text:
Thursday, April 18, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 76
AMES TRUE: Voluntarily Recalls 647T Wheelbarrows Over Injury Hazard
AT&T CORPORATION: CO Landowner Files Suit Over Fiber Optic Network
BAYER CORPORATION: More Plaintiffs Join Suit Over Anti-Cholesterol Drug
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls More Than 1M Jeep Models Due to Fire Hazard
DAIWA BANK: Sued Over New York Bond Trading Scandal and Debt Waivers
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over PPA Containing Products in W.D. LA
HERCULES INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Carbon Antitrust Suit
HOOTERS RESTAURANTS: Hearing Set For Final Approval of $9M Settlement
INDIAN FUNDS: Tribes Join Suit V. BIA Over Civil Rights Violations
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Faces Suit Alleging RESPA Violations in N.D. Alabama
MARSH MCLENNAN: Subsidiaries Sued For Violations of ICA in S.D. IL
TERRORIST ATTACKS: Suit Considered Over Treatment of Middle East Men
WISCONSIN: "Seriously Mentally Ill" Defined in Supermax Settlement
724 SOLUTIONS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in PA
ALAMOSA (DELAWARE): Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in NY
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Labels "Without Merit" NY, IL Securities Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CLICK COMMERCE: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
CROWN MEDIA: Agrees To Settle Suit Over Hallmark Transactions in DE
DIGITAL ISLAND: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Delaware Court
EAGLE BUILDING: Rabin Peckel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
EAGLE BUILDING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Florida
EAGLE BUILDING: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ENRON CORPORATION: Defendants Expanded To Included Two Law Firms
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HUMANA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in W.D. KY
JDS UNIPHASE: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
JDS UNIPHASE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
SAF T LOK: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida
STILLWATER MINING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
VIRGINIA SPRINGS: Agrees To $9M Settlement of Securities Suit in DE
VIROPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
Ames True Temper, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 647,000
wheelbarrows. The plastic wheel assemblies on these wheelbarrows,
manufactured by a predecessor company, can break when being inflated
with high-pressure air hoses. This can result in plastic pieces
exploding from the rims of the wheels, possibly hitting nearby
consumers and causing lacerations and other injuries.
The Company has received eight reports of plastic rims fracturing,
seven of which involve lacerations to consumers' hands, face, chest or
arms. Some of the lacerations were severe, and required numerous
stitches. One report involved nasal and other facial bone fractures,
three reports involved finger or knuckle fractures, and one report
included torn wrist ligaments caused by the force of the pieces
striking a consumer.
The wheel assemblies on these wheelbarrows have a black plastic rim and
have an approximately 14-inch diameter wheel. They have red, green or
orange tubs or trays made of steel or plastic. The recalled Ames
wheelbarrows were sold under the brand name "Mustang" or "Douglas."
The brand name was printed on the label attached to the tray at the
time of purchase. Wheelbarrows with metal wheel assemblies are not
part of this recall. Also, no "True Temper" wheelbarrow is part of this
Hardware stores and home centers nationwide sold the recalled
wheelbarrows from January 1993 through December 2000 for between $20
and $30.
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 866-239-2281
between 8 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit their
Web site: http://www.amestruetemper.com
A Colorado landowner recently filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court against AT&T Corporation, claiming it illegally buried
cables on his land, the Associated Press has reported. The plaintiff,
Gene Peterson, seeks class action status for the suit, which could
bring in hundreds of other rural landowners.
The lawsuit claims that the Company buried fiber-optic cable, near the
rail lines, on the plaintiff's Morgan County land, in agreements with
the rail owners. The lawsuit alleges that permission for that work
could only come from landowners.
The lawsuit seeks damages for trespass, unjust enrichment and slander
of title, and further alleges that the Company wrongly posted signs on
the land, asserting its rights and used "threats and intimidation"
against landowners.
"AT&T has engaged in a common statewide course of conduct whereby it
knowingly and maliciously has slandered the title of the class members'
land," the lawsuit alleges.
An Company spokeswoman did not return an after-hours call seeking
comment, AP reports.
More than 300 lawsuits have been filed in Pennsylvania courts against
Bayer Corporation on behalf of patients who took the Company's anti-
cholesterol drug, Baycol. Recently, another five patients added their
names to the list of people seeking damages, Associated Press reports.
The three women and two men from New York, California and Texas are
each seeking $20 million, claiming they suffered serious side-effects
from the drug, which has been linked to 100 deaths worldwide.
The Company is facing 260 federal suits and 408 in state courts. About
75 percent of the state suits have been filed in Pennsylvania, where
Bayer's American subsidiary has its headquarters. The majority of the
federal cases will be transferred to a judge in Minneapolis.
The Company acknowledges that the drug, which was pulled from the
market in August, had potentially dangerous side effects, but it
contends that only a fraction of the 700,000 Americans who took it
could have suffered harm. What this mass litigation is doing, says
Bayer's lead counsel, Chicago attorney Philip Beck, "is diverting time,
attention and money away from people who have legitimate claims. We
have to defend ourselves against an enormous number of cases where
there is no injury to anyone whatsoever, and it is very time consuming
and it is very expensive."
William M. Audet, a San Jose, California attorney, for some of the
class action lawsuits, rejected claims that the people signing on to
Baycol lawsuits were not seriously harmed. "Let us not forget why they
(Bayer) are being sued here. They made a defective product, and people
died," said Mr. Audet. "The people we represent, who took this drug,
suffered health problems related to that drug, and I have no doubt that
some of their lives will be shortened because of it."
Mr. Audet is helping to oversee the federal class actions against the
Company. He said that the Internet has given lawyers a new ability to
quickly identify thousands of people who have been harmed by defective
products, a process that used to take years.
So far, the Baycol case has attracted more than 200 law firms and an
estimated 40,000 to 50,000 plaintiffs. Dozens of law firms have rushed
to put up Baycol-related Web sites, many of which include easy-to-fill-
out online forms for people interested in becoming a plaintiff.
The Chrysler Group, the US arm of DaimlerChrysler AG, is instituting a
recall of more than 1.1 million Jeep models because of a potential
engine fire hazard, the Associated Press reports. Included in the
recall are 2000-02 Jeep Wranglers, 2000-01 Jeep Cherokees and 1999-2002
Jeep Grand Cherokees with 4.0-liter engines.
The automaker said debris accumulation in the engine compartments of
these vehicles could potentially cause a fire. The Company said that
an engine design modification could lead to a change in the airflow and
cause debris accumulation in the engine compartment. The automaker will
attach a shield in the engine area of each vehicle to prevent this from
occurring.
There have been no reports of related accidents or injuries, the
Company told AP. The recall affects 182,044 Jeep Wranglers, 293,968
Jeep Cherokees and 639,310 Jeep Grand Cherokees.
Two Daiwa Bank Holdings Inc. shareholders recently filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company's management and are seeking about 326
billion yen in damages, JIJI Press English News Service recently
The two shareholders, both Tokyo residents, filed the suit with Osaka
District Court against Daiwa Holdings Chairman Takashi Kaiho, President
Yasuhisa Katsuta and 16 other executives, claiming that a bond trading
scandal involving Daiwa Bank's New York branch and a slew of debt
waivers, for failed construction firm Aoki Corporation, have damaged
the new holding company set up in December. Daiwa Bank offered debt
waivers totaling 130 billion yen to Aoki and other firms, and invested
5 billion yen in the former Nippon Credit Bank, now Aozora Bank,
through a third-party allotment.
The plaintiffs claim the management damaged the new holding firm by not
having discussions about the transactions when they decided on the
business integration.
Earlier, Osaka District Court, in 2000, ordered 11 Daiwa Bank
executives to pay $775 million in damages, the largest-ever amount
ordered in a class action in Japan. In December last year, former
Daiwa bank executives agreed to pay a total of 250 million yen to
settle a lawsuit over the bond trading snafus.
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces a class action currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
against the Company and ten other pharmaceutical companies over
products containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA), an ingredient in many
prescription cough and cold medication that increases the risk of
hemorrhagic stroke.
The suit, originally filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, alleges that the defendants failed to
adequately warn plaintiff of the hazards of the use of the subject
products containing PPA. As a result of this failure to warn
consumers, plaintiffs suffered injury.
The suit has been consolidated for pretrial proceedings with other
cases involving claims against manufacturers of PPA-containing
products. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
tentatively granted class certification to a consolidated class action
against Hercules, Inc. and other carbon fiber producers on behalf of
purchasers (excluding government purchasers) of carbon fiber and carbon
prepreg in the United States from the named defendants from January 1,
1993 through January 31, 1999.
The lawsuits were brought following published reports of a Los Angeles
federal grand jury investigation of the carbon fiber and carbon prepreg
industries. The suits allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act for alleged price fixing.
This lawsuit is in the early stages of motion practice and discovery.
