/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/990507.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 7, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 66 Headlines ANADIGICS, INC.: Amended Complaint Due May 14, 1999 AMERICAN GENERAL: Insurance Affiliates Settle Pay $5.5 Million COCA-COLA: CEO Ivester Charged with Communicating With Plaintiffs CURATIVE HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in New York FIRST UNION: $150 Million Former Signet Employee Suit Filed FORD MOTOR: Alameda County Suit, if Successful, Will Take Toll IRIDIUM WORLD: Yates Firm Files Complaint in District of Columbia J. CREW: Motion to Dismiss Saipan Worker Claims Sub Judice MCKESSON HBOC: Rabin & Peckel Amends California Complaint MCKESSON HBOC: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California MCKESSON HBOC: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in California MCKESSON HBOC: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in California MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Briefed & Awaiting Ruling MONARCH DENTAL: Awaiting Consolidation of Securities Complaints NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in California OSICOM TECHNOLOGIS: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Tells Investors it will Defend Against Suits PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Washington PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Continues Crusade Against Lenders SIGMA DESIGNS: Suit Hinges on 9th Cir. Silicon Graphics Decision TCSI CORPORATION: Announces Settlement of Shareholder Litigation VOLKSWAGEN A.G.: Cohen Milstein Files Infanticide Complaint ********* ANADIGICS, INC.: Amended Complaint Due May 14, 1999 --------------------------------------------------- In March and April 1998, there were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seven proposed class action lawsuits, captioned Assuncao v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-917; Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 153 Pension Fund v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98- 919; Kotler v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-923; Gray v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-1337; Mirpuri v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-1811; Grayson v. Rosenzweig, et al., No. 98- 1688; and Morgante v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 98-2024. The Complaints filed in the Class Action Lawsuits (each of which names a combination of the following directors and officers of the Company: Ronald Rosenzweig, George Gilbert, Harry T. Rein, John F. Lyons, Charles Huang, Javed Patel, Sheo Khetan and Robert Bayruns) seek unspecified damages in connection with claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and, as set forth in the Union Local 153, Kotler, Gray and Mirpuri Complaints, claims alleging common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The Complaints allege that, as a result of certain material misstatements and omissions made by the Company in connection with its business, the price of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the proposed class periods. The longest proposed class period alleged by the plaintiffs in the Class Action Lawsuits is the period from July 17, 1997 through January 30, 1998. On December 20, 1998, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey entered an Order consolidating the Class Action Lawsuits into one action, captioned In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 98-CV- 917, and appointing Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel. The parties to the Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit have jointly requested the Court to extend to May 14, 1999 the deadline by which plaintiffs must file their Amended Consolidated Complaint. On or about August 3, 1998, a shareholders derivative lawsuit, captioned Deegan v. Rosenzweig, et al., No. 98-CV-3640, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company (as nominal defendant) and the following officers and directors thereof: Charles Burton, Paul Bachow, Robert Bayruns, Ronald Rosenzweig, George Gilbert, John Lyons, Harry Rein, Sheo Khetan, Javed Patel, Charles Huang and Phillip Wallace. The Complaint in the Derivative Lawsuit alleges claims, which are predicated upon the Class Action Lawsuits, seeking damages, contribution, indemnification and equitable relief. On October 28, 1998, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey stayed the Derivative Lawsuit pending the earlier of (1) the disposition of any motion to dismiss the Complaint (or any Consolidated Amended Complaint) in the Class Action Lawsuits or (2) the commencement of discovery in the Class Action Lawsuits. As a result, on October 29, 1998, the Court administratively dismissed the Derivative Lawsuit without prejudice. AMERICAN GENERAL: Insurance Affiliates Settle Pay $5.