/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/991029.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 29, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 188 Headlines ABBOTT LAB: Brings In Executive From Durham; Faces Suit Re FDA Probe ABBOTT LAB: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Illinois ABBOTT LAB: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In Illinois ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Ohio AMERICAN GENERAL: Sued In Florida Over Burial Life Insurance Policies ANAHEIM HILLS: Suits Over CA Santiago Disaster All Settled After 6 Yrs AUTO INSURANCE: Survey In CA Finds 40% Of Bills Are Fraudulent AVADO BRANDS: Ap Ct Ruling May Make It Tough To Prove Securities Fraud CLOROX COMPANY: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In California ECHEVARRIA, MCCALLA: Il Ct Dismisses FDCPA Suit; Leasor Is Not A Debtor ED TESTING: Settles CA Suit; Will Improve Materials For Test To Blind HI/FN INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In California INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Virginia Ct Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit MATTEL INC: Harvey Greenfield Files Securities Suit In California NJ POLICE: Judge Orders Broad Discovery on Racial Profiling On Turnpike NORMAN STANLEY: Inspection On Rental Properties In Wake To End Lawsuit NY CITY: Sued Over Housing Conditions For Homeless With Aids TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT Chairman Says Industry Will Win Appeal In Fla. TOBACCO LITIGATION: New York To Issue Tobacco Bonds TOBACCO LITIGATION: NY Consumer Fraud Case Can't Be Part Of Class Suit UNISYS: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania UNISYS: Spector & Roseman File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit In Maine ********** ABBOTT LAB: Brings In Executive From Durham; Faces Suit Re FDA Probe -------------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories has hired another outsider to help improve its regulatory dealings with the Food and Drug Administration, as it comes under an intensifying attack from shareholders. Abbott Laboratories was sued Wednesday on behalf of stockholders who say the company didn't promptly disclose information about an FDA investigation into the company's diagnostics division. It's the second class action sought against Abbott since the medical-products company announced its dispute with the FDA last month. Abbott and the FDA are squabbling over allegations that the company is using various incorrect procedures to make medical-test kits at an Abbott plant near headquarters in North Chicago. Lawyers from Schiffrin & Barroway of Bala Cynwyd, Pa., said they filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Chicago on behalf of all purchasers of Abbott stock from March 17 through Sept. 29. Abbott wouldn't comment on the suit, but said it continues to work with the FDA to resolve the regulatory wrangle. Meantime, Abbott said it has hired Lawrence Roebel as vice president for regulatory affairs and research quality assurance in its pharmaceutical products division. Abbott traditionally promotes from within its management ranks for corporate level positions. But Roebel, who begins his new duties Monday, is the second executive hired from Durham, N.C.-based Quintiles Inc., a research and consulting firm known for its specialty in developing products to meet FDA standards. Earlier this month, Abbott hired Michael Beatrice as vice president of corporate regulatory and quality science from Quintiles. Although the recent FDA probe focuses on Abbott's diagnostics division, where Roebel would not likely be involved, an earlier FDA probe of Abbott involved pharmaceutical Abbokinase, a clot-buster drug Abbott has been unable to ship as a result of the continuing investigation. The Abbokinase probe centers in part on testing of the product as well as on testing of the donors of kidney cells used to make Abbokinase. (Chicago Tribune 10-28-1999) ABBOTT LAB: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement was issued by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) from March 17, 1999 through September 29, 1999, inclusive. The complaint charges Abbott and certain of its officers and directors with failing to disclose material information concerning the fact that Abbott was seriously out of compliance with government quality assurance regulations at its North Chicago Diagnostic Products Division plant. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than December 19, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Andrew L. Barroway, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com TICKERS: NYSE:ABT ABBOTT LAB: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit In Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The following was released by the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who bought Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) stock between March 17, 1999 and September 29, 1999. The lawsuit charges Abbott and several of its top officers with violations of the securities laws and regulations of the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants failed to reveal problems then known to them concerning the Company's compliance with Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations at one of its plants. The truth regarding problems at this plant was not revealed until September 29, 1999, even though the Company had received a warning letter from the FDA regarding violations at the plant on March 17, 1999. Once the market learned of these violations the Company's stock price plunged dramatically. Plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. If you purchased Abbott stock during the Class Period, you have until December 20, 1999 to participate in the case and ask the Court to appoint you as one of the lead plaintiffs for the Class. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Michael Miske, Gregory Nespole, Esq., Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. or Shane T. Rowley, Esq.), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or whafh@aol.com or visit our website at http://www.whafh.comAll e-mail correspondence should make reference to Abbott. TICKERS: NYSE:ABT ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit In Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement was issued by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP: Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (NYSE:ANF) from October 8, 1999 through October 13, 1999, inclusive. The complaint charges Abercrombie of improperly tipping off an analyst at the brokerage firm of Lazard Freres about the Company's sluggish third quarter growth. This information was made available to Lazard Freres' sales force so that Lazard Freres' preferred customers were able to trade on this inside information. The truth was not disclosed to the investing public until October 13, 1999. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, who has significant experience and expertise prosecuting class actions on behalf of investors and shareholders. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than December 18, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Andrew L. Barroway, Esq.) toll free at 888/299-7706 or 610/667-7706, or via e-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com TICKERS: NYSE:ANF AMERICAN GENERAL: Sued In Florida Over Burial Life Insurance Policies --------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed in Florida on behalf of millions of policyholders throughout the country against American General Life & Accident Insurance Company alleging unconscionable insurance practices in the sale of burial life insurance policies. The lawsuit was filed in Gainesville, Florida, on October 27, 1999. The complaint alleges that for many decades American General Life & Accident Insurance Company has engaged in a nationwide scheme which takes advantage of the poor and minorities in the sale of burial life insurance. Burial life insurance policies, also commonly known as industrial life insurance policies, are life insurance policies with death benefits typically of $1,000 or less and weekly premium payments often less than one dollar. American General Life & Accident Insurance Company itself, through life insurance companies it has acquired, such as Independent Life and Accident Insurance, targeted the poor and minorities for the sale of burial life insurance. Burial policies do not build value and often build little or no cash surrender value. The suit alleges that even though the premium payments on burial policies appear small, millions of poor and minority policyholders have paid substantially more in premiums than the death benefits provided by the policies. Because the policies contain little or no cash surrender value, policyholders stand to lose everything paid into the policies if they discontinue paying premiums even though they have already substantially overpaid for the policies. Burial policies have been widely sold to the economically disadvantaged by agents of the life insurance company who would routinely make personal visits to their policyholders to collect premium payments and convince policyholders to purchase additional insurance products. The suit alleges that in some instances policyholders were sold as many as twenty burial policies even where it was not in the policyholder's best interest to purchase additional burial insurance. The suit also alleges that even though other types of life insurance were available which were better and less expensive for the policyholders, American General Life & Accident Insurance Company agents sold the burial policies solely to increase their own commissions and the company profits. The class action plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit are Queen Crawford, Bessie Jones and John A. And Earther Strong. Christa L. Collins, an attorney with the Tampa law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Forizs & Smiljanich, P.A., stated: "American General Life & Accident Insurance Company has taken financial advantage of those who can least afford it." State of Florida Insurance Commissioner, Bill Nelson conducted hearings in the Spring of 1999 on burial life insurance and supported legislation which would have required burial insurance companies to inform their policyholders of the total amount they have paid in premiums for burial life policies. This legislation was vigorously opposed by the insurance industry and was defeated in the Florida legislature. On Monday, October 25, 1999, Commissioner Nelson launched an extensive investigation into five burial life insurance companies, including American General Life & Accident Company. He also announced that he will again propose legislation to include barring new sales of burial policies. Contact: Christa L. Collins of James, Hoyer, Newcomer, Forizs & Smiljanich, P.A., 813-286-4100 or CollinsChrista@hotmail.com ANAHEIM HILLS: Suits Over CA Santiago Disaster All Settled After 6 Yrs ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Six Years And $19 Million Later, Last Of Suits By Anaheim Hills Residents Over Santiago Disaster Are Resolved. Six years after a landslide forced dozens of families to flee their Anaheim Hills dream homes, city officials and others have settled the last in the resulting series of lawsuits, paying out more than $ 19 million in all in the aftermath of the disaster. Nearly 250 families sued Anaheim and others involved with the housing development endangered by the January 1993 Santiago landslide. The case was finally closed earlier this month when the last plaintiff agreed to settle for $ 27,250, concluding one of the lengthiest landslide cases in Orange County, said attorney Michael Rubin, who represented the city. Many residents were just glad to have it over with. "I don't know if this is something to be joyful about. I mean, it's settled. It's over," said Ed Muratori, who spent about $ 15,000 to repair his home following the landslide. "We sued for much more money than what we got, but this thing was just going on for too long. At some point in time, you get tired." Amid torrential rains that prompted much of Southern California to be declared a disaster area, city officials in January 1993 learned that the already saturated Anaheim Hills bluff was sliding downward at a rate of about an inch a day. Fearing that the slide might cause the entire hillside to collapse, the city evacuated 46 families in the hardest-hit areas. The hillside didn't topple, but the slide tore at the foundation of many homes that lined Avenida de Santiago, Georgetown Circle and other nearby residential streets, leaving cracks several inches wide through living rooms and fissures that divided driveways and swimming pools. Streets and sidewalks buckled. Property values, for some homes originally assessed upward of $ 1 million, plummeted. About a quarter of the residents eventually sold their homes at a loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars, said William E. Stoner, whose law firm represented most of the homeowners. "We're satisfied with the settlement," Stoner said, adding that his clients "are happy to have the ordeal behind them, and no longer have to deal with the city of Anaheim." In their lawsuit, residents claimed that developers never should have been allowed to build on land they knew to be susceptible to landslides. Brittle plastic pipes, which homeowners contend cracked and leaked, contributing to the landslide, also should not have been used in construction, according to the lawsuit. City officials denied they were aware of the slide risk, and argued that they spent millions of dollars to correct the problem as soon as it was detected, including installing pumps to drain the hillside. Facing mounting legal action, Anaheim authorities in 1995 filed a countersuit, charging that residents contributed to the slide by over-watering the landscape and failing to repair leaky swimming pools. The countersuit was later withdrawn. Rubin, the city's attorney, insists the city did all it could, acting "in a remarkably responsive way to the situation," he said. The legal dispute hinged on which of the two landslide boundaries submitted to the court would be used to determine damages. The city claimed that only 36 homes were immediately within the landslide zone, while attorneys for the homeowners contended about 250 homes were affected. The suits dragged on for years until a judge appointed an independent engineering geologist, whose final analysis was similar to the city's assessment, said Rubin, the city's attorney. "We reached a conceptual settlement, I believe, within a week of the geology expert's testimony," Rubin said. The agreed-upon settlement topped $ 19 million, officials said. The city's insurers agreed to pay $ 10 million toward the final settlement, with two plastic-pipe manufacturers contributing another $ 3.75 million. The rest of the amount will come from the plaintiffs' insurers and other cross-defendants, Rubin said. Of the settlement, $ 3.5 million was set aside to maintain a water pumping system that the city installed to stabilize the hillside. The system includes dozens of vertical wells pumping water from 50 to 300 feet underground, draining the hillside. "There has been no movement in that landslide since March of 1993. We have monitoring devices . . . to guarantee that it won't move," said Natalie Meeks, city engineer in charge of the wells at the time. But others aren't