The Company has denied liability and will vigorously defend this
More than 1,000 plaintiffs in a class action against Hooters for
sending unsolicited faxes have until next month if they want to object
to a $9 million settlement deal, the Associated Press reported. A
final hearing in the case is scheduled for May 24, 2002.
Under the settlement, the 1,093 plaintiffs will split $9 million, and
the lawyers who won the case will receive attorney fees up to $3.1
Lawyers involved in the case began settlement negotiations late last
year, after the United States Supreme Court upheld a jury's finding
that Hooters had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. by
sending unsolicited advertising faxes. Although a contracted agent,
Value-Fax of Augusta sent the faxes, federal law holds the advertiser
responsible.
Hooters of Augusta, Georgia, filed for bankruptcy in June. The
restaurant's insurance companies, which carry policies for $2 million,
$5 million and $15 million, have denied responsibility for covering
the legal judgment. The restaurant has filed a suit.
The Chippewa Cree Grassroots People have agreed to join the members of
the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in a class action against the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) alleging the bureau committed repeated civil
rights violations, msnbs.com reports.
More than 50 members of the Chippewa tribe voted to join the suit after
a meeting at a Great Falls hotel, discussing the long history of
injustices committed by the BIA, msnbc.com reports. "I think this is
the right way to go," Grassroots People spokesman, Russell Standing
Rock, said. "It's about time somebody goes after the government, after
all these years."
Both sides will meet this weekend to coordinate plans for the suit.
Other Indian communities are expected to join the suit, with
representatives from the Fort Belknap and Crow reservations expressing
their interest to join.
James Montes, the BIA field representative at Rocky Boy, admitted that
he failed to abide by federal regulations that require the BIA to
notify all eligible voters of upcoming secretarial elections by mail,
according to msnbc.com.
Irwin Mortgage Corporation is vigorously defending against two class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama alleging that the Company violated the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to its payment of
broker fees to mortgage brokers.
In July 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment asking the court to find the Company summarily liable for
violating RESPA. The Company filed a motion in opposition and these
motions are now pending before the federal court.
In November 2001, by order of the federal court, the parties filed
supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of a new HUD policy statement
that explicitly disagrees with the judicial interpretation of RESPA by
the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class
certification in this case.
The Company then filed a petition for certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court seeking review of the 11th Circuit's class certification
ruling and also filed a motion in the federal court seeking a stay of
further proceedings until the 11th Circuit renders decisions in the
other three RESPA cases pending before it. The Supreme Court denied
the Company's petition for certioriari, but the federal court granted
its motion to stay proceedings in this case.
At this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to determine the
outcome or a reasonable estimate of potential loss. However, the
Company cautions that an adverse outcome in this lawsuit could result
in substantial monetary damages that could be material to its financial
Two indirect subsidiaries of Marsh & Mclennan Companies, Inc. were
named as defendants along with approximately two dozen other mutual
fund companies in a nationwide class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
The Company subsidiaries named in the suit are Putnam Investment
Management LLC and Putnam Retail Management, Limited Partnership. The
suit alleges that:
(1) the distribution and advisor fees paid by the various mutual
funds from May 1, 1991 to the present were unlawful and
excessive;
(2) each fund complex exercised a controlling influence over
statutorily independent directors of each fund; and
(3) these fees were thus not properly approved.
The suit also alleged that the defendants' actions violated the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as well as common law fiduciary duties,
and sought, among other things, actual and punitive damages and
declaratory relief.
The Court, responding to motions by Putnam and the other defendants,
has ordered that the respective claims asserted against the defendants
be severed into separate actions and transferred to a more convenient
forum for each defendant. In Putnam's case, this transfer will be to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The Company and the Putnam subsidiaries believe that this action is
without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against this litigation.
Civil rights attorneys of the Center for Constitutional Rights in
Manhattan are considering a class action against US Attorney General
John Ashcroft and other US officials, alleging widespread abuse of
Middle Eastern men detained on immigration violations after the
September 11 terrorist attacks, the Associated Press reports. The
lawyers hope to file the suit in New York federal court this week.
The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were subjected to "unreasonable
and excessively harsh conditions even though they have never been
charged with a crime." In some cases, detainees were "placed in tiny,
windowless cells for over 23 hours a day," the suit alleges. "Many
class members have suffered physical and verbal abuse by their guards.
Some were badly beaten."
"There's no explanation for why they're being held," attorney for the
center Barbara Olshansky told AP. "These people are being treated
worse than criminals."
Spokesmen for the Justice Department and Immigration and Naturalization
Service would not comment before the suit is filed. INS spokesman Bill
Strassberger told Associated Press, however, that the government
insists on a high standard of treatment for detainees.
United States Federal Judge Barbara Crabb recently resolved one of the
last remaining issues in a lawsuit filed by inmates of Wisconsin's
Supermax prison, an ultra-security prison, when she defined which
inmates are "seriously mentally ill" and should not be kept at the
prison, according to an Associated News report.
Judge Crabb defined the seriously mentally ill inmates as those who
have been diagnosed with specific mental disorders or any other serious
mental illness that would be worsened by confinement at the Supermax in
Boscobel.
Judge Crabb had ruled earlier that the seriously mentally ill inmates
should be removed from the prison. Critics have contended that the
prison meant for the most violent offenders in the state prison system,
instead was housing mentally ill inmates in need of treatment. Judge
Crabb now has ordered that all inmates at the prison be reassessed by
June 10 to determine their mental status according to the new
Ed Garvey, the lawyer for the prisoners, said he was very pleased by
Judge Crabb's ruling. "It is clear now that no seriously mentally ill
inmates may be transferred to or held at the prison," Mr. Garvey said.
"It is everything that we really had hoped for in order to eliminate
the violation of the Eighth Amendment, which we think was ongoing."
Doctors should be able to apply the new definition of seriously
mentally ill to current inmates, based on previous evaluation records,
Judge Crabb said. Judge Crabb also said that the Department of
Corrections must draft a proposal by May 10 for determining when a
seriously mentally ill inmate can be incarcerated at Supermax because
of the inmate's danger to others and the lack of alternative prisons.
The inmates then have until May 31 if they want to file objections to
that proposal. In addition, a monitor was appointed to ensure that the
Department of Corrections continues to comply with all aspects of the
settlement and Judge Crabb's legal rulings.
Supermax Warden Gerald Berge said he had not had a chance to thoroughly
read the opinion, but it did not appear to be a drastic shift from the
screening process enacted for new inmates several months ago.
Last month, the state settled the class action with the inmates who
claimed they were subjected to living conditions that were cruel and
unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.
The agreement calls for establishment of outdoor exercise areas,
expanded face-to-face visits with inmates' friends and relatives, and
renaming the prison something other than Supermax. It would also bar
corrections officials from referring to the prison as a place to house
"the worst of the worst."
724 Solutions, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against several
securities class actions pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging federal securities
violations in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) allocations.
The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common shares
during certain periods, names as defendants the Company, some of its
current or former directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering.
In general, the suits allege that the underwriter defendants:
(1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
securities to certain of their customers, in exchange for
which these customers agreed to pay the underwriter defendants
extra commissions on transactions in other securities; and
(2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public offering to
certain of the underwriter defendants' customers, in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional common
shares of the Company in the after-market at certain pre-
determined prices.
The Company labeled the allegations "without merit." However, due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the suits are at a
preliminary stage, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate
outcome of the litigation.
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Adelphia Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLAC)
alleging the Company artificially inflated its stock price. The suit
is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's
common stock and/or sold put options from April 2, 2001 through March
The suit charges the Company, a provider of cable television and local
telephone service, with failing to disclose its liability from at least
$2.284 billion in off-balance-sheet debt during the class period. The
suit named four members of the Rigas family, which has a controlling
interest in the Company, as individual defendants.
According to the complaint, Highland Holdings, a partnership controlled
by the Rigas family, borrowed the $2.284 billion against credit
facilities that were co-guaranteed by the Company. They then used some
of the loans' proceeds to buy more Company stock, the complaint
alleges.
The information, which would have affected the Company's stock price,
was not disclosed to investors during the class period. The SEC is
investigating the Company's accounting practices.
On March 27, 2002, the complaint says, the Company revealed the
existence of the off-balance-sheet debt. Its stock quickly fell 18%,
or $3.69, to close at $16.70 that day. The following day, the stock
price dropped an additional 11%, or $1.80, to close at $14.90, wiping
out more than $1 billion in market capitalization.
For more information, contact Nancy Ghabai or Alicia Duff by Mail: One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com.
Alamosa (Delaware), Inc. faces several securities class actions pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, arising out of the Company's initial public offering. The suit
names the Company and the underwriters of the IPO as defendants.
