text:
Wednesday, June 18, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 119
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Expects Stock Suits To Be Consolidated
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Employees File 401(k) Suits in MN Court
ADCO USA: Recalls Dried Octopus Packages For Undeclared Sulfites
AGENT ORANGE: Veterans Rights Group Hails Supreme Court Decision
BCN TRADING: Recalls Asian Boy Rootlets For Undeclared Sulfites
CASA IMPORTS: Recalls Cora Paprika For Salmonella Contamination
COREL CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit
CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Suit
CUTTER & BUCK: Agrees to Settle Securities Lawsuits in WA Court
DURATEK INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
ENDOVASCULAR TECHNOLOGIES: To End Stent-Graft Device Production
FIRESTONE TIRES: NHTSA Won't Reopen Steeltex Tires Investigation
GOODYEAR TIRE: CO Homeowners Lodge Lawsuit Over Entran II Hose
GUIDANT CORPORATION: To Ask Court To Dismiss Stent-Graft Suits
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Alexander Hawes Launches Suit Over Device
LAND-O-SUN DAIRIES: Recalls PET Ice Cream Due To Labeling Error
LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD: Thrivent Policyholders Lodge Lawsuit in MN
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: West Virginia Withdraws Settlement Appeal
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in IL
RADIOSHACK: Illinois Court Allows Overtime Wage Suit To Proceed
REXALL SUNDOWN: CA, FL Courts Approves Cellasene Suit Settlement
SCO GROUP: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Security Fraud Cases
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
BARRICK GOLD: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
CIT GROUP: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CORE LABORATORIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CORNERSTONE PROPANE: Marc Henzel Files Stock Lawsuit in N.D. CA
COSI INC.: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in FL
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
DIVINE INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
FEDERAL HOME: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in E.D. VA
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in IN
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Glancy & Binkow Lodges NY Stock Suit
ADC Telecommunications anticipates that the securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all purchasers of its common
stock from November 2, 2000 through March 28, 2001, will be
The suits uniformly allege that on November 2, 2000, the Company
announced in a press release that the Company would meet or
exceed published fiscal expectations, and that despite the
expected overall decrease in telecom spending, shifts in
Internet carrier spending would continue to benefit the Company
especially in broadband access and optical components. The
Company echoed these bullish predictions throughout the class
period, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter story.
The Company's true financial performance and business prospects
were revealed at the end of the class period in a March 28, 2001
press release. In the press release, the defendants
acknowledged that the Company was in fact performing below the
projections issued earlier in the class period and as a result,
the Company lowered its fiscal 2001 earnings guidance.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the suits.
However, litigation is by its nature uncertain and unfavorable
resolutions of these lawsuits could materially adversely affect
the Company's business, results of operations or financial
condition, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
ADC Telecommunications faces two class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on
behalf of employees and former employees who participated in the
Company's 401(k) retirement plan from November 2, 2000 to the
present day.
The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers
for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The complaint
further alleges that the defendants failed to manage the plan
appropriately, failed to adequately monitor and review the
performance and suitability of investment options, failed to
provide timely, accurate and complete information regarding the
present and future prospects of the Company and exerted undue
influence on ADCT plan participants to buy Company stock within
the plan, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.
The Company labeled the suits "without merit," but cannot give
any assurance of a favorable verdict in the litigation.
Litigation is by its nature uncertain and unfavorable
condition.
ADCO USA Inc. of Brooklyn, New York is recalling its 6 oz.
packages of Dried Octopus, Product of Japan, because they
contain undeclared sulfites. People who have allergies to
sulfite run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. The recalled "Dried
Octopus" was distributed nationwide in retail stores.
The product comes in a 6-ounce clear plastic package marked
Dried Octopus, Product of Japan, with UPC number 785165101916.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
sulfite-containing product was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of sulfites. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a mislabeling of the
Sale of the product has been suspended until FDA and the company
are certain that the problem has been corrected.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 718-963-1010.
A rights group for Vietnam War veterans lauded the United States
Supreme Court's decision allowing the suits over the effects of
Agent Orange to proceed.
"We are extremely pleased at the result of the U.S. Supreme
Courts recent decision that allows Vietnam veterans who are
suffering from the devastating effects of exposure to Agent
Orange to have access to the American justice system," said
Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) National President Thomas H.
Corey in a statement.
Last week, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Dow
Chemical Co., et al. vs. Stephenson, et al., which involved two
Vietnam veterans whose current illnesses did not manifest until
after all of the money that had been set aside under a legal
settlement had been depleted.
In 1984, Dow Chemical Co. and Monsanto Chemical Co., the
principal manufacturers of the chemical defoliant known as Agent
Orange, settled a class action brought by Vietnam veterans whose
illnesses were the result of their exposure to the herbicide.
Once the settlement funds had been exhausted, the federal judge
who presided over the original lawsuit refused to allow Vietnam
veterans whose diseases were diagnosed thereafter to sue the
chemical companies, ruling that such actions were barred by the
earlier settlement.
Two of these veterans appealed their cases to the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which held that their lawsuits
could proceed because their interests were not adequately
represented in the settled class action.
An association of business groups appealed the Second Circuit's
decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that allowing settled
class actions to be reopened would deter future settlements.
With one justice abstaining, the Court returned one of the
veteran's cases to the Second Circuit with instructions to
reconsider the matter in accordance with a recent Supreme Court
opinion. In the other veterans case, however, the remaining
justices voted in a 4-4 split.
Mr. Corey explained, "The effect of the deadlocked vote is that
the Supreme Court has affirmed the Second Circuit's decision to
allow more recently ill Vietnam veterans with Agent Orange-
related diseases to exercise their Constitutional right to legal
redress . Our regret is that it has taken such a long time for
affected Vietnam veterans to receive the justice they deserve."
BCN Trading, Inc. is recalling 29.8 oz. glass jars of Asian Boy
Brand Lotus Rootlet because the product contains undeclared
sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run
the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reactions if
they consume this product. No illnesses have been reported to
date in connection with this product.
The Asian Boy Brand Lotus Rootlet, a product of Vietnam, was
distributed nationwide to retail stores in uncoded, 29.8 oz.
glass jars. The recall was initiated after it was discovered
through routine sampling by NYS Dept. of Agriculture & Markets
food inspectors that the product containing sulfites was
distributed in packaging that did not declare the presence of
sulfites.
The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
Analysis of the Asian Boy Brand Lotus Rootlet revealed that it
contained greater than 10mg of sulfites per serving.
CASA Imports of Utica, New York is recalling Cora brand Paprika,
4.25 oz. jars, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
The recall involves one shipment with various codes of Cora
Brand Paprika that was sold to 13 retail stores in central New
York state and one store in northern Pennsylvania beginning May
4,2003. The paprika is in 4.25 ounce plastic jars with a red
cap. No illnesses have been reported to date. The problem was
discovered by the Food and Drug Administration upon sampling of
this product imported from Canada.
The company has ceased distribution of the product.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-851-8509.
Corel Corporation reached an agreement-in-principle to settle
all claims in a class action against the Company and former
president, CEO and chairman, Michael Cowpland, pending in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The claims were asserted on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased Corel stock on the
NASDAQ stock exchange between December 7, 1999 and March 20,
"Although we remain committed to our belief that the claims are
without merit, we feel that it is in the best interest of the
Company and its shareholders to end the expense and distraction
of the lawsuit and focus our energy on executing our long-term
strategic goals," said Derek Burney, President and CEO of Corel
The settlement will not have a material effect on Corel's
financial condition and will be funded through the Company's
existing insurance benefits. The agreement-in-principle is
subject to a number of conditions.
Once the appropriate documents have been signed by the parties,
preliminary approval will be sought from the court. If granted,
a notice will be sent to the class and an opportunity will be
provided for class members to opt out of the class and the
settlement. Those who do not opt out may formally object to the
settlement at a judicial hearing. The court will then determine
whether to grant final judicial approval to the settlement. The
terms of the settlement and the procedures which shareholders
may follow will be set forth in a notice to be sent to the
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas' decision granting summary judgment in
favor of Crossroads Systems, Inc. and several of its officers
and directors in the securities class actions filed against
The suits allege federal securities violations on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during various periods
ranging from January 25, 2000 through August 24, 2000. On
November 22, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment. On February 26, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory
damages, interest and costs, including legal fees. The Company
denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend
itself vigorously. It is not possible at this time to predict
whether the Company will incur any liability or to estimate the
damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company might
incur in connection with this lawsuit.
Cutter & Buck Inc. reached an agreement with plaintiffs to
settle the litigation relating to the company's restatement of
its financial results for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
The Company faces a consolidated securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period from June 23, 2000 to August 12,
2002. The suits also name as defendants:
(1) Harvey N. Jones, and
(2) Stephen S. Lowber
The suit uniformly alleges liability under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on the grounds that the defendants caused
the Company to falsely report its results for fiscal years 2000-
2002 through improper revenue recognition, according to an
earlier Class Action Reporter story.
The Company and its current and former officers and directors
also face a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court of the State of Washington, for King County. The suit,
filed purportedly on behalf of the Company, alleges that the