so sure. Jerry Tatarian, 30, said he bought a house on Avenida de Santiago after hiring engineering experts who determined that the ground was stable. He then spent about $ 60,000 to repair the foundation, and poured tens of thousands of dollars more into fixing minor problems including various cracks. But new cracks have since appeared on his patio and in his swimming pool. "We all suffered because of the landslide . . . and we're still suffering," Tatarian said. While he fears that living in Anaheim Hills will continue to be a constant battle against the forces of nature, Tatarian added that for the most part, it's worth it. "It's quiet. It's far away from the city," he said. In January 1993, a 23-acre landslide forced Anaheim city officials to evacuate 46 families from their hilltop homes. Lawsuits involving about 250 families soon followed and dragged on for years. The last case from that disaster was finally settled and dismissed this month. (Los Angeles Times 10-28-1999) AUTO INSURANCE: Survey In CA Finds 40% Of Bills Are Fraudulent -------------------------------------------------------------- California consumers are paying $5 billion a year for auto-body repairs that are substandard, dangerously unstable or never done, the director of the state's Bureau of Automotive Repairs said Wednesday. In recent undercover stings of auto-body repair shops, the consumer advocacy office found 40 percent of bills were fraudulent, director Allen Wood said at a Senate Insurance Committee hearing. Consumer advocates, insurance representatives and auto-body repair shop owners testified that the problem is costing the public money and could compromise safety. Repair shop owner Rocko Avellini of Hawaiian Gardens operates a consumer advocacy service that checks repairs. "We have done more than 400 wreck checks and haven't seen one repair done correctly," he said. If the finish on the car is within reason, poor or even dangerous repairs are often undetectable to the owner, Wood said. He used a 1993 Mercedes 500SL parked on a flatbed truck near the State Capitol to illustrate his point. "This car is really not safe to be on the road. But if you just got this car back from the repair shop, you'd have no idea," he said. The car's owner drove the car for weeks, unaware of structural problems resulting from a bad repair job, Wood said. Repairs on the $85,000 sports car totaled over $18,000, but investigators found that $7,800 of the bill was for parts never installed and labor that was never done. The owner of that repair shop is being prosecuted, he said. During the investigation, the bureau found that as the repair bills increased, the percentage of the bill that was fraudulent also increased. "The more damage there is, the more room there is to hide things," Wood said. Lawmakers will also study agreements that insurance companies make with repair shops requiring flat rates for services, said Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Daly City. Those direct repair provider contracts are similar to health maintenance organizations contracts with doctors, said Speier, who is the chairwoman of the insurance committee. Both are ways the insurance companies save money, she said. In those agreements, insurance agencies can negotiate for a reduced hourly rate or tell repair shops to use after-market parts, as seen in a recent class-action lawsuit that resulted in a $1.2 billion verdict against State Farm Insurance Co. Speier's committee will investigate the how those contracts affect the cost and quality of auto-body repairs and how the state can help crack down on fraud in the industry. She expects to issue the findings of the Insurance Committee's investigation in December. (Ventura County Star (Ventura County, Ca.) 10-28-1999) AVADO BRANDS: Ap Ct Ruling May Make It Tough To Prove Securities Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------------- An appeals court ruling on a case involving a Madison restaurant chain operator could make it tougher for shareholders to prove securities fraud cases against company management. Plaintiffs must prove that corporations "consciously misbehaved" or were "severely reckless" in managing the company for the actions to be considered fraudulent the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said in a ruling on a shareholders lawsuit against Avado Brands Inc. (Nasdaq: AVDO). The appeals court sent the case back to U.S. District Court. Avado owns the restaurant chains Hops Restaurant, Bar and Brewery, McCormick & Schmick's and Don Pablo's Mexican Kitchen. Shareholders accused Avado of selling stock at inflated prices. The lawsuit charged that management knew about operational problems and profited when the problems finally were revealed and the stock price dropped. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants claim the ruling is in their favor, and both claim to be looking out for the best interests of shareholders. "The approach the 11th Circuit has taken is most beneficial to shareholders because only those suits that really pass muster can go on and be allowed to consume corporate resources," said Oscar Persons, Avado's defense lawyer from Alston & Bird LLP. David Bain, of Chitwood & Harley, who represented the plaintiffs, also said the recent ruling is good for shareholders. "The decision provides shareholders with protection against false and misleading statements by corporate defendants," said Bain. The ruling states that companies could be found guilty of fraud if they consciously deceive shareholders, Bain said. The 11th Circuit ruling specifies that company management must be " severely reckless," as opposed to "merely reckless," which is the standard other circuit courts have adopted. Persons said the ruling strengthens the Private Securities Reform Act of 1995, which aimed to reduce the number of frivolous securities fraud cases. Congress passed the law after a record-setting 227 class-action securities fraud lawsuits were filed in 1994. "The 11th Circuit has aligned itself with some other circuits that want to put some teeth into the Reform Act," Persons said. The number of shareholder lawsuits temporarily declined in 1995 and 1996 after the Reform Act passed. But the number of such suits rose again in 1997, and in 1998 the number of class-action securities fraud lawsuits reached a new high - 235 cases -surpassing the record set in 1994, according to the Stanford Law School's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. "Securities litigation is giving pennies to stockholders and millions to plaintiffs' lawyers, and historically that's why Congress passed the Reform Act," Persons said. The 11th Circuit recently issued another ruling defending the Reform Act in the case of Harris vs. Ibax. The court said cautionary language protects companies from lawsuits when they fail to meet the goals outlined in their forward-looking statements. The suit against Avado was originally filed against Apple South, which changed its name to Avado when it sold its Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar franchises. (Atlanta Business Chronicle 10-8-1999) CLOROX COMPANY: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit In California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following was announced October 27, 1999 by Stull, Stull & Brody: A class action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders of The Clorox Company (NYSE: CLX) who purchased Clorox stock between October 19, 1998 and August 11, 1999, inclusive. Clorox sells a variety of household products, including dressings and sauces, charcoal, automobile waxes, liquid bleach, cleaning products, cleaners, and cat litter. The defendants include: Clorox, First Brands Corporation, G. Craig Sullivan, Gerald E. Johnston, Karen M. Rose, William V. Stephenson, Thomas H. Rowland and Donald A. Desantis. The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action arises from damages incurred by the Class as a result of a scheme and common course of conduct by defendants which operated as a fraud and deceit on the Class during the Class Period. Defendants' scheme included rendering false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the present and future financial condition and business prospects of the Company, as well as the financial benefits that would enure to Clorox and its shareholders. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, no later than sixty days from October 6, 1999 move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact plaintiffs' counsel Timothy J. Burke at 888-388-4605 or via e-mail at info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's web site at http://www.secfraud.comTICKERS: NYSE: CLX ECHEVARRIA, MCCALLA: Il Ct Dismisses FDCPA Suit; Leasor Is Not A Debtor ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers who rent their mortgaged residences may lose their consumer status for Fair Debt Collection Practices Act purposes if they rent to non-family members, remove their personal property and have no expectations of living in the home in the future. Miller v. Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier, et al., No. 98 C 5563 (N.D. Ill. 8/13/99). Kevin Miller refinanced his Atlanta home in 1993. He lived in that residence until 1995 when he moved to Chicago, taking his personal property with him. In his absence, Miller rented the Atlanta property for 1,950 per month to non-family members. In September 1997, the law firm of McCalla, Raymer, Padrick, Cobb, Nichols & Clark LLC mailed Miller a collection letter on behalf of Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. The dunning letter attempted to collect the unpaid balance of the mortgage loan on the Atlanta property. Miller, in turn, filed a class action under Section 1692 of the FDCPA. When Miller moved for summary judgment against the law firm, the firm countered with its own motion for summary judgment. The firm contended that the loan was not a "debt" within the meaning of the FDCPA because Miller used the Atlanta residence primarily for commercial purposes. In his motion for summary judgment, Miller argued that the determination of whether a loan is a debt under the FDCPA is appropriately made at the time of the original transaction. He cited Garner v. Kansas, 1999 WL 262100 (E.D. La. 1999), to support his position. According to Miller, he intended to use the Atlanta property as his residence and for consumer purposes at the time he obtained the refinancing and this made his loan consumer in nature. He additionally pointed out to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that he lived in the home for several years before moving to Chicago. Before ruling on the motion, the District Court reviewed other decisions and concluded that in general, courts examine the loan transaction as a whole when deciding if it is for consumer or commercial purposes. Judge Elaine Bucklo then opined that Miller's reliance on Garner was misplaced because in Garner the plaintiff only rented his property during the periods of time he was is the military, law school and completing a judicial clerkship. Furthermore, the plaintiff in Garner lived in the home at the time of the FDCPA action. Additionally, the court reviewed Truth in Lending Act cases that set forth factors to be used in determining if a transaction was a consumer credit transaction. These factors included whether the consumer had resided in the home for a long period of time, whether he had visited the home periodically, whether he expected to reside in the home in the future, whether the leasee was merely performing a custodial role, whether the consumer stored property at the residence and whether the leasee was related to the consumer. Using these criteria, the District Court found that Miller did not demonstrate "the existence of factual circumstances to show consumer rather than commercial use in the absence of contemporaneous occupancy." Thus, the court ruled the loan was not a debt within the meaning of the FDCPA. The court granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment and denied Miller's motion for summary judgment and class certification. Because Miller was not within the class of people with non-business debts, the District Court ruled he was an inadequate class representative. (Consumer Financial Services Law Report 10-5-1999) ED TESTING: Settles CA Suit; Will Improve Materials For Test To Blind --------------------------------------------------------------------- A California class action lawsuit alleging that a test administrator failed to provide adequate course materials to blind test takers has been settled. Under the terms of the agreement, the testing service will improve the availability of course materials in Braille and other alternative formats. An amended complaint in the case of Sutton v. Educational Testing Services was filed in January of this year by Joshua Konecky of Disability Rights Advocates in Oakland, Calif., on behalf of plaintiffs Marc Sutton and California Council of the Blind. Sutton is a blind individual who needed to take the Graduate Records Exam in order to pursue his goal of attending graduate school in physical therapy, and the CCB is an advocacy organization that is comprised of Californians with blindness and visual impairments. The amended complaint charged that Educational Testing Services provided fewer course materials, such as practice tests and explanations, in Braille format than in print format. It also claimed that the quality of the Braille materials was inferior, and that ETS imposed "unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on the use of Braille materials ... ." In particular, it alleged that Sutton asked ETS to provide him with course materials for the GRE on several occasions. According to the complaint, ETS told Sutton that the only course materials available in Braille were a practice GRE general test containing sample questions, three general tests without explanations, one general test with explanations and a math review. By contrast, it was alleged, a print that was available only in print offered six actual GRE general tests, an additional complete test with explanations, a math review and a section that included test-taking strategies. The print course materials were better organized and formatted than the Braille versions, the complaint said, and ETS also required a 50 deposit plus shipping and handling for each Braille item ordered. In addition, the complaint said, ETS limited the use of Braille materials and required that they be returned within 60 days. Moreover, it claimed, ETS did not update the Braille materials as frequently as it updated the print materials. The amended complaint, which was presented as a class action, alleged violations of the ADA and Section 504 as well as state law. In addition, it raised several state-law claims. (Disability Compliance Bulletin 10-11-1999) HI/FN INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit In California -------------------------------------------------------------- The following is an announcement by the law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP: A class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of Hi/fn Inc. (NASDAQ: HIFN) common stock between July 26, 1999 and October 7, 1999. The action asserts a claim against Hi/fn and certain of its officers for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by reason of material misrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period. Investors were shocked by Hi/fn's announcement on