement SOURCECORP INC.: Shareholders Commence Fraud Suit in N.D. Texas SPORT CHALET: Reaches Settlement For CA Labor Violations Lawsuit SPORT CHALET: Shareholders Launch Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE TITAN CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 2, 2005 WHITE ELECTRONIC: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit WILD OATS: Canada Court Approves Hepatitis Victims' Settlement WILD OATS: Trial in CA Overtime Wage Suit Set On October 2005 New Securities Fraud Cases ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in OH ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges OH Securities Suit DHB INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY ISOLAGEN INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Finkelstein Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Fraud Suit in NY Over AIM Mutual Funds UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Columbia Mutual Funds UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Hartford Mutual Funds UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files NY Suit Over John Hancock Mutual Funds UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Lord Abbett Mutual Funds UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Pioneer Mutual Funds UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Scudder Mutual Funds UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Van Kampen Mutual Funds WORLD HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA ********* ACRES GAMING: NV Court Considers Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clark County, Nevada District Court has yet to rule on International Game Technology, Inc.'s and Acres Gaming Incorporated's motion for the dismissal the third amended complaint filed against them, designated as Case No. 470016. The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger transaction between Acres and the Company and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among other forms of relief. On September 19, 2003, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger. On September 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on September 25, 2003. The plaintiff's action also seeks damages. On December 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On April 29, 2004, the Court issued a ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On May 12, 2004 the Court issued an order denying defendants motion to dismiss. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties on August 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion. The suit is styled "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, case no. P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court under Judge Michelle Leavitt. Lawyer for lead plaintiff Paul Miller is Ike L. Epstein, while lawyer for the defendants is Paul R. Hejmanowski. The other defendants named in the suit are: (1) Floyd W. Glisson (2) Todd L. Bice (3) Roger B. Hammock (4) Richard Furash (5) David R. Willensky (6) Robert W. Brown (7) Ronald G. Bennett AGWAY INC.: NJ-Based Investors Sue Former Executives, Auditors -------------------------------------------------------------- Eight investors launched a lawsuit against two of Agway Inc.'s former executives and its auditors, alleging that they misled investors by not disclosing the farm cooperative's financial problems, The Syracuse Post Standard reports. The investors, who are all New Jersey residents that purchased more than $545,000 in money market certificates from Agway between September 21, 2000 and September 30, 2002, filed the suit in New York's Supreme Court in Onondaga County. They are the court to let the matter go forward as a class action lawsuit and award an unspecified amount in damages. The investors named as plaintiffs in the case are the estate of Barbara Pew, John Pew Jr., Harold Pew, Donna Pew, H. Nancy Hann, Julia Hudasky and Kathleen Prickett. According to the complaint, at a time when it was insolvent, Agway continued to sell millions of dollars of new money market certificates to pay off money market certificates that were coming due. It described this as a "Ponzi" scheme, where money from new investors was used to pay off earlier investors to keep the operation afloat until it became mired in debt. The suit names as defendants Donald Cardarelli, former Agway chief executive officer; Peter J. O'Neill, former Agway chief financial officer; and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an accounting firm that audited Agway's books. Once the largest farm cooperative in the country, the Syracuse, New York-based Agway filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in October 2002 and subsequently sold off its businesses bit by bit. ALABAMA: Court Orders Return of $4.3M in Contempt Fines to State ---------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court ordered the return of $4.3 million in contempt fines stemming from the case of Reynolds v. State Department of Transportation to the state of Alabama, according to Attorney General Troy King, The Decatur Daily reports. Filed in 1985 by the late Johnny Reynolds against DOT, his employer, the original suit had alleged that the department did not promote him because he was black. Others later joined the suit, which gained class action status. According to the attorney general's office, it remains one of Alabama's oldest active court cases and has cost the state more than $250 million in settlements, fines, legal fees and other costs. Ruling that it had been impossible for the state to comply with requirements of the 1994 consent decree that resulted in the fines, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ordered the refund, Mr. King's office said. Mr. King noted that the refund is "another important step" in resolving the suit and he is optimistic about "bringing this matter to a conclusion for the good of the taxpayers of Alabama." The suit is styled, Johnny Reynolds, et al., V. Alabama Department of Transportation, et al., Civil Action No. 85-T-665- N, which is pending in the united States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. AVERY DENNISON: Continues To Face PA Suit V. UPM-MACtac Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Avery Dennison Corporation continues to face a purported class action filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, related to the proposed merger of UPM- Kymmene (UPM) and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc. (Bemis). The Department of Justice filed a complaint, on the basis of its belief that in certain aspects of the label stock industry "the competitors have sought to coordinate rather than compete." On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, UPM, Bemis and certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices, essentially repeating the underlying allegations of the DOJ Merger Complaint. Ten similar complaints were filed in various federal district courts. In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and consolidated for pretrial purposes. On January 21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed its complaint, leaving a total of ten named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on February 16, 2004, which the Company answered on March 31, 2004. On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to class certification and merits discovery, and limited the initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness of class certification. The suit is styled "Sentry Business Products, Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation, et al., case no. 3:03-cv-01999-TIV," filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, under Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie. Representing the plaintiffs is Stewart M. Weltman of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 39 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-357-0370, E-mail: sweltman@cmht.com. Representing the Company are Joshua N. Holian and J. Thomas Rosch, of Latham & Watkins LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-646-8343, Fax: 415-395-8095, E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com or Tom.Rosch@lw.com. AVERY DENNISON: CA Court OKs Stay of Securities Fraud Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Central District of California approved parties' stipulation to stay the securities class action filed against Avery Dennison Corporation, its chief executive officer Philip M. Neal, chief financial officer D. R. O'Bryant and controller Michael A. Skovran. On May 6, 2003, Sekuk Global Enterprises filed a purported stockholder class action seeking damages and other relief for alleged disclosure violations pertaining to alleged unlawful competitive practices. Subsequently, another similar action was filed in the same court. On September 24, 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel and ordered the two actions consolidated as the "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities Litigation." Pursuant to court order and the parties' stipulation, plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004. The court approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing date in June 2004. In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the consolidated action, including the proposed briefing schedule, pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged anticompetitive conduct by the Company. The court has approved the parties' stipulation to stay the consolidated actions. There has been no discovery and no trial date has been set. The suit is styled "Sekuk Global Ent, et al v. Avery Dennison Corp, et al., case no. 2:03-cv-03175-NM-FMO," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Nora M. Manella. Representing the Company is William J. Meeske of Latham & Watkins, 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007, Phone: 213-891-8108, E-mail: bill.meeske@lw.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Peter A. Binkow, Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy & Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150 (2) Richard A. Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz, Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706 (3) David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Rd, Ste 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7263, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com or srudman@lerachlaw.com AVERY DENNISON: Continues to Face Label Stock Antitrust Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avery Dennison faces several class actions filed on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock in various state courts. The suits also name as defendants, UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac. On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock, seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices. Three similar complaints were filed in various California courts. In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be coordinated for pretrial purposes. The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004. On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock, seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices. Three similar complaints were filed in various California courts. In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the California Judicial Council ordered the cases be coordinated for pretrial purposes. The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30, 2004. A further similar complaint was filed in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona on November 6, 2003. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Arizona complaint without prejudice on October 4, 2004. On January 21, 2005, American International Distribution Corporation filed a purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Superior Court for Chittenden County, Vermont. Similar actions were filed by Webtego on February 16, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and by D.R. Ward Construction Co. on February 17, 2005, in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On February 17, 2005, Judy Benson filed a purported multi-state class action on behalf of indirect purchasers in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. AVERY DENNISON: Pamco Tape Drops Antitrust Lawsuit V. UPM Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed a class action it filed against Avery Dennison Corporation, Bemis Co., Inc., UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac, on behalf of direct purchasers in California of self-adhesive label stock. The suit, filed in June 2005, seeking actual damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices, related to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene (UPM) and the Morgan Adhesives (MACtac) division of Bemis Co., Inc. (Bemis). The suit is similar to the Department of Justice's complaint, which alleges that in certain aspects of the label stock industry "the competitors have sought to coordinate rather than compete." AVERY DENNISON: Faces Lawsuit For ERISA Violations in C.D. CA ------------------------------------------------------------- Avery Dennison Corporation faces a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The suit also names as defendants its chief executive officer Philip M. Neal, Karyn Rodriguez (VP and Treasurer) and James Bochinski (VP, Compensation and Benefits). Ronald E. Dancer filed the suit on May 18, 2005, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA to the Company's Employee Savings Plan and Plan participants. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that permitting investment in and retention of Company Common Stock under the Plan was imprudent because of alleged anticompetitive activities by the Company, and that failure to disclose such activities to the Plan and participants was unlawful. Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to compensate the Plan for any losses and other relief. The parties have stipulated to transfer the case to the judge in the consolidated case, "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities Litigation" referenced above. The suit is styled "Ronald Dancer v. Avery Dennison Corporation et al., case no. 2:05-cv-03708-NM-FMO," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Nora M. Manella. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Wayne T. Boulton, Robert A. Izard, Andrew M. Schatz, Schatz and Nobel, 20 Church Street, 17th Floor, Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-493-6292, E-mail: wboulton@snlaw.net or firm@snlaw.net (2) Michael D. Braun, Marc L. Godino, Braun Law Group, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920, Los Angeles, CA 90025, Phone: 310-442-7755, E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com (3) Joseph Gentile, Ronnen Sarraf, Sarraf Gentile, 485 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10018, Phone: 212-868- 3610, E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Suit Alleges That Company Misled Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was launched against Biovail Corporation in Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging that the drug maker made a "series of false and materially misleading statements" about its business and financial position between February 7, 2003, and March 3, 2004, The Globe and Mail reports. In a statement of claim, the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan said it sustained losses of about $481,000 from a series of stock purchases during the 13-month period because it relied on statements made by the company and four executives. Though none of the allegations have been proven in court, the suit seeks $100-million in damages and named former chairman and chief executive officer Eugene Melnyk, senior vice- president Brian Crombie, and vice-presidents John Miszuk and Ken Howling as defendants. In its statement of claims, the pension plan revealed that it purchased a total of 231,000 shares of Biovail in six transactions on the Toronto Stock Exchange in August and October of 2003 at prices ranging from $55.09 in August to $33.93 in October. It also sold 5,200 shares at $31.42 a share in October 2003. Additionally, the plan said in its statement of claim that Biovail's stock price in 2003 and early 2004 depended on two drugs: hypertensive Cardizem LA, which was launched on April 2, 2003, and antidepressant Wellbutrin XL, which was launched in the third quarter of 2003. However, sales of Cardizem LA failed to achieve forecast levels, and in the third quarter of 2003, the company posted an 83-per- cent drop in profit, well below an earlier warning, which was prompted by a trucking accident and the value of Wellbutrin XL lost in the crash. Biovail's fourth-quarter financial results also fell short of expectations. As a result, the company was also hit by several class action claims in the United States. CALIFORNIA: Men Launch Suit V. City Over Public Strip Searches -------------------------------------------------------------- Three men who say Oakland police conducted strip searches of them in public for no reason filed a federal class action lawsuit against the city of Oakland, The Associated Press reports. In their suit, Darnell Foster, Rafael Duarte and Yancie Young claimed that officers exposed and inspected their buttocks on busy Oakland streets in separate incidents from 2003 to 2005. According to the suit, an officer exposed Mr. Duarte's buttocks near 62nd and Baker streets in North Oakland nearly a year after an outside report highlighted problems with strip searches by Oakland police. CARDSYSTEMS SOLUTIONS: Judge Rejects Request to Notify Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------------- A San Francisco judge rejected a request that Visa and MasterCard be required to notify consumers whose personal information were exposed to potential fraud in a highly publicized security breakdown at CardSystems Solutions Inc., one of the nation's largest payment processors, The Consumer Affairs reports. As he refused to issue an order requiring the credit card associations to inform customers vulnerable to identity theft because of the data theft, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer stated, "I don't see the emergency." In addition, Judge Kramer also said that he did not see "an immediate threat of irreparable injury." Initially disclosed by MasterCard three months ago, the breach, which according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, was the largest of more than 70 consumer information security breaches reported in the past seven months, exposed up to 40 million credit and debit card accounts to potential abuse between August 2004 and May 2005, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 26, 2005) reports. The order had been sought under