/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/991117.MBX C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 17, 1999, Vol. 1, No. 201 Headlines ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Jury Awards Silicosis Plaintiff $ 1.9 Mil BANK OF AMERICA: Il. Suit over Bounced-Check Fees Forces Bank To Pay BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Securities Suit BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Weiss & Yourman Announce Shareholder Suit In CA CAPITAL SENIOR: Dela Suit By Investors Seek Rescission Of Property Sale CBS: Minn. Ct Will Hear Female Employees' Charges Of Bias In Jan. 2000 CITIZENS INC: First Investors' Shareholders Sue In Il. Over Acquisition CITY OF TOLEDO: Statute Of Limitations Does Not Bar ADA Suit In Ohio CONN. POLICE: Ct Orders Permanent Injunction Over Tel Interception COX COMMUNICATIONS: Contests CA Suit Over Sale Of Cable TV Services COX COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Re Charge Of Late Fees Go On In Multi States HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Envoy Sees Slave Labor Talks Deadlocked HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Hagens Berman Says Poles Sue German Corporate Giants I.N.S.: Brooklyn Suit Says Fed Program For Hondurans Is Undermined LA POLICE: Lawsuit Accuses Of Countenancing And Cover-Up Of Misconduct PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Probe On Alleged Shortchanging Settlement Likely PUBLISHERS CLEARING: AGs File Objection In Il. To Proposed Settlement SAENZ: Fds Find CA Food Stamp Rule Illegal; Families Can Have Car & SSI TAMPA GENERAL: Hospital, Pregnant Women Agree To Monetary Terms UNILAB CORP: Announces Settlement For NY Suit Over Proposed UC Merger UNION CARBIDE: New Case Over Bhopal Gas Disaster Hailed In India VERSANT CORP: Moves To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit In CA VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: Fight Can Come With Opt-Out Clause In Settlement ********* ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Jury Awards Silicosis Plaintiff $ 1.9 Mil -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gomez worked as a sandblaster for about six years and claimed exposure to silica through abrasive sand blasting. His diagnosis of silicosis is not disputed, sources said. Medical testimony indicated Gomez will be disabled from work in about 15 years and will die in about 20 to 25 years from respiratory failure. Humble Sand and Gravel maintained that the warning was adequate and that Gomez's employer was the sole cause of injuries by not providing a safe environment in which to work, sources said. The defense further argued that Gomez was negligent because he was aware of the dangers and read and understood the warnings, sources added. Defense moved for a directed verdict on preemption, sophisticated user and learned intermediary doctrine, which was denied. Final judgment in this case has not yet been issued. The defense is planning an appeal. Case name and no.: Raymond Gomez v. Humble Sand & Gravel, No. A-152-368 Plaintiff(s)/Decedent(s): Raymond Gomez Verdict(s): $ 1.9 million Date: Sept. 3 Court: Texas 60th District Court, Jefferson Co. Judge: Gary Sanderson Defendant(s): Humble Sand & Gravel, supplier of flint bags. Sources said there were 15 other named defendants, all of which settled before trial. The settled defendants include manufacturers, retailers, abrasive suppliers and respiratory protection defendants, sources said. Claim: Negligence and failure to provide an adequate warning on Humble's bag of flint used in abrasive blasting Plaintiff Expert(s): Gary Friedman, pulmonologist in Houston, and Vernon Rose, industrial hygienist in Houston. Defense Expert(s): Jerry Householder, PHDB liability expert, Baton Rouge, La. and Emma Vasquez, vocational expert, Houston. Plaintiff Attorney(s): Lance P. Bradley and Darren Brown of Proust & Umphrey in Beaumont, TX Defense Attorney(s): Mike Dodson and Christy Amuny of Pete & Dodson in Beaumont, Texas (Mealey's Litigation Report: Asbestos, New Publication, Vol. 14, No. 17, Oct-8-1999) BANK OF AMERICA: Il. Suit over Bounced-Check Fees Forces Bank To Pay -------------------------------------------------------------------- Before tossing out tomorrow's junk mail, Bank of America customers might want to comb that stack for a nondescript white envelope offering them $ 50 for bouncing checks. What the country's biggest bank gets for its money is peace of mind, knowing that customers who take the 50 bucks now can't sue the bank later. But peace of mind does not come cheaply. Bank of America estimates that 1.4 million customers may be able to cash in on its offer to settle an Illinois couple's class-action lawsuit over the bank's system of processing checks and levying charges for the rubber ones. The Charlotte-based bank has offered a total of $ 9 million to cover that tab, while denying the couple's charges of fraud. Dana and Andrea Patterson of Fairview Heights, Ill., complained that the bank would first pay off the largest check that arrived after their account emptied. The Pattersons claimed that Bank of America thus got more $ 25 bounced-check fees than it would have if it had paid the checks in the order they arrived. For example, say five checks hit the bank on a day when there isn't enough money in an account to cover all of them. If the bank processes the biggest one first and the four smaller ones bounce, the bank would assess a $ 25 fee for each and make $ 100. But if the bank processes the checks in order of the numbers on them, perhaps three of the smaller checks would clear and only two bounce, allowing the bank to charge only $ 50 in fees. The Pattersons have mounted the most successful consumer attack on the practice so far. Courts in Alabama and Tennessee have tossed out similar class actions. When it adopted the practice two years ago, Bank of America projected a $ 14 million increase in fees. Even though it costs banks only 50 cents to $ 1.50 to handle a bad check, spokesman Ellison Clary said Bank of America is just trying to recoup its processing costs by paying customers' largest checks first. Most customers like it that way, Clary said. "We do know that, for a great majority of our customers, the larger checks tend to be for important payments like the mortgage, the car, the insurance," he said. "Customers want to see that they go through without a hitch." Until the late 1980s, most banks either processed checks in order of the numbers on them or the smallest checks first, according to a lawyer for the Pattersons, Doug Sprong. The largest-check-first practice grew more common as banking consultants began telling their customers about the simple programming change in check-processing machines that could produce increases in bounced-check fees, he said. "Now it's become standard practice among the big banks," Sprong said. "It hits everybody. It doesn't matter who you are." Not all banks use the system, although it's legal under state and federal laws. First Citizens of Raleigh and Wachovia, based in Winston-Salem, both process checks in order of the numbers on them. But mega-banks, such as First Union, that use the largest-check-first system see no reason to change it despite Bank of America's multimillion-dollar settlement. Under the present law, forcing banks to disclose how they levy bounced-check charges was the most important victory possible, Sprong said. "If you look at your statements, it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on," he said. "Our suit could force banks to disclose; then if the customer doesn't like it, he can take his business to another bank." Bank executives acknowledged in court that they hadn't notified customers of the change in 1997 because there was no legal requirement to do so. But in August, the bank sent notices about the procedure with every checking account customer's statement. "And new customers are made aware of the practice as they sign their deposit agreements," Clary said. It's not an issue for most bank customers, he said. They manage their checking accounts to avoid bounced-check charges or pay the bank more to cover their checks if the money runs out. Bank of America customers who receive the claims administrator's white envelopes were identified as people who bounced more than one check in a single day, Sprong said. To share in the settlement, they must fill out a claim form by Dec. 31. They don't have to prove when the harm occurred. "If they can identify a month or even a year when this happened ...," he said. "I tell people, 'You do the best you can.'" A customer who wants to hire his own lawyer and sue Bank of America must formally decline the settlement by Dec. 15. (News & Observer Nov-16-1999) BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Finkelstein & Krinsk File Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Bergen Brunswig Corporation (NYSE:BBC) is accused in a class action lawsuit of fraudulently misrepresenting the Company's condition, earning growth, financial statements and the Company's ability to continue to achieve profitable growth in order to inflate the price of the Company's stock. According to the Complaint filed by Finkelstein & Krinsk, the Company and its controlling insiders issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market regarding the acquisitions of Stadtlander Drug Co., Inc., and PharMerica, Inc. while omitting to disclose known adverse facts about the Company's troubled operations, diminished profitability and true financial conditions. The Complaint particularizes plaintiff's allegations of how Company's management violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and specifies the Company's false statements and omitted material facts. The Complaint has been filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of California and represents a class comprised of all individual and institutional investors for the pertinent time period. Defendants' statements were false and caused Bergen Brunswig stock to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period (March 16, 1999 - October 14, 1999). When the truth about defendants' misrepresentations became known to investors, the price of Bergen shares dropped dramatically from a Class Period high of over $25 per share, reaching as low as $6.44 per share in intra-day trading on October 19, 1999, as the market digested the adverse revelations. If you purchased or acquired a significant amount of Bergen Brunswig stock during the Class Period, you can join in the action on favorable terms without cost or expense to you by contacting Finkelstein & Krinsk. Members of the Class who wish to actively participate must act by no later than December 21, 1999. For any inquiries or to discuss this lawsuit and alternatives, contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk at Finkelstein & Krinsk, the Koll Center, 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101 by calling toll free 877-493-5366 or E-Mail - fk@class-action-law.com Or fax 619-238-5425. BERGEN BRUNSWIG: Weiss & Yourman Announce Shareholder Suit In CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Bergen Brunswig Corporation, (NYSE: BBC) between March 16, 1999 through October 14, 1999, inclusive. Bergen Brunswig Corporation is a leading supply channel management company, specializing in the supply of pharmaceuticals, medical-surgical supplies and specialty healthcare products as well as information management solutions and consulting services. The defendants include: Bergen Brunswig Corporation, Donald R. Roden, and Neil F. Dimick. The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 of the Securities Exchange Commission as well as sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. 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, among other things, rendering false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the financial condition of the Stadtlander Drug Co., which Bergen Brunswig purchased in early 1999 from Counsel Corporation. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Weiss & Yourman. If you are a member of the class described above, you may, no later than sixty days from October 22, 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 Ronald Theda at 800-437-7918 or via e-mail at wyinfo@wyca.com or visit the firm's web site at www.wyca.com Contact: Ronald Theda of Weiss & Yourman, 800-437-7918, wyinfo@wyca.com CAPITAL SENIOR: Dela Suit By Investors Seek Rescission Of Property Sale ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On or about October 23, 1998, Robert Lewis filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of certain holders of Assignee Interests in NHP Retirement Housing Partners I Limited Partnership ("NHP") in the Delaware Court of Chancery against NHP, Capital Senior Living Corp., Capital Senior Living Properties 2-NHPCT, Inc. and Capital Realty Group Senior Housing, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). Mr. Lewis purchased 90 Assignee Interests in February 1993 for $180. The complaint alleges among other things, that the Defendants breached, or aided and abetted a breach of, the express and implied terms of the NHP Partnership Agreement in connection with the sale of four properties by NHP to Capital Senior Living Properties 2-NHPCT, Inc. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the sale of those properties and unspecified damages. The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. CBS: Minn. Ct Will Hear Female Employees' Charges Of Bias In Jan. 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued findings that there is probable cause to believe that CBS discriminates nationwide against women at its owned and operated television stations. The EEOC found that the evidence "indicates that female Technicians have been subjected to disparate treatment in salary, amount of over-time, promotion opportunities, and training" at CBS. The EEOC finding also found that "evidence of record indicates a sexually hostile environment at (CBS), in that female Technicians have been subject to endure verbal sexual harassment by their colleagues and by management." The EEOC's findings support the claims of female technicians who have been battling CBS in federal court with a class action suit in Minnesota since 1996. That suit is being brought on behalf of female technicians at six CBS TV stations from Los Angeles to New York City, and alleges that female technicians are denied promotions and lucrative job assignments that are routinely given to men. For example, at WCCO-TV in Minneapolis, CBS has not promoted a single female technician to a supervisory position. At KCBS-TV in Los Angeles, WBBM-TV in Chicago and WCBS-TV in New York, data shows that overtime is overwhelmingly awarded to male technicians. The women who brought the lawsuit against CBS are technicians who have been with CBS more than 18 years. They estimate that CBS' discrimination has cost each of them hundreds of thousands of dollars. The lawsuit in Minnesota includes some 165 women. The plaintiffs' lawsuit in Minnesota is scheduled to go to trial in January 2000. It is unclear what effect the lawsuit or the EEOC findings will have on the pending merger between CBS and Viacom. One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Susan Stokes of Sprenger & Lang, Minneapolis and Washington, DC, says she is encouraged by the EEOC's determination: "CBS has for years resisted the efforts of these women to try to make the work environment at CBS a level playing field. We hope CBS will take the EEOC's finding to heart and try to eliminate the obstacles that women face at its television stations." Stokes is a partner in the Minneapolis office of Sprenger & Lang, which specializes in national employment class action litigation. A copy of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission finding follows. What follows is the Amended Determination from the U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission, New York District Office: Ms. Linda Karpell Charging Party 332 West 89th Street New York, NY 10024 CBS, Inc. Respondent 51 W. 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Charge No. 160970885 AMENDED DETERMINATION On behalf of the Commission, I issue the following amended determination on the merits of the subject charge filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). All requirements for coverage have been met. Charging Party alleges that she was discriminated against because of her sex, female. Charging Party further alleges that Respondent retaliated against her by terminating her on the basis of her sex. Respondent denies the allegations. Evidence of record indicates that Charging Party and other similarly situated female Technicians have been discriminated against by Respondent. The evidence indicates that female Technicians have been subjected to disparate treatment in salary, amount of over-time, promotion opportunities, and training. In addition, evidence of record indicates a sexually hostile environment at Respondent, in that female Technicians have been subject to endure verbal sexual harassment by their colleagues and by management. Evidence of record also indicates that several female Technicians have been retaliated against for complaining about sex discrimination. Based on the foregoing, I have determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party and other similarly situated females have been discriminated against in violation of Title VII. This determination is final. Title VII requires that if the Commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that violations have occurred, it shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged unlawful employment practices by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion. Having determined that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission now invites the Respondent to join with it in an effort toward a just resolution of this matter. A representative of this office will be in contact with the Respondent in the near future to begin the conciliation process. Disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during the conciliation process will be made in accordance with Title VII and the Commission's Procedural Regulations. When the Respondent declines to enter into settlement discussions, or when the Commission's Representative is unable to secure a settlement acceptable to the Office Director, the Director shall so inform the Respondent in writing of the court enforcement alternative available