October 7, 1999 that orders had been cut by the Company's two largest customers. This "bombshell" sent Hi/fn's stock price careening from $ 104.75 per share to $ 37.75 in just 2 trading days. Plaintiff is represented by Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than sixty days from October 8, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact: Ira M. Press, Esq. Pamela Edgar, Paralegal KIRBY McINERNEY & SQUIRE, LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: 212/317-2300 or Toll Free 888/529-4787 E-Mail: pedgar@kmslaw.com TICKERS: NASDAQ:HIFN INFORMATION ANALYSIS: Virginia Ct Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------------- Information Analysis Incorporated (OTC Bulletin Board: IAIC) announced that the complaint in the class action securities fraud case filed against the company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has been dismissed. >From the inception of this case, IAI has contended that the plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to support any actionable claim against the company and that it disclosed all material information pertaining to the company through its press releases and periodic reports. With all the facts at hand, the plaintiffs could not fashion a complaint which satisfied the court. This eventually resulted in the court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint and the plaintiffs' determination to abandon the litigation. Sandor Rosenberg, IAI's president, has remarked "Obviously, we are gratified that the court, through its dismissal of the complaint, has vindicated the position we have steadfastly advanced as to our lack of any liability and that the plaintiffs saw fit not to continue with the litigation. It was our conviction as to a lack of any liability that led us to continuously reject any settlement proposals. Now, we can pursue opportunities and seek to advance our business without the cloud of the litigation hanging over us." About Information Analysis Incorporated Information Analysis Incorporated (www.infoa.com), headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, is an information technology services company. The Company is a web solution provider and software conversion specialist, modernizing legacy systems and extending their reach to the internet world. Additional information for investors This release may contain forward-looking statements regarding the Company's business, customer prospects, or other factors that may affect future earnings or financial results. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to vary materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Investors should read and understand the risk factors detailed in the Company's 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998 and in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. MATTEL INC: Harvey Greenfield Files Securities Suit In California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The following is an announcement by the Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield: The Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield announced that it has filed a class action securities lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Mattel, Inc. (NYSE:MAT) and certain individuals associated with Mattel. The suit is brought on behalf of purchasers of Mattel stock who purchased shares between Oct. 22, 1998 and Oct. 1, 1999, or who owned shares of The Learning Company, Inc. (NYSE:TLC) that were exchanged for Mattel shares as a result of the merger of the two companies. The Complaint alleges that Mattel and certain of its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5) of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Complaint seeks damages for the Class arising from a fraud on the Class as a result of a scheme and common course of conduct by the defendants during the Class Period, alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements as to Mattel's financial condition and the results of its operations. The complaint alleges that these false and misleading statements caused the price of Mattel stock to become artificially inflated. The plaintiff is represented by the Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield. If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court no later than Dec. 6, 1999 to serve as lead plaintiff, but you must meet certain legal requirements. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this action or your rights with regard to this litigation, you may contact Harvey Greenfield, Esq. at the Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield, 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2001, New York, NY 10165, telephone 212-949-5500, or toll free 877-949-5500, facsimile 212-949-0049, or by e-mail at hgreenf@banet.net TICKERS: NYSE:MAT NYSE:TLC NJ POLICE: Judge Orders Broad Discovery on Racial Profiling On Turnpike ----------------------------------------------------------------------- State authorities must turn over nearly seven years worth of New Jersey State Police records to defendants who claim they were arrested due to racial profiling by troopers on the New Jersey Turnpike. State Superior Court Judge Victor Friedman issued the far-reaching discovery order last Friday in a hearing involving 18 current Burlington County prosecutions in which defense attorneys allege arrests were prompted by racially motivated motor vehicle stops. The judge also temporarily consolidated the prosecutions. But he warned that if defense attorneys want to join the action, they must first apply to the court. "This is not any kind of class action. There are no class actions in criminal law,'' Friedman said. "It will not be automatic. Someone doesn't write a letter and say 'I want in on this parade.''' The New Jersey Attorney General's Office has 75 days to comply with the discovery order of records that include internal memos, personnel files, arrest records and other data related to racial profiling. Dismissing the state's non-specific claims of privilege, Friedman directed the state to disclose all records dating back to January 1993. "It is a very broad order. It extends from one end of the turnpike to the other,'' said Kevin Walker, the deputy public defender who filed the discovery motion. "I think the impact of today's ruling may go far beyond Burlington County,'' Walker said after the three-hour hearing. Walker, who represents five of the 18 defendants, was one of nine attorneys who joined in requesting the records. Friedman granted nearly all of the defense requests for discovery, giving them what one attorney said was an unprecedented look inside State Police operations. The defense will be allowed to search arrest data, operations reports and other records for troopers who patrol all 122 miles of the nation's busiest highway. Also included in the discovery will be all the data state officials used in compiling an Attorney General's Office report issued earlier this year, which acknowledged the practice of racial profiling. The defense can have access to all of the internal drafts of that interim report as well as other State Police memos and discipline reports involving racial profiling. Defense attorneys are hoping this extensive discovery will give them proof that state troopers engaged in a consistent pattern of racial profiling, the practice of targeting minorities on the highway. These once-private documents, many of which are management reports and internal affairs records, could also document racial masking, Deputy Public Defender David P. Jacobs said in court. According to Jacobs, racial masking is a practice where troopers falsify records to hide the racial identity of the motorists they stop. The state will comply with Friedman's ruling, but may challenge