a pioneering state law that requires consumers to be alerted whenever personal information stored on computers is lost, stolen or breached. The ruling was a major setback for a class action suit filed on behalf of California consumers by attorney Ira Rothken of San Rafael. The lawsuit alleges that Cardsystems Solutions, Merrick Bank, Visa and MasterCard have violated their duty to timely and properly inform consumers of the nature and degree of the alleged security breach. The suit claims that these violations constitute "unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices" under California's Unfair Competition Law. Visa and MasterCard argued that the responsibility of notifying the consumers of the breach should fall to the banks that administer the accounts since neither credit card association has direct relationships with the affected customers, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 26, 2005) reports. Additionally, the associations pointed out that consumers face little financial risk because of the cards' zero liability policy in fraud cases. Under federal law, credit card holders are liable for no more than $50 of unauthorized charges, and many card issuers will waive the $50 in circumstances such as these. They also pointed out that the chances of identity theft are minimal since customers' Social Security numbers and home addresses were not exposed in the CardSystems breech. The associations argued that if customers were told their account information had been stolen, they might request new cards, at a cost to Visa and MasterCard of about $35 per customer. MasterCard's attorney further argued that customers had already been notified by the widespread publicity given to the mid-June disclosure of the security breech. For more details, visit http://www.techfirm.com/cardsystems.pdf. The suit is styled, Eric Parke, et al. v. CardSystems Solutions, Inc., Case No. CGC-05-442624, which is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. Ira P. Rothken of the Rothken Law Firm, 1050 borthgate Dr., Suite 520, San Rafael, CA 94903, Phone: (415) 924-4250, Fax: (415) 924-2905; and Stan S. Mallison and Hector R. Martinez of the law Offices of Mallison & Martinez, 1042 Brown Ave., Suite A, Lafayette, CA 94549, Phone: (925) 283-3842, Fax: (925) 283-3426, are representing the Plaintiff/s. CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Centennial Communications Corporation faces several lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged, depending on the case, breach of contract, misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating to its billing practices, including rounding up of partial minutes of use to full-minute increments, billing send to end, and billing for unanswered and dropped calls. The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific monetary damages and are seeking certification as a class action. A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held on September 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana. Subsequent to such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and the plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class action status in December 2004. The decision of the court with respect to class certification is still pending. CERNER CORPORATION: Appeals Court Mulls Appeal of Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against Cerner Corporation and five of its officers. In April 2003, several class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. All of these lawsuits were filed after a decline in the Company's stock price following the Company's announcement on April 3, 2003 that the Company would not meet revenue and earnings estimates for the first quarter of 2003. On August 20, 2003, the Court ordered that all of the lawsuits be consolidated under Case No. 03-CV-00296-DW and appointed Phil Crabtree as Lead Plaintiff. On December 1, 2003, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. In general, the consolidated complaint alleges that, during a class period commencing as of July 17, 2002 and ending April 2, 2003, the Company and individually named defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege impacted the Company's business and anticipated revenue and earnings, all allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. On June 16, 2004 the Court granted the Company's and the individual defendants' Motion to Dismiss and ordered the Consolidated Class Action Complaint dismissed with prejudice against re-filing. On June 30, 2004, the Lead Plaintiff appealed the District Court's dismissal of the action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The parties filed their appellate briefs and the issues were argued before the Eighth Circuit on January 13, 2005. The matter is now submitted to the Eighth Circuit for decision but the Company does not know when the Court of Appeals will rule on the appeal. The suit is styled "Campagnuola v. Cerner Corporation et al., case no. 4:03-cv-00296-DW," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, under Judge Dean Whipple. Representing the Company are Theresa L. Davis, David H. Kristenbroker and Pamela G. Smith of Katten, Muchin & Rosenman, LLP, 525 West Monroe Street, Chicago, IL 60661-3693, Phone: (312) 902-5206, Fax: (312)577-4725, E-mail: theresa.davis@kmzr.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) James M. Evangelista, Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: (404) 607-6871, Fax: (404)876-4476, E-mail: jevangelista@chitwoodlaw.com (2) Stuart J. Guber, 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900 (3) Don R. Lolli, Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle, PC, 4420 Madison Avenue, Kansas City, MO 641111, Phone: (816)931-2700, Fax: (816)931-7377, E-mail: dlolli@dysarttaylor.com DUDUESNE LIGHT: Reaches $12M Securities Fraud Settlement in PA -------------------------------------------------------------- DQE, which is now known as Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. and a group of shareholders reached a tentative $12 million settlement of a securities fraud class action lawsuit, The Scranton Times reports. The investors alleged that the company and former chairman, president and chief executive officer David Marshall made false or misleading statements about the company's finances and outlook. Under the settlement, shareholders who bought more than 11 million shares between December 6, 2000, and April 30, 2001, will each receive about $1.07 per share. A hearing has been scheduled for October 7 in U.S. District Court for final approval of the settlement. The suit is styled, In re DQE, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-1851 (WLS), which is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Richard H. Weiss, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300; James E. Tullman, Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025 or 1-800-437-7918, Fax: 212-682-3010, E-mail: wyinfo@wyca.com; and J. Allen Carney of Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC, 11311 Arcade Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212, Phone: (501) 312-8500 or (888) 551-9944, Fax: (501) 312-8505, are representing the Plaintiff/s. Joseph N. Sacca, Esq. of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, Four Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-735-2358, Fax: 917-777-2358, E-mail: jsacca@skadden.com, represents the Defendant. FINOVA CAPITAL: Enters Mediation For SC Thaxton Entities Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- FINOVA Capital Corporation entered court mediation for the lawsuits filed against it over its loan to The Thaxton Group, Inc. and several related entities in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Under its loan agreement, FINOVA has a senior secured loan to the Thaxton Entities of approximately $108 million at September 30, 2004. The Thaxton Entities were declared in default under their loan agreement with FINOVA after they advised FINOVA that they would have to restate earnings for the first two fiscal quarters of 2003, and had suspended payments on their subordinated notes. As a result of the default, FINOVA exercised its rights under the loan agreement, and accelerated the indebtedness. The Thaxton Entities then filed a petition for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on October 17, 2003, listing assets of approximately $206 million and debts of $242 million. The first lawsuit, a complaint captioned "Earle B. Gregory, et al, v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, James T. Garrett, et al.," was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, South Carolina, case no. 2003-CP-29-967, and was served on FINOVA on October 17, 2003. An amended complaint was served on November 5, 2003, prior to the deadline for FINOVA to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the original complaint. The Gregory action was properly removed to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on November 17, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 1452. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, but the U.S. District Court denied this motion in an order dated December 18, 2003. The second Thaxton-related complaint, captioned "Tom Moore, Anna Nunnery, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. 8:03- 372413 ("Moore")," was filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on November 25, 2003, and was served on FINOVA on December 2, 2003. The third complaint, captioned "Sam Jones Wood and Kathy Annette Wood, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP," was filed in the Superior Court for Gwinnett County, Georgia, case no. 03-A13343-B, and was served on FINOVA on December 9, 2003. FINOVA properly removed the Wood action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta Division) on January 5, 2004. The fourth complaint, captioned "Grant Hall and Ruth Ann Hall, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case no. 03CVS20572," ("Hall") was filed in the Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, Superior Court, and was also served on FINOVA on December 9, 2003. FINOVA properly removed the Hall action to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte Division) on January 5, 2004. The fifth complaint, captioned "Charles Shope, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. C 204022 ("Shope")," was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and was served on FINOVA on January 13, 2004. Each of the five Thaxton-related lawsuits are styled as class actions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain defined classes of people who had purchased subordinated notes from the Thaxton Entities. The complaints by the subordinated noteholders allege claims of fraud, securities fraud, and various other civil conspiracy and business torts in the sale of the subordinated notes. Each of the complaints seeks an unspecified amount of damages, among other remedies. In addition to FINOVA, the complaints each name as co-defendants Thaxton's accountants and attorneys, and in the Gregory case, several officers of the Thaxton Entities. Upon motion by FINOVA to the United States Judicial Panel for MultiDistrict Litigation (Docket 1612), all five Thaxton-related actions were transferred on June 18, 2004 to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. A court-ordered mediation regarding the securities litigation was held the first week of August 2005. No resolution of the litigation was realized at the meeting. GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: PA Court Certifies Shareholder Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania granted class certification to the lawsuit filed against GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. by two employees of one of its former subsidiaries, seeking damages, declaratory relief and certification of a class action relating primarily to their GTC stock options. The claims arose as a result of the sale of Primedica Corporation to Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. in February 2001, which the Company believe resulted in the termination of Primedica employees' status as employees of GTC or its affiliates and the termination of their stock options. The plaintiffs contend that the sale of Primedica to Charles River did not constitute a termination of their employment with the Company or its affiliates for purposes of our equity incentive plan and, therefore, that the Company breached its contractual obligations to them and other Primedica employees who had not exercised their stock options. The complaint demands damages in excess of $5 million, plus interest. The Court has certified the case as a class action, with the class including employees of Primedica who, at the time GTC sold it, had GTC options that had not been exercised. The Company filed an answer denying all material allegations in the complaint, and is vigorously defending the case. HORIZON HEALTH: Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Health Corporation is a party to a lawsuit styled "Jeanine Phillips, on behalf of herself and all others simultaneously situated v. ProCare One Nurses, LLC, Obstetrical Nurses, Inc. and Horizon Health Corporation, Case Number 030000425," pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. The complaint alleges various violations of California wage and hour laws and seeks the recovery of substantial amounts for wages, fines, penalties and attorneys fees. The case is filed as a private attorney general action under Section 17200 of the California Business and Profession Code. The Company considers that it is entitled to indemnity from Obstetrical Nurses, Inc., a predecessor to ProCare One Nurses, LLC for liability relating to a portion of the claims and has asserted a claim for Indemnity in a separate lawsuit. The parties are engaged in discovery proceedings. The case is filed as a class action, but the court has not yet ruled on a motion for class certification. ILLINI CORPORATION: Ousted Trial Attorney To Appeal IL Suit Pact ---------------------------------------------------------------- The removed trial attorney from the shareholder class action filed against Illini Corporation and the Illinois Stock Transfer Company, as the Company's rights agent, intends to appeal the approval granted to the settlement of the litigation to Illinois Supreme Court. The first case was filed in 1998 by an Illini Corporation against Illinois Stock Transfer Company, as Rights Agent for the Company under the Company's Shareholder Rights Agreement, for specific performance of the Rights Agreement, on behalf of the plaintiff individually and on behalf of a class of shareholders. The complaint alleged that the Rights Agreement was triggered in April of 1998, and that the Rights Agent had a duty under the Rights Agreement to distribute Rights Certificates to the Company's shareholders. The Company was named as a defendant in 1999 and the class was certified. Plaintiff was seeking to recover attorneys' fees from the Corporation in addition to other relief. In January of 2000, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company and the Rights Agent. Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the Illinois Appellate Court. The Appellate Court reversed the order granting summary judgment for defendants and remanded the case for trial on the issue of whether the Company's Board of Directors acted in good faith in determining that a shareholder's acceptance of a gift of the Company's Stock did not trigger the Rights Agreement, and in the Company's later amendment of the Rights Agreement. The Appellate Court further ruled that plaintiff's attorney's fees were recoverable under the Rights Agreement. After a series of unsuccessful motions filed by the Plaintiff's counsel, the Company filed a motion to remove the Plaintiff's attorney. The court removed the attorney for the Plaintiff class and appointed new counsel to represent the class. The removed counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. The new counsel filed a motion for direction to remove the class representative, which was granted on January 15, 2003. On March 7, 2003 the trial court appointed a successor class representative. The Company has negotiated a settlement of the suit with the new class representative and class counsel. The terms of that settlement have been agreed upon and approved by the court following a fairness hearing. That agreement provides for a complete resolution of the shareholder claims and a portion of the claims for attorney fees for the class representative. The removed attorney, representing the removed class representative, appealed various rulings of the trial court, including the order approving the settlement as fair to the class. That appeal was argued before the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District on April 13, 2005, and the Appellate Court subsequently affirmed the settlement as fair to the class and also affirmed the trial court's disqualification of the removed attorney. The removed attorney has indicated that he intends to seek review of the Appellate Court's decision with the Illinois Supreme Court. Whether or not the Illinois Supreme Court grants review is a matter for that Court's discretion. The removed attorney is also petitioning the trial court for fees. The court will also be asked to deny the fee request filed by the attorney for the original class representative. The court has scheduled the fee petition for hearing on November 8, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. ILX RESORTS: AZ Court OKs Unfair Trade Practices Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Arizona In and For the County of Coconino granted final approval of a Settlement Agreement between ILX Resorts, Inc., its Sedona Vacation Club and Premiere Vacation Club businesses and the putative class action plaintiffs in litigation originally filed in September 2003. Two individuals filed the suit, claiming damages for deceptive and abusive practices on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of vacation ownership interests. The Company, Sedona Vacation Club and Premiere Vacation Club received amended complaints in May and June 2004. In both instances, named plaintiffs were added and deleted. The amended complaints are considerably more narrow in scope than the initial complaint. The suit alleges claims for breach of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, the Arizona Real Estate Timeshare Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek to have their claims certified for class action treatment. The Company responded to the complaint, asserted counterclaims and filed certain motions in May 2004 and filed a disclosure statement in July 2004. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in OR -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Lattice Semiconductor Corporation, its Chief Executive Officer Cyrus Y. Tsui, and its President Stephen A. Skaggs. Several complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the Company's stock between April 22, 2003 and April 19, 2004. They generally allege violations of federal securities laws arising out of the Company's previously announced restatement of financial results for the first, second, and third quarters of 2003. Consistent with the usual procedures for cases of this kind, these cases were amended and consolidated into a single action. In such amended and consolidated complaint filed January 27, 2005, the Company's former President and its former Controller were added as defendants. In September and October 2004, two shareholder derivative complaints were filed, purportedly on behalf of the Company, in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Washington, against all of its current directors, certain former directors, and certain executive officers. The derivative plaintiffs make allegations substantially similar to those in the putative class action complaints, as well as allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The suits are pending in the United States District Court in Oregon under Judge Dennis J. Hubel, styled: (1) Autumn Partners, LLC v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation et al, 3:04-cv-01255-HU (2) Marcano v. Lattice Semiconductor Corporation et al, 3:04-cv-01533-HU (3) Pfeiffer v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp. et al, 3:04-cv- 01429-HU The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (i) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail: info@bermanesq.com (ii) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, (fax) 212.818.0477, info@glrslaw.com (iii) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com (iv) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone: 877.891.9880, E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com Lawyers for the defendants are: (a) Barnes H. Ellis, Stoel Rives LLP, 2600 Standard Insurance Center, 900 SW Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, Phone: (503) 294-9243, Fax: (503) 220-2480, E- mail: bhellis@stoel.com (b) Robert E.L. Bonaparte, Shenker & Bonaparte, LLP, One SW Columbia Street, Suite 475, Portland, OR 97258, Phone: (503) 242-0005 Fax: (503) 323-7360 E-mail: attorneys@bb-law.net LOUISIANA: Attorneys Sue Oil Firms, Blames Them For Devastation --------------------------------------------------------------- Val P. Exnicios of the New Orleans law firm of Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser, and Conrad S.P. "Duke" Williams of the New Orleans law firm of St. Martin & Williams, initiated a class action lawsuit against a number of major oil companies that they say are actually responsible for Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court For The Eastern District of Louisiana, which is temporarily operating out of Lafayette, Louisiana and Houma, Louisiana, alleges that the major oil companies' oil, gas and pipeline exploration and drilling activities throughout Southeast Louisiana resulted in ecological damages to such an extent that coastal marshes were destroyed which previously had protected New Orleans naturally from Katrina level hurricane force winds and tidal surges. The named defendants in the suit include: Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.; Koch Pipeline Company, L.P.; Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Shell Pipeline Company LP; Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.; Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation; Shell Oil Co.; ExxonMobil Corporation; Exxon Mobil Corporation; Chevron Corporation; and BP Corporation N.A., Inc. The suit, allotted to USDC-ED Louisiana Chief Judge Ginger Berrigan (case # 05-4161) alleges that over one million acres of marshlands in Southeast Louisiana were completely destroyed and have virtually disappeared, and many more millions acres are essentially non-existent, primarily because of the major oil companies' oil & gas exploration and drilling activities in Southeast Louisiana. "Everyone has been talking about the failures of the state, local and federal governments in the wake of Hurricane Katrina," Mr. Exnicios explained. "We believe it's the right time to pinpoint who's essentially responsible for the devastation caused by Katrina in the first place -- the major oil and gas companies, who haphazardly dredged thousands of miles of exploration and drill site canals throughout South Louisiana to extract oil and gas. "Their years of negligence and callous indifference to the marshland ecology led to Katrina's disastrous consequence. These companies together destroyed over 100 miles of terra firma between the mouth of the Mississippi River and the City of New Orleans, and its time now for a just reckoning of the devastating outcome of their quest for profits over the safety of the people and destruction of property in New Orleans." Mr. Exnicios said that thousands of miles of pipeline and drilling rig location canals were dredged throughout southeastern Louisiana in the 100 miles between the mouth of the Mississippi River and New Orleans. Before the 1930s and 40s when "Big Oil" began dredging the thousands of their canals that today crisscross the Mississippi River Delta, the coastal marshlands provided an almost 100-mile natural barrier between the Gulf of Mexico and the City of New Orleans. The lawsuit alleges that the oil companies "failed to maintain canals which caused damage to the stability and ecological functions of the marsh property, leading to physical removal of marsh terrain, the creation of spoil banks and impairment of natural ebb and flow of tidal water." "The fact is that before Katrina, the City of New Orleans had already become 'Gulf-front' property," Mr. Exnicios said. "Today, the waters of the Gulf of Mexico flood New Orleans." Plaintiffs seek to represent the interests of all Hurricane Katrina victims in the State of Louisiana. For more details, contact Val P. Exnicios, Esq. or Amy Boyle of Liska, Exnicios & Nungesser, Phone: (318) 256-0583, (318) 332-7858 (cell) or +1-770-650-6388, ext. 103; and "Duke" Williams, Esq. of St. Martin & Williams, Phone: 1-800-256-1533. NASHUA CORPORATION: Court Mulls Summary Judgment, Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois has yet to decide on the motions for summary judgment and class certification for the consolidated class action filed against Nashua Corporation, Cerion Technologies, Inc., certain directors and officers of Cerion, and the Company's underwriter, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Cerion between May 24, 1996 and July 9, 1996. The amended consolidated complaint alleged that, in connection with Cerion's initial public offering, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted the disclosure of material facts regarding, in particular, certain significant customer relationships. In October 1997, the court on motion by the defendants dismissed the consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint alleging similar claims as the first consolidated complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief. On May 6, 1998, the Court, on motion by the defendants, dismissed with prejudice the second amended consolidated complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling. On November 19, 1999, the Appellate Court reversed the ruling that dismissed the second amended consolidated complaint. The Appellate Court ruled that the second amended consolidated complaint represented a valid claim and sent the case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. On December 27, 1999, the Company filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Illinois. In that petition, the Company asked the Supreme Court of Illinois to determine whether the Circuit Court or the Appellate Court is correct. The Company's petition was denied and the case was sent to the Circuit Court for trial. Discovery has been completed, but no date has been set for trial and pre-trial motions. On October 8, 2003, the Court heard motions on a Summary Judgment motion and a class action certification motion. No ruling has been made. The Company said in a regulatory filing that it expects the court will issue rulings on the motion in the third quarter of 2005. The suit is styled "ILL Student Assist v. Nashua Corporation, et al., case no. 1994-M1-146053," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, under Judge Robert Quinn. Representing the plaintiffs is WEXLER & WEXLER, 500 W. Madison #2910, Chicago, IL 60661, Phone: (312) 474-1000. NORTH CAROLINA: Settlement Proposed For Tobacco Farmers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tobacco growers will share at least $50 million that was held for decades by a tobacco cooperative formed to run the discontinued tobacco price support system in a proposed settlement to a lawsuit pending in Wake County Superior Court in North Carolina, The Associated Press reports. The suit, filed by the tobacco farmers on behalf of all current and former members of the Raleigh-based Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation since it was created in 1946, seeks class action status as well as payment of dividends to members from more than $240 million in stockholder equity the cooperative accumulated over the years. Court records show that the cooperative bought tobacco from growers of flue-cured tobacco in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida who could not sell their crop to major cigarette-makers or leaf dealers. It was trying to reinvent itself as a leaf-dealer, marketer and cigarette maker. In their suit, the farmers argued that with the end of the federal price-support system, the cooperative wasn't needed and had become a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. They sought for either a distribution of the cooperative's assets or its dissolution. According to a prepared statement by the cooperative, the proposed settlement would create a fund of at least $50 million and allow the cooperative to continue, among other elements. The fund would come from selling tobacco ceded to the cooperative by the U.S. Agriculture Department when the federal price support program ended last year. "I just can't say what the maximum will be," Arnold Hamm, general manager of the cooperative, tells The Associated Press. Attorneys for the farmers though told The Associated Press that they faced a difficult battle in court. In a press statement, attorney William Robert Cherry Jr. even stated, "The settlement will distribute money to farmers that is not necessarily for stabilization's ongoing efforts, and will provide protection and certainty for members in the event the coop is dissolved in the future." The proposed settlement requires approval from plaintiffs and a judge. But in the event that the court grants preliminary approval to the deal, a final hearing would be scheduled about 60 days later. During those 60 days, plaintiffs can opt out of the settlement or object to it. ORANGE 21: Shareholders Launch Investor Fraud Suits in S.D. CA -------------------------------------------------------------- Orange 21, Inc., its directors and certain of its officers face two stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaints purport to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement filed in connection with the Company's public offering of stock on December 14, 2004. The complaints allege that the Company and its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the registration statement material information about the status of its European operations and whether certain of the Company's products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley, Inc. The Company has not yet formally responded to this action and no discovery has been conducted. PENTAIR INC.: Working To Settle M/V Horizon Disease Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Pentair Inc. continues to work on the resolution of all litigation filed against Essef Corporation, which it acquired in August 1999, and certain of Essef's subsidiaries, relating to the Legionnaire's disease infections on the M/V Horizon from December 1993 through July 1994. The Company faces twenty-eight separate lawsuits involving 29 primary plaintiffs, a class action, and claims for indemnity by Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc. (Celebrity), alleging that Celebrity sustained economic damages due to loss of use of the M/V Horizon while it was dry-docked. The claims against the Company and its involved subsidiaries were based upon the allegation that the Company designed, manufactured, and marketed two sand swimming pool filters that were installed as a part of the spa system on the Horizon, and allegations that the spa and filters contained Legionnaire's disease bacteria that infected certain passengers on cruises from December 1993 through July 1994. The individual and class claims by passengers were tried and resulted in an adverse jury verdict finding liability on the part of the Essef defendants (70%) and Celebrity and its sister company, Fantasia (together 30%). After exhaustion of post- trial appeals, the Company paid all outstanding punitive damage awards of $7.0 million in the Horizon cases, plus interest of approximately $1.6 million in January 2004. The company had reserved for the amount of punitive damages awarded at the time of the Essef acquisition. A reserve for the $1.6 million interest cost was recorded in 2003. All of the personal injury cases have now been resolved through either settlement or trial. The only remaining unresolved claims in this case are those brought by Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc. for damages resulting from the outbreak. Celebrity filed an amended complaint seeking attorney fees and costs for prior litigation as well as out-of-pocket losses, lost profits, and loss of business enterprise value. Discovery commenced late in 2004, and was completed in August 2005. Celebrity's claims for damages exceed $185 million, which the Company believes are excessive and wildly speculative, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Assuming matters of causation, standing, indemnity and proof are decided against Essef, its experts believe that damages should amount to no more than $16 to $25 million. Dispositive motions in this matter are due to be filed by the end of August 2005, with trial to be scheduled after resolution of these motions. SEITEL INC.: TX Court Approves Shareholder Fraud Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas approved the settlement for the securities class action filed against Seitel, Inc. and certain of its former and current officers and directors, styled "In re Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. No. 02-1566." Eleven suits were initially filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws, all of which were consolidated by an Order entered August 7, 2002. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for plaintiffs, who subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint, which added the Company's previous auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during a proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April 1, 2002, the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' and experts' fees. The class representatives and the Debtors have entered into a memorandum of understanding, which contemplates allowance of a "class claim" to assert the rights of the class in the Chapter 11 Cases and an ultimate settlement for cash to be funded out of the Debtors' cash and directors' and officers' insurance policies. The memorandum of understanding was approved upon notice and a hearing by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 10, 2003. The Company funded its portion of the settlement amount ($980,000) to an escrow account in 2003. The parties have since finalized their settlement agreement, which contains terms substantially in accordance with the terms of the memorandum of understanding. On December 29, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company's motion for approval of the parties' full settlement agreement. To complete the settlement, approvals must be obtained from the District Court. On January 5, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion with the District Court regarding such approval and a hearing has been set for April 29, 2005. The hearing has been reset to May 6,2005. The memorandum of understanding was approved upon notice and a hearing by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 10, 2003. By order dated July 29, 2005, the United States District Court approved the parties' settlement. The carrier of the Company's directors' and officers' insurance policies is obligated to timely fund the balance of the settlement (its portion), in accordance with the terms of the order. The action is expected to continue as between the class representative and Ernst & Young LLP. The suit is styled "IN re Seitel Inc. Shareholder Litigation, case no. 4:02-cv-01566," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. Representing the plaintiffs are Carl L. Stine of Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Ave New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-451-9631 Fax: 212-486-2093; and Richard J. Zook of Cunningham Darlow et al, 600 Travis Ste 1700 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-255-5500 Fax: 713-255-5555. Representing the Company is Katherine A. Compton of Greenberg Traurig, 13155 Noel Rd Ste 600 Dallas, TX 75240 Phone: 972-419-1286 Fax: 972-628-4601. SOURCECORP INC.: Shareholders Commence Fraud Suit in N.D. Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Sourcecorp, Inc. faces a consolidated shareholder fraud class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, styled "In re Sourcecorp, Inc. Securities Litigation." The suit also names as defendants the Company's chief executive officer and its chief financial officer. Several putative securities class actions were initially filed, in response to the Company's press releases dated October 27, 2004, in which the Company disclosed that its financial statements for certain prior periods should no longer be relied upon, and also provided updated financial guidance. The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, with the first action being filed November 1, 2004. The Actions are putative shareholder class action lawsuits alleging violations of Federal Securities Laws, including alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The four Actions have been transferred to a single judge in the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and consolidated. A lead plaintiff has also been appointed. The consolidated Action is purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's s common stock during the period between May 3, 2001, and October 27, 2004, and seeks unspecified damages. SPORT CHALET: Reaches Settlement For CA Labor Violations Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sport Chalet, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in California, against it, styled "Kenneth Henderson on behalf of himself and other similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Sport Chalet, Case No. BC 318081." Former employee Kenneth Henderson brought this class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, alleging causes of action for failure to provide required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to provide compensation for split shifts, failure to reimburse employees for uniforms, failure to maintain required records, penalties for terminated employees who were not fully compensated, penalties for failure to pay employees all wages at least twice a month, and violation of Business and Professions Code l7200. Plaintiffs basically allege that hourly employees were regularly denied their required meal periods and rest periods and were not paid premiums for split shifts. They further allege that the company required its employees to wear uniforms but did not pay for the uniforms. Plaintiffs seek a class action in which they demand various wages, premiums, interest, and penalties for these alleged violations. They also seek attorneys' fees and an injunction. The parties have engaged in significant discovery and Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class Certification which was heard on July 13, 2005. The Company opposed the Motion for Class Certification. No trial date has been set. The parties reached a settlement, which is subject to Court approval. The parties are drafting the settlement documents and presented them to the Court by August 15, 2005. Without admitting any liability, the Company has agreed to pay money to a class of hourly employees who allegedly were denied their proper break periods or who were required to comply with the store dress code. The Company has also agreed to spend money to upgrade its labor software system, to provide shirts to its employees, and to improve its lunch/break rooms. The maximum amount of the settlement is $2,250,000, of which $1,000,000 has been fully reserved as of June 30, 2005. Over the next six years, the remaining $1,250,000 is designated for the software system, shirts, and lunch/break rooms and will be expensed or capitalized as incurred following the Company's normal accounting policies. SPORT CHALET: Shareholders Launch Investor Fraud Lawsuit in DE -------------------------------------------------------------- Sport Chalet, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, styled "Miriam Gruber v. Sport Chalet, Inc., Norbert Olberz, Irene Olberz, Craig L. Levra, Howard K. Kaminsky, Al D. McCready, Eric S. Olberz, Frederick H. Schneider, John R. Attwood, Donald J. Howard and Kenneth Olson." The action, which is purportedly brought individually, derivatively and as a class action on behalf of the public stockholders of the Company, challenges the recapitalization and the associated transactions. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's public stockholders by, among other things, (1) diverting an opportunity of the Company to Craig Levra and Howard Kaminsky; (2) failing to seek the best available transaction that would maximize the benefits for the Company and all its stockholders; (3) approving transactions which are not entirely fair to the Company and its public stockholders and (4) attempting to entrench themselves in office. The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary and permanent injunction against the recapitalization; a declaration that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties; damages and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. TITAN CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 2, 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------- The court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the Titan Corporation Class And Derivative Litigation on behalf of all record and beneficial owners of Titan securities at any time during the period from and including June 3, 2005 through and including the July 29, 2005 effective date of merger among Titan, L-3 Communications Corporation and Saturn VI Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of L-3 including any and all of their respective successors in interest, assignees or transferees, immediate and remote. The court will hold the hearing on November 2, 2005 at 2:30 p. m., before the Honorable William B. Chandler, III, in the Court of Chancery, Chancery Courthouse, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware. The proposed Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, provides the Class with the following benefits: (1) the consideration for the Merger was increased from $22.76 to $23.10, per share of Titan common stock; (2) the maximum Termination Fee that L-3 may be entitled to recover from Titan, in accordance with Section 8.3 of the Merger Agreement, was reduced from 3.5% to 2.0%, if a new offer was accepted and the Termination Fee paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the execution of the merger agreement between Titan and L-3, and 3% thereafter; and (3) certain language in the Merger Proxy Statement was altered or added based upon the comments from Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, and its investment banking expert, to improve the clarity of the disclosure to Titan Shareholders. For more details, contact Titan Corporation Derivative Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990 OR Seth D. Rigrodsky of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 919 N. Market Street, Suite 411, Wilmington, DE 19801, Phone: 302-984-0597, Fax: 212-273-4404, E-mail: srigrodsky@milbergweiss.com; and David J. Bershad or Lee A. Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-946-9325 or 212-631-8642, Fax: 212-273-4381 or 212-273-4392, E-mail: dbershad@milbergweiss.com or lweiss@milbergweiss.com. WHITE ELECTRONIC: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- White Electronic Designs Corporation asked the United States District Court for the District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against White Electronic Designs Corporation and certain of its current and former officers. Four similar suits were initially filed, namely: (1) McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al. (Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB), (2) Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al (Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS), (3) Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al. (Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT), and (4) Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al. (Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC) The complaints allege, among other things, that between January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the Company made false and misleading statements concerning its financial results and business, in violation of the federal securities laws. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. The Court has consolidated the four cases into one action and has appointed Wayne County Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. A consolidated complaint was filed on February 14, 2005. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that between January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the Company made false and misleading statements concerning its financial results and business, in violation of the federal securities laws. The Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages. On April 15, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiffs opposed defendants' motions to dismiss. A hearing date on the motion to dismiss has not been scheduled. The suit is styled "McJimsey, et al v. White Electronic Des, et al., case no. 2:04-cv-01499-SRB," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, under Judge Susan R. Bolton. Representing the Company are Joseph G. Adams and Joel Philip Hoxie of Snell & Wilmer LLP, 1 Arizona Ctr, 400 E Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202, Phone: 602-382-6207, Fax: 602-382-6070, E-mail: jgadams@swlaw.com and jhoxie@swlaw.com; and Boris Feldman, Sherry Hartel Haus, Nicole Healy and Rodney G. Strickland Jr., Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-496-4334, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: nhealy@wsgr.com. Representing the plaintiffs are Ramzi Abadou, Russell J. Gunyan and Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B St, Ste 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)231-1058; and Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew S. Friedman, Patrick James Van Zanen of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com, afriedman@bffb.com, pvanzanen@bffb.com. WILD OATS: Canada Court Approves Hepatitis Victims' Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada approved the settlement for the class action filed against Wild Oats Markets Canada, Inc., as successor to Alfalfa's Canada, Inc., styled "Helen Fakhri and Ady Aylon, as Representative Plaintiffs v. Alfalfa's Canada, Inc." The suit, filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada by the representative plaintiffs, seeks damages on behalf of two groups of claimants - those who claim to have contracted Hepatitis A allegedly through the consumption of food purchased at a Capers Community Market in the spring of 2002, and those who were inoculated against Hepatitis A in March and April, 2002, after handling and/or consuming food products from Capers that were or might have been contaminated with Hepatitis A. In July 2005, the Court approved a settlement agreement pursuant to which plaintiffs submitting proof of claim receive either cash or a gift card, redeemable at the Company's Canadian stores, of certain amounts determined by classification of the claimant within one of three separate categories. The Company's insurers have acknowledged coverage for defense and administrative costs and settlement liability, and the Company has exhausted its deductible. WILD OATS: Trial in CA Overtime Wage Suit Set On October 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the class action filed against Wild Oats Markets, Inc., styled "Auchterlonie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public, and Roes 1 to 1000 vs. Wild Oats Markets, Inc. and Does 1 through 100," is set for October 2005 in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, California. The suit makes claims for payment of overtime and damages relating to alleged violations of the California Business and Professions Code by a former managerial employee, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated California employees, claiming that store directors at our California stores should have been classified as non-exempt employees and paid on an hourly basis. Plaintiff also alleges that the Company's incentive bonus program is illegal based upon deductions for items outside of the employee's control. The Company believes that the employee, a former store director, was properly classified as an exempt employee based upon his job duties, and intends to vigorously defend the suit, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. New Securities Fraud Cases ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in OH ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a class (the "Class") of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company")(NYSE: ANF) between June 2, 2005 and August 16, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Abercrombie securities. The Complaint names as defendants Abercrombie, Michael S. Jeffries, Robert Singer and Michael W. Kramer. The Complaint alleges that Abercrombie (1) carried out a scheme to deceive the investing public; (2) made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; and (3) engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the Company's securities in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices for Abercrombie securities. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the class period, Abercrombie made positive public announcements about its monthly and quarterly sales results while, at the same time they did not reveal that the Company's margins, a material indicator of the Company's true financial condition, would be lower in its 2005 second fiscal quarter. In July 2005, Abercrombie's Chairman and CEO sold more than 1.6 million shares of Abercrombie common stock reaping $118 million in profits based on negative, material Company information known to him, but unknown to Plaintiff and the Class. Following the revelation of the material, undisclosed information, Abercrombie's common stock price plummeted, resulting in substantial losses to shareholders. For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone: (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges OH Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. ("Abercrombie" or the "Company") (NYSE: ANF) between May 17, 2005 and August 16, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Abercrombie and certain officers of the Company. The case name is Sved v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made statements that were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose the following facts, among others: (1) demand for Abercrombie's products was slowing, resulting in material amounts of unsold products and rising inventories; (2) contrary to defendants' representations that the denim products were "non-risk" from an inventory standpoint, meaning they would not be marked down if demand was poor, unsold denim products presented a material risk to the Company's profitability; and (3) the Company's profit margins were being negatively impacted by markdowns on unsold products. For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., George T. Peters, Esq., or Derek Behnke, of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, Phone: 1-800-575-0735, E- mail: classmember@whafh.com, Web site: http://www.whafh.com. DHB INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in E.D. NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 DHB Industries, Inc. ("DHB" or the "Company") (AMEX:DHB) securities between April 21, 2004 through August 29, 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 DHB's financial results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that DHB failed to disclose the true extent of the Company's potential liability regarding the effectiveness of Zylon and the bullet resistant products manufactured by the Company containing high concentrations of Zylon. As a result, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, allowing defendants to sell millions of shares of DHB common stock. On August 30, 2005, however, DHB announced that it had discontinued the use of Zylon in its bullet resistant products and that the Company would record a charge to third quarter earnings to account for the anticipated cost of a Zylon Replacement Program and discontinued sales of Zylon products. Following this announcement, shares of DHB common stock dropped from $6.66 to close at $5.10 on unusually heavy trading volume. 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, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com or Bkeller@faruqilaw.com, Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com. ISOLAGEN INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Isolagen, Inc. ("Isolagen" or the "Company") (AMEX: ILE), between March 3, 2004 and July 31, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"), including purchasers of Isolagen common stock issued in connection with and/or traceable to Isolagen's June 9, 2004 common stock offering, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The action, case no. 05-CV-5090, is pending before the Honorable Ronald Buckwalter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendants Isolagen, and certain of the Company's former and current officers and directors. According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that Isolagen is a biotechnology company that specializes in the development and commercialization of autologous cellular system technology for tissue regeneration. The Company's patented "Isolagen Process" is a process whereby the patient's own collagen-producing cells are extracted, reproduced, and then re-introduced by injection back into the patient for the treatment of, among other things, wrinkles, lines, and scars. In 2003, defendants began aggressively marketing the Isolagen Process in the United Kingdom to test the market before launching the product in the United States. Throughout the Class Period, defendants reported strong demand for the Isolagen Process in the United Kingdom and robust revenue growth therefrom. In January 2003, in an attempt to obtain FDA approval to market the Isolagen Process in the United States, defendants commenced clinical trials of the Isolagen Process for the treatment of the wrinkles and scars, and for the treatment of periodontal disease. Throughout the Class Period, defendants reported positive results from the trials, and claimed that the Company was on track to file a Biologics License Application ("BLA") for the Isolagen Process with the FDA by 2005. In addition, defendants claimed that the product would be commercially available in the same year. On August 1, 2005, the Company shocked investors when it announced that the results from its Phase III clinical trials of the Isologen Process for the treatment of wrinkles had failed to meet all of its primary end points and that the results from one of the trials failed to demonstrate any statistical significance. According to the Company, the trials produced such variations in the results that it would not be able to file a BLA, strongly suggesting that defendants failed to conduct the trials in a proper and controlled manner. On August 9, 2005, the Company filed its second quarter 2005 report with the SEC, revealing a net loss of $10 million, or $0.33 per share, compared to $3.9 million, or $0.14 per share in the same quarter in the prior year. The Company stated in the quarterly report that the results from the Phase II trial of the Isolagen Process for the treatment of periodontal disease were statistically insignificant and that its current measurement techniques were imprecise and unreliable. On the same day, during a conference call, defendants revealed that the Company's promotional activities in the