to the Commission. On Behalf of the Commission: OCT 29, 1999 Spencer H. Lewis, Jr. District Director Contact: Susan Stokes of Sprenger & Lang, Minneapolis, 612-871-8910, or Paul Sprenger of Sprenger & Lang, Washington DC, 202-265-8010 CITIZENS INC: First Investors' Shareholders Sue In Il. Over Acquisition ----------------------------------------------------------------------- In March 1999, the Company was served with a summons regarding an action entitled Berdeaux Living Trust v. First Investors Group, Inc., Donald L. Dennis, H. Marie Dennis, Winona Drewes and Citizens, Inc. in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleged that the defendants defrauded the plaintiffs and other persons who were preferred shareholders of First Investors Group, Inc. in connection with an acquisition of First Investors completed by the Company in early 1999. In the acquisition, the Company issued approximately 610,000 shares of its Class A Common Stock to shareholders of First Investors pursuant to a registration statement declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission in December 1998. The plaintiffs sought class action certification on behalf of approximately 1,860 persons who were preferred shareholders of First Investors. Damages were alleged based upon alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Illinois securities laws as well as under Illinois common law fraud and against the defendants other than the Company, for breach of fiduciary duty. The Company prepared an answer which vigorously denied the allegations, on October 22, 1999, the District Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. CITY OF TOLEDO: Statute Of Limitations Does Not Bar ADA Suit In Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------------- Because the City of Toledo's ongoing failure to install curb ramps constituted a continuing violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the pertinent statute of limitations did not prevent class action plaintiffs from proceeding with their ADA claim. Deck v. City of Toledo, No. 3:98CV74 16 NDLR 17 (N.D. Ohio 1999). Individuals with mobility impairments filed a class action suit contending that the city failed to install curb ramps that met statutory requirements. They succeeded in their motion for a preliminary injunction. The city subsequently filed a motion for partial summary judgment on claims involving all intersections where streets or sidewalks were constructed or altered two years prior to the date upon which the parties agreed to toll the statute of limitations. The U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio denied the city's motion. Since the ADA lacked any specific statute of limitations, the court applied the 2-year limitations period set forth in the state personal injury statute as the one most analogous to the ADA. It initially rejected the plaintiffs' argument that this statute of limitations did not apply because the city's acts constituted present violations of the ADA. Even if individuals with disabilities were still "suffering the ramifications of having noncompliant ramps scattered throughout the community," this did not "create a present violation of the ADA if the ramps were constructed and in plain view two years prior to the commencement of the lawsuit." However, the evidence supported the plaintiffs' claim that the city's actions constituted continuing violations of the ADA, the court found. The city first failed to act in compliance with the ADA after its enactment and then repeatedly failed to comply with that statute. In addition, injury to the plaintiffs could have been avoided if the city had complied with the statute and constructed curb ramps that would have allowed greater accessibility. Further, the plaintiffs did not have to prove that the city specifically intended to discriminate against individuals with disabilities, the court determined. Thus, they were not barred from asserting their claims, given the fact that at least one of the ramps was undisputedly constructed within the statutory limitations period and the fact that the city's actions qualified as a continuing ADA violation. (National Public Employment Reporter 11-3-1999) CONN. POLICE: Ct Orders Permanent Injunction Over Tel Interception ------------------------------------------------------------------ In re State Police Litigation * U.S. District Court (Docket No. B-89-606) * Oct. 8, 1999. Permanent Injunction Nevas, J. Upon stipulation of all of the parties to the Stipulation of Settlement of Class Action dated May 7, 1999 ("Settlement Stipulation") in the above-captioned cases, and specifically in accordance with Paragraph III. S of that Settlement Stipulation, and incorporating herein all definitions set forth in that Settlement Stipulation, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, it is hereby ordered that the following Permanent Injunction is entered: The Defendants are prohibited from conducting any interception1 of any wire communication to or from Connecticut State Police facilities, except as authorized by law. The Defendants are prohibited from conducting any aural electronic surveillance of attorney-client meetings at State Police facilities and from disclosing the contents of any such meeting previously recorded to any person except the following: * The United States Attorney or his designee; * Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and * Any other person pursuant to a court order from any state or federal court. This injunction shall not prohibit the interception of any telephone conversation to or from a Connecticut State Police facility or the legal use or disclosure of the information or materials contained in any such conversation where all of the following conditions exist: * A Connecticut State Police employee, or person acting on behalf of the CSP, is a party to the conversation; * Such employee or person has notice of the wire interception; and * Such employee or person has available for use at that CSP facility a telephone line or lines that are not subject to wire interception. Except as authorized by law, the Defendants are restrained from disclosing to an person the existence or contents of any intercepted wire communication, made to or from any Connecticut State Police facility, or information or material derived therefrom. This injunction shall not prohibit any such disclosure to any of the following individuals: * The United States Attorney or his designee; * Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; * The Commission appointed by the Governor consisting of the Attorney General, the Chief State's Attorney and the Governor's Counsel; * Lawyers on the Attorney General's staff; or * To any person pursuant to a court order from any state or federal court. Until ten (10) days following the Completion Date, the Defendants are restrained from in any way altering or destroying any and all records, tapes, notes, logs, transcripts or other tangible evidence of any intercepted wire communication to, from or within a Connecticut State Police facility made during a Covered Period. Until ten (10) days following the Completion Date, the Defendants are restrained from in any way altering or destroying any and all policies, orders, regulations, directives, rules, letters, notes, memoranda or other documents which in any way refer to the wire interception or other electronic surveillance of conversations made to, from or within a Connecticut State Police facility during the period from January 1, 1978 through November 9, 1989. Nothing in this order shall prohibit the reuse of audio and/or video tapes made after the entry of this permanent injunction, which were recorded in accordance with the provisions of this permanent injunction, or require the retention of records made in connection with such audio or video tapes that are not normally retained in the ordinary course of business. This permanent injunction represents the stipulated agreement of the parties. While it is binding upon the parties until or unless modified, its provisions are not to be construed as an admission by any party with respect to the constitutional, statutory and other legal rights or duties of persons who are parties or nonparties in this Action or any other action, nor shall this Order be construed in such a manner so as to prejudice or affect Defendants or any persons rights or duties in any context except as expressly set forth herein for purposes of effectuating the Settlement Stipulation in this Action. This permanent injunction supersedes and renders null and void any previous injunctive orders entered in this Action. This permanent injunction may be modified only by order of this Court. 