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Eight insurance companies owned by American General Corp. agreed Tuesday to pay a $5.5-million fine to the state to settle charges of deceptive sales practices, including "churning" old policies for new ones. Up to 207,000 Floridians were duped into buying policies from the Houston insurer and its units between 1982 and 1997, according to the Florida Department of Insurance. American General admitted no wrongdoing in the agreement. The deal was part of a broader investigation of how customers unwittingly bought new life insurance financed by the cash value of their current policies. The practice, known as churning, has prompted class-action lawsuits in addition to regulatory scrutiny. MetLife's Tampa offices were the focus of a class- action suit that resulted in a $135-million fine. Two other giant life insurance companies, Prudential Insurance Co. and John Hancock, have paid state fines of $15-million and $6- million, respectively. The case against American General began in February 1998 after the state became alarmed that a relatively small insurer, Franklin Life Insurance of Illinois, had the fourth-highest number of churning complaints from Florida consumers. Because Franklin was a subsidiary of American General, the investigation was expanded to include American General Life and Accident Insurance Co., which is based in Nashville, Tenn., and six other subsidiaries of American General. The other companies involved are American Franklin Life Insurance Co., the United States Life Insurance Co. in New York, All American Life Insurance Co., Old Line Insurance Co. of America, American General Life Insurance Co. and American General Life Insurance Co. in New York. (St. Petersburg Times 05-May-1999) COCA-COLA: CEO Ivester Charged with Communicating With Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge in Atlanta has set an expedited hearing for May 13 in the racial discrimination suit against Coca-Cola Co. U.S. District Judge Richard Story granted the plaintiffs' emergency request for the hearing to determine if Coca-Cola chief M. Douglas Ivester violated a court rule when he sent e-mail messages to salaried black employees about the lawsuit. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs --- four current or former African-American employees --- contend Ivester violated a rule that prevents communication with potential members of a class- action suit without court approval. Coca-Cola has said the motion is a typical legal maneuver with no validity. The judge ordered the company to file its response by Tuesday. The plaintiffs in the underlying suit seek class-action status, so 1,500 salaried black employees can be included in the suit alleging discrimination in pay, promotions, performance evaluations and terminations. (The Atlanta Journal and Constitution 06-May-1999) CURATIVE HEALTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Complaint in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action suit against Curative Health Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: CURE) and certain of its officers. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Curative during the period between June 26, 1999 and April 12, 1999, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Curative and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning Curative's operations and financial condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of Curative's stock. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the Medicare reimbursement system and thereby inflated its publicly reported revenues and earnings. The Complaint further alleges that Curative falsely portrayed itself as operating in compliance with Medicare regulations, when, in fact, throughout the Class Period, Curative had improperly (i) disguised non-allowable fees as "management fees" and (ii) accepted illegal kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals in connection with services rendered to Columbia/HCA, which itself has been charged with widespread Medicare fraud. On April 9, 1999, the United States Department of Justice announced that it had joined a "whistleblower" action which accused Curative of Medicare fraud. The market's reaction to the news was disastrous, causing Curative's common stock to close at $4-11/16, a decline of nearly 75% from the price prior to earlier announcements of adverse developments. Contact Julian P. Carr or Mildred C. Frazzitta, Esq. of the Pomerantz firm at 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll-free, or at mcfrazzitta@pomlaw.com by e-mail. FIRST UNION: $150 Million Former Signet Employee Suit Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Sprenger & Lang, on behalf of former Signet Banking Corporation employees, filed a $150 million class action lawsuit against First Union Corporation. The suit, filed in federal district court in Richmond, Virginia, claims that First Union illegally raided Signet's 401(k) retirement plan for its own profit, costing employees approximately $150 million in lost retirement savings. First Union, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, took over Richmond-based Signet in November 1997. The suit contends that First Union, following the acquisition, illegally divested Signet employees of $100 million of investments in commercially popular mutual funds and stock. First Union then transferred the proceeds into First Union-owned and controlled mutual funds, allowing