United Kingdom violated advertising rules therein and that revisions to its campaign "could negatively impact our ability to promote the product." In addition, defendants reported declining sales of the Isolagen Process in the second quarter 2005, and that the Company's profit margins were decreasing as a result of an increase in costs of sales. As a result, defendants lowered their revenue guidance for the full-year 2005 to $10 million to $15 million from prior guidance of $15 million. As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading statements, the price of Isolagen stock became artificially inflated during the Class Period. Defendants were motivated to engage in the wrongful and fraudulent conduct to register and sell over 8 million shares in an offering in June 2004, with the Company reaping more $61 million in proceeds therefrom, and for Company insiders to sell their personally-held shares of Isolagen stock for more than $33 million in proceeds. In addition, defendants were able to complete a $90 million private placement of convertible debenture during the Class Period. For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: (800) 320-5081, E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com. MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Finkelstein Firm Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, which previously filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of Molina Healthcare, Inc. ("Molina" or the "Company") between November 3, 2004 and July 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"), is reminding shareholders that they have until September 26, 2005 to apply to be Lead Plaintiff in the case. The lawsuit named Molina, J. Mario Molina, and John C. Molina as Defendants. Finkelstein & Krinsk's complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements regarding Molina's operating condition and failed to disclose what Molina was experiencing rising costs without adequate Medicaid reimbursement. On July 20, 2005, Molina announced it would report a loss for the second quarter 2005 and revise its earnings guidance. The reduction in guidance occurred after the Company affirmed its earlier guidance at least three times. This allowed an equity offering benefiting the Molina Family Trusts. The shares then fell $20 as the truth emerged. The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk is one of the country's premier law firms representing individual and institutional investors in class action litigation. For more details, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP, Phone: 877-493-5366, Fax: 619-238-5425, E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files Fraud Suit in NY Over AIM Mutual Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased AIM mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The AIM mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: AIM Advantage Health Sci A (NASDAQ: IAGHX) AIM Advantage Health Sci B (NASDAQ: IGHBX) AIM Advantage Health Sci C (NASDAQ: IGHCX) AIM Aggressive Growth A (NASDAQ: AAGFX) AIM Aggressive Growth B (NASDAQ: AAGBX) AIM Aggressive Growth C (NASDAQ: AAGCX) AIM Aggressive Growth I (NASDAQ: AAGVX) AIM Aggressive Growth R (NASDAQ: ARRGX) AIM Asia Pacific Growth A (NASDAQ: ASIAX) AIM Asia Pacific Growth B (NASDAQ: ASIBX) AIM Asia Pacific Growth C (NASDAQ: ASICX) AIM Basic Balanced A (NASDAQ: BBLAX) AIM Basic Balanced B (NASDAQ: BBLBX) AIM Basic Balanced C (NASDAQ: BBLCX) AIM Basic Balanced Inst (NASDAQ: BBLIX) AIM Basic Balanced Inv (NASDAQ: BBLTX) AIM Basic Balanced R (NASDAQ: BBLRX) AIM Basic Value A (NASDAQ: GTVLX) AIM Basic Value B (NASDAQ: GTVBX) AIM Basic Value C (NASDAQ: GTVCX) AIM Basic Value I (NASDAQ: GTVVX) AIM Basic Value R (NASDAQ: GTVRX) AIM Blue Chip A (NASDAQ: ABCAX) AIM Blue Chip B (NASDAQ: ABCBX) AIM Blue Chip C (NASDAQ: ABCCX) AIM Blue Chip I (NASDAQ: ABCVX) AIM Blue Chip Inv (NASDAQ: BCIVX) AIM Blue Chip R (NASDAQ: ABCRX) AIM Capital Development A (NASDAQ: ACDAX) AIM Capital Development B (NASDAQ: ACDBX) AIM Capital Development C (NASDAQ: ACDCX) AIM Capital Development I (NASDAQ: ACDVX) AIM Capital Development Inv (NASDAQ: ACDIX) AIM Capital Development R (NASDAQ: ACDRX) AIM Charter A (NASDAQ: CHTRX) AIM Charter B (NASDAQ: BCHTX) AIM Charter C (NASDAQ: CHTCX) AIM Charter I (NASDAQ: CHTVX) AIM Charter R (NASDAQ: CHRRX) AIM Conservative Allocation A (NASDAQ: ACNAX) AIM Conservative Allocation B (NASDAQ: ACNBX) AIM Conservative Allocation C (NASDAQ: ACNCX) AIM Conservative Allocation Inst (NASDAQ: ACNIX) AIM Conservative Allocation R (NASDAQ: ACNRX) AIM Constellation A (NASDAQ: CSTGX) AIM Constellation B (NASDAQ: CSTBX) AIM Constellation C (NASDAQ: CSTCX) AIM Constellation I (NASDAQ: CSITX) AIM Constellation R (NASDAQ: CSTRX) AIM Developing Markets A (NASDAQ: GTDDX) AIM Developing Markets B (NASDAQ: GTDBX) AIM Developing Markets C (NASDAQ: GTDCX) AIM Diversified Dividend Fund A (NASDAQ: LCEAX) AIM Diversified Dividend Fund B (NASDAQ: LCEDX) AIM Diversified Dividend Fund C (NASDAQ: LCEVX) AIM Diversified Dividend Inv (NASDAQ: LCEIX) AIM Dynamics A (NASDAQ: IDYAX) AIM Dynamics B (NASDAQ: IDYBX) AIM Dynamics C (NASDAQ: IFDCX) AIM Dynamics Instl (NASDAQ: IDICX) AIM Dynamics Inv (NASDAQ: FIDYX) AIM Dynamics K (NASDAQ: IDYKX) AIM Energy A (NASDAQ: IENAX) AIM Energy B (NASDAQ: IENBX) AIM Energy C (NASDAQ: IEFCX) AIM Energy Inv (NASDAQ: FSTEX) AIM Energy K (NASDAQ: IENKX) AIM European Growth A (NASDAQ: AEDAX) AIM European Growth B (NASDAQ: AEDBX) AIM European Growth C (NASDAQ: AEDCX) AIM European Growth Inv (NASDAQ: EGINX) AIM European Growth R (NASDAQ: AEDRX) AIM European Small Company A (NASDAQ: ESMAX) AIM European Small Company B (NASDAQ: ESMBX) AIM European Small Company C (NASDAQ: ESMCX) AIM Financial Services A (NASDAQ: IFSAX) AIM Financial Services B (NASDAQ: IFSBX) AIM Financial Services C (NASDAQ: IFSCX) AIM Financial Services Inv (NASDAQ: FSFSX) AIM Financial Services K (NASDAQ: FSFKX) AIM Floating Rate B (NASDAQ: XAFRX) AIM Floating Rate C (NASDAQ: XFRCX) AIM Global Aggressive Growth A (NASDAQ: AGAAX) AIM Global Aggressive Growth B (NASDAQ: AGABX) AIM Global Aggressive Growth C (NASDAQ: AGACX) AIM Global Equity A (NASDAQ: GTNDX) AIM Global Equity B (NASDAQ: GNDBX) AIM Global Equity C (NASDAQ: GNDCX) AIM Global Equity Inst (NASDAQ: GNDIX) AIM Global Growth A (NASDAQ: AGGAX) AIM Global Growth B (NASDAQ: AGGBX) AIM Global Growth C (NASDAQ: AGGCX) AIM Global Health Care A (NASDAQ: GGHCX) AIM Global Health Care B (NASDAQ: GTHBX) AIM Global Health Care C (NASDAQ: GTHCX) AIM Global Health Care Inv (NASDAQ: GTHIX) AIM Global Real Estate A (NASDAQ: AGREX) AIM Global Real Estate B (NASDAQ: BGREX) AIM Global Real Estate C (NASDAQ: CGREX) AIM Global Real Estate Instl (NASDAQ: IGREX) AIM Global Real Estate R (NASDAQ: RGREX) AIM Global Value A (NASDAQ: AWSAX) AIM Global Value B (NASDAQ: AWSBX) AIM Global Value C (NASDAQ: AWSCX) AIM Gold & Precious Metals A (NASDAQ: IGDAX) AIM Gold & Precious Metals B (NASDAQ: IGDBX) AIM Gold & Precious Metals C (NASDAQ: IGDCX) AIM Gold & Precious Metals Inv (NASDAQ: FGLDX) AIM Growth Allocation A (NASDAQ: AADAX) AIM Growth Allocation B (NASDAQ: AAEBX) AIM Growth Allocation C (NASDAQ: AADCX) AIM Growth Allocation I (NASDAQ: AADIX) AIM Growth Allocation R (NASDAQ: AADRX) AIM High Income Municipal Bond A (NASDAQ: AHMAX) AIM High Income Municipal Bond B (NASDAQ: AHMBX) AIM High Income Municipal Bond C (NASDAQ: AHMCX) AIM High-Yield A (NASDAQ: AMHYX) AIM High-Yield B (NASDAQ: AHYBX) AIM High-Yield C (NASDAQ: AHYCX) AIM High-Yield Inst (NASDAQ: AHIYX) AIM High-Yield Inv (NASDAQ: HYINX) AIM Income A (NASDAQ: AMIFX) AIM Income B (NASDAQ: ABIFX) AIM Income C (NASDAQ: ACIFX) AIM Income Inv (NASDAQ: AIIVX) AIM Income R (NASDAQ: AMIRX) AIM Intermediate Government A (NASDAQ: AGOVX) AIM Intermediate Government B (NASDAQ: AGVBX) AIM Intermediate Government C (NASDAQ: AGVCX) AIM Intermediate Government Instl (NASDAQ: AGOIX) AIM Intermediate Government Inv (NASDAQ: AGIVX) AIM Intermediate Government R (NASDAQ: AGVRX) AIM International Growth A (NASDAQ: AIIEX) AIM International Growth B (NASDAQ: AIEBX) AIM International Growth C (NASDAQ: AIECX) AIM International Growth I (NASDAQ: AIEVX) AIM International Growth R (NASDAQ: AIERX) AIM International Small Company A (NASDAQ: IEGAX) AIM International Small Company B (NASDAQ: IEGBX) AIM International Small Company C (NASDAQ: IEGCX) AIM Intl Core Equity A (NASDAQ: IBVAX) AIM Intl Core Equity B (NASDAQ: IBVBX) AIM Intl Core Equity C (NASDAQ: IBVCX) AIM Intl Core Equity Inst (NASDAQ: IBVIX) AIM Intl Core Equity Inv (NASDAQ: IIBCX) AIM Intl Core Equity R (NASDAQ: IIBRX) AIM Large Cap Basic Value A (NASDAQ: LCBAX) AIM Large Cap Basic Value B (NASDAQ: LCBBX) AIM Large Cap Basic Value C (NASDAQ: LCBCX) AIM Large Cap Basic Value Inst (NASDAQ: LCBIX) AIM Large Cap Basic Value Inv (NASDAQ: LCINX) AIM Large Cap Basic Value R (NASDAQ: LCBRX) AIM Large Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: LCGAX) AIM Large Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: LCGBX) AIM Large Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: LCGCX) AIM Large Cap Growth Inst (NASDAQ: LCIGX) AIM Large Cap Growth Inv (NASDAQ: LCGIX) AIM Large Cap Growth R (NASDAQ: LCRGX) AIM Leisure A (NASDAQ: ILSAX) AIM Leisure B (NASDAQ: ILSBX) AIM Leisure C (NASDAQ: IVLCX) AIM Leisure Inv (NASDAQ: FLISX) AIM Leisure K (NASDAQ: ILEKX) AIM Limited Maturity Treasury A (NASDAQ: SHTIX) AIM Limited Maturity Treasury A3 (NASDAQ: LMTAX) AIM Limited Maturity Treasury I (NASDAQ: ALMIX) AIM Mid Cap Basic Value A (NASDAQ: MDCAX) AIM Mid Cap Basic Value B (NASDAQ: MDCBX) AIM Mid Cap Basic Value C (NASDAQ: MDCVX) AIM Mid Cap Basic Value Inst (NASDAQ: MDICX) AIM Mid Cap Basic Value R (NASDAQ: MDCRX) AIM Mid Cap Core Equity A (NASDAQ: GTAGX) AIM Mid Cap Core Equity B (NASDAQ: GTABX) AIM Mid Cap Core Equity C (NASDAQ: GTACX) AIM Mid Cap Core Equity I (NASDAQ: GTAVX) AIM Mid Cap Core Equity R (NASDAQ: GTARX) AIM Mid Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: AMCAX) AIM Mid Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: AMCBX) AIM Mid Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: AMCVX) AIM Mid Cap Growth Inst (NASDAQ: AMIGX) AIM Mid Cap Growth R (NASDAQ: AMGRX) AIM Moderate Allocation A (NASDAQ: AMKAX) AIM Moderate Allocation B (NASDAQ: AMKBX) AIM Moderate Allocation C (NASDAQ: AMKCX) AIM Moderate Allocation Inst (NASDAQ: AMLIX) AIM Moderate Allocation R (NASDAQ: AMKRX) AIM Moderate Growth Allocation A (NASDAQ: AAMGX) AIM Moderate Growth Allocation B (NASDAQ: AMBGX) AIM Moderate Growth Allocation C (NASDAQ: ACMGX) AIM Moderate Growth Allocation Instl (NASDAQ: AIMGX) AIM Moderate Growth Allocation R (NASDAQ: RAMGX) AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc A (NASDAQ: CAAMX) AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc B (NASDAQ: CMBAX) AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc C (NASDAQ: CACMX) AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc Instl (NASDAQ: CMAIX) AIM Moderately Conservative Alloc R (NASDAQ: CMARX) AIM Multi-Sector A (NASDAQ: IAMSX) AIM Multi-Sector B (NASDAQ: IBMSX) AIM Multi-Sector C (NASDAQ: ICMSX) AIM Multi-Sector Inst (NASDAQ: IIMSX) AIM Municipal Bond A (NASDAQ: AMBDX) AIM Municipal Bond B (NASDAQ: AMBBX) AIM Municipal Bond C (NASDAQ: AMBCX) AIM Municipal Bond Inv (NASDAQ: AMBIX) AIM Opportunities I A (NASDAQ: ASCOX) AIM Opportunities I B (NASDAQ: SCPBX) AIM Opportunities I C (NASDAQ: SCOCX) AIM Opportunities II A (NASDAQ: AMCOX) AIM Opportunities II B (NASDAQ: MCOVX) AIM Opportunities II C (NASDAQ: MCODX) AIM Opportunities III A (NASDAQ: LCPAX) AIM Opportunities III B (NASDAQ: LCPBX) AIM Opportunities III C (NASDAQ: LCPCX) AIM Premier Equity A (NASDAQ: AVLFX) AIM Premier Equity B (NASDAQ: AVLBX) AIM Premier Equity C (NASDAQ: AVLCX) AIM Premier Equity I (NASDAQ: AVLVX) AIM Premier Equity R (NASDAQ: AVLRX) AIM Real Estate A (NASDAQ: IARAX) AIM Real Estate B (NASDAQ: AARBX) AIM Real Estate C (NASDAQ: IARCX) AIM Real Estate Inst (NASDAQ: IARIX) AIM Real Estate Inv (NASDAQ: REINX) AIM Real Estate R (NASDAQ: IARRX) AIM S&P 500 IndeX) Instl(NASDAQ: ISIIX) AIM S&P 500 IndeX) Inv (NASDAQ: ISPIX) AIM Select Equity A (NASDAQ: AGWFX) AIM Select Equity B (NASDAQ: AGWBX) AIM Select Equity C (NASDAQ: AGWCX) AIM Short Term Bond A (NASDAQ: STBAX) AIM Short Term Bond C (NASDAQ: STBCX) AIM Short Term Bond Inst (NASDAQ: ISTBX) AIM Short Term Bond R (NASDAQ: STBRX) AIM Small Cap Equity A (NASDAQ: SMEAX) AIM Small Cap Equity B (NASDAQ: SMEBX) AIM Small Cap Equity C (NASDAQ: SMECX) AIM Small Cap Equity Instl (NASDAQ: SMEIX) AIM Small Cap Equity R (NASDAQ: SMERX) AIM Small Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: GTSAX) AIM Small Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: GTSBX) AIM Small Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: GTSDX) AIM Small Cap Growth I (NASDAQ: GTSVX) AIM Small Cap Growth R (NASDAQ: GTSRX) AIM Small Company Growth A (NASDAQ: ISGAX) AIM Small Company Growth B (NASDAQ: ISGBX) AIM Small Company Growth C (NASDAQ: ISGCX) AIM Small Company Growth Inv (NASDAQ: FIEGX) AIM Small Company Growth K (NASDAQ: ISCKX) AIM Summit (NASDAQ: SMMIX) AIM TaX)-Free Intermediate A (NASDAQ: AITFX) AIM TaX)-Free Intermediate A3 (NASDAQ: ATFAX) AIM TaX)-Free Intermediate Inst (NASDAQ: ATFIX) AIM Technology A (NASDAQ: ITYAX) AIM Technology B (NASDAQ: ITYBX) AIM Technology C (NASDAQ: ITHCX) AIM Technology Instl (NASDAQ: FTPIX) AIM Technology Inv (NASDAQ: FTCHX) AIM Technology K (NASDAQ: ITHKX) AIM Total Return Bond A (NASDAQ: TBRAX) AIM Total Return Bond B (NASDAQ: TBRDX) AIM Total Return Bond C (NASDAQ: TBRCX) AIM Total Return Bond Inst (NASDAQ: TBRIX) AIM Total Return Bond R (NASDAQ: TBRRX) AIM Trimark A (NASDAQ: ATKAX) AIM Trimark B (NASDAQ: ATKBX) AIM Trimark C (NASDAQ: ATKCX) AIM Trimark Endeavor A (NASDAQ: ATDAX) AIM Trimark Endeavor B (NASDAQ: ATDBX) AIM Trimark Endeavor C (NASDAQ: ATDCX) AIM Trimark Endeavor Inst (NASDAQ: ATDIX) AIM Trimark Endeavor R (NASDAQ: ATDRX) AIM Trimark Inst (NASDAQ: ATKIX) AIM Trimark R (NASDAQ: ATKRX) AIM Trimark Small Companies A (NASDAQ: ATIAX) AIM Trimark Small Companies B (NASDAQ: ATIBX) AIM Trimark Small Companies C (NASDAQ: ATICX) AIM Trimark Small Companies Inst (NASDAQ: ATIIX) AIM Trimark Small Companies R (NASDAQ: ATIRX) AIM Utilities A (NASDAQ: IAUTX) AIM Utilities B (NASDAQ: IBUTX) AIM Utilities C (NASDAQ: IUTCX) AIM Utilities Inv (NASDAQ: FSTUX) AIM Weingarten A (NASDAQ: WEINX) AIM Weingarten B (NASDAQ: BWEIX) AIM Weingarten C (NASDAQ: CWEIX) AIM Weingarten I (NASDAQ: IWEIX) AIM Weingarten R (NASDAQ: RWEIX) The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"): AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Columbia Mutual Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Columbia mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Columbia mutual funds and their respective symbols 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 (NASDAQ: 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 action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"): AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Hartford Mutual Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Hartford mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Hartford mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: Hartford Advisers A (NASDAQ: ITTAX) Hartford Advisers B (NASDAQ: IHABX) Hartford Advisers C (NASDAQ: HAFCX) Hartford Advisers HLS IA (NASDAQ: HADAX) Hartford Advisers HLS IB (NASDAQ: HAIBX) Hartford Advisers Y (NASDAQ: IHAYX) Hartford Blue Chip HLS IA (NASDAQ: HBCIX) Hartford Capital Appreciation A (NASDAQ: ITHAX) Hartford Capital Appreciation B (NASDAQ: IHCAX) Hartford Capital Appreciation C (NASDAQ: HCACX) Hartford Capital Appreciation HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIACX) Hartford Capital Appreciation HLS IB (NASDAQ: HIBCX) Hartford Capital Appreciation Y (NASDAQ: HCAYX) Hartford Capital Opportunities HLS IA (NASDAQ: HCOIX) Hartford Disciplined Equity A (NASDAQ: HAIAX) Hartford Disciplined Equity B (NASDAQ: HGIBX) Hartford Disciplined Equity C (NASDAQ: HGICX) Hartford Disciplined Equity HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAGX) Hartford Disciplined Equity HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGIX) Hartford Disciplined Equity Y (NASDAQ: HGIYX) Hartford Dividend & Growth A (NASDAQ: IHGIX) Hartford Dividend & Growth B (NASDAQ: ITDGX) Hartford Dividend & Growth C (NASDAQ: HDGCX) Hartford Dividend & Growth HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIADX) Hartford Dividend & Growth HLS IB (NASDAQ: HDGBX) Hartford Dividend & Growth Y (NASDAQ: HDGYX) Hartford Equity Income A (NASDAQ: HQIAX) Hartford Equity Income B (NASDAQ: HQIBX) Hartford Equity Income C (NASDAQ: HQICX) Hartford Equity Income HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAEX) Hartford Equity Income HLS IB (NASDAQ: HIBEX) Hartford Equity Income Y (NASDAQ: HQIYX) Hartford Focus A (NASDAQ: HFFAX) Hartford Focus B (NASDAQ: HFFBX) Hartford Focus C (NASDAQ: HFFCX) Hartford Focus HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAFX) Hartford Focus HLS IB (NASDAQ: HFCBX) Hartford Focus Y (NASDAQ: HFFYX) Hartford Global Advisers HLS IA (NASDAQ: HGAAX) Hartford Global Advisers HLS IB (NASDAQ: HGABX) Hartford Global Comm HLS IA (NASDAQ: HGCIX) Hartford Global Comm HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGCX) Hartford Global Communications A (NASDAQ: HGCAX) Hartford Global Communications B (NASDAQ: HGCBX) Hartford Global Communications C (NASDAQ: HGCCX) Hartford Global Communications Y (NASDAQ: HGCYX) Hartford Global Financial Svcs A (NASDAQ: HGFAX) Hartford Global Financial Svcs B (NASDAQ: HGFBX) Hartford Global Financial Svcs C (NASDAQ: HGFCX) Hartford Global Financial Svcs HLS IA (NASDAQ: HFIAX) Hartford Global Financial Svcs HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGFX) Hartford Global Financial Svcs Y (NASDAQ: HGFYX) Hartford Global Health A (NASDAQ: HGHAX) Hartford Global Health B (NASDAQ: HGHBX) Hartford Global Health C (NASDAQ: HGHCX) Hartford Global Health HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAHX) Hartford Global Health HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGHX) Hartford Global Health Y (NASDAQ: HGHYX) Hartford Global Leaders A (NASDAQ: HALAX) Hartford Global Leaders B (NASDAQ: HGLBX) Hartford Global Leaders C (NASDAQ: HGLCX) Hartford Global Leaders HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIALX) Hartford Global Leaders HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGLX) Hartford Global Leaders Y (NASDAQ: HGLYX) Hartford Global Technology A (NASDAQ: HGTAX) Hartford Global Technology B (NASDAQ: HGTBX) Hartford Global Technology C (NASDAQ: HGTCX) Hartford Global Technology HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIATX) Hartford Global Technology HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGTX) Hartford Global Technology Y (NASDAQ: HGTYX) Hartford Growth A (NASDAQ: HGWAX) Hartford Growth B (NASDAQ: HGWBX) Hartford Growth C (NASDAQ: HGWCX) Hartford Growth H (NASDAQ: FECHX) Hartford Growth HLS IA (NASDAQ: HGIAX) Hartford Growth HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGRX) Hartford Growth L (NASDAQ: FECLX) Hartford Growth M (NASDAQ: FECBX) Hartford Growth N (NASDAQ: FECCX) Hartford Growth Opportunities A (NASDAQ: HGOAX) Hartford Growth Opportunities B (NASDAQ: HGOBX) Hartford Growth Opportunities C (NASDAQ: HGOCX) Hartford Growth Opportunities H (NASDAQ: FGRHX) Hartford Growth Opportunities HLS IA (NASDAQ: HAGOX) Hartford Growth Opportunities HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBGOX) Hartford Growth Opportunities L (NASDAQ: FGRWX) Hartford Growth Opportunities M (NASDAQ: FGRBX) Hartford Growth Opportunities N (NASDAQ: FGRCX) Hartford Growth Opportunities Y (NASDAQ: HGOYX) Hartford Growth Opportunities Z (NASDAQ: FGRZX) Hartford Growth Y (NASDAQ: HGWYX) Hartford High Yield A (NASDAQ: HAHAX) Hartford High Yield B (NASDAQ: HAHBX) Hartford High Yield C (NASDAQ: HAHCX) Hartford High Yield HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAYX) Hartford High Yield HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBHYX) Hartford High Yield Y (NASDAQ: HAHYX) Hartford Income A (NASDAQ: HTIAX) Hartford Income B (NASDAQ: HTIBX) Hartford Income C (NASDAQ: HTICX) Hartford Income Y (NASDAQ: HTIYX) Hartford Index HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAIX) Hartford Index HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBIDX) Hartford Inflation Plus A (NASDAQ: HIPAX) Hartford Inflation Plus B (NASDAQ: HIPBX) Hartford Inflation Plus C (NASDAQ: HIPCX) Hartford Inflation Plus Y (NASDAQ: HIPYX) Hartford International Opp HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAOX) Hartford International Opp HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBIOX) Hartford International Stock HLS IA (NASDAQ: HAISX) Hartford Intl Cap App HLS IA (NASDAQ: HNCIX) Hartford Intl Cap App HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBICX) Hartford Intl Capital Appr A (NASDAQ: HNCAX) Hartford Intl Capital Appr B (NASDAQ: HNCBX) Hartford Intl Capital Appr C (NASDAQ: HNCCX) Hartford Intl Capital Appr Y (NASDAQ: HNCYX) Hartford Intl Opportunities A (NASDAQ: IHOAX) Hartford Intl Opportunities B (NASDAQ: HIOBX) Hartford Intl Opportunities C (NASDAQ: HIOCX) Hartford Intl Opportunities Y (NASDAQ: HAOYX) Hartford Intl Small Company A (NASDAQ: HNSAX) Hartford Intl Small Company B (NASDAQ: HNSBX) Hartford Intl Small Company C (NASDAQ: HNSCX) Hartford Intl Small Company HLS IA (NASDAQ: HNSIX) Hartford Intl Small Company HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBISX) Hartford Intl Small Company Y (NASDAQ: HNSYX) Hartford Large Cap Growth HLS IA (NASDAQ: HLGCX) Hartford Mid Cap Value A (NASDAQ: HMVAX) Hartford Mid Cap Value B (NASDAQ: HMVBX) Hartford Mid Cap Value C (NASDAQ: HMVCX) Hartford Mid Cap Value Y (NASDAQ: HMVYX) Hartford Midcap A (NASDAQ: HFMCX) Hartford Midcap B (NASDAQ: HAMBX) Hartford Midcap C (NASDAQ: HMDCX) Hartford MidCap HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIMCX) Hartford MidCap HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBMCX) Hartford MidCap Stock HLS IA (NASDAQ: HMCSX) Hartford MidCap Value HLS IA (NASDAQ: HMVIX) Hartford MidCap Value HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBMVX) Hartford Midcap Y (NASDAQ: HMDYX) Hartford Mortgage Securities HLS IA (NASDAQ: HMSIX) Hartford Mortgage Securities HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBMGX) Hartford Short Duration A (NASDAQ: HSDAX) Hartford Short Duration B (NASDAQ: HSDBX) Hartford Short Duration C (NASDAQ: HSDCX) Hartford Short Duration Y (NASDAQ: HSDYX) Hartford Small Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: HSLAX) Hartford Small Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: HSLBX) Hartford Small Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: HSLCX) Hartford Small Cap Growth H (NASDAQ: FACHX) Hartford Small Cap Growth L (NASDAQ: FACAX) Hartford Small Cap Growth M (NASDAQ: FACBX) Hartford Small Cap Growth N (NASDAQ: FACCX) Hartford Small Cap Growth Y (NASDAQ: HSLYX) Hartford Small Cap Value HLS IA (NASDAQ: HSCGX) Hartford Small Cap Value HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBSCX) Hartford Small Company A (NASDAQ: IHSAX) Hartford Small Company B (NASDAQ: HSCBX) Hartford Small Company C (NASDAQ: HSMCX) Hartford Small Company HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIASX) Hartford Small Company HLS IB (NASDAQ: HDMBX) Hartford Small Company Y (NASDAQ: HSCYX) Hartford SmallCap Growth HLS IA (NASDAQ: HISCX) Hartford SmallCap Growth HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBSGX) Hartford Stock A (NASDAQ: IHSTX) Hartford Stock B (NASDAQ: ITSBX) Hartford Stock C (NASDAQ: HSFCX) Hartford Stock HLS IA (NASDAQ: HSTAX) Hartford Stock HLS IB (NASDAQ: HIBSX) Hartford Stock Y (NASDAQ: HASYX) Hartford Tax-Free CA A (NASDAQ: HTFAX) Hartford Tax-Free CA B (NASDAQ: HTFBX) Hartford Tax-Free CA C (NASDAQ: HTFCX) Hartford Tax-Free MN A (NASDAQ: HTMAX) Hartford Tax-Free MN B (NASDAQ: HTMBX) Hartford Tax-Free MN C (NASDAQ: HTMCX) Hartford Tax-Free MN E (NASDAQ: FTMNX) Hartford Tax-Free MN H (NASDAQ: FTMHX) Hartford Tax-Free MN L (NASDAQ: FTMAX) Hartford Tax-Free MN M (NASDAQ: FTMBX) Hartford Tax-Free MN N (NASDAQ: FTMCX) Hartford Tax-Free MN Y (NASDAQ: HTMYX) Hartford Tax-Free National A (NASDAQ: HTNAX) Hartford Tax-Free National B (NASDAQ: HTNBX) Hartford Tax-Free National C (NASDAQ: HTNCX) Hartford Tax-Free National E (NASDAQ: FTNLX) Hartford Tax-Free National H (NASDAQ: FTNHX) Hartford Tax-Free National L (NASDAQ: FTNAX) Hartford Tax-Free National M (NASDAQ: FTNBX) Hartford Tax-Free National N (NASDAQ: FTNKX) Hartford Tax-Free National Y (NASDAQ: HTNYX) Hartford Tax-Free NY A (NASDAQ: HTYAX) Hartford Tax-Free NY B (NASDAQ: HTYBX) Hartford Tax-Free NY C (NASDAQ: HTYCX) Hartford Total Return Bond A (NASDAQ: ITBAX) Hartford Total Return Bond B (NASDAQ: ITBBX) Hartford Total Return Bond C (NASDAQ: HABCX) Hartford Total Return Bond HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIABX) Hartford Total Return Bond HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBNBX) Hartford Total Return Bond Y (NASDAQ: HABYX) Hartford U.S. Government Secs HLS IA (NASDAQ: HAUSX) Hartford U.S. Government Secs HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBUSX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities A (NASDAQ: HUSAX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities B (NASDAQ: HUSBX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities C (NASDAQ: HUSCX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities E (NASDAQ: FIUGX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities H (NASDAQ: FIUHX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities L (NASDAQ: FIUAX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities M (NASDAQ: FIPBX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities N (NASDAQ: FIUCX) Hartford U.S. Government Securities Y (NASDAQ: HUSYX) Hartford Value A (NASDAQ: HVFAX) Hartford Value B (NASDAQ: HVFBX) Hartford Value C (NASDAQ: HVFCX) Hartford Value HLS IA (NASDAQ: HIAVX) Hartford Value HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBVLX) Hartford Value Opportunities A (NASDAQ: HVOAX) Hartford Value Opportunities B (NASDAQ: HVOBX) Hartford Value Opportunities C (NASDAQ: HVOCX) Hartford Value Opportunities H (NASDAQ: FVAHX) Hartford Value Opportunities HLS IA (NASDAQ: HAVOX) Hartford Value Opportunities HLS IB (NASDAQ: HBVOX) Hartford Value Opportunities L (NASDAQ: FVAAX) Hartford Value Opportunities M (NASDAQ: FVABX) Hartford Value Opportunities N (NASDAQ: FRVCX) Hartford Value Opportunities Y (NASDAQ: HVOYX) Hartford Value Y (NASDAQ: HVFYX) The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Files NY Suit Over John Hancock Mutual Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased John Hancock mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The John Hancock mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: John Hancock Balanced A (NASDAQ: SVBAX) John Hancock Balanced B (NASDAQ: SVBBX) John Hancock Balanced C (NASDAQ: SVBCX) John Hancock Balanced I (NASDAQ: SVBIX) John Hancock Bond A (NASDAQ: JHNBX) John Hancock Bond B (NASDAQ: JHBBX) John Hancock Bond C (NASDAQ: JHCBX) John Hancock Bond I (NASDAQ: JHBIX) John Hancock Bond R (NASDAQ: JHBRX) John Hancock CA Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: TACAX) John Hancock CA Tax-Free Income B (NASDAQ: TSCAX) John Hancock CA Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: TCCAX) John Hancock Classic Value A (NASDAQ: PZFVX) John Hancock Classic Value B (NASDAQ: JCVBX) John Hancock Classic Value C (NASDAQ: JCVCX) John Hancock Classic Value I (NASDAQ: JCVIX) John Hancock Classic Value R (NASDAQ: JCVRX) John Hancock Core Equity A (NASDAQ: JHDCX) John Hancock Core Equity B (NASDAQ: JHIDX) John Hancock Core Equity C (NASDAQ: JHCEX) John Hancock Core Equity I (NASDAQ: JHCIX) John Hancock Financial Industries A (NASDAQ: FIDAX) John Hancock Financial Industries B (NASDAQ: FIDBX) John Hancock Financial Industries C (NASDAQ: FIDCX) John Hancock Financial Industries I (NASDAQ: FIDIX) John Hancock Focused Equity A (NASDAQ: JFVAX) John Hancock Focused Equity B (NASDAQ: JFVBX) John Hancock Focused Equity C (NASDAQ: JFVCX) John Hancock Government Income A (NASDAQ: JHGIX) John Hancock Government Income B (NASDAQ: TSGIX) John Hancock Government Income C (NASDAQ: TCGIX) John Hancock Greater China Opp A (NASDAQ: JCOAX) John Hancock Greater China Opp B (NASDAQ: JCOBX) John Hancock Greater China Opp C (NASDAQ: JCOCX) John Hancock Greater China Opp I (NASDAQ: JCOIX) John Hancock Growth Trends A (NASDAQ: JGTAX) John Hancock Growth Trends B (NASDAQ: JGTBX) John Hancock Growth Trends C (NASDAQ: JGTCX) John Hancock Health Sciences A (NASDAQ: JHGRX) John Hancock Health Sciences B (NASDAQ: JHRBX) John Hancock Health Sciences C (NASDAQ: JHRCX) John Hancock High Income A (NASDAQ: JAHIX) John Hancock High Income B (NASDAQ: JBHIX) John Hancock High Income C (NASDAQ: JCHIX) John Hancock High Income I (NASDAQ: JIHIX) John Hancock High-Yield A (NASDAQ: JHHBX) John Hancock High-Yield B (NASDAQ: TSHYX) John Hancock High-Yield C (NASDAQ: JHYCX) John Hancock High-Yield Muni Bond A (NASDAQ: JHTFX) John Hancock High-Yield Muni Bond B (NASDAQ: TSHTX) John Hancock High-Yield Muni Bond C (NASDAQ: JCTFX) John Hancock Indep Divers Core Eq II (NASDAQ: COREX) John Hancock International A (NASDAQ: FINAX) John Hancock International B (NASDAQ: FINBX) John Hancock International C (NASDAQ: JINCX) John Hancock International I (NASDAQ: JINIX) John Hancock Investment Grade Bond A (NASDAQ: TAUSX) John Hancock Investment Grade Bond B (NASDAQ: TSUSX) John Hancock Investment Grade Bond C (NASDAQ: TCUSX) John Hancock Investment Grade Bond I (NASDAQ: TIUSX) John Hancock Large Cap Equity A (NASDAQ: TAGRX) John Hancock Large Cap Equity B (NASDAQ: TSGWX) John Hancock Large Cap Equity C (NASDAQ: JHLVX) John Hancock Large Cap Equity I (NASDAQ: JLVIX) John Hancock Large Cap Select A (NASDAQ: MSBFX) John Hancock Large Cap Select B (NASDAQ: JHLBX) John Hancock Large Cap Select C (NASDAQ: JHLCX) John Hancock Large Cap Select I (NASDAQ: JHLIX) John Hancock Large Cap Select R (NASDAQ: JHLRX) John Hancock MA Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: JHMAX) John Hancock MA Tax-Free Income B (NASDAQ: JHMBX) John Hancock MA Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: JMACX) John Hancock Mid Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: SPOAX) John Hancock Mid Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: SPOBX) John Hancock Mid Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: SPOCX) John Hancock Mid Cap Growth I (NASDAQ: SPOIX) John Hancock Multi-Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: JMGAX) John Hancock Multi-Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: JMGBX) John Hancock Multi-Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: JMGCX) John Hancock NY Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: JHNYX) John Hancock NY Tax-Free Income B (NASDAQ: JNTRX) John Hancock NY Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: JNYCX) John Hancock Real Estate A (NASDAQ: JREAX) John Hancock Real Estate B (NASDAQ: JREBX) John Hancock Real Estate C (NASDAQ: JRECX) John Hancock Regional Bank A (NASDAQ: FRBAX) John Hancock Regional Bank B (NASDAQ: FRBFX) John Hancock Regional Bank C (NASDAQ: FRBCX) John Hancock Small Cap A (NASDAQ: DSISX) John Hancock Small Cap B (NASDAQ: DSBSX) John Hancock Small Cap C (NASDAQ: DSCSX) John Hancock Small Cap Equity A (NASDAQ: SPVAX) John Hancock Small Cap Equity B (NASDAQ: SPVBX) John Hancock Small Cap Equity C (NASDAQ: SPVCX) John Hancock Small Cap Equity I (NASDAQ: SPVIX) John Hancock Small Cap Equity R (NASDAQ: SPVRX) John Hancock Small Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: TAEMX) John Hancock Small Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: TSEGX) John Hancock Small Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: JSGCX) John Hancock Small Cap Growth I (NASDAQ: JSGIX) John Hancock Small Cap I (NASDAQ: DSIIX) John Hancock Sovereign Investors A (NASDAQ: SOVIX) John Hancock Sovereign Investors B (NASDAQ: SOVBX) John Hancock Sovereign Investors C (NASDAQ: SOVCX) John Hancock Sovereign Investors I (NASDAQ: SOIIX) John Hancock Sovereign Investors R (NASDAQ: SVIRX) John Hancock Strategic Income A (NASDAQ: JHFIX) John Hancock Strategic Income B (NASDAQ: STIBX) John Hancock Strategic Income C (NASDAQ: JSTCX) John Hancock Strategic Income I (NASDAQ: JSTIX) John Hancock Strategic Income R (NASDAQ: JSTRX) John Hancock Tax-Free Bond A (NASDAQ: TAMBX) John Hancock Tax-Free Bond B (NASDAQ: TSMBX) John Hancock Tax-Free Bond C (NASDAQ: TBMBX) John Hancock Technology A (NASDAQ: NTTFX) John Hancock Technology B (NASDAQ: FGTBX) John Hancock Technology C (NASDAQ: JHTCX) John Hancock Technology I (NASDAQ: JHTIX) John Hancock Technology Leaders A (NASDAQ: LUX)RX) John Hancock Technology Leaders B (NASDAQ: JTLBX) John Hancock Technology Leaders C (NASDAQ: JTLCX) John Hancock Technology Leaders I (NASDAQ: JTLIX) John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr A (NASDAQ: USGLX) John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr B (NASDAQ: USLBX) John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr C (NASDAQ: USLCX) John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr I (NASDAQ: USLIX) John Hancock U.S. Global Leaders Gr R (NASDAQ: UGLRX) The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"): AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Lord Abbett Mutual Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Lord Abbett mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Lord Abbett mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: Lord Abbett Affiliated A (NASDAQ: LAFFX) Lord Abbett Affiliated B (NASDAQ: LAFBX) Lord Abbett Affiliated C (NASDAQ: LAFCX) Lord Abbett Affiliated P (NASDAQ: LAFPX) Lord Abbett Affiliated Y (NASDAQ: LAFYX) Lord Abbett All Value A (NASDAQ: LDFVX) Lord Abbett All Value B (NASDAQ: GILBX) Lord Abbett All Value C (NASDAQ: GILAX) Lord Abbett All Value P (NASDAQ: LAVPX) Lord Abbett All Value Y (NASDAQ: LAVYX) Lord Abbett Alpha A (NASDAQ: ALFAX) Lord Abbett Alpha B (NASDAQ: ALFBX) Lord Abbett Alpha C (NASDAQ: ALFCX) Lord Abbett America's Value A (NASDAQ: LAMAX) Lord Abbett America's Value B (NASDAQ: LAMBX) Lord Abbett America's Value C (NASDAQ: LAMCX) Lord Abbett America's Value P (NASDAQ: LAMPX) Lord Abbett America's Value Y (NASDAQ: LAMYX) Lord Abbett Balanced A (NASDAQ: LABFX) Lord Abbett Balanced B (NASDAQ: LABBX) Lord Abbett Balanced C (NASDAQ: BFLAX) Lord Abbett Balanced P (NASDAQ: LABPX) Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture A (NASDAQ: LBNDX) Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture B (NASDAQ: LBNBX) Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture C (NASDAQ: BDLAX) Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture P (NASDAQ: LBNPX) Lord Abbett Bond-Debenture Y (NASDAQ: LBNYX) Lord Abbett CA Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LCFIX) Lord Abbett CA Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: CALAX) Lord Abbett Convertible A (NASDAQ: LACFX) Lord Abbett Convertible B (NASDAQ: LBCFX) Lord Abbett Convertible C (NASDAQ: LACCX) Lord Abbett Convertible P (NASDAQ: LCFPX) Lord Abbett Convertible Y (NASDAQ: LCFYX) Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income A (NASDAQ: LCRAX) Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income B (NASDAQ: LCRBX) Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income C (NASDAQ: LCRCX) Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income P (NASDAQ: LCRPX) Lord Abbett Core Fixed Income Y (NASDAQ: LCRYX) Lord Abbett CT Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LACTX) Lord Abbett Developing Growth A (NASDAQ: LAGWX) Lord Abbett Developing Growth B (NASDAQ: LADBX) Lord Abbett Developing Growth C (NASDAQ: LADCX) Lord Abbett Developing Growth P (NASDAQ: LADPX) Lord Abbett Developing Growth Y (NASDAQ: LADYX) Lord Abbett FL Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAFLX) Lord Abbett FL Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: FLLAX) Lord Abbett GA Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAGAX) Lord Abbett Global Equity A (NASDAQ: LAGEX) Lord Abbett Global Equity B (NASDAQ: LAGBX) Lord Abbett Global Equity C (NASDAQ: LAGCX) Lord Abbett Global Income A (NASDAQ: LAGIX) Lord Abbett Global Income B (NASDAQ: LAIBX) Lord Abbett Global Income C (NASDAQ: GBLAX) Lord Abbett Global Income P (NASDAQ: LGIPX) Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities A (NASDAQ: LMGAX) Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities B (NASDAQ: LMGBX) Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities C (NASDAQ: LMGCX) Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities P (NASDAQ: LGOPX) Lord Abbett Growth Opportunities Y (NASDAQ: LMGYX) Lord Abbett HI Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAHIX) Lord Abbett High Yield A (NASDAQ: LHYAX) Lord Abbett High Yield B (NASDAQ: LHYBX) Lord Abbett High Yield C (NASDAQ: LHYCX) Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond A (NASDAQ: HYMAX) Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond B (NASDAQ: HYMBX) Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond C (NASDAQ: HYMCX) Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond P (NASDAQ: HYMPX) Lord Abbett High Yield P (NASDAQ: LHYPX) Lord Abbett High Yield Y (NASDAQ: LAHYX) Lord Abbett Income Strategy A (NASDAQ: ISFAX) Lord Abbett Income Strategy B (NASDAQ: ISFBX) Lord Abbett Income Strategy C (NASDAQ: ISFCX) Lord Abbett Income Strategy P (NASDAQ: ISFPX) Lord Abbett Income Strategy Y (NASDAQ: ISFYX) Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr A (NASDAQ: LISAX) Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr B (NASDAQ: LISBX) Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr C (NASDAQ: LISCX) Lord Abbett Insured Intermediate Tx-Fr P (NASDAQ: LISPX) Lord Abbett International Opp A (NASDAQ: LAIEX) Lord Abbett International Opp B (NASDAQ: LINBX) Lord Abbett International Opp C (NASDAQ: LINCX) Lord Abbett International Opp P (NASDAQ: LINPX) Lord Abbett International Opp Y (NASDAQ: LINYX) Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity A (NASDAQ: LICAX) Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity B (NASDAQ: LICBX) Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity C (NASDAQ: LICCX) Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity P (NASDAQ: LICPX) Lord Abbett Intl Core Equity Y (NASDAQ: LICYX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core A (NASDAQ: LRLCX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core B (NASDAQ: LARBX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core C (NASDAQ: LLRCX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core P (NASDAQ: LRLPX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Core Y (NASDAQ: LARYX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: LALCX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: LALBX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: LACGX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth P (NASDAQ: LLCPX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Growth Y (NASDAQ: LALYX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value A (NASDAQ: LALAX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value B (NASDAQ: LLCBX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value C (NASDAQ: LLCCX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value P (NASDAQ: LALPX) Lord Abbett Large-Cap Value Y (NASDAQ: LLCYX) Lord Abbett Ltd Dur U.S. Govt Secs A (NASDAQ: LALDX) Lord Abbett Ltd Dur U.S. Govt Secs B (NASDAQ: LLTBX) Lord Abbett Ltd Dur U.S. Govt Secs C (NASDAQ: LDLAX) Lord Abbett MI Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAMIX) Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value A (NASDAQ: LAVLX) Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value B (NASDAQ: LMCBX) Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value C (NASDAQ: LMCCX) Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value P (NASDAQ: LMCPX) Lord Abbett Mid-Cap Value Y (NASDAQ: LMCYX) Lord Abbett MN Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAMNX) Lord Abbett MO Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAMOX) Lord Abbett Natl Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LANSX) Lord Abbett Natl Tax-Free Income B (NASDAQ: LANBX) Lord Abbett Natl Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: LTNSX) Lord Abbett NJ Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LANJX) Lord Abbett NY Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LANYX) Lord Abbett NY Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: NYLAX) Lord Abbett PA Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAPAX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend A (NASDAQ: LSBAX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend B (NASDAQ: LSBBX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend C (NASDAQ: LSBCX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend P (NASDAQ: LSBPX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Blend Y (NASDAQ: LSBYX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value A (NASDAQ: LRSCX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value B (NASDAQ: LRSBX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value C (NASDAQ: LSRCX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value P (NASDAQ: LRSPX) Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value Y (NASDAQ: LRSYX) Lord Abbett Total Return A (NASDAQ: LTRAX) Lord Abbett Total Return B (NASDAQ: LTRBX) Lord Abbett Total Return C (NASDAQ: LTRCX) Lord Abbett Total Return P (NASDAQ: LTRPX) Lord Abbett Total Return Y (NASDAQ: LTRYX) Lord Abbett TX Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LATIX) Lord Abbett U.S. Gov & Gov Spnsd Entpr A (NASDAQ: LAGVX) Lord Abbett U.S. Gov & Gov Spnsd Entpr B (NASDAQ: LAVBX) Lord Abbett U.S. Gov & Gov Spnsd Entpr C (NASDAQ: LAUSX) Lord Abbett WA Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: LAWAX) Lord Abbett World Growth & Inc Strat B (NASDAQ: LWSBX) Lord Abbett World Growth & Inc Strat C (NASDAQ: LWSCX) Lord Abbett World Growth & Inc Strat P (NASDAQ: LWSPX) Lord Abbett World Growth & Inc Strat Y (NASDAQ: LWSYX) The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"): AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Pioneer Mutual Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Pioneer mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Pioneer mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: Pioneer A (NASDAQ: PIODX) Pioneer America Income Trust A (NASDAQ: PUSGX) Pioneer America Income Trust B (NASDAQ: PBUSX) Pioneer America Income Trust C (NASDAQ: PCUSX) Pioneer America Income Trust Inv (NASDAQ: PUSIX) Pioneer AmPac Growth A (NASDAQ: PAPRX) Pioneer AmPac Growth B (NASDAQ: PRABX) Pioneer AmPac Growth C (NASDAQ: PRRCX) Pioneer AmPac Growth R (NASDAQ: PRFRX) Pioneer B (NASDAQ: PBODX) Pioneer Balanced A (NASDAQ: MOMIX) Pioneer Balanced B (NASDAQ: PBMIX) Pioneer Balanced C (NASDAQ: PCMPX) Pioneer Balanced Inv (NASDAQ: MOIIX) Pioneer Bond A (NASDAQ: PIOBX) Pioneer Bond B (NASDAQ: PBOBX) Pioneer Bond C (NASDAQ: PCYBX) Pioneer Bond Inv (NASDAQ: BFIOX) Pioneer Bond R (NASDAQ: PBFRX) Pioneer Bond Y (NASDAQ: PICYX) Pioneer C (NASDAQ: PCODX) Pioneer CA Tax Free Income A (NASDAQ: CATAX) Pioneer CA Tax Free Income B (NASDAQ: CATBX) Pioneer CA Tax Free Income C (NASDAQ: CATCX) Pioneer CA Tax Free Income Inv (NASDAQ: CATIX) Pioneer Cullen Value A (NASDAQ: CVFCX) Pioneer Cullen Value B (NASDAQ: CVFBX) Pioneer Cullen Value C (NASDAQ: CVCFX) Pioneer Cullen Value Y (NASDAQ: CVFYX) Pioneer Emerging Markets A (NASDAQ: PEMFX) Pioneer Emerging Markets B (NASDAQ: PBEFX) Pioneer Emerging Markets C (NASDAQ: PCEFX) Pioneer Emerging Markets Y (NASDAQ: PYEFX) Pioneer Equity Opportunity A (NASDAQ: PEOFX) Pioneer Equity Opportunity B (NASDAQ: PEOBX) Pioneer Equity Opportunity C (NASDAQ: PEOCX) Pioneer Equity-Income A (NASDAQ: PEQIX) Pioneer Equity-Income B (NASDAQ: PBEQX) Pioneer Equity-Income C (NASDAQ: PCEQX) Pioneer Equity-Income R (NASDAQ: PQIRX) Pioneer Equity-Income Y (NASDAQ: PYEQX) Pioneer Europe Select Equity A (NASDAQ: PERAX) Pioneer Europe Select Equity B (NASDAQ: PERBX) Pioneer Europe Select Equity C (NASDAQ: PERCX) Pioneer Global High Yield A (NASDAQ: PGHYX) Pioneer Global High Yield B (NASDAQ: PGHBX) Pioneer Global High Yield C (NASDAQ: PGYCX) Pioneer Growth A (NASDAQ: MOMGX) Pioneer Growth B (NASDAQ: PBMGX) Pioneer Growth C (NASDAQ: PCMGX) Pioneer Growth Inv (NASDAQ: MOIGX) Pioneer Growth Leaders A (NASDAQ: LRPSX) Pioneer Growth Leaders B (NASDAQ: LRPBX) Pioneer Growth Leaders C (NASDAQ: LRPCX) Pioneer Growth Leaders R (NASDAQ: LRPRX) Pioneer Growth Opportunities A (NASDAQ: PGOFX) Pioneer Growth Opportunities B (NASDAQ: GOFBX) Pioneer Growth Opportunities C (NASDAQ: GOFCX) Pioneer Growth Opportunities Inv (NASDAQ: PGIFX) Pioneer Growth R (NASDAQ: PGRRX) Pioneer Growth Y (NASDAQ: PYMGX) Pioneer High Yield A (NASDAQ: TAHYX) Pioneer High Yield B (NASDAQ: TBHYX) Pioneer High Yield C (NASDAQ: PYICX) Pioneer High Yield Inv (NASDAQ: TAHIX) Pioneer High Yield R (NASDAQ: TYHRX) Pioneer High Yield Y (NASDAQ: TYHYX) Pioneer Ibbotson Aggressive Allocation A (NASDAQ: PIAAX) Pioneer Ibbotson Aggressive Allocation B (NASDAQ: IALBX) Pioneer Ibbotson Aggressive Allocation C (NASDAQ: IALCX) Pioneer Ibbotson Conservative Alloc A (NASDAQ: PIAVX) Pioneer Ibbotson Conservative Alloc B (NASDAQ: PIBVX) Pioneer Ibbotson Conservative Alloc C (NASDAQ: PICVX) Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation A (NASDAQ: GRAAX) Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation B (NASDAQ: GRABX) Pioneer Ibbotson Growth Allocation C (NASDAQ: GRACX) Pioneer Ibbotson Moderate Allocation A (NASDAQ: PIALX) Pioneer Ibbotson Moderate Allocation B (NASDAQ: PIBLX) Pioneer Ibbotson Moderate Allocation C (NASDAQ: PIDCX) Pioneer Independence (NASDAQ: PINDX) Pioneer International Equity A (NASDAQ: PIWEX) Pioneer International Equity B (NASDAQ: PBWEX) Pioneer International Equity C (NASDAQ: PCWEX) Pioneer International Equity Inv (NASDAQ: IEIPX) Pioneer International Equity Y (NASDAQ: PIEYX) Pioneer International Value A (NASDAQ: PIIFX) Pioneer International Value B (NASDAQ: PBIFX) Pioneer International Value C (NASDAQ: PCITX) Pioneer Inv (NASDAQ: PFIOX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: PITHX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: PBMDX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: PCMCX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Growth Y (NASDAQ: PMCYX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Value A (NASDAQ: PCGRX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Value B (NASDAQ: PBCGX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Value C (NASDAQ: PCCGX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Value Inv (NASDAQ: PGCIX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Value R (NASDAQ: PCMRX) Pioneer Mid-Cap Value Y (NASDAQ: PYCGX) Pioneer Municipal Bond A (NASDAQ: PBMFX) Pioneer Municipal Bond B (NASDAQ: PBMUX) Pioneer Municipal Bond C (NASDAQ: MNBCX) Pioneer Municipal Bond Inv (NASDAQ: PBIMX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: ORILX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: ORLBX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: ORLCX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth R (NASDAQ: ORLRX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Large Cap Growth Y (NASDAQ: PORYX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Small Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: ORIGX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Small Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: ORIBX) Pioneer Oak Ridge Small Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: ORICX) Pioneer Protected Principal Plus A (NASDAQ: PPPAX) Pioneer Protected Principal Plus B (NASDAQ: PPPBX) Pioneer Protected Principal Plus C (NASDAQ: PPPCX) Pioneer Protected Principal Plus II A (NASDAQ: PPFAX) Pioneer Protected Principal Plus II B (NASDAQ: PPFBX) Pioneer Protected Principal Plus II C (NASDAQ: PPFCX) Pioneer R (NASDAQ: PIORX) Pioneer Real Estate A (NASDAQ: PWREX) Pioneer Real Estate B (NASDAQ: PBREX) Pioneer Real Estate C (NASDAQ: PCREX) Pioneer Real Estate Y (NASDAQ: PYREX) Pioneer Research A (NASDAQ: PATMX) Pioneer Research B (NASDAQ: PBTMX) Pioneer Research C (NASDAQ: PCTMX) Pioneer Research Y (NASDAQ: PRFYX) Pioneer Short Term Income A (NASDAQ: STABX) Pioneer Short Term Income B (NASDAQ: STBBX) Pioneer Short Term Income C (NASDAQ: PSHCX) Pioneer Short Term Income Y (NASDAQ: PSHYX) Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: PAPPX) Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: MCSBX) Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: CGCPX) Pioneer Small and Mid Cap Growth R (NASDAQ: CGCRX) Pioneer Small Cap Value A (NASDAQ: PIMCX) Pioneer Small Cap Value B (NASDAQ: PBMOX) Pioneer Small Cap Value C (NASDAQ: PSVCX) Pioneer Small Cap Value Inv (NASDAQ: CALLX) Pioneer Small Cap Value R (NASDAQ: PSVRX) Pioneer Small Cap Value Y (NASDAQ: PCAYX) Pioneer Small Company A (NASDAQ: PSCFX) Pioneer Small Company B (NASDAQ: PBSCX) Pioneer Small Company C (NASDAQ: PCSCX) Pioneer Strategic Growth A (NASDAQ: PAAFX) Pioneer Strategic Growth B (NASDAQ: PIABX) Pioneer Strategic Growth C (NASDAQ: PAGCX) Pioneer Strategic Income A (NASDAQ: PSRAX) Pioneer Strategic Income B (NASDAQ: PSRBX) Pioneer Strategic Income C (NASDAQ: PSRCX) Pioneer Strategic Income R (NASDAQ: STIRX) Pioneer Strategic Income Y (NASDAQ: STRYX) Pioneer Tax Free Income A (NASDAQ: MOMTX) Pioneer Tax Free Income B (NASDAQ: PBMTX) Pioneer Tax Free Income C (NASDAQ: PCMTX) Pioneer Tax Free Income Inv (NASDAQ: MOITX) Pioneer Tax Free Income Y (NASDAQ: PYMTX) Pioneer Value A (NASDAQ: PIOTX) Pioneer Value B (NASDAQ: PBOTX) Pioneer Value C (NASDAQ: PCOTX) Pioneer Value Inv (NASDAQ: PIOIX) Pioneer Value R (NASDAQ: PVFRX) Pioneer Value Y (NASDAQ: PVFYX) Pioneer Y (NASDAQ: PYODX) The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges Suit in NY Over Scudder Mutual Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Scudder mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Scudder mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: Scudder Aggressive Growth A (NASDAQ: KGGAX) Scudder Aggressive Growth B (NASDAQ: KGGBX) Scudder Aggressive Growth C (NASDAQ: KGGCX) Scudder Aggressive Growth Instl (NASDAQ: KGGIX) Scudder Blue Chip A (NASDAQ: KBCAX) Scudder Blue Chip B (NASDAQ: KBCBX) Scudder Blue Chip C (NASDAQ: KBCCX) Scudder Blue Chip Instl (NASDAQ: KBCIX) Scudder Blue Chip Svc (NASDAQ: KBCSX) Scudder Capital Growth A (NASDAQ: SDGAX) Scudder Capital Growth AARP (NASDAQ: ACGFX) Scudder Capital Growth B (NASDAQ: SDGBX) Scudder Capital Growth C (NASDAQ: SDGCX) Scudder Capital Growth Instl (NASDAQ: SDGTX) Scudder Capital Growth R (NASDAQ: SDGRX) Scudder Capital Growth S (NASDAQ: SCGSX) Scudder Commodity Securities A (NASDAQ: SKNRX) Scudder Commodity Securities B (NASDAQ: SKBRX) Scudder Commodity Securities C (NASDAQ: SKCRX) Scudder Commodity Securities Inst (NASDAQ: SKIRX) Scudder Commodity Securities S (NASDAQ: SKSRX) Scudder Development AARP (NASDAQ: SDVLX) Scudder Development S (NASDAQ: SCDVX) Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value A (NASDAQ: LOPEX) Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value B (NASDAQ: LOPBX) Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value C (NASDAQ: LOPCX) Scudder Dreman Concentrated Value I (NASDAQ: LOPIX) Scudder Dreman Financial Services A (NASDAQ: KDFAX) Scudder Dreman Financial Services B (NASDAQ: KDFBX) Scudder Dreman Financial Services C (NASDAQ: KDFCX) Scudder Dreman High Return Eq A (NASDAQ: KDHAX) Scudder Dreman High Return Eq B (NASDAQ: KDHBX) Scudder Dreman High Return Eq C (NASDAQ: KDHCX) Scudder Dreman High Return Eq Instl (NASDAQ: KDHIX) Scudder Dreman High Return Equity R (NASDAQ: KDHRX) Scudder Dreman High Return Equity S (NASDAQ: KDHSX) Scudder Dreman Mid Cap Value A (NASDAQ: MIDVX) Scudder Dreman Mid Cap Value B (NASDAQ: MIDYX) Scudder Dreman Mid Cap Value C (NASDAQ: MIDZX) Scudder Dreman Mid Cap Value I (NASDAQ: MIDIX) Scudder Dreman Mid Cap Value S (NASDAQ: MIDTX) Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value A (NASDAQ: KDSAX) Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value B (NASDAQ: KDSBX) Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value C (NASDAQ: KDSCX) Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value Instl (NASDAQ: KDSIX) Scudder Dreman Small Cap Value R (NASDAQ: KDSRX) Scudder EAFE Equity IndeX) Instl (NASDAQ: BTAEX) Scudder Emerging Markets A (NASDAQ: SEKAX) Scudder Emerging Markets AARP (NASDAQ: SEMMX) Scudder Emerging Markets B (NASDAQ: SEKBX) Scudder Emerging Markets C (NASDAQ: SEKCX) Scudder Emerging Markets Income A (NASDAQ: SZEAX) Scudder Emerging Markets Income AARP (NASDAQ: SEMKX) Scudder Emerging Markets Income B (NASDAQ: SZEBX) Scudder Emerging Markets Income C (NASDAQ: SZECX) Scudder Emerging Markets Income S (NASDAQ: SCEMX) Scudder Emerging Markets S (NASDAQ: SEMGX) Scudder Equity 500 IndeX) Instl (NASDAQ: BTIIX) Scudder Equity 500 IndeX) Invm (NASDAQ: BTIEX) Scudder Fixed Income A (NASDAQ: SFXAX) Scudder Fixed Income B (NASDAQ: SFXBX) Scudder Fixed Income C (NASDAQ: SFXCX) Scudder Fixed Income Instl (NASDAQ: MFINX) Scudder Fixed Income Invm (NASDAQ: MFISX) Scudder Fixed Income R (NASDAQ: SFXRX) Scudder Fixed Income Svc (NASDAQ: SFXSX) Scudder Flag Communications A (NASDAQ: TISHX) Scudder Flag Communications B (NASDAQ: FTEBX) Scudder Flag Communications C (NASDAQ: FTICX) Scudder Flag Communications Instl (NASDAQ: FLICX) Scudder Flag Equity Partners A (NASDAQ: FLEPX) Scudder Flag Equity Partners B (NASDAQ: FEPBX) Scudder Flag Equity Partners C (NASDAQ: FEPCX) Scudder Flag Equity Partners Instl (NASDAQ: FLIPX) Scudder Flag Value Builder A (NASDAQ: FLVBX) Scudder Flag Value Builder B (NASDAQ: FVBBX) Scudder Flag Value Builder C (NASDAQ: FVBCX) Scudder Flag Value Builder Instl (NASDAQ: FLIVX) Scudder Global A (NASDAQ: SGQAX) Scudder Global AARP (NASDAQ: ACOBX) Scudder Global B (NASDAQ: SGQBX) Scudder Global Bond A (NASDAQ: SZGAX) Scudder Global Bond AARP (NASDAQ: SGBDX) Scudder Global Bond B (NASDAQ: SZGBX) Scudder Global Bond C (NASDAQ: SZGCX) Scudder Global Bond S (NASDAQ: SSTGX) Scudder Global C (NASDAQ: SGQCX) Scudder Global Discovery A (NASDAQ: KGDAX) Scudder Global Discovery AARP (NASDAQ: SGDPX) Scudder Global Discovery B (NASDAQ: KGDBX) Scudder Global Discovery C (NASDAQ: KGDCX) Scudder Global Discovery S (NASDAQ: SGSCX) Scudder Global R (NASDAQ: SGQRX) Scudder Global S (NASDAQ: SCOBX) Scudder GNMA AARP (NASDAQ: AGNMX) Scudder GNMA S (NASDAQ: SGINX) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals A (NASDAQ: SGDAX) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals AARP (NASDAQ: SGLDX) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals B (NASDAQ: SGDBX) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals C (NASDAQ: SGDCX) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals S (NASDAQ: SCGDX) Scudder Greater Europe A (NASDAQ: SERAX) Scudder Greater Europe AARP (NASDAQ: SGEGX) Scudder Greater Europe B (NASDAQ: SERBX) Scudder Greater Europe C (NASDAQ: SERCX) Scudder Greater Europe Inst (NASDAQ: SERNX) Scudder Greater Europe S (NASDAQ: SCGEX) Scudder Growth & Income A (NASDAQ: SUWAX) Scudder Growth & Income AARP (NASDAQ: ACDGX) Scudder Growth & Income B (NASDAQ: SUWBX) Scudder Growth & Income C (NASDAQ: SUWCX) Scudder Growth & Income Instl (NASDAQ: SUWIX) Scudder Growth & Income R (NASDAQ: SUWRX) Scudder Growth & Income S (NASDAQ: SCDGX) Scudder Health Care A (NASDAQ: SUHAX) Scudder Health Care AARP (NASDAQ: SHCAX) Scudder Health Care B (NASDAQ: SUHBX) Scudder Health Care C (NASDAQ: SUHCX) Scudder Health Care Instl (NASDAQ: SUHIX) Scudder Health Care S (NASDAQ: SCHLX) Scudder High Income A (NASDAQ: KHYAX) Scudder High Income B (NASDAQ: KHYBX) Scudder High Income C (NASDAQ: KHYCX) Scudder High Income Instl (NASDAQ: KHYIX) Scudder High Income Plus A (NASDAQ: SGHAX) Scudder High Income Plus AARP (NASDAQ: SGHTX) Scudder High Income Plus B (NASDAQ: SGHBX) Scudder High Income Plus C (NASDAQ: SGHCX) Scudder High Income Plus Instl (NASDAQ: MGHYX) Scudder High Income Plus Invm (NASDAQ: MGHVX) Scudder High Income Plus Prem (NASDAQ: MGHPX) Scudder High Income Plus S (NASDAQ: SGHSX) Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free A (NASDAQ: NOTAX) Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free AARP (NASDAQ: SHYFX) Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free