1"Interception" is defined for purposes of this permanent injunction as it is in 18 U.S.C. @2510(4). For purposes of this injunction only, and subject to its terms and limitations, including without limitation the provisions of paragraph 8 hereof, the parties agree that "interception" as used herein includes listening and/or recording the subject communications by means identified in 18 U.S.C. @2510(4). (The Connecticut Law Tribune Nov-1-1999) COX COMMUNICATIONS: Contests CA Suit Over Sale Of Cable TV Services ------------------------------------------------------------------- On October 9, 1997, three individual subscribers filed a putative class action suit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego against Cox and its cable television system subsidiaries in California arising out of the manner in which such systems sell premium channel cable services. The suit alleges that Cox's California Systems unlawfully require limited basic cable customers to purchase the expanded basic services tier in order to purchase premium channels, i.e., channels sold on an a-la-carte basis such as Home Box Office and Showtime. The suit asserts causes of action under California antitrust and consumer protection laws. The suit seeks injunctive relief as well as an order awarding the class members compensatory damages, plus statutory damages, punitive damages, interest and attorney's fees. On February 13, 1998, the Court granted Cox's motion to stay the suit and referred it on grounds of Primary Jurisdiction to the Federal Communications Commission for consideration of issues best addressed by the FCC's expertise should the plaintiffs elect to file a complaint with the FCC. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Order to Show Cause against Cox on October 1, 1998. In addition, they sought to have the stay lifted by the court. On January 15, 1999, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay. On July 19, 1999, the FCC dismissed the Petition without prejudice to any further FCC action at a later date. In doing so, the FCC found that Cox has complied with the rules at issue with regard to its southern San Diego operations where the three named petitioners are subscribers. At a status conference on October 21, 1999, the Court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint and the defendants 30 days thereafter to file a response. Cox will continue to defend the action vigorously. The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted at this time. COX COMMUNICATIONS: Suits Re Charge Of Late Fees Go On In Multi States ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cox and certain subsidiaries are defendants in eight putative subscriber class action suits in state courts in Arizona, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida, Nebraska, Indiana, Texas and Nevada initiated between October 17, 1997 and December 17, 1998. The suits all challenge the propriety of late fees charged by the subsidiaries to customers who fail to pay for services in a timely manner. The suits seek injunctive relief and various formulations of damages under various claimed causes of action under various bodies of state law. These actions are in different stages of defense and, in four cases, the parties have reached settlement agreements. Settlements in Oklahoma and Florida have been approved by the court. Settlements in Arizona and Nevada are pending court approval. The court approval of the settlement of the Florida case is on appeal, pending oral argument. The remaining actions are being defended vigorously. The outcome of these matters cannot be predicted at this time. HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: German Envoy Sees Slave Labor Talks Deadlocked ----------------------------------------------------------------- A German envoy to negotiations on compensating Nazi-era laborers said Monday he had few hopes of reaching a settlement as a new round of talks began. ''I am certainly not purely optimistic,'' German government negotiator Otto Lambsdorff said. ''I don't know what will come out at the end, how we can proceed, whether we can proceed.'' Talks on establishing a foundation to pay victims forced to work for Nazi Germany during World War II are stalled over how much money survivors should get. The two-day meeting in Bonn is the sixth in the negotiations. The German government and a group of German companies have offered 7 billion marks ($3.7 billion/3.6 billion euros). Victims' attorneys are demanding more. Lambsdorff, speaking on West German Radio, said he could not rule out a collapse of the talks and called on all sides to compromise. But lawyers say they will raise their demands on behalf of the victims even higher. Meanwhile, German industry and the government have bickered publicly over who should offer more money. ''We're very far apart,'' attorney Edward Fagan said Monday, adding that the talks were ''on the verge of potentially collapsing.'' Lambsdorff, U.S. government envoy Stuart Eizenstat and German industry representatives avoided reporters as they arrived Tuesday for the talks at the former Foreign Ministry building in Bonn. Lawyers for Nazi-era laborers are threatening to walk out of talks on a compensation settlement unless Germany raises its offer, one of the attorneys said Tuesday as a new round of talks began. ''The majority of the lawyers is ready to walk out of the talks,'' said Edward Fagan, one of 12 lawyers representing people forced to work for Nazi Germany during World War II. Yet Fagan also said there were signs Germany would boost the 7 billion marks ($ 3.7 billion/3.6 billion euros) in compensation offered by some of the nation's largest companies and the government. A figure of up to 10 billion marks ($ 5.3 billion/5.1 billion euros) has now been raised in the negotiations, Fagan told reporters on the sidelines of the talks. He refused to elaborate or to say whether that would satisfy the attorneys' demands. In the endgame over money amounts, Fagan on Tuesday branded the German proposal officially on the table ''preposterous'' even after the government said Monday it was raising its part of the offer by 50 percent, to 3 billion marks ($ 1.6 billion). The companies have offered 4 billion marks (2.1 billion dollars/2.05 billion euros), but say they are having trouble raising even that amount. An Israeli government representative at the talks also said the German offer fell short. Bobby Brown urged the companies Tuesday to ''put in a dignified amount,'' though he specified no figure. ''I am always hopeful, but we still have a long way to go,'' he said. While lawyers have said they will raise their demands on behalf of victims even higher, German industry and the government have bickered publicly over who should offer more money. German companies proposed the fund under pressure of class-action lawsuits in the United States. But as the negotiations drag on, lawyers have suggested it might be better to simply fight the cases in court. Time is critical. All sides acknowledge the victims are elderly, and more are dying every day. On Monday, the German government confirmed it was raising its offer by 50 percent, to 3 billion marks ($ 1.6 billion). But that increase was proposed as lawyers unveiled an independent study showing that German industry made the present-day equivalent of almost $ 100 billion from using Nazi-era slave and forced labor. Fagan said lawyers would be demanding a number well above $ 10 billion for the fund. Lambsdorff dismissed the study, saying it's ''not serious and doesn't get us anywhere.'' The companies have offered 4 billion marks (2.1 billion dollars), but say they are having trouble raising even that amount. Gibowski has called on the government to raise its offer again and contribute an amount equal to what industry has pledged. But Lambsdorff insisted Monday that the companies could do more, even though not all firms that profited from slave labor might ultimately sign up for the foundation. ''German business has an overall responsibility for what occurred in World War II,'' he told German radio. ''You can't base it on individual companies and how much they profited from it.'' So far, one of the only issues the sides have agreed on is how to protect the firms from future lawsuits industry's main concern. The U.S. government has said if lawsuits are filed, it would recommend they be handled by the foundation. About 50 firms have said they will contribute to the fund. On Monday, auto parts and appliance maker Robert Bosch added its name to the 16 other companies that have publicly stated their participation. The fund aims to compensate about 235,000 slave laborers, or people who were expected to be worked to death in concentration camps. Also included are hundreds of thousands of other forced laborers, mostly non-Jews from Eastern Europe, although those numbers are in dispute. The total amount of people covered by the fund could range from 1.5 million to 2.3 million. Participants in the talks include the German and U.S. governments, class-action lawyers, German industry, Jewish groups, Israel, Ukraine, Poland, Russia, Belarus and the Czech Republic. A delegation representing British World War II prisoners who were forced to work for the Nazis was flying to Germany on Tuesday to press for compensation. (AP Worldstream Nov-16-1999) HOLOCAUST VICTIMS: Hagens Berman Says Poles Sue German Corporate Giants ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Polish World War II slave laborers now residing in Britain today filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against a number of German corporations, claiming the companies illegally profited from the use of Nazi slave labor drawn from Poland during the war. If approved by the United States District Court of Northern California, the suit would represent