the release of specific records, again citing privileged information, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Paul Heinzel said after the hearing. In court, Friedman sharply criticized the state's use of executive privilege in its motion rejecting the defense discovery claims. "Privilege is not another word for cover-up,'' Friedman said. "Simply by putting a sentence in a brief'' is not enough to assert or meet the burden to bar the defense from securing the materials, he added. The state, Friedman said, must provide affidavits detailing the nature of the information and the reasons to exclude it from the defense. The state must provide the defense with a motion when it claims privilege and if the information is so sensitive, Friedman said he will see the affidavit first. While there might be outside broader social issues relating to racial profiling, Friedman said that is not his concern. "I am not interested in any causes. I'm interested only in cases, the cases before me,'' he said. "Judges are not advocates for parties and they are not advocates for causes. Judges are permitted to be advocates for justice,'' Friedman said. "These discovery steps are a search for truth.'' That search, Friedman said, is to ensure "that the phrase "equal justice under the law' does not become hollow.'' (The Legal Intelligencer 10-27-1999) NORMAN STANLEY: Inspection On Rental Properties In Wake To End Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A judge said that he wants an independent inspector to sign off on landlord Norman Stanley's rental properties before they change hands, saying it may be the only way to resolve a 16-year-old class-action lawsuit over substandard housing. If conditions at Stanley's properties don't improve within a year, Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens said during a hearing, then he will take "drastic measures:" He could take over or close down Stanley's 422 rental units or throw out the tenants' lawsuit, depending on who is to blame. Stephens said it isn't clear whether the problem is Stanley's not making repairs or tenants' vandalizing and skipping out without paying rent. "I'm concerned this is a vicious cycle that nobody seems to be able to get out of," Stephens said. "Nothing's changed in these 13 years, and I don't think it's all Mr. Stanley's fault, although he has elected to operate a business in this environment." Stephens - who 13 years ago ordered Stanley to stop renting dilapidated homes or be held in contempt - told attorneys for the landlord and tenants to work out the details, whether it means forcing Stanley to hire inspectors or asking the city of Raleigh to do it. Stanley, 74, did not attend the hearing because of health problems, one of his attorneys, A. Bartlett White, told the judge. Stanley is one of the biggest landlords in Wake County, where 98 percent of his property is located. Tenants have complained over the years about holes in their roofs and floors, doors that don't lock, electrical problems and poor plumbing. City records show that one out of every seven complaints that inspectors received in the first half of this year were about his units. Legal-aid lawyers brought the class-action lawsuit that led to Stephens' original order requiring Stanley not to charge full rent on substandard homes and prohibiting him from using eviction notices just to collect back rent. Earlier this year, attorneys for the N.C. Justice and Community Development Center revived the lawsuit by initiating steps to ask a judge to hold Stanley in contempt for violating the original order. The session Tuesday was on their motion for a judge to order Stanley to show cause at a subsequent hearing on why he shouldn't be held in contempt. That motion coincidentally landed in Stephens' courtroom. After reviewing videotapes and affidavits that both sides submitted - from tenants claiming repairs were never made to Stanley's employees saying that tenants were vandalizing the properties - Stephens said there is no question that the conditions are often deplorable. "It's hard to believe people live there or have lived there in this day and age in Wake County," he said. Stanley's lax requirements for renters - no credit or employment checks and no deposits - serve a niche of the community that can't find other housing, the judge said, but it also sets both sides up for failure. Evidence that the problems aren't just the landlord's fault can be found in reports that some tenants have run wires and hoses to abandoned houses next door for their friends, and then complained to Stanley that their water and electrical bills are too high, according to the affidavits. Other tenants have intentionally damaged property because they were being evicted, but then the houses were rented before repairs were made, sometimes without sinks or door locks, for example. But rather than allow the two sides to argue over a contempt citation, the judge told them he wants to find a solution to the problem. He said he favors an independent inspector to sign off on each unit prior to someone moving in; the inspector would then develop a record of which homes were not being repaired and which were being vandalized. Tenants' attorneys William D. Rowe and Jay Butler said requiring some third-party inspector to make sure the units are up to code is exactly what they want, but White, an attorney for Stanley, questioned who would pay for it. Stephens acknowledged that it is going to be a challenge to come up with a solution that isn't too expensive and isn't passed along to tenants. David Permar, another Stanley attorney, said that the city of Raleigh is obligated to inspect homes and that the judge could order it to do so. But the judge said that isn't necessarily fair to taxpayers, especially considering the nearly 100 percent annual turnover rate that Stanley claims he has. Ed Owens, the city's director of inspections, said in a telephone interview that there is no way his staff could handle that. "Heck, no. I've got a plateful. I'm not going to manage his property," Owens said. "I've got enough to do just keeping up with complaints about him." He said he discussed the matter with the lawyers Monday and recommended that they try to hire private home inspectors who can make sure each rental unit meets the minimum housing code. Owens praised the judge's approach, and said he agrees that both Stanley and his tenants are at fault at different times. Stephens issued the show-cause order but delayed a hearing on it for one year, then set as a condition the requirement that both sides work on the resolution. In a year, he will consider either dismissing the case or allowing the contempt proceedings to go forward. "But give it a chance," he told the lawyers. "Try to make it work, for heaven's sake. ... This better work, because if it doesn't, any other court action would be rather dramatic. I'd have to take over the property or close it down, or dismiss the class-action and let the American way of commerce proceed." (The News and Observer (Raleigh, NC) 10-27-1999) NY CITY: Sued Over Housing Conditions For Homeless With Aids ------------------------------------------------------------ In July, New York City officials sent Zonell Wright to stay at the Allerton Hotel in Manhattan, one of 53 hotels the city uses for short-term housing of homeless people with AIDS or symptomatic HIV infection. He arrived to find a tiny room, ridden with rodents scurrying around and even crawling into his bed. The pillow case had blood stains on it. There was no fan or air conditioner for the heat wave, just a window opened onto the stench of rotting food on the ground below. Drug syringes were strewn around the hallways. Conditions were so bad Wright never slept in the hotel. Instead, he