it to charge fees for managing that money. Under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), companies who set up 401(k) or other pension plans for their employees cannot run them for their own profit and must administer them solely in the interests of the employees. The suit goes on to allege that First Union has a long-standing policy of stripping the 401(k) plans of companies it acquires to boost corporate profits. Contending that First Union saw the Signet Plan as a profit-center, the suit states that employees' retirement accounts suffered tens of millions of dollars in losses because the investments available under Signet's 401(k) plan have skyrocketed in value while the First Union-controlled funds (into which First Union forced the employees) have stagnated. Attorneys for the employees, Sprenger & Lang (Washington, D.C.) and Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen (Richmond) are asking the court to "reconstitute" the Signet 401(k) plan. Michael D. Lieder, a partner with Sprenger & Lang, says that First Union's attempt to merge the two plans was "tainted with self-interest" and First Union failed to seek or obtain the proper authority for such a merger. "As far as we can tell, the decision to raid the Signet Plan was never formally presented to or approved by the First Union Board of Directors, which was required to approve any such action in writing beforehand," said Lieder. According to the complaint, First Union exacerbated its self-serving actions by failing to give many former Signet employees, who had the right to opt-out of the merger and "rollover" their retirement savings to an Individual Retirement Account ("IRA"), notice of the merger or their right to opt-out of the proposed changes in the plan. For more information and to view the complaint, please visit http://www.legalnewsnet.comon the Web. Contact Mike Lieder or Eli Gottesdiener of Sprenger & Lang at 202/265- 8010. FORD MOTOR: Alameda County Suit, if Successful, Will Take Toll -------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Co., accused of trying to hide a potentially dangerous stalling problem in millions of cars and trucks in a class- action lawsuit that seeks $3 billion in damages, denies the claims, saying that the defect was limited to a small number of cars and that the cars did not stall more than other models. But Ford's attempts to have the suit dismissed have failed. The case is to go to trial next week in Alameda County (Calif.) Superior Court. The lawsuit contends Ford withheld information about a defective ignition module that could have caused some 22 million cars and truck to stall on the road. Rather than seeking personal injury damages, the suit demands that Ford give up profits it gained in the alleged cover-up -- an amount that could account for 1.5 percent of Ford's worldwide revenue for 1998. IRIDIUM WORLD: Yates Firm Files Complaint in District of Columbia ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Iridium World Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: IRID) between September 9, 1998 and March 29, 1999, inclusive. The complaint charges Iridium, certain officers of Iridium and Motorola, Inc. with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and failure to disclose material facts concerning its ability to fully launch the Iridium System in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class members. Contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. toll free at 800-391-5164 or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail. J. CREW: Motion to Dismiss Saipan Worker Claims Sub Judice ---------------------------------------------------------- Named as one of the defendants in two lawsuits relating to its purchasing of products from independent garment manufacturers in Saipan (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). On January 13, 1999, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, by a group of unidentified Asian garment workers against 17 U.S. clothing retailers, including J. CREW OPERATING CORP., and 11 Saipan garment manufacturers. The unidentified worker plaintiffs seek class action status and allege, among other things, violations of Federal racketeering and other laws in connection with labor practices and treatment of foreign workers in the defendant manufacturers' Saipan factories. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages, including treble and punitive damages. A second complaint was filed on January 13, 1999 in Superior Court in San Francisco, California, by a labor union and three nonprofit groups against the same 17 U.S. clothing retailers, including the Company, one additional retailer and other unnamed defendants alleging violations of California law for allegedly unlawful and unfair business practices and misleading advertising in connection with labeling of products and labor practices regarding foreign workers in Saipan. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts for restitution, disgorgement of profits and other damages. A third action, in which the Company is not named as a defendant, was filed on or about January 13, 1999, by a group of unidentified Asian garment workers represented by some of the same law firms that brought the Federal Action. This action is a purported class action lawsuit against 22 Saipan garment manufacturers (10 of whom were named defendants in the Federal Action) alleging violations of Federal labor statutes and other laws. All the defendants in the Federal Action, including the Company, jointly moved to (i) change the venue of the Federal Action to the United States District Court in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, where the related action against certain manufacturing defendants is pending, and (ii) dismiss the Federal Action for failure to state a claim. All the defendants in the State Action, including the Company, jointly moved to dismiss the State Action for failure to state a claim. MCKESSON HBOC: Rabin & Peckel Amends California Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Rabin & Peckel LLP announces that an amended class action complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of HBO & Company between April 14, 1998 and January 12, 1999, and/or the securities of McKesson HBOC, Inc. or its predecessor McKesson Corp. (NYSE: MCK) between October 19, 1998, and April 27, 1999, all dates inclusive. Included in the putative Class are all shareholders of US Servis, IMNET Systems, Inc., and Access Health, Inc. who acquired HBOC common stock as a result HBOC's acquisitions of those companies. The Complaint alleges that McKesson and certain of its officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning HBOC and McKesson's reported financial results during the Class Period. In particular, it is alleged that these reported financial results are not presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles and require restatement as a result of the improper recording $42.2 million in software transactions that were subject to contingencies as sales. The Complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements the price of HBOC and McKesson securities were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period causing plaintiff and the other members of the Class to suffer damages. Contact Joseph V. McBride or Donald J. Wallace, Rabin & Peckel LLP, by telephone at (800) 497-8076 or at email@rabinlaw.com via e-mail. MCKESSON HBOC: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE:MCK) between October 19, 1998 and April 27, 1999, inclusive. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of McKesson publicly traded securities during the Class Period. Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail. MCKESSON HBOC: Donovan Miller Files Complaint in California ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Donovan Miller, LLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of McKesson HBOC Inc. (NYSE:MCK) common stock from Oct. 18, 1998 through April 28, 1999, including persons who received MCK stock as a result of the merger of McKesson and HBOC effective as of Jan. 12, 1999. The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, MCK, and certain of its officers and directors (collectively, the "Defendants"), violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, issuing materially false and misleading statements to the investing public regarding MCK's financial results. Contact Michael D. Donovan at Donovan Miller, LLC, at 800/619- 1677 by phone or mdonovan@dmlaw.com by e-mail. MCKESSON HBOC: Liebenberg & White File Complaint in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Liebenberg & White has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of McKesson HBOC, Inc. (NYSE: MCK) common stock from November 27, 1998 through April 27, 1999 inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or omitting material information concerning the Company's improper recording of revenue from its software sales. On April 28, 1999, the Company announced that due to its improper recognition of revenue from its software sales, it would have to restate its fiscal 1999 earnings. Upon the release of this devastating news, the Company's stock price dropped from its closing price of $65.75 on April 27, 1999 to close at 34-1/2 on April 28, 1999, a decline of almost 50%, on exceptionally heavy volume of over 40 million shares. Contact Ann D. White, Esquire, Natalie A. Finkelman, Esquire or Mark J. Dorval, Esquire at Liebenberg & White by e-mail at lawyers@liebenberg.com or by telephome at 1-877-481-0272 (toll free). MITCHAM INDUSTRIES: Motion to Dismiss Briefed & Awaiting Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- On or about April 23, 1998, several class action lawsuits were filed against MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC., and its chief executive officer and then chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The first-filed complaint, styled Stanley Moskowitz V. Mitcham Industries, Inc., Billy F. Mitcham, Jr. and Roberto Rios, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. On or about September 21, 1998, the complaints were consolidated into one action. On November 4, 1998, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint ("CAC"), which seeks class action status on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock from June 4, 1997 through