potentially thousands of survivors, as well as their heirs. The suit is believed to be the first to specifically represent former slave laborers exiled from Poland and now living abroad. According to Steve Berman, the Seattle attorney who filed the class action suit, Polish citizens were considered by the Nazis to be an inferior, subhuman race, and were categorically forced to work as slave laborers for a number of German companies. "These German multi-nationals fully cooperated with the Nazis to exploit and profit from the forced labor of these innocent citizens taken from Poland," Berman says. "Polish citizens were forced to work under brutal and intolerable conditions, while the companies they worked for prospered. As if that wasn't enough, these Polish prisoners were not only brutalized by the Nazis, but the defendants as well," he added. According to the suit, the defendants were fully complicit in the brutal treatment of the Polish forced laborers. The suit claims company officials gave Polish slaves inadequate clothing, were forced to wear yellow badges with a violet "P" on it, and were treated inhumanely to stigmatize them as inferior human beings. "Company officials of the defendants' in this suit were extremely brutal to these Poles," Berman says. "They supervised the slave laborers in plants and mines where they knew racist and violent Nazi guards stood watch. Furthermore, the same company officials often visited Nazi concentration camps to coldly choose workers from the starved and brutalized slave populations. These companies profited considerably from the labors of their Polish victims, but have never paid one honest cent for their suffering." The suit also claims that by 1944, at the peak of Nazi supremacy, the defendants and other German companies in cooperation with the Nazis, had forced over 1.6 million Poles to work at their plants under intolerable conditions. The named plaintiffs in the suit include Polish born citizens Ryszard Staniszewski, Eugeniusz Konecki, Danuta Krzyzanowska, Wieslawa Bereznicka, Eugenia Mustajew and several others, all of whom are now permanent residents of the Britain. The suit names numerous defendants including, Bayer AG, Daimler Chrysler AG, Thyssen Krupp AG, Siemens AG, Hoechst AG, BSAF AG and German Doe Corporations 1-100. Contact: Steve Berman of Hagens Berman P.S., 206-623-7292. I.N.S.: Brooklyn Suit Says Fed Program For Hondurans Is Undermined ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lawyers accused the Immigration and Naturalization Service of undermining a federal program that offers work permits to Honduran immigrants so they can help relatives at home recover from the devastation of Hurricane Mitch. In a class-action lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, four immigrant advocacy groups said the agency's processing center in Vermont had failed to provide short-term work permits to thousands of Hondurans who have been entitled to them for months. In early January, Hondurans living in the United States were offered the chance to apply for temporary protected status under a law that protects some foreign nationals from deportation when their home country has been devastated by armed conflict or a natural disaster. Hurricane Mitch struck Honduras and other parts of Central America in October and November 1998. The immigration service immediately announced that it would suspend deportations to the affected countries as a humanitarian gesture; when the full extent of the damage became clear, Attorney General Janet Reno expanded the gesture with the offer of temporary protected status. Lawyers for the Honduran immigrants said that officials in Vermont had improperly demanded documentation from immigrants that was not legally required for temporary protected status, further delaying the issuance of permits. The program for Hondurans is set to expire on July 5, 2000. Immigration officials in Washington acknowledged that there had been problems in processing some applications. "Over all, there was a misunderstanding or misconception on the part of the Vermont Service Center," said Bill Strassberger, an I.N.S. spokesman. "Their understanding of the regulations was that there was more documentation required than actually was necessary. That's now been clarified and we are working to get the applications processed." The lawsuit and the official response underscored recurrent problems at the Vermont center, which handles immigration cases from states along the East Coast from Maine to Virginia. Applicants for citizenship and for green cards have waited as long as three years -- longer than in other regions -- for the Vermont center to locate and then process their requests. Its handling of the Honduran program has drawn criticism from immigration lawyers. Nearly 107,000 Hondurans nationwide applied for the benefit by the August deadline, and nearly 70,000 had received a work permit as of the first week of November, according to the agency. However, of the nearly 36,000 requests for work permits received at the Vermont center, 21,000 were sent back with a demand for more information. No other service center in the country raised questions about so many applications. To receive the legal right to live and work in the United States while their country is rebuilding, Hondurans had to show they had resided in the United States since Dec. 30, 1998, and had not traveled outside the country since Jan. 5, 1999. But many applicants to the Vermont center received letters telling them they had to prove, instead, that they had resided in the country before Dec. 30, 1998. Some were told they had to prove they had not traveled outside the United States since the day they had arrived. Not only were the demands illegal, the lawsuit charges, but the agency ignored a legal obligation to issue temporary permits so that applicants could get jobs while their files were being processed. "Temporary protected status is nothing new -- it has been used with dozens of countries," said Charles Wheeler, a lawyer at the Catholic Legal Immigration Network in San Francisco. "The I.N.S. has never requested this level of documentation." Most of the Hondurans who applied for the temporary protected status are in the country illegally, immigrant advocates said. They may be unemployed or working at black-market jobs for low wages. A work permit would give them a chance to earn more and send more to their families, Mr. Wheeler said. (The New York Times Nov-16-1999) LA POLICE: Lawsuit Accuses Of Countenancing And Cover-Up Of Misconduct ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A man whose conviction for illegal gun possession was thrown out because of evidence uncovered in the Rampart police division scandal filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Monday against present and former officials of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Police Commission, the city attorney's office and the City Council. In a suit seeking class action status, Miguel A. Hernandez, 41, accused the civilian agencies of countenancing and condoning a cover-up of police misconduct. Responding to the suit, Chief Assistant City Atty. Tom Hokinson called the charges "irresponsible . . . wild and unfounded." Drafted by attorney Stephen Yagman, a longtime police critic, the suit accuses the city attorney's staff of pressuring police officers to tell the same story by suggesting that unless they cooperate in a joint defense, they could be ineligible for indemnification if punitive damages are awarded against them in a civil action. The lawsuit further charges that the City Council and the Police Commission share blame for the current scandal because of their failure to investigate or fully punish police misconduct. It asks for an injunction that would disband the Rampart police division and the department's anti-gang unit, known as CRASH, and it accuses all the defendants of violating the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO) to the extent that they participated in the bogus prosecution of innocent people. Hernandez, the plaintiff in the suit, had his conviction thrown out last week by Superior Court Judge Larry P. Fidler at the request of the district attorney's office. He was one of four people whose convictions were overturned after an investigation of LAPD Officer Rafael Perez's claim that he and his partner, Nino Durden, routinely set up suspects, planting guns and drugs on them. (Los Angeles Times Nov-16-1999) PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Probe On Alleged Shortchanging Settlement Likely ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge Monday said he wants a quick investigation into allegations that the Prudential Insurance Company of America shortchanged the settlements of customers victimized by deceptive life insurance practices. U.S. District Court Judge Alfred Wolin did not formally grant approval for the investigation, but he is expected to sign the order later this week. The probe was prompted by 25 Prudential employees who alleged in separate discrimination lawsuits that they were instructed not to give full compensation to policyholders deceived by illegal sales practices between 1982 and 1995. To settle a class action civil suit brought by life