individual defendants are liable to the Company for breach of
their fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement
and unjust enrichment in connection with the events giving rise
to the Company's restatement of its financial statements. It
seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorney fees as well as
equitable relief.
Cutter & Buck agreed to pay $4 million in cash, plus up to an
additional $3 million based on a formula applied to any recovery
of funds from its ongoing suit against Genesis Insurance
Company. The Company also agreed to certain corporate
governance policies and practices, including periodic reviews of
compliance with shipping procedures and meetings with employees
to discuss ethical expectations.
These practices have already been instituted. The settlement
does not reflect any admission of liability by the company or
its current or former directors or officers. T he settlement is
subject to final court approval.
"This settlement puts all the shareholder litigation behind us,"
said Cutter & Buck's Chief Executive Officer, Fran Conley. "By
resolving these legacy issues, we can eliminate distraction and
uncertainty and continue to rebuild shareholder confidence in
Cutter & Buck."
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
affirmed the decision of the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland to dismiss with prejudice the
securities class action filed in June 2001 against Duratek, Inc.
and two of its executive officers.
The litigation alleged that certain statements and information
contained in the Company's press releases and in the periodic
reports filed by it with the Securities and Exchange Commission
contained materially false and misleading information in
violation of the federal securities laws.
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected this
contention. The Company and its executive officers were
represented in the lawsuit by the law firm of Hogan & Hartson
LLP.
Endovascular Technologies, Inc., subsidiary of medical device
manufacturer Guidant Corporation, will end production of its
Ancure "stent-graft" device, after it pled guilty to covering up
problems with the product that may have caused 12 deaths, the
Houston Chronicle reports.
The device was voluntarily recalled in March 2001 and
reintroduced five months later. The Company had said that the
problems with the device had been resolved. However, the
criminal complaint against it alleges the Company misled federal
regulators and reported only 172 malfunctions. Prosecutors said
Endovascular had records of 2,628 malfunctions, including
reports that the incidents may have led to 12 deaths and 57
surgeries to remove the device. The Company also allegedly
misbranded products.
Last week, the Company pled guilty to 10 felonies over the
device. The Company will also pay around $92.4 million in
federal penalties for actions surrounding the device.
Guidant officials told the Chronicle that Menlo Park, Calif.-
based Endovascular would continue to ship the device and provide
support to patients until October. The company then will cease
ongoing operations other than continuing to provide long-term
services for patients who have received the device.
Ronald Dollens, Guidant's president and chief executive, said
the company regrets the reporting errors by Endovascular, which
Guidant bought in 1997.
"Guidant has learned a painful lesson about integrating acquired
businesses," Mr. Dollens told the Chronicle. "Guidant's
financial outlook remains strong . Potential liability from
civil litigation is manageable. Our relationship with the FDA
is sound, the corporation is enjoying healthy growth."
Several class actions were filed against Guidant immediately
after the verdict on behalf of patients who have received the
Ancure device.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
decided not to reopen its investigation of Firestone Steeltex
tires, a source familiar with the decision told Reuters. An
earlier investigation did not uncover any defects on the
Company's 27.5 million heavy duty Steeltex R4S, R4SII and A/T
tires.
The Company faces a class action accusing its parent Bridgestone
Corporation of hiding Steeltex defects. The NHTSA mulled a
reopening but have decided against it. It will post its
decision shortly on the NHTSA website.
Colorado homeowners launched a suit against Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co. (GT) in federal court, over a defective rubber hose
for in-floor home heating and sidewalk snowmelting systems,
Reuters reports. Three of the 35 homeowners are also suing
Chiles Power Supply, which did business as Heatway Radiant
Floors and Snowmelting.
The suit alleged that the Company's Entran II hose was
defective. It allegedly sprang leaks and caused up to $17
million in damage, an attorney for homeowners told Reuters.
Homeowners allegedly had to rip up their floors to install new
heating systems in their houses in mountain towns like Aspen,
The Company produced 25 million feet of the hose, which is
installed in 10,000 homes in the United States and Canada. The
Company has denied the hose is defective, stating that most of
the installations continue to work properly.
According to Reuters, the Company argued that problems arose
because neither plumbers who installed the Entran II system nor
homeowners had been told by Heatway that the systems had to be
maintained and fluids had to be injected to prevent corrosion.
The problem is that rubber, unlike copper, is permeable to
oxygen, which triggers corrosion.
The Company was a secondary supplier for Heatway and in 2000 won
a judgment in federal court in Ohio against the Springfield,
Missouri Company, which sent it into bankruptcy court. The
Company previously lost to homeowners in two other trials in
other jurisdictions and has appealed the verdicts. Next month a
class action will begin in Colorado state court on similar
"Goodyear knew full well that Entran II provided a risk of high
commercial liability," plaintiff's attorney William Maywhort of
Holland & Hart told the jury, Reuters states.
Goodyear's attorney Roger Thomasch said the company could not
foresee that Heatway would sell the rubber hoses to supply
stores rather than help design and oversee installation of the
heating systems for homes.
Guidant Corporation intends to ask the United States District
Court in California to dismiss the class actions filed against
it after its subsidiary Endovascular Technologies, Inc. pled
guilty to 10 felonies for hiding data from the US Food and Drug
Administration on its Ancure stent-graft device, the Associated
Press reports.
Endovascular also agreed to pay the nation's largest criminal
and civil fine of its kind - $92 million - for hiding data on
the device, which allegedly caused 12 deaths. The plea led to
two suits, which were filed on behalf of those injured by the
device or relatives whose loved ones died.
Guidant says it is immune to lawsuits under the California
product liability laws because the FDA approved the device in
1999. "A verdict premised on plaintiffs contentions that the
design, manufacturing or warnings provided with the Ancure
System are negligent or defective and unreasonably dangerous
under state law would directly conflict with the federal
government's determinations that those same device
characteristics are safe, effective and mandatory for lawful
marketing of the device under federal law," company attorney
Jack B. McCowan argues in court papers, AP reports.
A hearing in San Jose federal court before US District Judge
Jeremy Fogel is scheduled June 30.
Rachel Adams, a San Francisco attorney representing the nine
plaintiffs in Fogel's court -- two who died and seven allegedly
injured by Guidant's device -- suggested that Guidant was
engaging in doublespeak.
"It's pretty hard to believe it can take that position now," Ms.
Adams told AP. "It's just ridiculous."
The Company has announced that Endovascular is ending the
device's production. Endovascular will continue to ship the
device and provide support to patients until October. The
company then will cease ongoing operations other than continuing
to provide long-term services for patients who have used the
Ancure system.
Bill Audet, a San Francisco attorney who filed a suit in San
Jose federal court against Guidant seeking class action status,
told AP the company's latest move underscores that the devices
are unsafe.
"From a consumer standpoint, FDA approval or not, if somebody
was injured, they should have some form of recovery," Mr. Audet
said. "This whole product was based on sham evidence."
Steve Tragash, Guidant's spokesman, attributed the announced
phase-out of the so-called "stent-graft" to slower than expected
growth and said the device "continues to demonstrate excellent
long-term clinical data and proven safety."
Alexander, Hawes & Audet, LLP launched a class action against
Guidant Technologies, Inc. and Endovascular Technologies, Inc.,
arising from the defective Ancure Endograft System.
Endovascular Technologies, Inc. recently agreed to pay a fine in
excess of $92 million for misleading the FDA and the general
public regarding the safety and efficacy of the Ancure Endograft
System. The plaintiff is a 70-year old widow whose husband died
as a result of complications apparently associated with the
defective Ancure Endograft System.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, seeks to represent individuals
and family members of individuals who have been implanted with
the Ancure Device.
For more information, contact the firm by Phone: 408-289-1776 by
E-mail: waudet@alexanderlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.alexanderlaw.com.
Land-O-Sun Dairies, LLC is voluntarily recalling certain
containers of PET Brand Butter Pecan Ice Cream due to a labeling
error. The affected packages were filled with a different
product, which may contain undeclared peanuts and gluten.
Individuals with allergies to peanuts or gluten may run the risk
of a serious or life-threatening reaction if they consume this
The mislabeled containers bear the following manufacturing
codes: B FEB 15 04 45051 1836 through 1849. The product was
sold in square half-gallon cartons and distributed in grocery
stores in Northern Florida, Eastern Tennessee, South Carolina,
North Carolina, Georgia, West Virginia, Virginia and Eastern
Kentucky. Containers not bearing the above codes are not
affected by this recall.
No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported. The
recall involves only 250 half-gallon cartons of which 183 have
already been recovered.
For more details, contact Land-O-Sun's Customer Service line:
Policyholders of Thrivent Financial for Lutherans (formerly
known as Lutheran Brotherhood) filed a lawsuit seeking class
action status on behalf of all Lutheran Brotherhood
policyholders who reside in the United States and who purchased
policies prior to February 24, 1993, and who were identified by
Lutheran Brotherhood in 1993, 1994 or 1995 as having a
"potentially under-funded contract."
The policyholders initiating the action are Minnesota residents
who purchased Lutheran Brotherhood life insurance policies
through sales illustrations or sales pitches that projected the
interest rate years into the future to create the illusion that
the policy would be worth more than it really was.
The complaint alleges that Lutheran Brotherhood later identified
these policies as being under-funded, or unable to meet the
expectations created when the policy was sold, but did nothing
to provide this critical information to policyholders while
continuing to bill them for and expect payment of premiums as
though there was nothing wrong with their life insurance
Plaintiffs are represented by four law firms, which have
significant experience prosecuting class actions on behalf of
consumers. The case is filed in Hennepin County District Court.
As alleged in the complaint, beginning in 1992, Lutheran
Brotherhood reviewed its policyholders' insurance contracts and
identified tens of thousands of potentially under-funded
contracts, which were likely to lapse before maturity. Despite
this knowledge, the complaint alleges that Lutheran Brotherhood
kept billing these policyholders and expecting them to pay
premiums without telling them that their policies were likely to
lapse unless premium payments were significantly increased.
In fact, Lutheran Brotherhood instead targeted these policies as
potential "opportunities" for sales of new products. According
to the complaint, Lutheran Brotherhood created an entire project
called the "under-funded policy project" and developed a list on
which it identified troubled or under-funded contracts.
However, Lutheran Brotherhood affirmatively decided not to send
notification to these under-funded policyholders so that the