The suits allege, among other things, that the registration statement
and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
purposes of the IPO were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that the underwriters allegedly:
(1) solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
exchange for allocating to them shares of the Company's common
stock in connection with the IPO, and
(2) entered into agreements with their customers to allocate such
stock to those customers in exchange for the customers
agreeing to purchase additional Company shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
The Court has ordered that these putative class actions against the
Company, along with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other
issuers, be transferred to Judge Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings. At a status conference held on September 7, 2001, Judge
Scheindlin adjourned all defendants' time to respond to the complaints
until further order of the Court.
These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery proceedings
have taken place. The Company believes the claims asserted against it
in these cases are without merit and intend to defend vigorously
against them.
Apropos Technology, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending
in Chicago and New York federal courts against the Company, certain of
its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.
The suits are allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock, and assert that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in its
registration statement and prospectus in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in February 2000.
The suits further allege that the underwriters of the Company's IPO
improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of Company stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in the IPO.
The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant in a shareholder
derivative action filed against certain of its present and former
directors and officers, in Chicago Federal Court. The suit alleges,
among other things, that the alleged conduct challenged in the
securities cases described above constitutes a breach of the
defendants' fiduciary duties to the Company.
The Company has reviewed these litigations and, although legal
proceedings can not be predicted with certainty, believes the
allegations are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend
the litigations.
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of its client in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bristol-
Meyers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) securities between September 19, 2001
and March 19, 2002, inclusive.
The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making, and
permitting its drug development partner to make, without correction,
materially false and misleading statements concerning the progress of
its Erbitux cancer treatment drug's application for FDA approval.
Specifically, the suit alleges that on December 28, 2001, a press
release disclosed that the FDA had rejected the filing of a Biologics
License Application for Erbitux. On January 4, 2002, The Cancer Letter
reported that the FDA repeatedly informed defendants about problems
with the Erbitux clinical trials during the class period.
These revelations caused the stock to plummet from a class period high
of $56 to below $50, and now to $40.
For more information, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 or
by E-mail: clowther@whhf.com
Click Commerce, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between June
26,2000 and December 6,2000. The suit names as defendants the Company,
two of its executive officers and:
(1) Morgan Stanley & Co.,
(2) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,
(3) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
(4) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., and
(5) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,
The suit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
against all defendants, a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act
against two executive officers and violations of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, including Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
underwriters.
The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Crown Media Holdings, Inc. has agreed to settle a class action filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County, relating to the
Company's then proposed purchase of the Crown Media Library, referred
to as the films transaction. The suit names as defendants the Company,
all of its directors and:
(1) Hallmark Cards,
(2) Hallmark Entertainment Distribution and
(3) Hallmark Entertainment
The suit, filed on behalf of holders of the Company's Class A common
stock as well as a derivative action on behalf of Crown Media Holdings,
alleges that the proposed films transaction is the product of an unfair
process designed to advantage Hallmark Cards as the controlling
stockholder and that the price being paid to Hallmark Entertainment
Distribution is not entirely fair. In that regard, the suit alleges
(i) the independent committee formed by the Company's Board of
Directors did not function properly and failed to provide a
disinterested mechanism to obtain a fair arm's length
transaction with Hallmark Entertainment Distribution;
(ii) the financial adviser and counsel were not independent and
that the financial adviser's opinion was insufficient and
unreliable.
The suit also alleges that the issuance of shares of Class A common
stock to Hallmark Entertainment Distribution in the transaction will
allow Hallmark Cards to have control of the vote of the Company's Class
A common stock in the event of a separate class vote. In addition, the
complaint alleges that the defendants breached a duty of disclosure by
failing to disclose in the proxy statement all material facts in
connection with the films transaction.
In June 2001, the Company, Hallmark Cards and the other defendants and
the plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding stating an
agreement in principle on a settlement of the suit. In accordance
with the memorandum of understanding, the Company conferred with the
plaintiff's counsel regarding information disclosed in a supplement to
the proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders at which the
films transaction was considered.
Company stockholders, excluding those of Hallmark Entertainment
Distribution and its affiliates, approved of the films transaction at
the reconvened annual meeting on July 17, 2001. As permitted by the
memorandum of understanding, the films transaction closed on September
As of February 20, 2002, the parties to the lawsuit entered into a
settlement agreement, with terms contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding. The settlement agreement provides that the purchase
price of the film assets will be reduced by 425,000 shares of Class A
common stock. In accordance with the memorandum of understanding and
the settlement agreement, 425,000 shares of Class A common stock have
been placed in escrow pending release to us if there is final court
approval of the settlement or to Hallmark Cards if the settlement is
not approved by the court.
The settlement agreement also provides that all claims, rights and
causes of actions against the Company and other related parties that
arise out of the events alleged in the lawsuit will be released if the
settlement receives final court approval. The parties have presented
the settlement to the court for approval, and a hearing regarding the
settlement is scheduled in April 2002.
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on
behalf of holders of Digital Island, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISLD) common stock
between May 14, 2001 and August 30, 2001, inclusive against the
Company, Cable & Wireless PLC, Dali Acquisition Corp., and individual
defendants Ruan F. Ernst, CEO of Digital Island and the members of the
Digital Island board of directors during the class period.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a), 14(e),
14(d)(7) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
14d-10 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose material
information to those Company shareholders who had received an Offer to
Purchase from defendant Cable & Wireless in May and June 2001, and to
those Digital Island shareholders who received a proxy statement in
connection with the merger between Digital Island and Cable & Wireless
which was consummated on August 30, 2001.
In particular, defendants failed to disclose important contracts
between Digital Island and Bloomberg, LLP, and Digital Island and Major
League Baseball's Internet media. Those contracts were not disclosed
either in the Offer to Purchase or the Proxy Statement. Defendants also
violated the all-holders provision of the Williams Act by giving
additional consideration to directors and officers of Digital Island,
who were also shareholders, in excess of that given to other Digital
Island shareholders as an inducement to support Cable & Wireless' Offer
to Purchase.
For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Eagle Buildings Technologies,
Inc. common stock (OTCBB:EGBT) between August 11, 2000 and February 14,
2002, both dates inclusive. The suit also names Anthony D'Amato, and
Donald Pollock as defendants.
The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements about the Company's quarterly financial
results for the second and third quarters of 2000, its year-end 2000
financial results, and its quarterly financial results for first,
second, and third quarters of 2001. In particular, it is alleged that
a material amount of the revenues and earnings reported in those
financial results included fictitious sales to a purported project in
The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements the price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiffs and the other
members of the class to suffer damages.
For more information, contact Maurice Pesso or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.rabinlaw.com.
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Eagle Building Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:EGBT) and Anthony M.
D'Amato in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between April 18, 2001 and
February 14, 2002, inclusive.
The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during
the class period, the Company:
(1) improperly recorded revenue from its construction business in
India and made false and misleading statements regarding its
India operations; and
(2) made false and misleading statements regarding its post-
September 11 business endeavors, including an airport baggage
security system, mail sterilization technology, and money
laundering detection software.
As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the class period, trading as
high as $12.30. On the Company's February 14 announcement, its stock
fell 68% to $1.44 on heavy trading.
For more information, contact Robert N. Kaplan or Shelley Thompson by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Eagle Building
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: EGBT.OB) between February 20, 2001 and
February 13, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida against the Company and Anthony D'Amato.
The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 20, 2001 and February 13, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities.
Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which
materially overstated the Company's sales, earnings and net income.
Specifically, defendants issued multiple statements, which:
(1) attributed a continuing portion of the Company's revenues to
its purported joint venture in India with Fuller International
Development Ltd. for the years 2000 and 2001; and
(2) touted the prospects of the Company's BioSterile Sentinel
System for use in US airports in detecting various explosives
and bacteria, including anthrax.
On February 14, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
requested that the SEC suspend trading in its stock because it would be
restating its revenue for the prior two years. In a subsequent filing
on Form 8-K on March 5, 2002, defendants disclosed that:
(i) the Company's joint venture with Fuller had never been
finalized and, in fact, the Company had received no earnings
from its India operations; and
(ii) defendants' statements regarding the performance of its
"BioSterile" equipment may have been materially false and misleading.
Before the SEC halted trading in the stock, the price plummeted to
$1.44 per share.
For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 or Kenneth Vianale or Tara Isaacson by Mail: The
Plaza 5355 Town Center Road Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
561-361-5000 by E-mail: Eaglecase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.milberg.com
In an intensified effort to recoup billions of dollars for investors in
bankrupt Enron Corporation, an amended complaint of 503 pages in a
consolidated class action was filed recently, alleging that nine major
banks and securities firms and two national law firms, among others,
participated in a scheme with Enron's top executives to defraud
shareholders and creditors, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The lawsuit was originally filed in October, but has been amended to
include more than three dozen new defendants. The Regents of the
University of California, which lost nearly $150 million when the
Company's stock spiraled downward in value, is the lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit filed in federal district court, in Houston, by the law
firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, the class action's
lead counsel.
Named as defendants in the original lawsuit were Enron, several of its
executives and its former outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP.