would sit outside in a park, waiting until morning, when he could enter and change his clothes. He later was placed at the Central Queens YMCA, but because it bans refrigerators, he could not refrigerate his medications or food. Wright, 42, is the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit filed Sept. 29 in U.S. District Court in Manhattan demanding that the city's Division of AIDS Services Income Support improve conditions for the roughly 2,000 people who are placed in hotels like the Allerton each month. The suit alleges that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal Rehabilitation Act, the New York City Administrative Code and their common-law duty of care to plaintiffs. "Quite simply, the emergency housing that defendants provide to plaintiffs is deplorable," the suit said. "It is often unfit for human habitation, let alone habitation by plaintiffs, all of whom suffer from severely compromised immune systems." Section 21-128(b) of the city's Administrative Code requires DASIS to provide "medically appropriate" housing for qualified individuals living with HIV or AIDS. Such housing must include a lockable bathroom and a private refrigerator where clients can store temperature-sensitive medicines and food. Eating must be scheduled according to medication regimens. The suit relies on clients' testimony and two independent investigations and one City Council hearing to document conditions at the single-room occupancy hotels, which are privately owned and operated under agreements with DASIS. "It's unbelievable. It's really unbelievable," said Armen H. Merjian, a senior staff attorney with Housing Works Inc. "New York City knows that it cannot put immunocompromised people in these conditions, but yet it does it anyway." (AIDS Policy and Law 10-15-1999) SWISSAIR 111: Attorney Wins First Settlement & Donates For Air Safety Arthur Alan Wolk, internationally-known aviation attorney based in Philadelphia, on Friday, October 22, achieved a landmark first domestic settlement from Swissair flight 111. Wolk announced that he is donating a portion of his fee to establish a panel of unbiased experts to study and recommend critical improvements in aircraft wiring and fire safety. The settlement, reached on behalf of the family of 37-year-old Richard Coburn, a husband and father of three, formerly of East Brunswick, NJ, is hoped to be the first of many from the tragic plunge into the waters of Halifax, Nova Scotia of a Swissair MD-11. Wolk and Coburn's widow both hope to achieve some lasting benefit from the tragedy by working to improve aviation safety. The cause of this accident is still under investigation by Canadian and U.S. authorities. Privately, however, most agree that Wolk's assessment, made within hours of the crash was correct - - that the disaster was preventable. Wolk has been on the plaintiffs' steering committees of most of the country's major aircrash disasters and has correctly identified the causes of each disaster well in advance of the release of official findings. He is also credited with many times providing vital information to government investigators. Wolk, who is a member of the Swissair 111 plaintiffs' steering committee; the group that is guiding all of the victims' cases through the courts, says that this early settlement will accelerate the process of closure for victims' families whose agony has been prolonged due to the lack of settlements thus far. "Now the Coburn family will be secure with Richard Coburn's legacy and can begin the most important job of cherishing the memory of their wonderful husband and father. By working to improve aviation safety it is our hope that no other family will again suffer such unspeakable pain," said Wolk. For more information, please contact Arthur Alan Wolk 215/545-4220 TOBACCO LITIGATION: BAT Chairman Says Industry Will Win Appeal In Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- British American Tobacco executives said they were confident a multi -billion dollar class action against tobacco companies in the United States could be foiled. Non-smoking chairman Mr Martin Broughton said - after reporting a six per cent rise in the tobacco company's nine months profits - he is confident a recent court ruling would ultimately force claimants to fight the industry individually. "Every federal court that has looked at these kinds of class action cases has thrown them out," said Mr Broughton as he looked forward to a successful appeal at the end of the ongoing Engle versus Reynolds lawsuit in Florida. US subsidiary Brown & Williamson, the third-largest cigarette maker in the United States, is named as a defendant in the class-action suit alongside market leader Philip Morris, maker of top-selling Marlboro cigarettes, and RJR Tobacco, manufacturer of Camels. In a defeat last July, the US cigarette makers were found liable for the lung cancer and other ailments of as many as one million smokers in Florida and face in follow-up trials the possibility of damages worth hundreds of billions of dollars. BAT has pinned its hope of defeating the class action in part on a ruling in early September which limited damages for victims of smoking-related illnesses to awards on an individual basis. (Birmingham Post 10-27-1999) TOBACCO LITIGATION: New York To Issue Tobacco Bonds --------------------------------------------------- New York City said it would issue $ 700m in bonds backed by the future damages from last year's ground-breaking tobacco settlement in November. The issue, which would be the first of its kind, is likely to be followed shortly by Nassau County in New York state, which desperately needs the funds to plug a hole in its finances. Some analysts had expressed concern that last week's verdict against the industry in a class action lawsuit could heighten investor nerves about the securitisation. The judgement exposed tobacco companies to punitive damages which could exceed $ 200bn. However, Moody's Investors Service said that the industry may not have to pay any damages from the suit for decades. (Financial Times (London) 10-28-1999) TOBACCO LITIGATION: NY Consumer Fraud Case Can't Be Part Of Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cigarette smokers in New York seeking to sue five major tobacco companies lost a major battle Tuesday when the state's top court said they cannot pursue their consumer fraud case as part of a class action. The ruling by the Court of Appeals effectively means that the courthouse doors are closed to smokers who claimed cigarette manufacturers fraudulently concealed the addictive nature of nicotine. Although it is still possible for individual consumers to bring lawsuits, observers said it is unlikely any will because the potential damages -- on an individual basis -- are minuscule, while the legal costs could be astronomical. ''It's a very sad day for the many, many New York consumers who have been fooled by the tobacco companies for the past 20 years,'' said attorney Martis Ann Brachtl of New York City, who represented smokers. Steve Kottak, spokesman for one of the defendants, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., said ''the legal system did the right thing'' in this case. ''It underscores the fact that fact smoking and health lawsuits should not be treated as class actions.'' In the proposed class action lawsuit, smokers sought reimbursement for money spent on cigarettes since 1980, when the Legislature enacted a consumer protection statute barrng deceptive trade practices. Attorneys for the smokers attempted to sue Lorillard Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Inc., Brown & Williamson, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and the American Tobacco Co. after internal documents unveiled during 1994 congressional