policyholder could make informed choices about what to do about
their under-funded policy; choices that would have included
ceasing premium payments on a policy that Lutheran Brotherhood
had identified as not likely to last to maturity.
According to the complaint, thousands of Lutheran Brotherhood
policyholders continued to pay thousands of dollars in premium
payments on life insurance policies that Lutheran Brotherhood
knew were likely to lapse ten years down the road as a result.
The Policyholders seek to recover damages on behalf of all
individuals nationwide that Lutheran Brotherhood identified as
having these under-funded contracts, but never notified them of
this fact.
For more details, contact J. Gordon Rudd, Jr. by Phone:
612-341-0400 or by E-mail: jgr@zimmreed.com.
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw agreed to a
settlement with software giant Microsoft Corporation, thus
ending his appeal of the landmark antitrust settlement the
Company forged with the Department of Justice and several
states, CNN.com reports.
Late last year, Washington Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
accepted nearly all the provisions of the settlement between the
government and Microsoft. She rebuffed arguments that tougher
sanctions were necessary to restore competition to the computer
industry and concluded that some penalties imposed by the
holdout states would chiefly benefit the company's rivals, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story states.
Attorney General McGraw immediately filed a notice that it would
challenge the decision. Attorney General McGraw agreed to drop
out of the appeal as part of a broad agreement that would also
settle suits filed under state laws by state authorities and
class action attorneys in West Virginia, Microsoft told CNN.
Only Massachusetts remains the final hold-out pushing for
stricter sanctions.
Nanophase Technologies Corporation reached an oral agreement in
principle to settle the securities class action filed against it
and certain of its current and former officers, pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, for $2,500,000.
The tentative settlement will successfully resolve all claims
against all defendants in this class action under the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of certain persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock from April 5,
2001 through October 24, 2001.
The suit arose from the Company's public disclosures regarding
its dealings with Celox, a British customer. The tentative
settlement is not an admission of liability or other wrongdoing
by any defendant. The Company anticipates that this settlement
will be funded by the Company's directors and officers liability
insurance, and that the settlement will not have a material
adverse effect on Nanophase's financial position or results of
The tentative settlement is subject to the parties preparing and
signing a definitive Stipulation of Settlement, subsequent
submission of that formal Stipulation to the court for
preliminary approval, notice to settlement class members, and
subsequent final judicial approval. The settlement will
successfully resolve the only remaining litigation pending
against the Company.
"Although the Company continues to regard the allegations made
against defendants in this litigation as baseless, we believe
that the decision to settle this class action for amounts within
insurance policy limits promotes our stockholders' best
interests," said Joseph Cross, Nanophase's president and CEO.
"Given the current environment and the potentially lengthy
timeframe and cost to continue the litigation, the settlement
will avoid continuing distraction and enable the Company to
concentrate exclusively on business development initiatives and
planned progress toward increasing product revenues during the
last half of 2003 and through 2004. We recognize that growing
revenue and extending our technology lead in the field of
nanocrystalline material is the clearest path toward maximizing
shareholder value," he continued.
An Illinois federal court ruled that a lawsuit against
RadioShack for its failure to pay overtime wages should proceed
as a national class action. The original lawsuit, filed by two
Chicago area RadioShack managers, Alphonse Perez and Douglas
Phillips, claimed that RadioShack violated federal law by mis-
classifying them as exempt to avoid paying overtime.
"This ruling could affect over 10,000 managers nationwide and
involve over $100 million dollars in unpaid overtime wages,"
according to Daniel K. Touhy of Touhy & Touhy, Ltd., attorneys
for the Plaintiffs.
Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer's ruling cleared the way for the lawsuit
to proceed as a nationwide class action. The ruling also
granted Plaintiffs' request to notify store managers of their
right to opt-in to the lawsuit and claim unpaid overtime wages.
RadioShack internal documents already filed with the court have
revealed that store managers are required to work at least 54
hours per week. Other RadioShack documents have demonstrated
managers covered by the lawsuit are not paid overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
"They called me a manager, but my real job was selling for
RadioShack. I just didn't get paid overtime like sales
associates even though I had to work over 50 hours a week," said
Mr. Phillips, a retired RadioShack manager.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers do not have
to pay overtime to higher level workers in executive,
administrative and professional jobs. Mr. Perez and Mr.
Phillips have claimed however, that they were "managers" in name
only, typically working in excess of 54 hours per week, the vast
majority of which was spent selling. They contend that their
management responsibilities accounted only for a small
percentage of their time and that all key business decisions
were made by RadioShack corporate.
In a similar case filed by RadioShack managers in California,
RadioShack paid nearly $30 million to California managers who
were denied overtime pay. Callahan, McCune and Willis, the law
firm that represented the California managers, recently joined
Touhy & Touhy, Ltd. as co-counsel in the nationwide lawsuit.
For more details, contact Daniel K. Touhy or Ryan F. Stephan by
Phone: (312) 372-2209 by Fax: 312/456-3838 or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.touhylaw.com
California and Florida state courts granted preliminarily
approved of the nationwide settlements of the class action
brought by consumers against Rexall Sundown, Inc., a Florida-
based company, arising out of sales of an anti-cellulite dietary
supplement called "Cellasene."
Rexall began selling Cellasene in March 1999 to consumers who
wanted to reduce or eliminate cellulite. Cellulite is the
dimpling of the skin around the thighs and buttocks that occurs
predominantly in women over the age of 18. Instructions
required users to take one pill three times per day for at least
eight weeks. Cellasene was sold in a pink and white box with
blue lettering on it that stated "The One and Only."
Rexall's sales campaign claimed that Cellasene would "eliminate"
cellulite. Rexall's advertising campaign targeted women from 18
to 54 years of age, and the product was sold in drug stores,
grocery stores and other retail locations throughout the United
In the spring of 2000, five separate class actions were filed by
consumers against Rexall in state and federal courts in Los
Angeles, California and West Palm Beach, Florida. In addition,
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an enforcement action
against Rexall in federal district court in Miami.
After more than two years of litigation and intensive settlement
negotiations presided over by Judge John K. Trotter (retired) of
the California Court of Appeals, the consumers, Rexall and the
FTC reached a global settlement agreement. In April 2003, Judge
Anthony Mohr of the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and, on June 6,
2003, Judge Diana Lewis of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court
granted similar preliminary approval.
In their class actions, the consumers alleged that Rexall
violated state and federal laws against unfair competition and
false advertising in connection with Rexall's distribution and
sale of Cellasene to consumers nationwide. Similar allegations
were made by the FTC in its federal court lawsuit.
Although Rexall denied the claims asserted by plaintiffs and the
FTC, and denied that it made any false or misleading
advertisements related to Cellasene, Rexall has agreed to pay up
to $12 million into a Consumer Redress Fund to pay refunds to
consumers who purchased Cellasene. Rexall also agreed to pay for
the reasonable costs of the notice and claims administration
from the Consumer Redress Fund.
Kevin P. Roddy of Hagens Berman LLP and Scott Shepherd of
Shepherd Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP, who served as co-lead
counsel for consumers in the Florida (nationwide) class action,
stated: "We are pleased to have reached a successful resolution
of these consumer class-action lawsuits, and we urge consumers
who purchased Cellasene to come forward and claim their
refunds."
The final approval hearing in the California class action is
scheduled for October 20, 2003, while the final approval hearing
in the Florida (nationwide) class action is scheduled for
October 24, in the Palm Beach County Circuit Court. If the
California and Florida courts grant final approval of this
settlement at the final approval hearings, distribution of the
Redress Fund will take place in February 2004.
For more details, contact Kevin Roddy of Hagens Berman by Phone:
1-213-330-7150 or by E-mail: kevin@hagens-berman.com
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against the SCO Group, Inc., certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering, alleging violations of the securities
The consolidated complaint alleges certain improprieties
regarding the circumstances surrounding the underwriters'
conduct during the Company's initial public offering and the
failure to disclose such conduct in the registration statement
in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The consolidated complaint also alleges that, whether or not the
Company's officers or directors were aware of the underwriters'
conduct, the Company and those officers and directors have
statutory liability under the securities laws for issuing a
registration statement in connection with the Company's initial
public offering that failed to disclose that conduct. The
consolidated complaint also alleges claims solely against the
underwriters under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Over 300 other issuers, and their underwriters and officers and
directors, have been sued in similar cases pending in the same
court. In September 2002, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the
individual defendants, but may elect to bring the individual
defendants back into the case at a later date.
Management believes that the claims against the Company and any
of its officers and directors are without legal merit and intend
to defend them vigorously. The Company is not aware of any
improper conduct by the Company, its officers and directors, or
its underwriters, and the Company denies any liability relating
The initial round of motions to dismiss under the securities
laws were recently denied on the basis that the plaintiffs had
alleged, but not proven, proper causes of action. The actions
are now in the discovery phase of litigation. Management
believes, after consultation with legal counsel, that the
ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations or financial
position.
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
SECURITIES CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
Crowne Plaza Times Square, New York
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com
THE CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
The Westin Embassy Row, Washington, DC
Contact: 866-265-1975; 212-596-6006;
cservice@northstarconferences.com
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: WALL STREET FORUM: MASS TORT LITIGATION
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York
MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES
Bridgeport Continuing Education
July 31-August 1, 2003
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2003: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
THE ANNUAL MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES CONFERENCE
FROM CONSTRUCTION THROUGH TRIAL
Contact: http://www.reconferences.com;818-505-1490
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
The Westin Hotel, Chicago