March 26, 1998, and damages in an unspecified amount plus costs and attorney's fees. The CAC alleges that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in public filings and announcements concerning its business and its allowance for doubtful accounts. On or about March 30, 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the CAC. The motion is now fully briefed and the Company is awaiting a ruling by the Court. MONARCH DENTAL: Awaiting Consolidation of Securities Complaints --------------------------------------------------------------- On or about April 26, 1999, Monarch Dental Corporation was served with a putative class action complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, captioned Robert O. Neibert, et al., v. Monarch Dental Corp., Warren F. Melamed, Gary W. Cage, and Roger B. Kafker, Civil No. 3-99-CV-0762-X. The class action complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in certain public disclosures during the period between February 24, 1998 and December 22, 1998. The public disclosures relate to, among other things, acquired dental practices, the Company's internal growth and growth prospects, and the Company's past and future financial performance. The Company has been advised that two similar putative class actions have been filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, although service of process has not been effected with respect to these additional lawsuits. The Company anticipates that all three class action complaints eventually will be consolidated into a single action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Company is currently reviewing the allegations made in the class action lawsuits and intends to defend the claims vigorously. The Company believes that the defense of the claims could involve significant litigation-related expenses. The outcome of this matter is uncertain and, as a result, at this time the Company is not able to quantify any related financial exposure. NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Network Associates, Inc. (Nasdaq: NETA) between January 20, 1998 and April 19, 1999, inclusive. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Network Associates common stock during the Class Period. Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail. OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Zwerling Schachter Files Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Osicom Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: FIBR) during the period between July 1, 1998 and April 20, 1999. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Osicom publicly traded securities during the Class Period. The complaint charges Osicom and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations about Osicom's business, products and its ability to achieve profitable growth. During the Class Period, defendants represented to the investment community that Osicom had a $90 million contract to sell cutting edge, technologically advanced wireless PDA products in Japan. Ultimately, defendants admitted that the contract was only worth $175,000 and that the wireless PDA did not have the capabilities that Osicom had previously represented. As a result, Osicom's stock price was artificially inflated during the Class Period to as high as $28-3/4 per share. Contact Richard A. Speirs or Paul C. Whalen at Zwerling, Schachter, at 800-721-3900 by phone or zlaw96@ix.netcom.com by e- Mail. OSICOM TECHNOLOGIS: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine initiated a class action proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Osicom Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:FIBR) between July 2, 1998 and April 20, 1999, inclusive. Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail. OSICOM TECHNOLOGIES: Tells Investors it will Defend Against Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- >From Osicom Technologies, Inc.'s latest annual report filed with the SEC: On April 23, 1999, a securities class action lawsuit entitled Lehavi v. Osicom Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-04408, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and our former Chief Financial Officer. This lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock during the period from July 1, 1998 through April 21, 1999, inclusive (the "putative class period"). On April 22, 1999, a securities class action lawsuit entitled Herman Wunsch, et. al., v. Osicom Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 99-04322, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against us and our CEO, President and former Chief Financial Officer. This lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock during the period from July 2, 1998 through April 20, 1999, inclusive (the "putative class period"). Both class actions generally allege that, during the putative class period, the defendants made false or misleading public statements which caused the price of our common stock to be artificially inflated. The class action asserts that the defendants' conduct violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as state common law. The class actions do not specify an amount of damages. Based upon various