Kenneth Lay, Enron's former chairman, Jeffrey Skilling, its former
chief executive and more than a dozen former and current Enron
executives are alleged to have carried out a scheme to defraud
investors while making profits totaling about $1.2 billion through
insider trading.
The roster of new defendants in the expanded lawsuit, in addition to 24
Andersen partners and Andersen's offices outside the United States,
includes some of Wall Street's most reputable and financially sound
institutions as well as some of the country's top banks.
Lawyers for the Board of Regents, in the 502-page complaint, allege
these newly-named defendants participated in a scheme with Enron to
deceive shareholders and other investors by helping Enron with phony
deals to inflate the energy company's earnings.
"This fraudulent scheme could not have been and was not perpetrated
only by Enron and its insiders," the lawsuit states. "It was designed
and/or perpetrated only via the active and knowing involvement of
Enron's law firms, banks and accounting firm."
Among the newly-named defendants are two of Enron's outside law firms,
Houston's Vinson & Elkins and Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis. Vinson &
Elkins has worked with Enron since the Company's formation in 1985. It
provided the legal advice on many of Enron's now questionable
partnerships, and it reviewed Enron's filings with the Securities &
Exchange Commission, according to The Wall Street Journal's recent
report. In a statement, Vinson & Elkins said that it could not comment
on the lawsuit's specifics because it had not yet seen the complaint.
"As we have stated from the outset, we are confident that when all the
facts are known, it will be clear that Vinson & Elkins properly
performed its professional responsibilities."
A Supreme Court ruling prohibits plaintiffs to recover damages from law
firms on the grounds that they aided and abetted in a fraud by, for
example, signing off on deals that later turned out to have been
fraudulent. The Board of Regents' lead lawyer, William Lerach, said,
"We are suing them as direct violators and, secondly, as knowing
participants in a fraud."
Kirkland & Ellis, in a statement, said the complaint "unfairly
includes" the law firm and that "no one representing the plaintiffs has
even contacted Kirkland & Ellis to get the facts right. These facts
are that Kirkland & Ellis never represented Enron, had no
responsibility for the accounting judgments and related public
disclosures."
Some major allegations against Vinson & Elkins (V&E), appearing in the
consolidated complaint are:
(1) In 1997 when Enron launched a new strategy to move debt off
its books by using partnerships operated by its own financial
officer, it turned to V&E for guidance on how to make the
deals work;
(2) Enron's management and Board of Directors relied heavily on
the perceived approval by V&E of how the deals were structured
and reported, according to the Board's special investigating
committee, which said it observed an absence of "objective and
professional advice by outside counsel at V&E;"
(3) V&E accommodated Enron's desire for one partnership, Chewco,
to be formed quickly, completing the necessary legal
documentation in 48 hours;
(4) V&E shared in the failure to disclose the extent to which
Enron's Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Fastow, was benefiting
from his ownership in the partnerships doing business with
Enron;
(5) V&E agreed to investigate the allegations made by Sherron
Watkins, a human resources manager at Enron, even though she
said the firm had an inherent conflict of interest;
(6) In her memorandum to Enron Chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay, Ms.
Watkins suggests that V&E wrote so-called opinion letters
vouching for the legality of some of the deals under scrutiny.
According to two Enron executives contacted by Business Week,
V&E played a creative role in structuring and managing some of
Enron's controversial "special purpose" partnerships;
(7) V&E gave Enron advice on how much information it had to
disclose about its financial machinations in its 10K and 10Q
reports to the SEC;
(8) Sherron Watkins, in her memo, claimed that V&E "provided some
true sale opinions on some of the deals" related to the so-
called Condor and Raptor deals. True sale opinions are
letters that law firms write vouching for the fact that
business transactions meet particular legal requirements;
(9) the comments of the Powers Report, prepared by a former
director of the SEC, William McLucas, also a partner in the
law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, on behalf of a
special committee of the Enron board are incorporated into the
complaint. The report contends that V&E "was in fact involved
in many of Enron's most controversial deal, and was also
involved in decisions about how to disclose those deals to the
public. The document criticizes the firm for "an absence of.
objective and critical professional advice;"
(10) V&E provided advice and documentation "for many of the "now
infamous partnerships," such as Chewco and the cluster of
entities known as Raptors, and "assisted Enron with the
preparation of its disclosures of related-party transactions
in the proxy statements and the footnotes to the financial
statements in Enron's periodic SEC filings." Many of the
"most significant transactions apparently were designed to
accomplish favorable financial statements, not to achieve bona
fide economic objectives or to transfer risk;"
(11) V&E issued opinions to Enron, Mahonia and JP Morgan
representing that billions of dollars in forward sales
contracts of natural gas and oil by Enron were legitimate
commodities trades, when in fact V&E knew the trades were
bogus;
(12) These manipulations allegedly resulted in Enron's massive
restatement in November 2001 and collapse into bankruptcy
shortly thereafter.
Some major allegations appearing in the consolidated complaint against
Kirkland & Ellis (K&E) are:
(1) K&E began working with Andrew Fastow, former Enron Chief
Financial Officer, Enron, V&E and several banks in the early
90s to create and utilize off balance sheet investment
partnerships and SPEs (special purpose entities) to enable
Enron to engage in transactions designed to enhance or
maintain its credit rating by removing debt from its balance
sheet and artificially inflating its reported financial
results;
(2) K&E's ostensibly separate legal representation was utilized to
provide the appearance of independence of the SPEs. In fact,
K&E was selected by Mr. Fastow, who had a close relationship
with K&E dating from the 80s, when Mr. Fastow worked at
Chicago's Continental Bank. Mr. Mintz, Vice President and
General Counsel for Global Finance, referred to K&E as
"Fastow's attorneys." K&E was considered "willing to take
direction from Mr. Fastow & Enron. K&E's participation in the
scheme was considered essential as it provided some of the
expertise necessary for creating SPEs that would appear to be
arm's-length transactions with independent entities. Working
with Andersen, V&E and Enron's banks, K&E structured the
manipulative devices that formed the core of the scheme
including the partnerships and the SPEs known as LJM1, LJM2,
Chewco and the Raptors, which were used to artificially
inflate Enron's reported financial condition and results;"
(3) In addition to structuring Enron's SPEs, K&E issued numerous
legal opinions in connection with the formation and later
transactions of the LJMs and other related SPEs.
Robert Prentice, a business law professor at the University of Texas at
Austin, said plaintiffs' attorneys probably saw little to lose in
widening the lawsuit to the law firms and banks. He said the Enron
case was likely to set new legal precedents relating to attorney
liability. While auditors are charged with protecting investors and
could face liability, the attorneys traditionally are strictly bound to
serve their clients, a legal ethics doctrine. However, as the courts
work their way through the complexities of when liability vests, and
a not-so-bright line emerges, some precedent-setting principles of law
may emerge as to attorney liability.
To some extent, University of Illinois law professor Ronald D. Rotunda,
an expert in legal ethics, appeared to agree with Professor Prentice.
"Under these fact scenarios (in the consolidated complaint), they (the
law firms) could have real problems."
Undoubtedly, as the consolidated complaint is analyzed in the next
couple weeks, additional commentary will emerge.
States District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Gemstar-TV
Guide International common stock (Nasdaq:GMST) between May 14, 2001 and
April 1, 2002, both dates inclusive.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting the Company's
quarterly and year-end financial results in press releases, statements
to analysts and filings with the SEC during the class period to create
the illusion that earnings growth was in line with analysts' estimates.
In particular, it is alleged that defendants materially misrepresented
the Company's 2001 financial results by failing to disclose that $20.8
million of the Company's $101 million in Interactive group sales came
from a barter exchange of intellectual property with Fantasy Sports and
that $58.9 million of its $327 million Technology and Licensing segment
revenue was related to accruals based on Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. set-
top box shipments that would only be realized upon a successful ruling
in a civil suit in Georgia federal court.
inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other
For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by
Fax: 212-682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GMST) publicly traded securities during the period
between August 11, 1999 and April 1, 2002.
The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants caused the Company's
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements.
On April 1, 2002, the Company filed its 10-K, which stated in part:
"During 1997 through 1999, Scientific-Atlanta was under a license
agreement with the Company for the incorporation of interactive program
guides into Scientific-Atlanta set-top boxes. The license expired on
July 23, 1999, however, Scientific-Atlanta continued to ship set-top
boxes incorporating IPGs, which are the same or similar to the products
shipped during the term of the agreement. The Company instituted legal
proceedings in Federal District Court to recover damages, which are
probable, based upon the factors described above, to include revenues
commensurate with the licensing fees under the expired agreement. The
Company has accrued an aggregate of $107.6 million ($58.9 million,
$36.5 million and $12.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2001,
the nine months ended December 31, 2000 and for the period from July
23, 1999 through March 31, 2000, respectively) in license fees from
Scientific-Atlanta."