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Contact: scuri@tplp.org
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
PRACTICAL SKILLS SERIES: MASS TORT LITIGATION
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Westin Copley Plaza, Boston
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
Water Contamination Litigation Conference
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA INDOOR AIR QUALITY
AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION.
CLASS ACTION OVERVIEW
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
PAXIL LITIGATION
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
AND ADVERSTISING
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADCT) between
November 28, 2000 and March 28, 2001, inclusive, against the
Company and certain officers of the Company.
The complaint alleges that ADC and certain of its officers
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements and material omissions regarding ADC's financial
prospects. The complaint further alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants represented numerous times that ADC would
maintain considerable growth and would be unaffected by broadly
known declines in capital spending from communications service
providers on the telecommunications infrastructure.
On March 28, 2001, defendants disclosed that the Company's
fiscal 2001 earnings guidance, issued four weeks prior, would be
reduced. ADC also announced that approximately 4,000 jobs would
be cut and facilities closed as the Company experienced canceled
orders and decreasing revenues resulting from the declines in
equipment spending by telecommunications service providers.
For more details, 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 Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE:ABX) from February 14, 2002
through September 26, 2002, inclusive. The suit names as
defendants the Company and:
(1) Randall Oliphant (CEO and President until February 12,
2003),
(2) John K. Carrington (COO and Vice Chairman) and
(3) Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO)
The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market between February 14, 2002
and September 26, 2002.
Throughout the class period, Barrick Gold assured the markets
that it was improving its operations by keeping its production
costs in check and that the Company expected to earn $0.42-$0.47
per share in 2002, even after taking into account the phasing
out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which increases
costs) in several of its mines.
As alleged in the complaint, these representations were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the Company's expected costs for the year would be well
above the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick Gold's
costs per ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would
continue to increase throughout the year, and that the Company's
repeated assurances that production and costs would continue to
improve in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were
contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very
least, recklessly disregarded by them.
On September 26, 2002, the truth emerged when the Company
announced that it expected to earn materially less in 2002 than
previously announced, due to increased costs stemming from
production issues at several mines (which, the Company
misleadingly represented during the class period, would be
resolved in the second half of 2002).
Market reaction to the news was swift. On September 26, 2002,
just days after the Company reiterated its positive
expectations, Barrick Gold's stock fell by 10.5%, from $17.77
per share on September 25, 2002 to $15.90 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Blockbuster, Inc. (NYSE: BBI) from April
24, 2002 and December 17, 2002, inclusive.
The complaint charges Blockbuster, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial conditions.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class
period, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants issued numerous
positive statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and its future prospects.
The complaint alleges that these statements were each materially
false and misleading when made as they misrepresented and/or
omitted the following adverse facts which then existed and
disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements made
not false and/or misleading, including:
(1) that Blockbuster's business was being negatively
impacted by declining DVD sale prices. As the prices
of DVDs declined, consumers began to purchase DVDs from
a variety of retail outlets, instead of renting them,
thereby causing Blockbuster to experience declining
rental sales;
(2) that Blockbuster was unable to effectively compete with
other retailers of DVDs as many of those retailers
offered DVDs as loss leaders -- selling the DVDs below
or at cost -- in order to entice shoppers into the
store. As a result, Blockbuster was experiencing
declining DVD sales as it lost sales to mass
merchandisers;
(3) growth at stores that were open for more than one year
was slowing to such an extent that the same-store
growth rates that defendants had promised investors
would not be realized;
(4) that Blockbuster was experiencing problems with certain
of the movie studios with whom it had profit-sharing
arrangements. In particular, Blockbuster was being
accused by Buena Vista of breaching the terms of its
revenue sharing agreement with it. After the class
period, Buena Vista brought suit against Blockbuster
for $120 million and alleged breach of contract; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' lacked a
reasonable basis for their earnings projections and
positive statements about the Company at all times.
On December 18, 2002, Blockbuster shocked investors when it
slashed its earnings estimates and cut its growth rate for same-
store sales and attributed the revisions to the negative impact
of lower DVD prices which was increasing sales of DVDs and
decreasing rentals.
In response, the price of Blockbuster common stock declined
precipitously, falling from $19.40 per share to $13.64 per share
on extremely heavy trading volume. Prior to the disclosure of
this adverse information to the market, the Individual
Defendants and certain other high-level executives of
Blockbuster sold their personally-held Blockbuster common stock
to the unsuspecting public, reaping proceeds of more than $25
million.
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased the
common stock of CIT Group Inc. (NYSE: CIT) in or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) commenced on or
about July 1, 2002, and who have been damaged thereby. The
action is pending against the Company, Albert R. Gamper, Jr.
(CEO and President) and Joseph M. Leone (CFO).
The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 because CIT's IPO
registration statement and prospectus contained materially false
and misleading statements of fact. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Prospectus falsely represented that CIT's
reserves for losses in its telecommunications finance portfolio
were "adequate" despite recent declines in the sector, which
were expected to continue.
In addition, the Prospectus further characterized as adequate
its reserves for credit losses in general. According to the
complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
when made because, among other reasons, they failed to disclose
that the Company's loan loss reserves for its finance portfolio
in the telecommunications industry, and its loan portfolio in
general, were materially deficient in light of material credit
losses that had already been incurred.
The complaint further alleges that the Company's assets and
shareholders' equity were overstated in the Prospectus by reason
of the foregoing. On July 23, 2003, CIT announced that it took
a $200 million charge to strengthen the telecommunications loan
reserves that it represented were adequate only three weeks
previously. On April 8, 2003, the price of CIT common stock
closed at $17.40 per share, which is 24% lower than the IPO
price of $23 per share.
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Core Laboratories, N.V. (NYSE: CLB) from May 6, 2002
through March 31, 2003, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between May 6, 2002, and March
31, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Core
common stock.
Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing
financial performance. The complaint alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:
(1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
income and earnings per share;
(2) that the Company had overstated its ability to collect
on certain accounts receivable;
(3) that the Company had improperly delayed the booking of
expenses and foreign exchange translation losses from
certain field locations;
(4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
condition of the Company; and
(5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
and financial results was materially overstated at all
relevant times.
On March 31, 2003, after the markets had closed trading for the
day, the Company shocked the market by announcing that it would
be restating its financial results for prior 2002 quarterly
operating results because of:
(i) the issuance of duplicate invoices in the Company's
Mexico operations;
(ii) the need for higher provisions for doubtful accounts
receivables;
(iii) the need for timely booking of expenses and foreign
exchange translation losses from certain field
locations;
(iv) changes in the estimated life of certain assets; and
(v) consolidation costs of two Nigerian offices
Following this announcement, shares of Core common stock fell
$1.31 per share, or more than 12.5%, to close at $9.09 per
share, on volume of 515,300 shares traded, or almost four times
the average daily volume.
District of California on behalf of purchasers of CornerStone
Propane Partners LP (OTC Pink Sheets: CNPP) formerly NYSE: CNO)
publicly traded securities during the period between November 2,
1999 and February 11, 2003, inclusive.
The complaint charges CornerStone and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Throughout the class period, defendants issued a
series of material misrepresentations to the market between
November 2, 1999, and February 11, 2003, which served to
artificially inflate the price of CornerStone securities.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class
period, the Partnership was faced with the crisis of having to
renegotiate its capital credit lending agreements, which were
set to expire on November 30, 2001. Faced with this situation
of needing to obtain capital credit or face liquidation, the
Partnership issued statements that failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:
(1) that the Partnership had materially overstated its
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization (EBITDA), net income and earnings per
unit;
(2) that the Partnership lacked adequate internal controls
and was therefore unable to ascertain the true
financial condition of the Partnership; and
(3) that as a result, the value of the Partnership's
EBITDA, net income and financial results were
materially overstated at all relevant times.
On February 11, 2003, the Partnership revealed in its 8-K filed
with SEC that it had to restate its financial results for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 due to the Partnership's knowledge of known
errors in reporting its financial results for fiscal years 2000
and 2001. In response to this announcement, the price of
CornerStone securities declined precipitously.
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Cosi, Inc. (NASDAQ: COSI) between November 22, 2002 to
February 4, 2003 inclusive and who were damaged thereby.
The action, is pending against the Company and:
(1) Andrew M. Stenzler (CEO and Chairman),
(2) Jonathan M. Wainwright, Jr. (President) and
(3) Kenneth S. Betuker (CFO)
The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between November 22,
2002 to February 4, 2003.
As alleged in the complaint, the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the Company's November 22, 2002 IPO contained
several sections which discussed the Company's plans for growth
and described how the proceeds raised from the IPO would enable
the Company to implement these plans.
The complaint further alleges that similar representations were
made by defendant Stenzler in an interview broadcast on CNNfn.
These statements were materially false and misleading, according
to the complaint, because:
(i) they failed to disclose that the funds raised by the
IPO would be insufficient to implement the Company's
expansion plan, contrary to defendants' Class Period
representations; and