insurance policyholders, Prudential agreed in 1996 to set aside about $ 2 billion to reimburse customers who claim they were deceived by the Newark-based insurer. About 1.1 million customers have filed such claims. The questionable sales practices included churning, in which customers were told they could use the cash value of their life insurance policy to buy a second policy at no additional cost. But after buying more coverage, the customers were left with one worthless policy and high premiums on a second policy. Brad Friedman, a lawyer with Milberg Weiss, the New York firm that represented policyholders in the class action suit and is monitoring the payments being made by Prudential, said he would like the investigation into the new allegations to be completed by mid-December. Friedman said his law firm expects to send teams of lawyers to Prudential's Minneapolis office to interview the employees making the charges, as well as the Prudential managers who allegedly ordered the settlements of customers to be reduced. "We want to find out if these allegations are true," Friedman said. Prudential, which had joined with Milberg Weiss in calling for the investigation and wants to be part of the probe, denies any wrongdoing. "We're anxious for the investigation to take place,"said Bob DeFillippo, a Prudential spokesman."There is no evidence to support the charges." DeFillippo noted that the employees who made the charges are scheduled to loss their jobs at the end of the year, when the insurer concludes its restitution program. The employees making the allegations work in Minnesota in one of three national offices set up to process applications of policyholders who claimed they were deceived. The employees made their allegations as part of a racial and sexual discrimination lawsuit filed in September and October. They say they were trained by Prudential managers not to give the highest rating when scoring the claim of deceived policyholders. The highest rating would mean the policyholder would be entitled to full reimbursement from Prudential, plus interest. At Monday's hearing, Fred Neff, a lawyer representing the Prudential employees, asked Wolin to exclude Prudential from the investigation. Wolin didn't rule on the motion, asking Neff instead to produce a list of employees and lawyers who Neff felt should not be allowed to participate in the probe. (The Record (Bergen County, NJ) Nov-16-1999) PUBLISHERS CLEARING: AGs File Objection In Il. To Proposed Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------------- Michigan Attorney General Jennifer M. Granholm announced November 15 that she and the Attorneys General of 20 states filed objections with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit against Publishers Clearing House (PCH). Granholm said: "The proposed settlement is as misleading as PCH's use of the term 'guaranteed winner.' I hope the judge will stop this sham from going into effect." Granholm added: "Instead of calling this a settlement, it should be called a surrender document. General Lee received better surrender terms at Appomattox than the public will in this mess. Consumers deserve better from these rip-off artists." According to the objections, consumers are unlikely to understand the notice or figure out how to correctly file a refund claim. The combination of a hard-to-understand, small print notice and a claims process that creates unreasonable obstacles for consumers is unfair. PCH told Congress that, in 1997 alone, 125,000 consumers spent more than $125 million on promotional items, but the restitution fund is only $10 million -- out of which $3 million can be used for attorneys' fees for class counsel and another $3 million can be applied toward expenses. PCH agreed on November 9, 1999, to reimburse at 100% all "accepted" claims; but it is unclear what "accepted" means. Another troubling aspect of the settlement is that it offers three additional entries into the PCH sweepstakes to consumers who had purchased merchandise. According to the Attorneys General, even if consumers do figure out how to correctly file a refund claim, the proposed settlement will not adequately compensate deceived consumers. According to Attorney General Curran, Maryland, to receive a refund for merchandise they purchased, consumers must return the merchandise at their own expense and provide the amounts they paid and the dates of their purchases. "Rather than help consumers, this proposed settlement hinders them," said Attorney General Curran. "It will send many vulnerable, elderly consumers into the same confusing legalistic quagmire they confronted when they tried to understand the actual sweepstakes rules." The Attorneys General are also concerned that many of the 43 million consumers who were mailed Notices did not understand that if they did nothing they would be bound by the settlement. The proposed settlement provides that consumers are bound and cannot pursue any independent action against PCH unless they affirmatively opt-out of the settlement. Also, the settlement allows PCH to continue to deceive consumers in the future. PCH will only have to make minimal changes in its business practices as a result of this agreement. Granholm stated: "PCH pays a pittance to some victims and is allowed to go back to those same victims to rip them off again and again. That is akin to a convicted bank robber paying a small fine and serving his time on probation working as a bank manager. This is a bad deal." The other states joining the objections in the case of Vollmer, et al. v Publishers Clearing House are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. According to The Kansas City Star of Nov-16-1999, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, who last month filed his own civil lawsuit against Publishers Clearing House, called the private settlement "fundamentally flawed." He said it "sets up a restitution pool that is far too small" and doesn't require adequate changes in Publishers Clearing House's marketing. Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall has not sued the company but has cautioned consumers that the money available in the private class action is "approximately $ 4 million, and this amount is not enough to provide a full refund to everyone." Attorneys in the private class-action case and officials with Publishers Clearing House responded that the settlement would benefit consumers. They questioned the motives of the attorneys general and disputed their contentions and figures. The attorneys general have contended that private lawyers will profit most from the settlement, with fees totaling up to $ 3 million. Douglas Sprong, one of the lawyers who filed the private class-action case, said Publishers Clearing House had agreed to refund 100 cents on the dollar to plaintiffs who filed claims in the case. He challenged the attorneys general to show how the settlement was unfair. He also said that the settlement of claims probably would surpass $ 12 million and that attorney fees would be separate from that amount. Publishers Clearing House and other sweepstakes companies have come under growing scrutiny. Congress has conducted hearings on the marketing of magazines, books and other products through tactics that lead some people to think they have won millions of dollars in a sweepstakes. Christopher Irving, a Publishers Clearing House spokesman, said the settlement was fair and comprehensive. "The attorneys general would have you believe we decided this on our own when, of course, plaintiffs' attorneys agreed to it and, in fact, a federal judge gave it preliminary approval," Irving said. Notices of the private settlement were mailed to about 42 million people. But officials said Monday that they didn't know how many people had filed claims or had formally opted out of the class-action settlement by the deadline of Nov. 5. However, attorneys in the case said people who did not file claims for refunds on goods they bought from Publishers Clearing House probably would get nothing from the settlement. In addition, they said people who did not formally opt out of the class could not now file an individual lawsuit against Publishers Clearing House. Attorneys were less certain on whether Publishers Clearing House customers who neither filed a claim nor opted out of the case could seek reimbursement from a case filed by an attorney general. Some consumer advocates said the notices sent to potential claimants were complicated and difficult to understand. Deborah Zuckerman, a staff attorney for the AARP Foundation, which advocates for senior citizens, said her organization also opposed the private settlement. "It was difficult for people to understand what their options were. ... They made the process for opting out of the class more difficult," she said. She said a hot line set up by AARP for members to phone in with questions was quickly overloaded. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Belleville area lawyers who filed the suit -- Steven A. Katz, his sister, Judy L. Cates, and Douglas R. Sprong -- say Nixon and his colleagues are wrong. Katz said consumers will collect between $ 14 million and $ 16 million on their claims against Publishers Clearing House. Sprong said Nixon settled earlier with that company's chief rival, American Family Publishers, for only $ 50,000. And that went to Nixon's office, not to consumers, he added. Katz said he was outraged by Nixon's assertion. The restitution pool had been capped at $ 10 million, but that cap has been removed and Publishers Clearing House will pay 100 percent of all valid claims, Katz said. Sprong said a toll-free number set up to answer questions had fielded hundreds of thousands of calls. His office responded to more than 30,000 inquiries, he said, and sent someone to personally help a blind woman from St. Louis file her claim. Deadline for filing claims was Nov. 5. A "fairness hearing" to finalize the case is scheduled for Jan. 25. Nixon said the settlement "doesn't require Publishers Clearing House to make the changes necessary to its marketing pieces." He and the other attorneys general say the settlement does not prohibit misrepresentation of prize amounts or ensure awarding of all that is advertised. Nor does it prevent targeting of consumers who are especially vulnerable, they contend. But Sprong said the settlement's requirements are tougher than those Nixon obtained against American Family Publishers. "That was our starting point," he asserted. The settlement does not prevent attorneys general from suing to add consumer protections, Katz added. Katz said U.S. District Judge Patrick Murphy, who is presiding over the case, had invited state attorneys general to a meeting to voice any concerns. He said they declined. Nixon and his colleagues charge that most consumers would receive no restitution except three more sweepstakes entries. But Katz said neither law nor logic would allow a blanket payout. In fact, some consumers have criticized the suit, saying they are happy with the way Publishers Clearning House handled its sweepstakes, he said. Claims are still being processed. The highest to be paid so far is $ 56,000, Katz said. The firm has not yet determined how much it will ask for its fee, including expenses. The settlement allows the three lawyers to ask for up to $ 3 million. SAENZ: Fds Find CA Food Stamp Rule Illegal; Families Can Have Car & SSI ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action on behalf of severely disabled individuals and their families, has resulted in a federal clarification that a food stamps eligibility rule long applied by California is illegal. The mother of a paraplegic six-year-old girl is the lead plaintiff in the class action Anderson v. Saenz, now pending in federal court in San Francisco. She and her children became homeless after losing all welfare and food stamps because of a California rule that considered the family's car too expensive. California enforced this rule despite a provision of federal food stamp law that exempts a car needed to transport a disabled household member. The California rule, now proved invalid, stated that a person is not a member of her household for purposes of food stamps or welfare if she receives disability benefits (Supplemental Security Income or "SSI"). "The rule forced parents like Ms. Anderson into the agonizing choice between keeping a car needed for a disabled child and feeding their families," said Emma Leheny of Western Center on Law and Poverty, lead counsel for plaintiffs. A federal policy interpretation issued Nov. 1, 1999, clarifies that the vehicle exemption is in fact available to all families that need a car to transport a disabled household member, regardless of whether that member receives SSI. "The interpretation is especially important now that so many low-income families need a reliable car to go to work," said Clare Pastore, also of Western Center. She estimated that several thousand California families will be affected by the policy clarification. Added Michael Keys of National Center on Youth Law, "Congress never intended for a family to go without food because one of its children is disabled." Plaintiffs are represented by Western Center on Law and Poverty, National Center on Youth Law and San Diego Friends of Legal Aid. Contact: Western Center on Law and Poverty Emma Leheny, 213/487-7211, ext. 26 Clare Pastore, 213/487-7211, ext. 25 TAMPA GENERAL: Hospital, Pregnant Women Agree To Monetary Terms --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action says Tampa General and USF did not inform women of the risks of a drug study and amnio tests. A lawyer for poor pregnant women who didn't understand the medical experiments performed on them at Tampa General Hospital has reached agreement with the hospital and a university on a monetary settlement, according to federal court records. The settlement would help resolve a federal lawsuit, which has been pending since January 1990, when a public interest lawyer with Florida's largest law firm sued on behalf of 279 women. Lawyers representing the women, Tampa General Hospital and the University of South Florida all declined to comment Monday on the financial terms. They noted that the settlement process is not over and that non-monetary terms still need to be worked out. The case had been scheduled to go to trial in April. The women's lead attorney, Stephen F. Hanlon of Holland & Knight's Tallahassee office, argues that they were done "dignitary harm" by not being properly informed about the risks the study posed to their pregnancies. He does not identify a woman, fetus or newborn who suffered medical harm from the procedures. The case was the first one Hanlon brought after Holland & Knight hired him to head a full-time public interest section. The women were part of a study of combining two drugs that had been used separately to reduce the chances of respiratory problems in premature infants. As part of the research, the women underwent amniocentesis, a test that causes spontaneous abortion in one out of 100 cases. Hanlon argued that the consent forms were misleading and not as clear as the forms given to paying patients. A judge certified the case as a class action in 1996. In a hearing this year, lawyers said that the large number of medical records involved contributed to the case's nearly 10-year length. Hanlon filed the notice of a financial settlement last month. He declined Monday to discuss specifics, or the non-financial issues that still await resolution. "I believe it is stupid, frankly, to discuss the terms of settlement in the middle of the settlement process," Hanlon said. One of the lead plaintiffs in the case is Flora Diaz, who was 18 when the lawsuit was filed. In 1987 Ms. Diaz entered TGH with a high-risk pregnancy, according to the lawsuit. Diaz was drowsy from several injections when a nurse told her that amniocentesis would be necessary to check her baby's lungs. Diaz's mother was asked to sign the consent form and told that the amniocentesis would not hurt the baby. After she asked questions, Diaz's mother was told that if the test was not done, the baby would be born early and die, the lawsuit states. Flora Diaz had the amniocentesis. Her daughter Erica was delivered in November 1987 and has grown normally. (St. Petersburg Times Nov-16-1999) UNILAB CORP: Announces Settlement For NY Suit Over Proposed UC Merger --------------------------------------------------------------------- UNILAB Corporation (AMEX: ULB) announced November 16 that it has entered into a settlement of a purported class action, Bond Opportunity Fund, et al. v. Unilab Corporation, 99 Civ. 11074 (LAP), which was filed on November 4, 1999 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Unilab and its Board of Directors. The action had sought to enjoin the special meeting of stockholders scheduled for November 23, 1999 to vote on approval and adoption of the agreement and plan of merger between Unilab and UC Acquisition Sub, Inc., a corporation formed by Kelso & Company. The settlement is subject to completion of confirmatory discovery, completion of definitive documentation relating to the settlement, and court approval. In connection with the settlement, the Company is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Proxy Statement Supplement, which will be available online at www.edgar-online.com UNION CARBIDE: New Case Over Bhopal Gas Disaster Hailed In India ---------------------------------------------------------------- Survivors of the 1984 Bhopal gas disaster in India welcomed a class-action lawsuit filed in US federal court against Union Carbide Corp. The lawsuit, filed on Monday, claims Union Carbide and its former top officer violated international law and human rights in the gas disaster. It also seeks unspecified damages and wants the Manhattan Federal Court to take back control of litigation which was moved to India in 1986 for jurisidictional reasons. "We welcome the development," Alok Pratap Singh, leader of a pressure group of survivors and relatives of the disaster's victims, told AFP by telephone from the central Indian city of Bhopal. "Anything that can put Union Carbide in its place is welcome." At least 1,750 people were killed instantly and 2,500 within a week when tonnes of toxic gas leaked from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal on the night of December 2-3, 1984. The death toll has steadily mounted, and officials say nearly 7,000 people have died so far. Tens of thousands who survived