press releases, we believe that lawsuits making similar allegations have been filed against us, although we have not been served with any other complaints. We intend to defend the class actions and any other similar lawsuits vigorously. An unfavorable outcome in such litigation could have a material adverse affect on our financial condition and results of operations. PATHOGENESIS CORP.: Barrack Rodos Files Complaint in Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine commenced a class action proceeding in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of PathoGenesis Corp. (NASDAQ:PGNS) between January 26, 1999 and March 22, 1999, inclusive. Contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel, at 800-417-7305 by telephone or msgoldman@barrack.com via e-mail. PAYDAY LOANS: Edelman & Combs Continues Crusade Against Lenders --------------------------------------------------------------- The Chicago law firm of Edelman & Combs has filed three more class actions lawsuits against high-interest lenders. The latest lenders to be sued are Checks for Cash Credit Corp., which makes loans through currency exchanges, Payday Loan Express, Inc. and Harrisburg Quick Cash. The firm now has 63 class and individual cases pending against 39 different high interest "payday loan," "title loan" and similar companies. The list of high-interest lenders sued, and the annual percentage rates charged by each, are: American Loan Company 521% Americash 365% Campus Cash Systems 469% Cash Store 521% Chartwell Financial 427% Checks for Cash Credit Corp. 336%-365% Check Into Cash 573% Check-N-Go of Illinois, Inc. 456%-521% Check Now 521% Checks-N-Advance 523% Devon Financial Services 390%-520% E-Z Loan Company 520% Fast Cash Advance 365%-456% GFG Loan Company 365% Halsted Financial Services 500%+ Harrisburg Quick Cash 521.43% Illinois Catalog Sales 730% Illinois Title Lenders 216% Insta Cash, Inc. 385% Instant Cash Advance (One Iron Ventures) 486%-912% Millennium Title Lenders 521% Moolah Loan Company 360%-520% National Money Service 780% Nationwide Budget Finance 521% Paycheck Advance Express, Inc. 456%-521% Pay Day Loans, Inc. 521.43% Payday Check Advance, Inc., d/b/a Payday Express 521% Payday Loan Corp. of Illinois 101%-521% Payday Loan Express, Inc. 365% Payday Loan Store of Calumet City, Inc. 684%-995% Payday Loan Store of Illinois, Inc. 695% The Payday Loan Store -- Oak Lawn 695% Payday Today Loans LLC 521% Quick Cash (Community Financial Loan Company) 521% Short Term Loans 260%-342% Sun Cash 240%-520% Surety Finance 186% Swansea Quick Cash 521.43% Tele-Cash 917% All of the cases were filed in the federal district court in Chicago except Tele-Cash, filed in federal court in Delaware, Harrisburg Quick Cash, filed in the Southern District of Illinois, and Swansea Quick Cash, filed in St. Clair County, Ill. "Payday loans" are short term, very high interest rate loans. The loans are typically two weeks in duration and carry annual percentage rates of 100% to over 1800%. At the end of the two week term, the customer has the option of continuing the loan for and additional period by paying the interest. The loans are typically "rolled over" on multiple occasions. Generally, companies which make "payday loans" do not advertise the annual percentage rates. Instead, they advertise that the loans cost $x per $100. The consumer does not see the annual percentage rate until he or she is presented with the money. "Payday loans" are generally made to consumers facing financial emergencies. Once a consumer obtains a "payday loan," he or she will often be unable to pay it off except from the proceeds of additional "payday loans." Often, the "payday loans" force the borrowers into unnecessary bankruptcies. The lawsuits generally allege violation of the Truth in Lending Act or other federal lending laws. In most cases, they allege that the interest rates are so exorbitant that the loans are unconscionable. Some of the lawsuits name individual owners of payday lenders. Contact Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman & Combs at 312-739-4200. SIGMA DESIGNS: Suit Hinges on 9th Cir. Silicon Graphics Decision ---------------------------------------------------------------- In February 1998, two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Romine, et al. v. Sigma Designs, Inc., et al., No. C- 98-0537-TEH (N.D.Cal.) and Shah, et al. v. Sigma Designs, Inc., et al., No C-98-0582-MHP (N.D.Cal.). The federal court complaints allege that Sigma Designs, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or directors, issued false or misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects during the period October 24, 1995 through February 13, 1997. The complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint. The parties have stipulated that defendants will not move to dismiss the complaint until after the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit renders its decision in In re Silicon Graphics Securities Litigation, which decision is expected to delineate the standards for pleading a securities fraud action under the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the complaint and intends to conduct a vigorous