(ii) at the time of the IPO, defendants should have known
that the costs of expansion would be greater than the
cash available to the Company (which included working
capital and proceeds from the IPO), making it highly
improbable that the Company would be able to
successfully continue to open numerous new stores at
such a rapid pace.
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers of
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. (Nasdaq: CCELE) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 16, 1999 through May
20, 2003, inclusive.
misrepresentations to the market between March 16, 1999 and May
20, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Cryo-Cell
During the class period, the Company issued statements that
(1) that the Company had materially overstated its
earnings, net income and earnings per share;
(2) that the Company continually recognized revenue in
violation of generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) and the Company's own internal accounting
principles with respect to related-party transactions,
revenue sharing agreements and revenue recognition for
the sale Area Licenses;
(4) that as a result, the Company's financial results were
On April 15, 2003, the Company issued a press release wherein it
disclosed that it may be necessary to restate its financial
results for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 because of improper
recognition of revenue. Shortly thereafter, on May 20, 2003,
the Company issued a press release announcing the resignation of
its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP and the Company's continued
assessment of certain revenue recognition accounting policies.
On news of this, Cryo-Cell shares fell 14%.
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Daisytek
International Corporation (NASDAQ: DZTK) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 9, 2001 and April
The complaint charges Daisytek and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of defendants' issuance of false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operating
performance and prospects. Specifically, defendants were
improperly accounting for uncollectible customer accounts
receivables and vendor rebates receivables to inflate the
Company's results.
Daisytek is a global distributor of computer and office supplies
and professional tape products. Due to Daisytek's favorable
reported results, defendants were able to secure financing
essential to the Company. The Company subsequently disclosed it
would record "significant" write-downs of customer and vendor
receivables and inventory and large restructuring charges. On
this news, the Company's stock dropped to $0.53. The Company
subsequently announced the resignation of its CEO and its CFO.
Berger & Montague PC initiated a securities class action in the
Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Divine, Inc. (OTC: DVINQ.PK)
securities from November 12, 2001 through February 18, 2003,
inclusive. The suit names as defendants:
(1) Andrew J. Filipowski,
(2) Michael P. Cullinane,
(3) Aleksander Szlam, and
(4) Jude M. Sullivan
The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
thereunder, as well as with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.
Throughout the class period, defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market, which served to
artificially inflate the price of Divine securities. As alleged
in the complaint, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts:
(i) Divine was engaged in a scheme of inflating its
revenues by approximately $65 million by instructing
employees of its wholly-owned subsidiary, RoweCom, to
offer discounts to library customers that paid cash in
advance -- months before payments were due to
publishers -- even though Divine had no plan to pay its
obligations to publishers;
(ii) Divine was fraudulently diverting nearly $74 million
from RoweCom's operations;
(iii) Divine lacked adequate financial and internal controls
with respect to its RoweCom operations; and
(iv) as a result of the foregoing, Divine lacked a
reasonable basis to project profitability by year-end
or an ability to maintain its operations without
bankruptcy protections.
Additionally, as alleged in the Complaint, Divine filed a
Registration Statement on Form S-4 in connection with its
acquisition of Viant Corporation, on June 19, 2002. That
Registration Statement was false and misleading as it
incorporated by reference Divine's materially false and
misleading financial results, as previously reported on Forms
10-K and 10-Q with the SEC.
During the class period, Divine completed its acquisition of
Viant Corporation, among other acquisitions, using its
artificially inflated common stock as currency. On February 18,
2003, the close of the class period, Divine announced that
"despite efforts over the past several months to minimize
operating expenses and various liabilities, its board of
directors has determined that it must seek alternatives to
protect the value and viability of its operations.
As a result, Divine has engaged Broadview International LLC as
advisors to assist in exploring strategic options, which may
include asset divestitures, comparable transactions, and/or the
filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code." In response to this announcement, the
price of Divine stock declined precipitously.
For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas M. Risen or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-
5715 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com
Chitwood & Harley, LLP initiated a securities class action in
Virginia, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, (NYSE:FRE), between April 18, 2000 and June 6,
2003, inclusive. The suit is brought against Freddie Mac, and
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants issued statements, press releases, and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's business operations and financial condition. These
representations were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that throughout the class period, the
Company had materially misstated its operating earnings.
During the class period, it has been reported that Freddie Mac
may have earned more than it reported and had a higher capital
surplus. This practice, called ``smoothing'', allows companies
to meet or exceed earnings estimates and report substantial
growth going forward by deferring present gains to future
periods. The effect of this practice is to create the
impression that earnings growth is steady and the Company meets
or exceeds analysts' expectations on a regular basis. This
practice is also called ``cookie jar'' accounting and violates
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and the SEC has pledged
to stop its practice among public companies.
On June 9, 2003, before the market opened, Freddie Mac issued a
press release announcing that it had fired defendant David Glenn
because of ``serious questions about the timeliness and
completeness of his cooperation and candor with the board's
audit committee counsel,'' that defendant Leland C. Brendsel had
retired and that defendant Vaughn Clarke had resigned.
The market reacted swiftly to this news, and shares of Freddie
Mac closed at $50.26 on extremely heaving trading volume, down
$9.61 from the close of $59.87 on June 6, 2003.
After these revelations, on June 11, 2003, numerous news sources
reported that the US Attorney's office for Eastern Virginia
confirmed that the office was investigating Freddie Mac and that
the SEC was also investigating whether Freddie Mac deferred
income to smooth out results in future periods. Moreover, the
SEC is reportedly investigating whether Freddie Mac's CEO and
CFO certified otherwise false financial statements in violation
of Sarbanes-Oxley. The full scope and contours of defendants'
concerted fraud continues to be revealed.
For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 ext 6883 by E-mail:
jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Guidant Corporation (NYSE:GDT) between June 23, 1999 and June
12, 2003 and who suffered damages thereby. The action is
District of Indiana against the Company and:
(1) Endovascular Technologies, Inc.,
(2) Keith E. Brauer,
(3) Ronald W. Dollens and
(4) Jay Watkins
and misleading statements to the market between June 23, 1999
and June 12, 2003.
Guidant designs, develops, manufactures and markets therapeutic
medical devices for the treatment of cardiovascular and vascular
diseases, including the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System, a medical
device used to treat aneurysms. The complaint alleges that,
during the class period, Guidant failed to disclose the
following facts, among others:
(i) in violation of Food & Drug Administration (FDA)
regulations, the Company encouraged a dangerous usage
of the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System that had not been
authorized by the FDA;
(ii) the Company failed to file 2,628 Medical Device reports
- each representing an incident in which the ANCURE
ENDOGRAFT System malfunctioned or its use was
associated with death or serious injury;
(iii) as a result of the foregoing conduct, the Company was
the target of a criminal investigation; and
(iv) the Company had not properly reserved for the
consequences of its massive criminal and civil
liability nor adjusted its recorded goodwill to account
for the inevitable harm to its reputation that would
ensue.
The class period ends on June 12, 2003. On that date, the U.S.
Attorney's Office announced that EVT, Guidant's wholly owned
subsidiary, had pled guilty to 10 felonies and agreed to pay
$94.4 million to settle criminal and civil charges that it
covered up thousands of incidents, including 12 deaths and 57
emergency procedures, in which the ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System
malfunctioned.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 by E-mail: guidant@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of UnumProvident Corporate-
Backed Trust Securities (CorTS) Certificates pursuant to or
traceable to an initial public offering by CorTS Trust II For
Provident Financing Trust I (NYSE:KCC) on or about April 18,
2001 through March 24, 2003, inclusive.
The action charges violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 against CorTS Trust II For Provident Financing Trust I,
Provident Financing Trust I, UnumProvident Corporation
(UnumProvident) (NYSE:UNM), Salomon Smith Barney, Prudential
Securities, First Union Securities and certain UnumProvident
officers, including its Chief Executive and Chief Financial
UnumProvident is a provider of group and individual disability
insurance, as well as other complementary insurance products
such as long-term care insurance, life insurance, employer- and
employee-paid group benefits and related services. Through its
principal subsidiaries, including Unum Life Insurance Company of
America, Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, The Paul
Revere Life Insurance Company, and Colonial Life & Accident
Insurance Company, UnumProvident Corporation operates throughout
North America and in the United Kingdom, Japan and Argentina.
At the beginning of the class period, on or about April 18,
2001, CorTS Certificates were issued by CorTS Trust II For
Provident Financing Trust I, with issuance and payment of
Certificates ultimately guaranteed by UnumProvident. Yet,
throughout the class period, UnumProvident failed to properly
account for long-term investment impairments, thereby grossly
inflating financial results. On February 5, 2003 UnumProvident
announced recorded investment losses of $93 million and an
inquiry by the SEC requesting information relating to its
investment disclosures.
Later, on March 11, 2003, following a series of negative analyst
reports and increasing investor concerns over UnumProvident's
losses, the price of CorTS Certificates fell to as low as
$12.60. On March 24, 2003, UnumProvident revealed the truth
that its previously issued financial statements were, in fact,
materially inaccurate and misleading, and a restatement of its
financial statements for previous years would be required.
Payment of CorTS certificates was imperiled by UnumProvident's
materially false and misleading actions, thereby jeopardizing
the value of CorTS Certificates.
For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy by Mail: 1801 Avenue
of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by
Phone: (310) 201-9161 or (888) 773-9224 by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.glancylaw.com
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities. The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C. Enid Sterling, Aurora
Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.