hearings revealed that companies had concealed years of research on the addictive qualities of nicotine. The documents indicated that tobacco companies not only covered up evidence of nicotine's addictivity, but also devised ways to enhance its impact and, therefore, get people hooked on cigarettes. Smokers in New York filed a class action consumer fraud claim, alleging they were duped into purchasing an addictive product that they would not have bought if they had known the danger, and seeking reimbursement for whatever they have spent on cigarettes over the last 19 years. Since the amount of the reimbursement, per individual smoker, would be relatively small while legal expenses would be high, plaintiff's attorneys sought to proceed with a class action lawsuit seeking collective damages. ''Consumers didn't want to buy addictive drugs,'' Brachtl said. ''They didn't know what they were buying, and wouldn't have bought if they had known the truth.'' But the Court of Appeals said the claim was pre-empted by a federal law that has required warning labels on cigarette packs since 1969. It also said a class action case with, potentially, millions of plaintiffs, would be unmanageable. All seven judges on the panel agreed with the opinion written by Judge Richard C. Wesley. However, since three of the Court of Appeals judges had recused themselves for unexplained reasons, three lower-court jurists, including Appellate Division Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona of Albany, were on the panel. (The Times Union (Albany, NY) 10-27-1999) UNISYS: Berger & Montague File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, P.C. (http://home.bm.net)announced that on October 28, 1999, it filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Unisys (NYSE: UIS) and its two highest officers, on behalf of all persons who purchased Unisys common stock between May 4, 1999, and October 14, 1999, inclusive. Case No. 99-CV-5333. The Complaint charges that Unisys and three of its highest officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially misleading press releases purporting to describe large contracts with major customers, which failed to reveal that the contracts were subject to regulatory and other contingencies, and therefore could not be expected to generate revenues in the near future. The Complaint further alleges that defendants utilized their inside information regarding the artificial inflation of the Company's stock price to sell significant amounts of their personal Unisys stock holdings, for proceeds of over $4 million. In addition, the complaint alleges that the artificial inflation of the price of Unisys stock permitted the company to complete an acquisition of Pulsepoint Communications for fewer shares of stock. If you purchased Unisys common stock during the May 4, 1999, through October 14, 1999 time period, you may wish to join the action. You may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff on or before December 27, 1999. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights with respect to this matter, you may call or write to: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Arthur Stock, Esq. Susan Kutcher, Investor Relations Manager Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (888) 891-2289 or (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-5715 Website: http://home.bm.nete-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net UNISYS: Spector & Roseman File Securities Suit In Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- Spector & Roseman, P.C. announced that on October 28, 1999, it filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Unisys (NYSE: UIS) and its two highest officers, on behalf of all persons who purchased Unisys common stock between May 4, 1999, and October 14, 1999. (Case No.: 99-CV-5333) The Complaint charges that Unisys and three of its highest officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially misleading press releases purporting to describe large contracts with major customers, which failed to reveal that the contracts were subject to regulatory and other contingencies, and therefore could not be expected to generate revenues in the near future. The Complaint further alleges that defendants utilized their inside information regarding the artificial inflation of the Company's stock price to sell significant amounts of their personal Unisys stock holdings, for proceeds of over $4 million. In addition, the complaint alleges that the artificial inflation of the price of Unisys stock permitted the company to complete an acquisition of Pulsepoint Communications for fewer shares of stock. If you purchased Unisys common stock during the May 4, 1999, through October 14, 1999 time period, you may wish to join the action. You may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff on or before December 21, 1999. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel Robert M. Roseman toll-free at 1-888-844-5862 or via E-mail at classaction@spectorandroseman.com. For more detailed information about the firm please visit website at http://www.spectorandroseman.com UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit In Maine ---------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for Class Plaintiff, Barrack, Rodos & Bacine issued the following: A class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Maine against UNUMProvident Corp., Inc. ("UNUMProvident") (NYSE: UNM; formerly Provident Companies, Inc. (formerly NYSE: PVT)) and certain officers and directors of the Company on behalf of the shareholders of UNUMProvident and former shareholders of UNUM Corporation ("UNUM") (formerly NYSE: UNM) who purchased shares of UNUMProvident or UNUM during the period February 4, 1998 and August 2, 1999, inclusive or were issued UNUMProvident stock pursuant to a joint proxy/registration statement and prospectus (the "Joint Proxy"). The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making false and misleading statements in press releases, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Joint Proxy concerning, among other things, understating reserves for disability insurance claims, and merger costs, which resulted in the overstatement of UNUMProvident's and UNUM's total assets, shareholders' equity, and net income. The complaint further alleges that in connection with the merger between UNUM and Provident, defendants issued the false and misleading Joint Proxy, which failed to disclose, among other things: the adverse impact of increased disability insurance claims on the earnings of UNUMProvident; that Provident was allegedly deriving a material portion of its income by improperly denying disability insurance claims, which were the subject of lawsuits against Provident; and that both UNUM's and Provident's due diligence reviews in connection with the merger were by agreement limited in scope. The plaintiff is represented by the law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may, no later than November 30, 1999, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class, if you so choose. In order to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this case or your rights or interests, please contact: Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder Relations Manager Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Counsel for Class Plaintiff 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 800/417-7305 or 215/963-0600 fax number 888/417-7306 or 215/963-0838 e-mail at msgoldman@barrack.com TICKERS: NYSE:UNM ********* 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. Theresa Cheuk and Peter A. Chapman, editors. Copyright 1999. 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 301/951-6400. * * * End of Transmission * * *