defense. TCSI CORPORATION: Announces Settlement of Shareholder Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- TCSI Corporation (Nasdaq:TCSI) reached a preliminary settlement of the shareholder class action lawsuits pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the Superior Court for the State of California in and for Alameda County. The settlement involves payment of an amount comprised of proceeds from the Company's Director and Officer insurance policies. Neither the Company nor the individuals involved is contributing to the settlement of the actions. The settlement will not have a material effect on TCSI's financial position or on its financial results of operations. The settlement is subject to court approval. VOLKSWAGEN A.G.: Cohen Milstein Files Infanticide Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers claiming to represent Russian and Polish slave laborers during World War II filed a class-action lawsuit against German automaker Volkswagen, seeking reparations for the deaths of up to 400 children. The lawsuit says the children, put in a nursery at a Volkswagen plant where their parents were forced to build munitions and the "Beetle," died from maltreatment and poor conditions. The class-action lawsuit was filed this week in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In Anna Snopczyk v. Volkswagen A.G., the plaintiff, a 78-year-old Polish woman, alleges that German corporation Volkswagen A.G. is responsible for the deaths of her two-month-old baby and at least 350 to 400 other Polish and Russian infants during the years 1943 to 1945. The plaintiff alleges that the infants died while in the care of a children's nursery owned and operated by Volkswagen due to abominable conditions there, and the intentional neglect and maltreatment of the children by Volkswagen employees. Known as a "Kinderheim," the nursery was established by Volkswagen to care for the babies born by the Polish and Russian forced labor population serving its automobile factory and neighboring farms in Wolfsburg, Germany. As part of Hitler's "Strength through Joy" program, the plant produced munitions for the German war effort, as well as the Fuhrer's affordable "people's car" -- the now-famous Volkswagen "Beetle" -- for members of the German working class. Plaintiffs' class action attorney Michael D. Hausfeld, a partner at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., filed the lawsuit against Volkswagen A.G. The suit claims that under international law, Volkswagen's actions constitute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The babies of the Polish and Russian workers in Wolfsburg were taken from their mothers usually only days after their birth and housed in the Kinderheim, which was nothing more than two run-down wooden shacks, overrun by insects and infection. Numerous visitors and staff reported that the children cried all night while insects crawled over them and bit them. One eyewitness described the infestation as so severe that the walls, floors and beds were "alive" with insects. The children were severely malnourished, and the food they were given was too coarse for an infant to digest. Near the end of its operation, the mortality rate for infants at the Kinderheim was nearly 100%; the children died with distended and discolored abdomens, and sores and pustules over most of their body. After the War, the Allies conducted an investigation of the Volkswagen Kinderheim and tried eight Volkswagen employees, including the manager of Volkswagen's Wolfsburg factory, for war crimes. The German physician Volkswagen put in charge of its nursery, Hans Korbel, was executed in 1947 for the "killing by willful neglect" of the children at Volkswagen's Kinderheim. According to Mr. Hausfeld, "There are no statutory limitations on the horrific ethnic cleansing and genocide perpetrated by Volkswagen in the Wolfsburg Kinderheim. The plaintiff's legal right to seek compensation for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity during the Second World War is preserved by the London Debt Settlement Agreement of 1953 and the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity." Mr. Hausfeld, a Washington, D.C. attorney, was co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the recent pro bono case against the Swiss banks that resulted in a 1998 settlement by the banks for $1.25 billion. In 1997, he represented minorities in a major race discrimination case against Texaco that resulted in a landmark settlement for over $176 million. Attorney Beth Kushner of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin law firm von Briesen, Purtell & Roper, S.C., is also serving as counsel in this case. Volkswagen A.G. reissued a statement first released in November. The children's death at the nursery "is a tragic chapter from one of the darkest times of modern history," the statement said. ********* 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., Princeton, NJ, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, DC. Peter A. Chapman, Editor. Copyright 1999. All rights reserved. ISSN XXXX-XXXX. 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 301/951-6400. * * * End of Transmission * * *