text:
package org.apache.syncope.client.console.status;

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;
import org.apache.commons.lang3.StringUtils;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.commons.DirectoryDataProvider;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.commons.ResourceStatusDataProvider;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.commons.status.StatusBean;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.commons.status.StatusUtils;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.panels.DirectoryPanel;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.panels.AjaxDataTablePanel;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.panels.ModalPanel;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.panels.MultilevelPanel;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.rest.AbstractAnyRestClient;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.rest.AnyObjectRestClient;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.rest.GroupRestClient;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.rest.UserRestClient;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.wicket.markup.html.bootstrap.dialog.BaseModal;
import org.apache.syncope.client.console.wicket.markup.html.form.ActionLink;
import org.apache.syncope.common.lib.to.ResourceTO;
import org.apache.wicket.PageReference;
import org.apache.wicket.ajax.AjaxRequestTarget;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.grid.ICellPopulator;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.table.AbstractColumn;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.table.IColumn;
import org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.data.table.PropertyColumn;
import org.apache.wicket.markup.html.basic.Label;
import org.apache.wicket.markup.repeater.Item;
import org.apache.wicket.model.IModel;
import org.apache.wicket.model.StringResourceModel;

public class ResourceStatusDirectoryPanel
        extends DirectoryPanel<StatusBean, StatusBean, DirectoryDataProvider<StatusBean>, AbstractAnyRestClient<?, ?>>
        implements ModalPanel {