The 10-K also provides in relevant part: "In April 2001, the Company
entered into a non-monetary transaction with an unrelated company in
which $20.8 million of intellectual property was acquired in exchange
for $750,000 in cash and advertising having a fair value of $20
million. In addition, the Company received an option to acquire the
company in the event that certain performance criteria were met in each
of the following two years. The Company determined the fair value of
the advertising consideration, all of which was recognized during 2001
as the advertising was aired, based on cash transactions for similar
advertising sold to other parties."
The stock dropped below $9 per share on this news.
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Humana,
Inc. appealed the United States District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky's dismissal of the suit, which charges the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers with federal
securities violations.
Six suits were initially filed 1999 containing the same or
substantially similar allegations, namely, that the Company and the
individual defendants knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading
statements in press releases and public filings concerning the
Company's financial condition, primarily with respect to the impact of
negotiations over renewal of its contract with HCA-The Healthcare
Company, formerly Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, which took
effect April 1, 1999.
The suits, filed on behalf of a class of stockholders who purchased
shares of Company stock starting either (in four complaints) in late
October 1998 or (in two complaints) on February 9, 1999, and ending (in
all complaints) on April 8, 1999, alleged violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and Section
20(a) of the 1934 Act. The suits were later consolidated.
The defendants later filed a motion requesting dismissal of the suit,
which the court granted. The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal
to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Oral argument is
scheduled for June 11, 2002.
The Company believes the above allegations are without merit and
intends to continue to pursue defense of the action.
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq:JDSU) publicly traded
securities during the period between July 27, 1999 and July 26, 2001,
inclusive.
The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors and
its controlling shareholder with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Company is a provider of fiber optic components and
modules, which form the building blocks for fiber optic networks.
The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants were
motivated to inflate the value of Company stock so that it could make
acquisitions using stock and so the individual defendants, who are the
Company's top officers and directors, could sell their shares.
During the class period, defendants represented that demand was
accelerating and the Company's only problem was its ability to
manufacture enough product to meet demand. Defendants represented that
they had outstanding visibility, including demand for the Company's
products through the end of fiscal 2001 and that the Company had 80
engineers whose job it was to monitor customers and their inventory
levels. As a result, the Company would learn about any slowdown in
demand early.
The Company also misrepresented the success of its largest
acquisitions, including Optical Coating Labs, Cronos Integrated
Microsystems, E-Tek Dynamics and SDL Inc. As a result of these positive
statements, Company stock traded as high as $146.32.
The individual defendants, all of whom were top officers and directors
of the Company, and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the
inflation, selling or disposing of 25.5 million shares of their stock
for proceeds of $2.1 billion.
Then, on July 26, 2001, the Company announced the restatement of its
3rdQ F01 results, the write-off of $44 billion in goodwill associated
with its acquisitions, inventory write-downs and that F01 EPS would be
only $0.16 and that it would incur a loss of $0.15 in F02. On this
news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90, or more than 94% lower
than the class period high of $146.32.
For more information, contact Tanya Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: jge@emersonfirm.com
class action against JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq:JDSU), claiming
the Company and ten of its top officers used false and misleading
statements to artificially inflate stock price. The suit is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common
stock from July 27, 1999 through July 26, 2001.
The suit claims that the San Jose based fiber-optics company issued
false and misleading financial statements to the public. According to
the suit, the defendants stated throughout the class period that demand
for the Company's products was accelerating, and that its only problem
was its ability to manufacture enough to meet demand.
The suit also maintains that the Company misrepresented the success of
several major acquisitions and downplayed its dependence on its two
largest customers. However, the Company falsely informed investors
that demand was as strong as claimed, the complaint alleges.
On July 26, 2001, the Company restated its third quarter 2001 financial
results and took massive fourth-quarter charges to account for a total
of $44 billion in write-offs associated with its acquisitions and
excess inventory. Those revisions and write-offs increased the
Company's losses for fiscal year 2001 to $56.1 billion.
According to the complaint, Company executives knew of a slowdown in
demand because the company employed 80 engineers to monitor customers
and inventory levels.
After the revised numbers were announced, Company stock fell to as low
as $7.90 per share after trading at a class period high of $146.32, a
94% decline. The lawsuit also alleges that the artificially inflated
stock price enabled certain company officers to sell $2.1 billion of
their own holdings before the Company's true financial state became
For more information, contact Jennifer Abrams or Joseph J. Tabacco Jr.
by Mail: 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104 by
Phone: 415-433-3200 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com.
class action against Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX: MSS) alleging
that the Company's publicly reported financial results were misleading.
The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all investors who bought the
Company's common stock from August 1, 2001 through February 14, 2002 or
acquired shares in or traceable to its August 1, 2001 public stock
According to the suit, the Company's financial results were falsely
enhanced by, among other things, improperly recognized revenues and
overstated inventories. The truth about the state of the Company's
finances began to emerge on February 15, 2002, when it issued a press
release before the market opened stating that it:
(1) would delay filing its financial report for the third fiscal
quarter ended December 31, 2001 because it was in the process
of verifying its earnings and inventory valuation;
(2) expected a significant third quarter 2001 loss;
(3) was in default under its loan agreements;
(4) expected to restate its financial statements for the second
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2001 and possibly for other
periods; and
(5) Had terminated its chief financial officer.
After the announcement, trading of Company stock was abruptly halted.
It has not yet resumed. The shares had traded as high as $16 during the
class period.
For more information, contact Julie A. Richmond or Michael G. Lange by
Mail: One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-
mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Saf T Lok Corporation (OTC
BB: LOCK.OB) between April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, inclusive.
The suit names as defendants the Company and:
(1) Franklin W. Brooks,
(2) Jeffrey W. Brooks,
(3) William Schmidt,
(4) James E. Winner, Jr.,
(5) John Hornbostel, Jr. and
(6) Goldberg Wagner Stump and Jacobs LLP.
market between April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.
filed materially false and misleading financial statements with the US
Securities & Exchange Commission, which, among other things, did not
comply with generally accepted accounting principles.
Specifically, at the start of the class period, defendants disclosed
that the Company had terminated its exclusive consumer market
distribution agreement with United Safety Action, Inc. and that the
Company itself would now be permitted to market its products to retail
The suit alleges that the financial statements filed by defendants
failed to disclose, among other things, that:
(i) a catalog retailer had previously obtained Company products
from USA at a sharply reduced price and was now selling these
products at extremely low prices, thereby limiting the market
opportunity for the Company;
(ii) the Company's earnings, assets and shareholder equity were
overstated by at least $3.2 million; and
(iii) the Company's inventories were not stated at the lower of cost
or market, as represented.
When this information was finally disclosed on April 16, 2001, the last
day of the class period, the stock price of the Company fell to under
$0.30 per share. Subsequently, on May 15, 2001, the Company's
securities were delisted from the NASDAQ Small Cap Market and are
currently traded on the OTC (Over The Counter) Bulletin Board.
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Stillwater Mining Company
(NYSE: SWC) between April 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive. The
suit names as defendants the Company and:
(1) Francis R. McAllister,
(2) James A. Sabala and
(3) Harry C. Smith.
market between April 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002, thereby artificially
Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
its financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The
suit alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, among other things:
(i) the Company improperly classified "mineralized material" as
"probable reserves;"
(ii) defendants' improper manipulation of probable reserves
overstated the Company's class period net income because
defendants depreciated its plant and equipment costs according
of the life of these reserves. If defendants had properly
accounted for these reserves, depreciation would have occurred
much faster; and
(iii) the reduction in probable reserves will likely result in an
impairment charge, or a restatement of at least fiscal year
Furthermore, defendants failed to disclose that the SEC had advised the
Company by mid-December 2001/ early January 2002 that its methodology
for the calculation of probable ore reserves was improper and would
have to be changed.
On April 2, 2002, when defendants belatedly disclosed that the
Company's accounting practices had been condemned by the SEC, the stock
dropped by 24% in one day on extraordinarily high volumes of 4,743,600
shares traded, vastly greater than the Company's average trading volume
of approximately 400,000 shares per day. The full extent of the
Company's losses is still unknown to the market, since the revision to
reserves could adversely impact 2001 net income, and result in a
downward financial restatement of prior quarters.
Supportsoft, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and:
(1) Radha Basu,
(2) Brian Beattie,
(3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,
(4) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., and
(5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.
The suit alleges, inter alia, that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance and initial public
offering of 4,250,000 shares of the Company's common stock contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions, related to alleged
inflated commissions received by the underwriters of the offering.
While it is too early to predict with certainty the outcome of the
litigation, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Virginia Springs Ltd. Liability Company agreed to settle for $9 million
a securities class action and derivative lawsuit pending since May 2000
in the Delaware Court Chancery, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.
The suit names the Partnership, its former general partners and two of
their affiliates as defendants.
The suit seeks monetary damages resulting from purported breaches
of fiduciary duties and breaches of the Firm's partnership agreement in
connection with the March 1999 sale of one of its mortgage loans and
the marketing of the property which had been secured by that loan.