continue to suffer from a variety of ailments related to the disaster. The lawsuit filed in New York names former Union Carbide chairman Warren Anderson -- who lives in the United States -- as a defendant. Kenneth McCallion, plaintiffs lawyer for the victims and family members, said a key issue in the suit was the 1986 ruling which granted Union Carbide's request to have the case tried in India. The suit alleged that Union Carbide and Anderson had violated that ruling by failing to appear in an Indian court on criminal charges over the past seven years. Singh, an activist since 1984, said Union Carbide had treated Bhopal-based courts with "an attitude multinationals show for Third World judicial process. "No wonder nobody has been punished so far, not a single Union Carbide official has gone to jail for the deaths of so many. "Would this have happened had the victims belonged to the West? The company is not alone to be blamed. Successive Indian governments have not shown any guts to take on Union Carbide." Union Carbide paid New Delhi 470 million dollars in a 1989 settlement which was criticized as woefully inadequate. Only a fraction of those who sued for damages have received money. "We opposed the 1989 settlement then, and we still feel it was a wrong decision of the Indian government," Singh said. "Union Carbide would not have got away with a such amount if the deaths had occurred in the West." Criminal charges against the defendants are pending in India. A Bhopal court has ruled that the company and Anderson were fugitives under Indian law and ordered forfeiture of their property. "What is going on Indian courts is a farce," Singh said. "If the fresh case brings the guilty to justice, it will be welcome." (Agence France Presse, Nov-16-1999) VERSANT CORP: Moves To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit In CA ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in four class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, filed on January 26, 1998, February 5, 1998, March 11, 1998 and March 18, 1998, respectively. On June 19, 1998, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the above mentioned court, by the lead Plaintiff named by the court. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act, in connection with public statements about the Company's expected financial performance. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The Company vigorously denies the plaintiffs' claims and has moved to dismiss the allegations. The Plaintiff has filed a response to the Company's motion to dismiss and the Company has filed an opposition to Plaintiff's response. The motion to dismiss was submitted to the court for consideration on November 13, 1998 and the court has not yet issued a decision. The selling shareholders of the Soft Mountain shares have demanded that the Company repurchase for approximately $1.1 million the 245,586 shares of the Company's common stock issued to them in conjunction with the Company's purchase of all of Soft Mountain's shares. The demand alleges that the Company has not registered the shares issued in the transaction in a timely manner. The Company disputes the right of such shareholders to receive such payment, however any potential settlement could result in the payment of cash or the issuance of additional Versant stock. Settlement discussions are ongoing. Arbitration or litigation may result if a settlement cannot be reached. On April 9, 1999, the Company filed a Form S-3 registration statement for shares of the Company's common stock issued to the Soft Mountain shareholders and others. The registration statement became effective May 14, 1999. VITAMIN PRICE-FIXING: Fight Can Come With Opt-Out Clause In Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It seemed as though the fighting was over when seven of the world's largest drug companies agreed on Nov. 3 to pay $ 1.17 billion to settle a class action stemming from a global plot to fix the price of bulk vitamins mixed into everything from breakfast cereal to animal feed. But among plaintiffs' lawyers involved in the case, the infighting has actually just begun. Among class actions, this one is unusual because all the class members are companies, many of them large corporations with brand names like Tyson Foods Inc. and Kellogg Co. About 100 companies may opt out of the settlement to pursue individual suits for more in damages. The chief agitator for the potential opt-outs is Kenneth L. Adams, of Washington, D.C.'s Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky. He is counsel to Tyson, Quaker Oats Co. and 85 other companies, as of Nov. 3. Every day, it seems, Adams has signed on another vitamin purchaser as his client. (About a month ago, when asked how many companies he represented, he said that he had "75 as of today, but who's counting?") There are seven other law firms from around the country with clients that may opt out. Adams, whose clients made more than 20 percent of the vitamin purchases at issue, has gone to war with the lawyers who negotiated the class settlement over a single term the "most favored nation" clause. Should any of the opt-outs reach a settlement with the defendants for more money within two years, the clause provides that the defendants must make up the difference to the class. "It was custom-designed, apparently because the class lawyers believe their settlement is too low," said Adams. "Why are they afraid that somebody else is going to get more?" Adams claims that the MFN clause employed in this case is highly unusual. Routinely, these clauses offer the defendants that settle first a rebate in the event that the plaintiffs cut a cheaper deal with the holdouts later in the case. That works to encourage early settlement. But here, Adams contended that the class lawyers, led by Boies & Schiller and Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, have turned the clause "on its head." This one, he insisted, will make it more difficult for opt-outs to pursue a future settlement because the defendants will also have to pony up more money for the class. And the class lawyers left money on the table to get it, he said. His clients alone made $ 1.5 billion in vitamin purchases. As Adams presents the issue, the MFN clause is a time-honored provision that is being twisted in this case. In fact, this clause is a very strange animal in the class action setting, and the two academics who have led the charge against class action abuses cannot agree on whether this clause is good or bad. Susan P. Koniak, a professor at Boston University School of Law, said that the clause in the vitamin case taxes the opt-outs. "Every dollar that you spend litigating after you opt out is partly a dollar that's going to other people," she said. The use of such a clause, she said, suggests that the settlement is "the defendants' deal." But John C. Coffee Jr., of Columbia University School of Law, disagreed. "I don't think defendants enter into them simply to chill opt-outs," he said, noting that "the defendant is exposed to very much increased liability." There is powerful evidence against the defendants, which include Swiss giant Roche Holding A.G., German chemical maker BASF A.G. and Rhone-Poulenc, of France. In May, Roche and BASF pleaded guilty and paid $ 700,000 the largest criminal fine ever to the Justice Department. One executive will go to jail. Professor Coffee expects opt-outs to use the criminal convictions, as the cases go forward, to get more money. "That means that the whole class is likely to free-ride on the opt-outs," he said. "It's ironical, because often, the opt-outs get to free-ride on the class." To class counsel, it's Adams who's doing the free-riding. Jonathan D. Schiller filed the first vitamin case back in 1997, for J&R Feed Services Inc., of Cullman, Ala. He recalled that "there was no Justice Department indictment, there was no certainty they would prevail in this ambitious charge of price fixing, and these companies were scared, understandably, that they would suffer retaliation from their only source of supply and be driven out of business." The guilty pleas made liability a slam-dunk. Still, there was a "real risk" that the defendants would show that their overcharges on vitamins were less than 10 percent of the prices charged, said Robert Silver, the Boies & Schiller partner who worked on the MFN clause. Under the settlement, purchasers will recover about 20 percent of what they paid during the decade that the vitamin cartel operated. Adams intends to ask U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, of Washington, D.C., to strike the MFN clause at a Nov. 22 hearing on preliminary approval of the settlement. David Boies, who came up with the idea of the clause, isn't fazed by Adams: "He's quite right in one sense: I want the class to have the best of both worlds....They get a record settlement now and they get assurance that if there is more money later, they'll get that too." Coffee, for one, doesn't think that Adams will scuttle the settlement with his challenge. But, he admited, "It's an interesting question." This story originally appear in The National Law Journal. (The Legal Intelligencer Nov-15-1999) ********* 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 * * *