    private static final long serialVersionUID = -9148734710505211261L;

    private final BaseModal<?> baseModal;

    private final MultilevelPanel multiLevelPanelRef;

    private String type;

    private final ResourceTO resourceTO;

    public ResourceStatusDirectoryPanel(
            final BaseModal<?> baseModal,
            final MultilevelPanel multiLevelPanelRef,
            final PageReference pageRef,
            final String type,
            final ResourceTO resourceTO) {

        super(MultilevelPanel.FIRST_LEVEL_ID, pageRef);
        this.baseModal = baseModal;
        this.multiLevelPanelRef = multiLevelPanelRef;
        this.type = type;
        this.resourceTO = resourceTO;
        this.itemKeyFieldName = "anyKey";

        initResultTable();
    }

    @Override
    protected void resultTableCustomChanges(final AjaxDataTablePanel.Builder<StatusBean, String> resultTableBuilder) {
        resultTableBuilder.setMultiLevelPanel(baseModal, multiLevelPanelRef);
    }

    @Override
    protected List<IColumn<StatusBean, String>> getColumns() {
        final List<IColumn<StatusBean, String>> columns = new ArrayList<>();

        columns.add(new PropertyColumn<StatusBean, String>(
                new StringResourceModel("anyKey", this, null), "anyKey", "anyKey"));

        columns.add(new PropertyColumn<StatusBean, String>(
                new StringResourceModel("connObjectLink", this, null), "connObjectLink", "connObjectLink"));

        columns.add(new AbstractColumn<StatusBean, String>(new StringResourceModel("status", this, null)) {

            private static final long serialVersionUID = -3503023501954863131L;

            @Override
            public void populateItem(
                    final Item<ICellPopulator<StatusBean>> cellItem,
                    final String componentId,
                    final IModel<StatusBean> model) {

                if (model.getObject().isLinked()) {
                    cellItem.add(StatusUtils.getStatusImage(componentId, model.getObject().getStatus()));
                } else {
                    cellItem.add(new Label(componentId, ""));
                }
            }
        });

        return columns;
    }

    public void updateResultTable(final String type, final AjaxRequestTarget target) {
        this.type = type;

        if (StringUtils.isNoneEmpty(type)) {
            switch (type) {
                case "USER":
                    this.restClient = new UserRestClient();
                    break;
                case "GROUP":
                    this.restClient = new GroupRestClient();
                    break;
                default:
                    this.restClient = new AnyObjectRestClient();
            }
        }

        super.updateResultTable(target);
    }

    @Override
    protected Collection<ActionLink.ActionType> getBulkActions() {
        final List<ActionLink.ActionType> bulkActions = new ArrayList<>();
        bulkActions.add(ActionLink.ActionType.UNLINK);
        bulkActions.add(ActionLink.ActionType.DEPROVISION);
        bulkActions.add(ActionLink.ActionType.UNASSIGN);
        return bulkActions;
    }

    @Override
    protected ResourceStatusDataProvider dataProvider() {
        return new ResourceStatusDataProvider(type, resourceTO.getKey(), rows, "/");
    }

    @Override
    protected String paginatorRowsKey() {
        return StringUtils.EMPTY;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Ponale is een metrostation in de Italiaanse stad Milaan dat werd geopend op 10 februari 2013 en wordt bediend door lijn 5 van de metro van Milaan.

Ligging en inrichting
Het station ligt onder onder de Viale Fulvio Testi bij het kruispunt met de Via Ponale.  De toegangen liggen ter hoogte van de tramhaltes vlak ten zuiden van het kruispunt. Naast de trappen aan weerszijden van de Viale Fulvio Testi zijn er ook directe toegangen bij de  tramhaltes tussen hoofdrijbaan en de parallelwegen, aan de oostkant is bovendien een lift voor rolstoelgebruikers. Ondergronds zijn deze toegangen met een voetgangerstunnel onder het plein met elkaar verbonden. Halverwege deze tunnel liggen de toegangspoortjes aan de noordkant en achter de poortjes dalen de reizigers af naar de verdeelhal op niveau -2. In de verdeelhal verdelen de reizigers zich afhankelijk van de gewenste rijrichting over de zijperrons die via trappen en liften aan de randen van de verdeelhal bereikbaar zijn. De metrolijn ligt in een dubbelsporige tunnel die met perrondeuren van de perrons gescheiden is.

Ponale

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: Unity C# - How to check if random moving gameobject is within boundaries I have a random moving gameobject moving in the scene with the attached code. The issue is that although there are boundary colliders with a rigid body, sometimes it passes right through them and falls.
How can I limit it that once it bumps into those colliders it does a 189 rotation and continues moving randomly?
The terrain width is 50f, the terrain Height is also 50f.
using System.Collections;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using UnityEngine;

public class PlayerTrainingMovement : MonoBehaviour {

    public float speed;

    private float randomizedSpeed = 0.0f;
    private float nextActionTime = -1.0f;
    private Vector3 targetPosition;
    private Vector3 moveVector;
    private void FixedUpdate() {

        if(speed > 0.0f) {
            Move2();
            //Move();
        }
    }

    private void Move2() {

        if(Time.fixedTime >= nextActionTime) {

            // Get a threshold time
            nextActionTime = UnityEngine.Random.Range(50.0f, 200.0f);

            // Pick a random target position
            targetPosition = TrainingArea.ChooseRandomPosition(transform.parent.position, 0f, 270f, 2f, 10f);

            // Rotate towards the target position
            transform.rotation = Quaternion.LookRotation(targetPosition - transform.position, Vector3.up);

            float timeToGetThere = Vector3.Distance(transform.position, targetPosition) / randomizedSpeed;
            nextActionTime = Time.fixedTime + timeToGetThere;

            // Get a movement vector
            moveVector = speed * transform.forward;
            //moveVector = speed * new Vector3(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f);
        }
        else {

            // Check -X boundary
            if(transform.position.x - 1.0f <= transform.parent.gameObject.transform.position.x) {

                transform.position = transform.position + new Vector3(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f);
                moveVector.x *= -1.0f;
            }

            // Check +X boundary
            if(transform.position.x + 1.0f >= transform.parent.gameObject.transform.position.x + TrainingArea.terrainWidth) {

                transform.position = transform.position + new Vector3(-1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f);
                moveVector.x *= -1.0f;
            }

            // Check -Z boundary
            if(transform.position.z - 1.0f <= transform.parent.gameObject.transform.position.z) {

                transform.position = transform.position + new Vector3(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f);
                moveVector.z *= -1.0f;
            }

            // Check +Z boundary
            if(transform.position.z + 1.0f >= transform.parent.gameObject.transform.position.z + TrainingArea.terrainHeight) {

                transform.position = transform.position + new Vector3(0.0f, 0.0f, -1.0f);
                moveVector.z *= -1.0f;
            }

            // Move
            transform.position = transform.position + moveVector * Time.fixedDeltaTime;

            // Update nextActionTime
            nextActionTime--;
        }
    }
}
public static Vector3 RandomPositionOnTerrain(Vector3 origin) {
    //Range(30.0f, terrainWidth - 30.0f);
    float randomX = origin.x + UnityEngine.Random.Range(20.0f, terrainWidth);
    float randomZ = origin.z + UnityEngine.Random.Range(20.0f, terrainHeight);

    return new Vector3(randomX, 30.0f, randomZ);
}

A: You can use OnCollisionEnter to trigger a rotation when the unit bumps into other colliders.
something like this must do it:
void OnCollisionEnter(Collision col)
   {
       if(col.gameObject.tag(or name) = "a tag or name"){
          //Do Stuff here
       }
   }

Here's the detailed documentation:
https://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/Collider.OnCollisionEnter.html
another workaround is using NavMesh. It'll make the movements UnityEngine.AI based and pretty smooth but you'll need a whole new script.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


A donation of any amount is always appreciated and will help Memory Matters to achieve our goals of supporting those in our community who are facing memory problems. All the services provided at Memory Matters are free of charge and directly benefit local needs.
Memorial Gifts are a meaningful way to remember someone who is no longer with us. A card of acknowledgement will be sent to the individual of your choosing.
Educating Our Community: Memory Matters provides education to families, church groups, civic organizations, social service agencies, schools, long-term care staff, and anyone else requesting our assistance.
Building Local Support Systems: Caring for a loved one with dementia impacts the entire family. Social activities at Memory Matters House and other venues keep individuals with dementia and their caregivers active and engaged. Support groups throughout Glynn County provide opportunities to meet others facing similar challenges.
Helping Those on a Limited Budget: Our Special Needs Program helps with urgent needs such as short-term respite, MedicAlert bracelets, adult diapers, and other assistance as needed.
Make payable to Memory Matters and mail to Memory Matters, 2803 Sherwood Drive, Brunswick, GA 31520.
Online Shopping: Turn your online shopping and searching into donations for Memory Matters in two ways: iGive.com or Amazon Smile!


text:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>

<head>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    <meta name="viewport" content="initial-scale=1, maximum-scale=1, user-scalable=no, width=device-width">
    <title></title>
    <link href="lib/ionic/css/ionic.css" rel="stylesheet">
    <link href="css/style.css" rel="stylesheet">
    <!-- IF using Sass (run gulp sass first), then uncomment below and remove the CSS includes above
    <link href="css/ionic.app.css" rel="stylesheet">
    -->
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/js?v=3.exp&sensor=true&">
    </script>
    <!-- <script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="/js/jquery-1.2.6.min.js"></script>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="/js/jquery-ui-personalized-1.5.2.packed.js"></script>
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="/js/sprinkle.js"></script> -->
    <!-- ionic/angularjs js -->
    <script src="lib/jquery.js"></script>
    <script src="lib/ionic/js/ionic.bundle.js"></script>
    <script src="lib/ngCordova/dist/ng-cordova.js"></script>
    <!-- cordova script (this will be a 404 during development) -->
    <script src="cordova.js"></script>
    <!-- your app's js -->
    <script src="js/app.js"></script>
    <script src="js/controllers.js"></script>
    <script src="js/firstAidCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/firstAidsCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/mapCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/menuCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/symptomCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/clickMaleCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/clickFemaleCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/symptomDetailCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/checkSymptomCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/findSymptomCtrl.js"></script>
    <script src="js/showImgCtrl.js"></script>
</head>

<body ng-app="starter">
    <ion-nav-view></ion-nav-view>
</body>

</html>


text:
"Break a spell" is the 14th single released by the J-pop singer Mami Kawada. The track is used as is the second ending theme song of the anime television series Tokyo Ravens.

Track listing
 Break a spell
Lyrics: Mami Kawada
Composition: Takeshi Ozaki
Arrangement: Tomoyuki Nakazawa, Takeshi Ozaki
 remaining snow
Lyrics: Mami Kawada
Composition and Arrangement: C.G mix
 Break a spell (instrumental)
 remaining snow (instrumental)

2014 singles
2014 songs
Mami Kawada songs
Anime songs
Songs with lyrics by Mami Kawada


text:
[Howard Zinn raw #28: Cleveland Sellers speaks about his involvement with Zinn and the SNCC]
Cleveland Sellers discusses Howard Zinn and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
0:03Copy video clip URL Cleveland Sellers says that the historical impact of the civil rights movement was not something that really registered in the moment for those involved. He praises the work done by organizers from Mississippi.
2:37Copy video clip URL Filmmaker Denis Mueller asks Sellers about the Orangeburg massacre, the shooting of racial segregation protesters by South Carolina Highway Patrol officers in 1968 that resulted in three deaths. Sellers connects the events in Orangeburg to a shift in tactics against protesters that bring about the tragedies at Kent State and Jackson State. He gives details about the events leading up to the shooting, the shooting itself, and the legal action and jail time Sellers unjustly faced following the shooting.
12:05Copy video clip URL Cleveland Sellers talks about going to Mississippi for the Freedom Summer project. He tells about his first project, searching for the bodies of three murdered activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi (the murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner). "For African-Americans in particular, Mississippi was considered to be the most hostile community toward the civil rights of African-Americans or other minorities of any state in the nation." He talks about the dangers of doing civil rights work in Mississippi, the militarization of Mississippi state forces, and the lack of support for civil rights demonstrated by the FBI.
17:56Copy video clip URL Sellers speaks on the resilience and compassion of the people of Mississippi. He says that organizers who came into Mississippi were inspired by the people they encountered. He talks about the constant risk of violence and death for those who defied or spoke out against segregation. He speaks specifically on Fannie Lou Hamer and her ability to persevere in the face of violence.
23:36Copy video clip URL Sellers says he first met Howard Zinn at the SNCC conference at Howard University while Zinn was teaching at Spelman. He speaks on the importance of Zinn's chronicling of SNCC in SNCC: The New Abolitionists. "Certainly, you have the Ella Bakers, but also have the Howard Zinns. And that's what they give us, they give us the struggle to understand how to analyze what is going on around you, the phenomena; understanding how this fits into the historical context of black protest tradition; and the relationship between what we were doing and what other people were doing across the South, in terms of other organizations and other movements that had taken place prior to, the connection between us in Mississippi and Rosa Parks and E. D. Nixon and Jo Ann Robinson in Montgomery." He talks about the intellectual atmosphere of SNCC and the reading and discussion that went on in the organization.
28:11Copy video clip URL Cleveland Sellers discusses the need for humor and levity among civil rights organizers. He tells an anecdote about Martin Luther King Jr.
32:48Copy video clip URL Sellers talks about the political and practical benefits of really listening to what the people of Mississippi had to say. He says listening to people also helped them as organizers work through the trauma of what they had witnessed and experienced. "Because a lot of times, if you listened to the Mississippians, they were telling you things that you needed to know, things about who you were. They would be concerned about your parents back home. And they would be concerned about 'are you eating right?' They would be concerned about 'How you feeling? We're still here, are you still here? Do you still have the same level of enthusiasm? What's going on in your life?' And you need to listen to hear those things when they come through, and understand what you're listening to."
36:52Copy video clip URL Cleveland Sellers traces the development of SNCC's opposition to the Vietnam War. He says that it was mothers in the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party who started looking at the contradiction of young disenfranchised black Mississippians "fighting for democracy" in Vietnam while there was a battle for democracy going on at home in Mississippi. Sellers talks about the murder of Navy veteran, SNCC member, and civil rights activist Sammy Younge Jr. as a tipping point within SNCC in their decision to assess the contradictions of the United States' actions at home and abroad and take a stand against intervention in Vietnam and propose working with SNCC as an alternative to the draft for young black people who wanted to fight for democracy.
46:10Copy video clip URL Sellers speaks on the political and personal strengths of Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael), who was active in SNCC during the 1960s. Sellers describes Kwame as a charismatic, engaging orator who emulated Malcolm X. He speaks on the traditions of discussion and debate that guided the goals and positions of SNCC as an organization.
53:20Copy video clip URL Cleveland Sellers talks about how throughout the organization's existence, SNCC was never actually that large, when it came to numbers of paid organizers. He discusses the impact of the civil rights movement on music and popular culture.
57:25Copy video clip URL Sellers discusses the impact that SNCC, Mario Savio and the Free Speech Movement, students, and young people had on American society and subsequent social movements. He talks about the ability for social movements to succeed when you have a small group of people who come together to commit to their principles and commit to transforming society.
Main Credits
directed and produced by Deb Ellis and Denis Mueller
Cleveland Sellers
Video Tape Format
Black, Communities, Howard Zinn
Deb Ellis, Denis Mueller
Documentary, Historical, Interview, Political
Black Panthers Civil Rights Civil Rights movement Cleveland Sellers Free Speech Howard Zinn Mario Savio mississippi SNCC Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
E-Mail(required):

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Sydney : Women who maintain a healthy body mass index and breastfeed their babies exclusively for at least six months can help reduce the risk of children developing liver disease during their adolescence, finds a new study.
The findings showed that pre-pregnancy BMI within the normal range was shown to decrease risk of adolescent non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) by a half.
Also, a minimum of six months of exclusive breastfeeding can further cut down the risk by a third.
"We wanted to see if there was any association between adolescent non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, maternal factors and infant nutrition," said lead researcher Oyekoya Ayonrinde, clinical senior lecturer at University of Western Australia.
In the long-term, NAFLD can lead to scarring (fibrosis) of the liver and a potentially life-threatening condition called cirrhosis in some individuals.
"Our results demonstrate the grave impact maternal factors can have on the risk of developing liver disease in adolescence," Ayonrinde added.
Recent studies suggest that it has become the most common liver disease in people aged two to 19 years old, with half of obese children suffering from the condition. Factors including excessive childhood weight gain are believed to be key contributors to this rise.
The study demonstrates the importance of proper infant nutrition and the benefit of exclusive and extended breastfeeding for six months, the researchers suggested.
The team collected data such as maternal pregnancy, birth, childhood and adolescent characteristics through questionnaires, direct interviews, physical examinations and blood tests.
The team conducted liver ultrasounds in 1,170 seventeen year-olds to diagnose NAFLD.
The results revealed that over 15 percent of teenagers, out of the study cohort, were diagnosed as having NAFLD.
Individuals who were exclusively breastfed as infants for six or more months, showed lower prevalence of adolescent NAFLD when compared to those who were breastfed for less than six months.
The findings were presented at The International Liver Congress 2016 in Barcelona, Spain.