In addition, the suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection
with the purported failure of the Partnership to distribute cash and
the purported failure of its general partners to enforce the provisions
of the Partnership's remaining mortgage loan.
The defendants later preliminarily agreed to enter into a memorandum of
understanding settling the lawsuit. As then contemplated, the
memorandum:
(1) provides for an $8,000,000 payment by the defendants to the
Partnership; and
(2) required the Partnership to make a special distribution to
partners of the $8,000,000 payment, less fees and expenses
awarded by the court to plaintiff's counsel, together with
$1,000,000 of the Partnership's cash reserves.
On January 22, 2002, following completion of discovery, and further
negotiations, which resulted in an increase in the settlement
consideration, a stipulation of settlement was executed setting forth
the final terms of the settlement. The settlement, which is subject to
approval by the Chancery Court, requires the defendants to establish a
fund in the amount of $9,000,000 in full settlement and compromise of
the claims made by the plaintiff, the partnership and all members of
the class. The settlement amount plus any interest earned, less court-
approved attorneys' fees, expenses and taxes will be distributed to
eligible class members.
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of ViroPharma
Inc. (NASDAQ: CPHM) between July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and certain directors.
The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the
class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
Specifically, the suit alleges that throughout the class period, the
defendants made highly positive statements regarding the Company's drug
Picovir. The Company represented that its growth was contingent on US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Picovir (pleconaril)
drug as a cure for the common cold. The Company informed the investing
public of every positive part of the Picovir studies, and sent numerous
press releases praising the effectiveness of Picovir. The Company
minimized or concealed potential obstacles to FDA approval.
On March 19, 2002, trading was halted as the Company revealed that an
FDA advisory committee was deciding the fate of its cold treatment,
Picovir. The panel voted 15-0 against approval because of safety
concerns. However, during the class period, the Company insisted that
treatment was well tolerated and that adverse events were comparable to
placebo in the trials.
On March 20, 2002 after the resumption of trading, Company shares
plummeted 60 percent. The 15-member FDA committee had questions about
the safety of the drug in women taking oral contraceptives and in the
elderly. In addition, the committee asked for broader studies on the
drug's benefits with minorities, the elderly, patients with asthma and
chronic bronchitis, children, and more about the drug's interaction
with other medications. They also expressed concern that the drug may
aid the development of drug-resistant cold germs.
The FDA pointed out that the drug had several significant side effects,
with headache the most frequently cited. Seven patients out of 4,500
who took the drug reported rapid heart palpitations and four patients
withdrew from the study for that reason. The side effect that most
concerned the panel was abnormal bleeding by 3 percent of women taking
birth control pills. Because Picovir needs to be taken within the
first 24 hours of getting a cold and after eating, several panelists
worried that doctors would dole out prescriptions before the cold
season began, without discussing safety considerations.
There were tremendous obstacles for the Company to overcome before it
could receive regulatory approval for Picovir. These obstacles, as
enumerated by the FDA as set forth above, were undisclosed during the
class period, but were well known to defendants by virtue of their
testing and trials of this drug on thousands of people for several
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.


The entire community is welcome to work out at the Lussier Fitness Center in the Goodman Community Center. You'll find quality exercise equipment and workout space and two showers and changing rooms. Choose an annual or six-month membership, a prepaid pass, or simply pay per visit.
Our gym is equipped for volleyball, basketball, rope climbing, batting practice, and more. You'll find locker rooms, too, so you can change or shower.
Take your little ones to the Goodman Community Gym for open play time! We'll provide some games, child-safe toys and room to run! Parent-Tot Time will take place Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9-11 a.m. This activity starts on November 28, 2017 and continues through the end of April 2018 – with no activities during the week of MMSD spring break. Children aged 2 yrs and under are free. Children 2+ are $3 per child. Family (4 or more children ages 2+) is $10. Children must be accompanied by an adult. Pay at the front desk.
Want to reserve the gym for your own event? You'll find more information on facilities use here.
Gentle Exercise class meets on Tuesdays from 10-11 a.m. in Merrill Lynch Room C and the Friday Tai Chi Fundamental Form class meets at a new time, from 1-2 p.m. -- usually in the same room. No registration needed. There is a $2 suggested donation.


Click here for a link to the on-demand webinar.
*NOTE: This 2 hour webinar is MODULE 10 Part IVand can be taken as a stand alone course or as part of the professional yoga therapist designation (PYT). What is the PYT designation? The PYT designation is a 15 module certification program for health care professionals in medical therapeutic yoga. Allied Health Education currently offers Modules 1 – 7 & 10 parts 1 & 2 as on-demand webinars under our on-line, self-study course offerings. Modules 8 & 9 are live, on-site courses. Modules do not have to be completed in order. If you think you might be interested in earning your PYT designation or would like to learn more please contact Ginger Garner at www.gingergarner.com andwww.professionalyogatherapy.org.
Identify five points for diagnosis and intervention in evidence based conventional rehabilitation of the ITB in order to understand the integrative model of medical therapeutic yoga in the PYT method.
Describe four critical factors for implementation of multi-faceted integrative therapeutic programming for iliotibial band syndrome (ITBS) and patellofemoral (PF) considerations using the pentagon of wellness conceptual model.
List the three postures necessary to facilitate completion of the acute and subacute ITBS programming in medical therapeutic yoga.
Critically analyze yoga postures and breathing techniques in a case study format in order to prescribe intervention for extrinsic risk factors in prevention or management of ITBS and PF considerations.
Identify the 2 categories for differential diagnosis of the hip and the 5 evidence based risk factors for intra-articular hip labral injury in order to understand how intra-articular hip joint injury could be avoided.
Describe the morphological classification system of labral tears in order to identify the most accepted provocative tests used in identification of intra-articular hip joint injury.
Discuss current evidence based medical management, including surgical intervention, for labral tears and related secondary injuries of the hip.
Ginger is an integrative physical therapist, licensed athletic trainer, and founder of Professional Yoga Therapy Studies, an organization providing curricula andcompetencies for using yoga in medicine. Ms. Garner advocates for Americans to receive holistic and integrative medical care in order to improve health and health care in the US. Her clinical fields of focus include public health education, orthopaedics, chronic pain, and women's health. Ms. Garner has been teaching, writing, and lecturing for hospitals, clinics, and universities throughout the United States since 2000. Her medical yoga graduate and post-graduate programs teach non-dogmatic, evidence-based care through fostering an east/west multi-disciplinary team approach. They are a first of their kind in the United States.


Did you watch the Olympics with your kids? I love the excitement, the pageantry, the incredible feats, and I have to admit it – the epic fails. Not because I want to see these hard working competitors miss out on their dreams, but because I know failing is a big part of success and I want my kids to know it too.
While most of our kids may never make it to the Olympics and experience that amazing spotlight and the pressure that goes with it, they still feel incredible pressure to perform. For some kids school can be like the Olympics. Kids who have always been at the top of their class can suddenly encounter a struggle whether it's Algebra II, a teacher with whom they don't connect or the rigors of AP classes.
One of my favorite resiliency examples from the Games was Shaun White (love him!). We all know his story. He had the opportunity to three-peat as a gold medal winner and he didn't. The buzz about him and the pressure on him was enormous!
And he failed – big time. Dropped out of slope style and came in fourth in the halfpipe where he's supposed to dominate. But what did we see? No temper tantrum, no blaming. He reacted with grace as he congratulated his competitor.
This kind of teachable moment is important to share with our kids, if only to remind them that everyone has setbacks. And how they deal with them, their personal resiliency factor will shape their character in a way that constant winning never could.
But how should we react to our child's setback? You say nothing. Seriously. Give them a hug, tell them you love them and give them space.
In that moment, you are likely to say something that isn't helpful and doesn't help your kid learn how to fail. I don't know what Shaun's mom said, but I am going to bet it wasn't any of these.
Excuses. We all know the parents on the sidelines who start blaming the coach or the referee for a loss. This teaches your kids that someone else is to blame for a failure. Often, there is no failure. The other team was better. The test covered material they didn't know. The other kid studied harder.
Advice. They know what happened and what they did "wrong," if you want to use that word. They didn't study well or enough. They misunderstood the assignment. They were overconfident that they knew the information. They should have taken the SAT prep course. The advice can come later, but right now, it will fall on deaf ears.
Platitudes. Even if you DO think they were the one who should have been chosen as team captain, lead in the play or class president, this is not the time to say so. It sounds like false praise.
So what can you do? Obviously, the hug and the "I love you." Some extra grace at home never hurts whether it's "ignoring" their backpack on the floor and unmade bed, or baking their favorite cookies.
As parents, we know that "this too shall pass." And, kids who learn early on that failure is part of success, and develop that resilient attitude, will be so much better equipped to deal with the realities of their future lives.