B (NASDAQ: NOTBX) Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free C (NASDAQ: NOTCX) Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free Instl (NASDAQ: NOTIX) Scudder High-Yield Tax-Free S (NASDAQ: SHYTX) Scudder Income A (NASDAQ: SZIAX) Scudder Income AARP (NASDAQ: AINCX) Scudder Income B (NASDAQ: SZIBX) Scudder Income C (NASDAQ: SZICX) Scudder Income Instl (NASDAQ: SZIIX) Scudder Income S (NASDAQ: SCSBX) Scudder Inflation Protected Plus A (NASDAQ: TIPAX) Scudder Inflation Protected Plus B (NASDAQ: TIPTX) Scudder Inflation Protected Plus C (NASDAQ: TIPCX) Scudder Inflation Protected Plus Instl (NASDAQ: TIPIX) Scudder Inflation Protected Plus S (NASDAQ: TIPSX) Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free A (NASDAQ: SZMAX) Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free AARP (NASDAQ: SMTTX) Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free B (NASDAQ: SZMBX) Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free C (NASDAQ: SZMCX) Scudder Intermediate Tax/AMT Free Instl (NASDAQ: SZMIX) Scudder Intermediate Tax/AMT Free Inv (NASDAQ: SZMVX) Scudder Intermediate Tax/Amt Free S (NASDAQ: SCMTX) Scudder International A (NASDAQ: SUIAX) Scudder International AARP (NASDAQ: AINTX) Scudder International B (NASDAQ: SUIBX) Scudder International C (NASDAQ: SUICX) Scudder International Equity A (NASDAQ: DBAIX) Scudder International Equity B (NASDAQ: DBBIX) Scudder International Equity C (NASDAQ: DBCIX) Scudder International Equity Instl (NASDAQ: BEIIX) Scudder International Equity Invm (NASDAQ: BTEQX) Scudder International Instl (NASDAQ: SUIIX) Scudder International S (NASDAQ: SCINX) Scudder International Sel Eq A (NASDAQ: DBISX) Scudder International Sel Eq B (NASDAQ: DBIBX) Scudder International Sel Eq C (NASDAQ: DBICX) Scudder International Sel Eq Instl (NASDAQ: MGINX) Scudder International Sel Eq Invm (NASDAQ: MGIVX) Scudder International Sel Eq Prem (NASDAQ: MGIPX) Scudder International Sel Eq R (NASDAQ: DBITX) Scudder International Sel Eq S (NASDAQ: DBIVX) Scudder Japanese Equity A (NASDAQ: FJEAX) Scudder Japanese Equity B (NASDAQ: FJEBX) Scudder Japanese Equity C (NASDAQ: FJECX) Scudder Japanese Equity S (NASDAQ: FJESX) Scudder Large Cap Value A (NASDAQ: KDCAX) Scudder Large Cap Value AARP (NASDAQ: KDCPX) Scudder Large Cap Value B (NASDAQ: KDCBX) Scudder Large Cap Value C (NASDAQ: KDCCX) Scudder Large Cap Value Inst (NASDAQ: KDCIX) Scudder Large Cap Value R (NASDAQ: KDCRX) Scudder Large Cap Value S (NASDAQ: KDCSX) Scudder Large Company Growth A (NASDAQ: SGGAX) Scudder Large Company Growth AARP (NASDAQ: SLGRX) Scudder Large Company Growth B (NASDAQ: SGGBX) Scudder Large Company Growth C (NASDAQ: SGGCX) Scudder Large Company Growth Instl (NASDAQ: SGGIX) Scudder Large Company Growth R (NASDAQ: SCQRX) Scudder Large Company Growth S (NASDAQ: SCQGX) Scudder Latin America A (NASDAQ: SLANX) Scudder Latin America AARP (NASDAQ: SLAMX) Scudder Latin America B (NASDAQ: SLAOX) Scudder Latin America C (NASDAQ: SLAPX) Scudder Latin America S (NASDAQ: SLAFX) Scudder Lifecycle Long Range Instl (NASDAQ: BTAMX) Scudder Lifecycle Long Range Invm (NASDAQ: BTILX) Scudder Lifecycle Mid Range Invm (NASDAQ: BTLRX) Scudder Lifecycle Short Range Invm (NASDAQ: BTSRX) Scudder Limited-Duration Plus A (NASDAQ: PPIAX) Scudder Limited-Duration Plus C (NASDAQ: PPLCX) Scudder Limited-Duration Plus Inv (NASDAQ: DBPIX) Scudder MA Tax-Free A (NASDAQ: SQMAX) Scudder MA Tax-Free AARP (NASDAQ: SMAFX) Scudder MA Tax-Free B (NASDAQ: SQMBX) Scudder MA Tax-Free C (NASDAQ: SQMCX) Scudder MA Tax-Free S (NASDAQ: SCMAX) Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds A (NASDAQ: SMLAX) Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds AARP (NASDAQ: AMUBX) Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds B (NASDAQ: SMLBX) Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds C (NASDAQ: SMLCX) Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds Instl (NASDAQ: SMLIX) Scudder Managed Municipal Bonds S (NASDAQ: SCMBX) Scudder Micro Cap A (NASDAQ: SMFAX) Scudder Micro Cap B (NASDAQ: SMFBX) Scudder Micro Cap C (NASDAQ: SMFCX) Scudder Micro Cap Instl (NASDAQ: MGMCX) Scudder Micro Cap Invm (NASDAQ: MMFSX) Scudder Micro Cap Svc (NASDAQ: SMFSX) Scudder Mid Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: SMCAX) Scudder Mid Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: SMCBX) Scudder Mid Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: SMCCX) Scudder Mid Cap Growth Instl (NASDAQ: BTEAX) Scudder Mid Cap Growth Invm (NASDAQ: BTCAX) Scudder Mid Cap Growth R (NASDAQ: SMCRX) Scudder Mid Cap Growth Svc (NASDAQ: SMCSX) Scudder Pacific Opportunities A (NASDAQ: SPAOX) Scudder Pacific Opportunities AARP (NASDAQ: SPOPX) Scudder Pacific Opportunities B (NASDAQ: SBPOX) Scudder Pacific Opportunities C (NASDAQ: SPCCX) Scudder Pacific Opportunities S (NASDAQ: SCOPX) Scudder Pathway Conservative A (NASDAQ: SUCAX) Scudder Pathway Conservative AARP (NASDAQ: APWCX) Scudder Pathway Conservative B (NASDAQ: SUCBX) Scudder Pathway Conservative C (NASDAQ: SUCCX) Scudder Pathway Conservative S (NASDAQ: SCPCX) Scudder Pathway Growth A (NASDAQ: SUPAX) Scudder Pathway Growth AARP (NASDAQ: APWGX) Scudder Pathway Growth B (NASDAQ: SUPBX) Scudder Pathway Growth C (NASDAQ: SUPCX) Scudder Pathway Growth Plus A (NASDAQ: PLUSX) Scudder Pathway Growth Plus B (NASDAQ: PLSBX) Scudder Pathway Growth Plus C (NASDAQ: PLSCX) Scudder Pathway Growth Plus S (NASDAQ: PPLSX) Scudder Pathway Growth S (NASDAQ: SPGRX) Scudder Pathway Moderate A (NASDAQ: SPDAX) Scudder Pathway Moderate AARP (NASDAQ: SPWBX) Scudder Pathway Moderate B (NASDAQ: SPDBX) Scudder Pathway Moderate C (NASDAQ: SPDCX) Scudder Pathway Moderate S (NASDAQ: SPBAX) Scudder Retirement VI (NASDAQ: KRFFX) Scudder Retirement VII (NASDAQ: KRFGX) Scudder RREEF Real Estate Sec Instl (NASDAQ: RRRRX) Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs A (NASDAQ: RRRAX) Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs B (NASDAQ: RRRBX) Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs C (NASDAQ: RRRCX) Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs R (NASDAQ: RRRSX) Scudder RREEF Real Estate Secs S (NASDAQ: RRREX) Scudder S&P 500 Index A (NASDAQ: SXPAX) Scudder S&P 500 Index AARP (NASDAQ: ASPIX) Scudder S&P 500 Index B (NASDAQ: SXPRB Scudder S&P 500 Index C (NASDAQ: SXPCX) Scudder S&P 500 Index S (NASDAQ: SCPIX) Scudder Select 500 A (NASDAQ: OUTDX) Scudder Select 500 AARP (NASDAQ: SSLFX) Scudder Select 500 B (NASDAQ: OUTBX) Scudder Select 500 C (NASDAQ: OUTCX) Scudder Select 500 R (NASDAQ: OUTRX) Scudder Select 500 S (NASDAQ: SSFFX) Scudder Short Duration A (NASDAQ: SDUAX) Scudder Short Duration B (NASDAQ: SDUBX) Scudder Short Duration C (NASDAQ: SDUCX) Scudder Short Duration Instl (NASDAQ: MGSFX) Scudder Short Duration Svc (NASDAQ: SDUSX) Scudder Short Term Municipal Bond S (NASDAQ: SRMSX) Scudder Short-Term Bond A (NASDAQ: SZBAX) Scudder Short-Term Bond AARP (NASDAQ: ASHTX) Scudder Short-Term Bond B (NASDAQ: SZBBX) Scudder Short-Term Bond C (NASDAQ: SZBCX) Scudder Short-Term Bond S (NASDAQ: SCSTX) Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd A (NASDAQ: SRMAX) Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd B (NASDAQ: SRMBX) Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd C (NASDAQ: SRMCX) Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd Instl (NASDAQ: MGSMX) Scudder Short-Term Muni Bd Invm (NASDAQ: MSMSX) Scudder Small Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: SSDAX) Scudder Small Cap Growth AARP (NASDAQ: SSDPX) Scudder Small Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: SSDBX) Scudder Small Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: SSDCX) Scudder Small Cap Growth Instl (NASDAQ: SSDIX) Scudder Small Cap Growth Invmt (NASDAQ: BTSCX) Scudder Small Cap Growth R (NASDAQ: SSDRX) Scudder Small Cap Growth S (NASDAQ: SSDSX) Scudder Small Company Stock A (NASDAQ: SZCAX) Scudder Small Company Stock AARP (NASDAQ: ASCSX) Scudder Small Company Stock B (NASDAQ: SZCBX) Scudder Small Company Stock C (NASDAQ: SZCCX) Scudder Small Company Stock S (NASDAQ: SSLCX) Scudder Small Company Value A (NASDAQ: SAAUX) Scudder Small Company Value B (NASDAQ: SABUX) Scudder Small Company Value C (NASDAQ: SACUX) Scudder Small Company Value S (NASDAQ: SCSUX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA A (NASDAQ: KCTAX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA B (NASDAQ: KCTBX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA C (NASDAQ: KCTCX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income CA S (NASDAQ: SDCSX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY A (NASDAQ: KNTAX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY B (NASDAQ: KNTBX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY C (NASDAQ: KNTCX) Scudder State Tax-Free Income NY S (NASDAQ: SNWYX) Scudder Strategic Income A (NASDAQ: KSTAX) Scudder Strategic Income B (NASDAQ: KSTBX) Scudder Strategic Income C (NASDAQ: KSTCX) Scudder Strategic Income Svc (NASDAQ: KSTSX) Scudder Target 2010 (NASDAQ: KRFAX) Scudder Target 2011 (NASDAQ: KRFBX) Scudder Target 2012 (NASDAQ: KRFCX) Scudder Target 2013 (NASDAQ: KRFDX) Scudder Target 2014 (NASDAQ: KRFEX) Scudder Tax Adv Dividend A (NASDAQ: SDDAX) Scudder Tax Adv Dividend B (NASDAQ: SDDBX) Scudder Tax Adv Dividend C (NASDAQ: SDDCX) Scudder Tax Adv Dividend Inst (NASDAQ: SDDGX) Scudder Technology A (NASDAQ: KTCAX) Scudder Technology AARP (NASDAQ: KTCPX) Scudder Technology B (NASDAQ: KTCBX) Scudder Technology C (NASDAQ: KTCCX) Scudder Technology Instl (NASDAQ: KTCIX) Scudder Technology S (NASDAQ: KTCSX) Scudder Total Return A (NASDAQ: KTRAX) Scudder Total Return AARP (NASDAQ: KTRPX) Scudder Total Return B (NASDAQ: KTRBX) Scudder Total Return C (NASDAQ: KTRCX) Scudder Total Return Instl (NASDAQ: KTRIX) Scudder Total Return R (NASDAQ: KTRRX) Scudder Total Return S (NASDAQ: KTRSX) Scudder U.S. Government Securities A (NASDAQ: KUSAX) Scudder U.S. Government Securities B (NASDAQ: KUSBX) Scudder U.S. Government Securities C (NASDAQ: KUSCX) Scudder U.S. Government Securities Instl (NASDAQ: KUSIX) Scudder U.S. Government Securities M (NASDAQ: KUSMX) Scudder US Bond Index Instl (NASDAQ: BTUSX) The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"):AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. UBS-AG: Stull Stull Lodges NY Suit Over Van Kampen Mutual Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against UBS-AG and its affiliated entities ("UBS"), on behalf of those who purchased Van Kampen mutual funds from UBS between May 1, 2000 and April 30, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Van Kampen mutual funds and their respective symbols are as follows: Van Kampen Aggressive Growth A (NASDAQ: VAGAX) Van Kampen Aggressive Growth B (NASDAQ: VAGBX) Van Kampen Aggressive Growth C (NASDAQ: VAGCX) Van Kampen Aggressive Growth I (NASDAQ: VAGDX) Van Kampen American Value A (NASDAQ: MSAVX) Van Kampen American Value B (NASDAQ: MGAVX) Van Kampen American Value C (NASDAQ: MSVCX) Van Kampen CA Insured Tax-Free A (NASDAQ: VKCIX) Van Kampen CA Insured Tax-Free B (NASDAQ: VCIBX) Van Kampen CA Insured Tax-Free C (NASDAQ: VCICX) Van Kampen Comstock A (NASDAQ: ACSTX) Van Kampen Comstock B (NASDAQ: ACSWX) Van Kampen Comstock C (NASDAQ: ACSYX) Van Kampen Comstock I (NASDAQ: ACSDX) Van Kampen Comstock R (NASDAQ: ACSRX) Van Kampen Corporate Bond A (NASDAQ: ACCBX) Van Kampen Corporate Bond B (NASDAQ: ACCDX) Van Kampen Corporate Bond C (NASDAQ: ACCEX) Van Kampen Emerging Growth A (NASDAQ: ACEGX) Van Kampen Emerging Growth B (NASDAQ: ACEMX) Van Kampen Emerging Growth C (NASDAQ: ACEFX) Van Kampen Emerging Growth I (NASDAQ: ACEDX) Van Kampen Emerging Growth R (NASDAQ: ACEEX) Van Kampen Emerging Markets A (NASDAQ: MSRAX) Van Kampen Emerging Markets B (NASDAQ: MSRBX) Van Kampen Emerging Markets C (NASDAQ: MSRCX) Van Kampen Enterprise A (NASDAQ: ACENX) Van Kampen Enterprise B (NASDAQ: ACEOX) Van Kampen Enterprise C (NASDAQ: ACEPX) Van Kampen Equity and Income A (NASDAQ: ACEIX) Van Kampen Equity and Income B (NASDAQ: ACEQX) Van Kampen Equity and Income C (NASDAQ: ACERX) Van Kampen Equity and Income I (NASDAQ: ACETX) Van Kampen Equity and Income R (NASDAQ: ACESX) Van Kampen Equity Growth A (NASDAQ: VEGAX) Van Kampen Equity Growth B (NASDAQ: VEGBX) Van Kampen Equity Growth C (NASDAQ: VEGCX) Van Kampen Exchange (NASDAQ: ACEHX) Van Kampen Global Equity Alloc A (NASDAQ: MSGAX) Van Kampen Global Equity Alloc B (NASDAQ: MSGBX) Van Kampen Global Equity Alloc C (NASDAQ: MSGCX) Van Kampen Global Franchise A (NASDAQ: VGFAX) Van Kampen Global Franchise B (NASDAQ: VGFBX) Van Kampen Global Franchise C (NASDAQ: VGFCX) Van Kampen Global Value Equity A (NASDAQ: MGEAX) Van Kampen Global Value Equity B (NASDAQ: MGEBX) Van Kampen Global Value Equity C (NASDAQ: MGECX) Van Kampen Government Securities A (NASDAQ: ACGVX) Van Kampen Government Securities B (NASDAQ: ACGTX) Van Kampen Government Securities C (NASDAQ: ACGSX) Van Kampen Growth and Income A (NASDAQ: ACGIX) Van Kampen Growth and Income B (NASDAQ: ACGJX) Van Kampen Growth and Income C (NASDAQ: ACGJX) Van Kampen Growth and Income I (NASDAQ: ACGMX) Van Kampen Growth and Income R (NASDAQ: ACGLX) Van Kampen Harbor A (NASDAQ: ACHBX) Van Kampen Harbor B (NASDAQ: ACHAX) Van Kampen Harbor C (NASDAQ: ACHCX) Van Kampen Harbor I (NASDAQ: ACHIX) Van Kampen High Yield A (NASDAQ: ACHYX) Van Kampen High Yield B (NASDAQ: ACHZX) Van Kampen High Yield C (NASDAQ: ACHWX) Van Kampen High Yield I (NASDAQ: ACHVX) Van Kampen High-Yield Municipal A (NASDAQ: ACTHX) Van Kampen High-Yield Municipal B (NASDAQ: ACTGX) Van Kampen High-Yield Municipal C (NASDAQ: ACTFX) Van Kampen Insured Tax-Free Inc A (NASDAQ: VKMTX) Van Kampen Insured Tax-Free Inc B (NASDAQ: VMTBX) Van Kampen Insured Tax-Free Inc C (NASDAQ: VMTCX) Van Kampen Interm-Term Muni A (NASDAQ: VKLMX) Van Kampen Interm-Term Muni B (NASDAQ: VKLBX) Van Kampen Interm-Term Muni C (NASDAQ: VKLCX) Van Kampen International Advantage (NASDAQ: VKIAX) A (NASDAQ: VKIBX) Van Kampen International Advantage (NASDAQ: VKICX) B (NASDAQ: ACFMX) Van Kampen International Advantage (NASDAQ: ACFTX) C (NASDAQ: ACFWX) Van Kampen Limited Duration A (NASDAQ: VGRAX) Van Kampen Limited Duration B (NASDAQ: VGRBX) Van Kampen Limited Duration C (NASDAQ: VGRCX) Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: VKMMX) Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: VMIBX) Van Kampen Mid Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: VMICX) Van Kampen Municipal Income A (NASDAQ: VNYAX) Van Kampen Municipal Income B (NASDAQ: VBNYX) Van Kampen Municipal Income C (NASDAQ: VNYCX) Van Kampen NY Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: VKMPX) Van Kampen NY Tax-Free Income B (NASDAQ: VKPAX) Van Kampen NY Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: VKPCX) Van Kampen PA Tax-Free Income A (NASDAQ: ACPAX) Van Kampen PA Tax-Free Income B (NASDAQ: ACPBX) Van Kampen PA Tax-Free Income C (NASDAQ: ACPCX) Van Kampen Pace A (NASDAQ: ACREX) Van Kampen Pace B (NASDAQ: ACRBX) Van Kampen Pace C (NASDAQ: ACRCX) Van Kampen Real Estate Secs A (NASDAQ: VSGAX) Van Kampen Real Estate Secs B (NASDAQ: VBSGX) Van Kampen Real Estate Secs C (NASDAQ: VSGCX) Van Kampen Select Growth A (NASDAQ: XPRTX) Van Kampen Select Growth B (NASDAQ: XSLCX) Van Kampen Select Growth C (NASDAQ: VASCX) Van Kampen Senior Loan IB (NASDAQ: VBSCX) Van Kampen Senior Loan IC (NASDAQ: VCSCX) Van Kampen Small Cap Growth A (NASDAQ: VSCAX) Van Kampen Small Cap Growth B (NASDAQ: VSMBX) Van Kampen Small Cap Growth C (NASDAQ: VSMCX) Van Kampen Small Cap Value A (NASDAQ: VKMHX) Van Kampen Small Cap Value B (NASDAQ: VKTFX) Van Kampen Small Cap Value C (NASDAQ: VMHCX) Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Inc (NASDAQ: VTFAX) A (NASDAQ: VTFBX) Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Inc (NASDAQ: VTFCX) B (NASDAQ: VKMGX) Van Kampen Strategic Municipal Inc (NASDAQ: VUSBX) C (NASDAQ: VUSCX) Van Kampen Technology A (NASDAQ: VKUAX) Van Kampen Technology B (NASDAQ: VKUBX) Van Kampen Technology C (NASDAQ: VKUCX) Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage A (NASDAQ: VVOAX) Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage B (NASDAQ: VVOBX) Van Kampen U.S. Mortgage C (NASDAQ: VVOCX) Van Kampen Utility A (NASDAQ: VVOIX) Van Kampen Utility B Van Kampen Utility C Van Kampen Value Opportunities A Van Kampen Value Opportunities B Van Kampen Value Opportunities C Van Kampen Value Opportunities I The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant UBS and its affiliated entities. The following mutual funds participated in the UBS Revenue Sharing Program (the "UBS Tier I Funds"): AIM, Alliance, American Funds, Columbia, Davis Funds, Dreyfus, Eaton Vance, Federated, Fidelity, Franklin Templeton, John Hancock, Hartford, Lord Abbett, MFS, Oppenheimer, PIMCO, Pioneer, Putnam, Scudder, UBS Global Asset Management, and Van Kampen. 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 (collectively, "Shelf Space 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 people 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 Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th St., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. WORLD HEALTH: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP, commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a class (the "Class") of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of World Health Alternatives, Inc. (OTCBB: WHAIE) ("World Health" or the "Company") between June 26, 2003 and August 19, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Symbol securities. On August 16, 2005, World Health Alternatives announced that its then-Chief Executive Officer, Richard E. McDonald, had resigned, allegedly for family and health reasons. In fact, the company had misstated the academic credentials of defendant McDonald in various SEC filings during the Class Period, misleading investors as to the training and integrity of the Company's senior management. Three days later, on August 19, 2005, the Company announced that it expected to restate its prior financial statements, that an independent investigation had been commenced, and that it had terminated its engagement with Daszkal Bolton LLP, its outside auditors. The Company also revealed that, among other things, it had made irregular reports to its lenders, resulting in excess funding which may have resulted in breaches of its financing agreements, had underpaid certain tax liabilities, and had not properly reported and/or accounted for all of its outstanding shares. In response to this news, the Company's stock lost over 85% of its value in a three- day period, wiping out millions of dollars of market capitalization. For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701, E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com, Web site: http://www.abbeygardy.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 * * *