This page lists presentation equipment suppliers in Cambridge. Each presentation equipment supplier on this page links to its individual profile page with full contact details and reviews.
Based in Church End, Cherry Hinton.
Map showing location of presentation equipment suppliers in Cambridge.


text:
Revealed: How Much Democrats Pay Minority Staffers…
Candice Thomas
If there's a racial wealth gap in this country—well, it looks like Democrats have no one but themselves to blame.
According to an analysis by the New Organizing Institute, minorities working for Democratic political campaigns are paid substantially less than their white counterparts. And, often, they're given less prestigious jobs.
African-American staffers, in fact, made just 70 cents on the dollar for white employees.
For Latino staffers, the difference was even a little wider: they were only paid 68 cents on the dollar.
In any other election year, this might've been swept under the rug. But in 2016, it could be a major disaster for Democrats moving forward.
As race relations become a major issue in the 2016 race—spurred on by brutal riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, over the deaths of black civilians at the hands of white cops—Democrats have learned that they're not immune to protest.
Earlier in 2015, Democratic presidential candidates like Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley saw speeches and panels interrupted by #BlackLivesMatter protesters, who demanded they do more to address racial inequality. O'Malley was even slammed when he dared tell activists that "all lives matter," not just black ones.
Democrats have long rested on their "demographics as destiny" plan for victory—essentially, winning over minority populations that grow faster than white ones.
But it looks like they might have to start, literally, putting their money where their mouth is if they want to continue to have any sort of legitimacy on race issues in this country.
Candice has almost 20 years of experience reporting for various conservative publications. When she's not writing, she enjoys being outdoors--especially camping, hiking, and hunting. She lives in Harrisburg, PA, with her husband.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Recent reports have indicated that hundreds of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops entered Syria in early September. Moreover, the accord on intelligence among Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria suggests Russian troops will be assisting the Iranians in the war against ISIS. That may not be all.
When Israeli forces returned fire on two Syrian positions near Quneitra, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded: "We respect Israel's interests related to the Syrian civil war but we are concerned about its attacks on Syria." Clearly this statement is mutually contradictory; if you are concerned about Israel's interests than it must be protected by defensive military action. Nonetheless, this response stands as a warning signal. Certain attacks may be justified as long as they do not jeopardize the position and security of Syria's President Bashar al Assad.
In a recent trip to Moscow, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that Israel "will maintain its position of noninvolvement in the Syrian civil war, but I would not allow Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to amass advanced weapons systems, nor would I tolerate attacks against the Golan Heights." This statement was obviously an effort to establish rules of engagement with Russian forces, rules that would be violated if Russia equips Hezbollah with sophisticated missiles. There is little doubt that the presence of Russian forces introduces a new and somewhat constraining variable in Israeli strategic thinking.
It is also instructive that Iran has agreed to purchase $21 billion of aircraft and satellite equipment from Russia, one of the largest military transactions in Russian history and a transaction made possible through the lifting of sanctions.
What this means is that Israel is not only surrounded by Muslim neighbors with evil intent, but Russia directly or indirectly, could be in an adversarial position as well. From the defensive position Israel is in, there aren't easy answers. In the past the support of the United States served as a counter-weight to the hostile intent of Israel's Arab neighbors. However, the Iran deal militates against active U.S. assistance. For the Obama team, Israel is a distraction standing in the way of a regional plan that includes U.S. withdrawal and Iranian hegemony.
Russia's enlarged military footprint in Syria has not even led to a whimper from President Obama, a silence that sends a clear and uncluttered message to Israel. As a consequence, Israel is on its own unmoored from ties to the United States. This complicates military action, but it does not forestall what may be necessary.
Israelis, realize what Evelyn Waugh once noted, that "barbarism is never finally defeated; given propitious circumstances, men and women who seem quite orderly will commit every conceivable atrocity." Israel has experienced those atrocities with knifings on the street, often from unexpected quarters. Now it is alone on a globe that seemingly does not care about the Jewish state. The questions that remain are: can Israel defend itself and can it maintain the morale necessary to defeat its apparent and possible enemies? These are "big" questions.


text:
Op-ed: A Call to Action
As the Supreme Court considers marriage equality for the first time, activists Cleve Jones and David Mixner call for demonstrations in March.
By Cleve Jones and David Mixner
January 30 2013 7:00 PM EST
"How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever."
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke these words in Montgomery, Ala., on March 25, 1965, when the freedom marchers from Selma arrived at the State Capitol. They inspired us in our youth as they inspired the nation.
Between us, we have more than 80 years of experience in the movement for peace and social justice. In particular, as gay men, we have fought for the rights and dignity of our own community, known today as LGBT. We do not claim that age necessarily brings wisdom, but it does bring memories and we have many.
In the past five decades we have seen slow but sustained progress toward acceptance and equality. That progress was the reward gained from the extraordinary courage and hard work of hundreds of thousands of ordinary men and women who made this cause the center of their lives, generation after generation. All of us stand on the shoulders of those who gave so much in the past.
In the past five decades, we have never seen anything like the progress we witnessed over the past four years. In the months and years since Election Day of November 2008, our movement has advanced immeasurably. We are indeed on the cusp of equality. Now is the time, once again, to recognize the unique moment before us and to act with the greatest power and intelligence possible.
The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the two marriage equality cases on March 26 and 27. Many people have asked us what the community should do as we approach this remarkable milestone in history. Some have suggested a march on Washington. Others have called for local vigils. Some are already engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience.
We have discussed this with some of the smartest and most dedicated activists we know, and, based on those conversations, we offer the following recommendations for action as the court considers our aspirations for equality.
We do not believe it makes sense to attempt a mass march on Washington at this moment, given the short amount of time remaining, the cost, as well as the uncertainty of weather in Washington, D.C., in March. We do believe it makes sense to push hard on many fronts in the weeks and months ahead.
As we are on the verge of victory, our tone and actions are critical.
President Obama himself set the tone for this effort in his inaugural address when he spoke so movingly of Seneca Falls, Selma, and Stonewall, linking forever the struggles for women's rights, civil rights, and LGBT rights. We encourage all LGBT advocates and all fair-minded Americans who believe in equality and justice to take part in public actions during the last week of March.
- If you can be in Washington, D.C., there will be peaceful and civil demonstrations of support for the cases at the Supreme Court on March 26 and 27. While there, you can also visit your members of Congress to lobby for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and Uniting American Families Act as well as marriage equality. Our opponents will be marching — ignore them.
- For those who cannot travel, there will be local organizing opportunities and plans under way in all 50 states that will mirror the events before the Supreme Court. Stay tuned. Visit your representatives' local district offices. Hold teach-ins, campus rallies and town halls. Involve our allies in women's organizations, the labor movement, racial and ethnic minorities and immigrant communities.
- Like, share, post, and retweet images and infographics you will see designed to gain broad support for the cases. Post your support for marriage equality in the week leading up to the court cases. Remember that positive portrayals of LGBT Americans go a lot farther and are more effective than efforts to tear down our opponents.
- Visit the editorial boards of your local newspapers and request editorials in support of equality to run during the last week of March. Submit letters to the editor in support of marriage equality.
- Reach out to our many allies within faith communities and organize interfaith events on Saturday and Sunday, March 23 and 24.
- Speak to the larger issue of equality, not limited to marriage. We seek equal protection under the law, in all matters governed by civil law, in all 50 states.
- Organize peaceful demonstrations for LGBT equality in every city and town across our country at sunset on Monday, March 25 — the anniversary of the Selma march — to put action to the president's words: "We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths — that all of us are created equal — is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears."
Let the last week of March 2013 be remembered as a time when all of us contributed: LGBT and straight, young and old, Stonewall Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans, socialists and libertarians, people from cities and rural communities, the Human Rights Campaign and GetEqual, equality supporters of all races, faiths, and backgrounds. Regardless of our differences, let us come together once again in a united call for equality, community, and justice.
Let us remember what Dr. King proclaimed in Montgomery, almost half a century ago: "How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
CLEVE JONES is an American human rights activist and author. He was mentored by Harvey Milk, co-founded the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, created the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt, served as historical consultant for the Gus Van San film, "MILK" (in which he is portrayed by Emile Hirsch), and co-chaired the 2009 National Equality March.
Tags: Commentary, Cleve Jones, David Mixner, Stonewall Democrats


Performing live at DIVAcontemporary STUDIO Jenny Barrett, Nichola Christie, Gigi Sudbury and Nigel Slight, Adrian Newton, David Rogers.
SoundCamp live performance, a series listening events on International Dawn Chorus Day, musicians and artists responded to sounds transmitted live by audio streamers around the globe.
This entry was posted in Adrian Newton, associate artist, audio, David Rogers, links, music, Nigel Slight, open studio, partnerships, radio, soundscape. Bookmark the permalink.


Lyonel Feininger's woodcut style is so unique that one can spot one of his prints from across a very large room. His prints tend to be blunt and angular, semi-abstract, dramatically black-and-white, and they generally depict the sea, ships, cities, and various forms of architecture.
A selection of 96 of Feininger's woodcuts, all of them drawn from the artist's estate, is currently on view at Associated American Artists here. Included among them is one of five known proofs of the first state of the 1918 ''Strasse in Paris'' and excellent impressions of ''Stadt auf dem Berge'' and ''Daasdorf'' - both also executed in 1918.
Although not everyone will find Feininger's woodcuts to their liking - some will feel uncomfortable with their stark and uncompromising angularity - it nevertheless is an exhibition that should be seen. Even if for no other reason than that the gallery states this will be their last showing of his prints as a unit. The estate's supply of Feininger woodcuts, it seems, is practically exhausted.
At Associated American Artists through March 27.
Grand Canyon tightrope walk: What was that huge pole for?


text:
Η.Π.Α, Κίνα
US-China relations in post-Obama era
Date: 9 Νοεμβρίου, 2016Author: teamsafia 0 Σχόλια
Author: Chen Weihua (China Daily USA)
She is relatively known and predictable, and he is less known and less predictable. But what will a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump mean to US-China relations? Experts in the field weigh in with their views, Chen Weihua reports in Washington.
[…] Which US presidential candidate, Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton, is better for China? […]
A Pew Center survey released on Oct 5 shows that more Chinese saw Clinton favorably (37 percent) than Trump (22 percent). And 35 percent of the Chinese saw Clinton unfavorably while 40 percent had an unfavorable view of Trump.
That was a huge difference compared with a poll in May by the Chinese language Phoenix TV website. It showed that of 24,449 people surveyed, 61.5 percent supported Trump while only 7.8 percent favored Clinton. Polls by some other Chinese news media outlets at the time also revealed a high favorability rating for Trump. […]
Chinese are familiar with the Clintons, ever since first lady Hillary attended the United Nations Fourth Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, and President Bill Clinton paid a nine-day state visit to China in 1998 during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Their daughter Chelsea, also on the trip, was 18 at the time.
Many Chinese have had good feelings about both Clintons, but some took a different view of Hillary after she became secretary of state in 2009. They partly blamed her for the growing tension between China and its neighbors and between China and the US over the US rebalance to Asia strategy, of which she was an architect and strong supporter.
Many remember her remarks in Hanoi in June 2010 when she talked about US national interests in the South China Sea issue and tried to rally countries in the region against China. On her trip to Africa, she also described the Chinese activities there as neo-colonialism.
Like some Americans, many Chinese also regard Hillary as hawkish. She not only supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but was behind the regime change in Libya in 2011 by what China and Russia believe abusing a UN Security Council resolution on a no-fly zone. China, along with Russia, abstained in that vote but have since learned the hard lesson.
Libya has since turned into chaos and become a haven for ISIS. Many foreign policy experts argue that removing Muammar Gaddafi, who had given up nuclear weapons, makes it hard for the US to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambition. […]
«That said, Hillary is not the kind of hawk people should fear that leads to war. When she dealt with China as secretary of state, she was pretty clear-eyed, clear-headed. She tried to be very constructive with China,» said Douglas Paal […]
Cheng Li […] said that Chinese who have regarded Clinton as someone who has wanted to contain China have misunderstood her. He cited Clinton's critical role in ensuring a US pavilion in the Shanghai Expo 2010 and in helping launch the 100,000 Strong Initiative to send US students to China. «That is not something someone who wanted to contain China would do,» Li said.
The Clinton presidential campaign has a team that is knowledgeable about China. People like former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and former Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, a China hand, are among her advisors.
Li believes there will be a continuation of Obama's China policy if Clinton is elected on Nov 8, citing the more than 90 dialogue mechanisms between the two governments. But he also believes Clinton will be tougher on trade, human rights and security issues than Obama has been.
The most significant of the 90-plus mechanisms include the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), to which Clinton headed the US delegation while secretary of state, as well as the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), which will meet in Washington late this month.
«Hillary knows more about China than Obama. At the same time, she will stress more about the US leadership role,» Li said, adding that Obama is more aware of the changing world and that a unipolar world has come to an end.
Most Chinese didn't know much Trump before he started his 2016 campaign, except in his role in the TV series The Apprentice and his wealth. But books about Trump are now widely available in Chinese bookstores.
Trump has blasted China repeatedly at rallies and in debates, accusing China of currency manipulation and taking away American jobs and threatening to slap a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports, something he has not mentioned lately.
Unlike Clinton, Trump's foreign policy team is still little known. But he has expressed his willingness to meet North Korea leader Kim Jong-un, his hope to mend ties with Russia and get along with everybody. His tone of being less of an interventionist is appealing to many Chinese who have long disliked excessive US interventionism.
Ted Carpenter […] predicted that China-US relations are likely to be more difficult under a Trump or Clinton administration than they have been under Obama. He also cited the examples of Trump's complaints of China-US trade relations, his receptivity to US allies in East Asia acquiring nuclear weapons, and Clinton's speech in Hanoi in 2010. «So both individuals would take hard lines toward China, although in somewhat different ways,» said Carpenter, who said he would vote for neither candidate. […]
Zhiqun Zhu […] agreed that Clinton's China policy is likely to be a continuation of Obama's policy. «President Trump's China policy is unclear, partly because he does not have much experience in dealing with China and partly because he does not have an impressive or vocal China team now,» said Zhu, who would not say for whom he will vote. He believes Clinton fully understands the depth and extent of US-China relations, and he said that she is unlikely to disrupt the vital relationship. While expressing his concern over Trump's tough talk on China trade, Zhu noted that «President Trump is a smart businessman and is likely to maintain this strong relationship for economic purposes». «I do not expect major ups and downs in the relationship in the post-Obama era,» he said. «No American or Chinese leader will intentionally jeopardize this relationship.»
China-US relations have become increasingly interdependent. China is the largest trade partner for the US, with bilateral trade in goods and services exceeding $600 billion in 2015. China has become one of the fastest growing export markets for the US. While almost all major US companies have a presence in China, Chinese foreign direct investment has made forays into the US in the past few years.
There are more than 300,000 Chinese students currently enrolled in US universities and colleges. The number of Chinese tourists to the US, now at about 2 million a year, is likely to hit 5 million by 2025, according to estimates by Goldman Sachs.
China's fast growing middle class and an economy that will depend more on domestic consumption is coveted by multinationals despite grievances by some about certain Chinese domestic policies and practices.
On global and regional issues, the world's two largest economies are increasingly collaborating on issues such as the nuclear issue in Iran and North Korea, counter-terrorism, and climate change.
Douglas Paal believes it's imaginative for some Chinese to think that a President Trump will lead to better relations with China. He described Trump as «a mess intellectually and bureaucratically» and said the smart people who could work for Trump have all denounced him. Paal acknowledged that Trump's running-mate Mike Pence is a rational person. He disagreed that there might be more tension in US-China relations under a President Clinton due to what he said will be the main problems facing the new US president – the Middle East, Europe and Russian relations and North Korea. […] Asked for his advice to the new US administration on China policy, Paal said the US needs to re-energize the concept of diplomacy. «We tried to solve every problem with the security or military action,» he said. «You have to step back and ask: 'Isn't there a way we can handle this conflict more effectively?'»
Thomas Christenson […] criticized the US rebalance to Asia strategy in a recent talk at the Council on Foreign Relations. He said that it was hard for moderates in China to win debates at home because the policy, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has been perceived as excluding and containing China. […]
Former British foreign secretary David Miliband, now head of the International Rescue Committee, argued in the CNN Global Public Square program on Sunday that China wants to reform and rebuild the international system, not undermine it or create a parallel system, an argument that is often not accepted by US politicians. To Miliband, the current international system is not working properly to address a wide range of urgent issues.
Kishore Mahbubani […] agreed that China wants to rebuild and strengthen the international system, and not undermine it. […] Mahbubani said that Clinton will be a far better president than Trump. «But it will be an absolute mistake for Hillary Clinton to come to office and say, 'Hey, I know exactly how the world works, and I know exactly what to do,' because the world has changed fundamentally,» he said. […] «So it will be a difficult job for Hillary Clinton when she becomes president, because suddenly she has to unlearn many of the instincts she had in the past and develop new instincts». «But if she relearns what the new world is about, makes an effort to reach out to Asia, Asia will receive her very warmly», Mahbubani said.
Contact the writer at chenweihua@chinadailyusa.com
(China Daily USA 11/04/2016 page20)
Read more: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2016-11/04/content_27271279.htm
ChinaUS-China relationsUSA
Δημοσιεύθηκε από teamsafia
Δείτε όλα τα άρθρα του/της teamsafia
Προηγούμενο Previous post: Yemen conflict affects half of health facilities
Επόμενη Next post: Kurds' Surprise Assault on ISIS-held Raqqa Catches Mideast Power Players Off Guard