LAW OFFICES OF LIONEL Z. GLANCY
LIONEL Z. GLANCY
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 308
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
RABIN & PECKEL LLP
BRIAN MURRAY
275 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 682-1818
(additional counsel listed at end)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
_____________________________________
)
DAVID MCGEE, NAM LAM, KHOI V. CHAU, ) Case No. C99-2115 MEJ
IGNATIUS C. SERRA, on behalf of )
themselves and all others similarly )
situated, )
) CLASS ACTION
Plaintiffs, )
) COMPLAINT FOR
-against- ) VIOLATION OF THE
) FEDERAL SECURITIES
FVC.COM, INC., RALPH UNGERMANN, ) LAWS
RICHARD M. BEYER, and JAMES O. ) [filed May 5, 1999]
MITCHELL, )
) Jury Trial Demanded
Defendants. )
_____________________________________ )
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, for their Class Action
Complaint, allege:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is a Class Action brought on behalf of David
McGee, Nam Lam, Khoi V. Chau, Ignatius C. Serra, and all other
persons or entities, except for Defendants, who bought FVC.com
Inc. ("FVC" or the "Company") common stock (the "Class") during
the period January 21, 1999 through April 6, 1999, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
2. This action, based on violations of section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arises out of a series of
false and misleading statements concerning reported financial
results during the Class Period which were materially inflated
as a result of FVC's failure to properly record sales from its
software unit, in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles ("GAAP").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This action arises under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 78j(b) and 78t(a); and Rule 10b-5 promulgated pursuant to
section 10(b) by the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17
C.F.R. § 240.10b-5. The jurisdiction of this Court is based on
section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa; and on sec-
tions 1331 and 1337(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1337(a).
4. Venue is proper in this District under section 27 of
the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78(aa), and section 1391(b) of
the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The corporate
headquarters of FVC are located in this district and many of
the acts complained of occurred in this district.
5. In connection with the acts and conduct alleged
herein, Defendants, directly and indirectly, used the means and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including the United
States mails and the facilities of the national securities
exchanges.
PARTIES
6. Plaintiffs David McGee, Nam Lam, Khoi V. Chau, and
Ignatius C. Serra each purchased FVC common stock during the
Class Period as set forth in their respective accompanying
certification and each were damaged as a result thereof.
7. FVC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located at 3393 Octavius Drive, Santa Clara,
California 95054. Its common stock is, and at all relevant
times has been, held and publicly traded on the open market.
Its common stock is listed on the Nasdaq National Market. As
of March 31, 1999, over 16.575 million shares of FVC common
stock were issued and outstanding. The market for FVC common
stock is efficient and quickly reflects all publicly available
information.
8. Defendant Ralph Ungermann is currently Chairman of the
Board of FVC. Ungermann founded FVC in 1993 and, until January
1999, served as the Company's Chairman, Chief Executive
Officer, and President. During the Class Period, Ungermann
filed to sell and/or sold 200,000 shares, or $2.7 million worth
of FVC stock, based on inside information.
9. Defendant Richard M. Beyer is currently the Chief
Executive Officer and President of FVC. Beyer joined the
Company in January 1999 and was subsequently elected to the
Company's Board of Directors.
10. Defendant James O. Mitchell is currently the
Company's Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of
Operations. During the Class Period, Mitchell filed to sell
and/or sold 60,000 shares, or $806,200 worth of FVC stock,
based on inside information.
11. Defendants Ungermann, Beyer, and Mitchell are
referred to collectively herein as the "Individual Defendants."
12. The Individual Defendants, by reason of their
management positions and membership on FVC's Board of Directors
were at all relevant times controlling persons of FVC within
the meaning of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
Individual Defendants had the power and influence to cause FVC
to engage in the unlawful acts and conduct alleged herein, and
did exercise such power and influence.
PLAINTIFFS' CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
13. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on
behalf of the Class, consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of FVC common stock between January
21, 1999 and April 6, 1999, inclusive. Excluded from the Class
are Defendants; members of the immediate families of the
Individual Defendants; any entity in which any Defendant has or
had a controlling interest; and the legal representatives,
heirs, successors, or assigns of any Defendant.
14. Some 16.575 million shares of common stock of FVC are
outstanding in an actively-traded and efficient market in which
millions of shares were traded during the Class Period. FVC
common stock is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the
symbol "FVCX." The members of the Class are so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact
number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs, and can only
be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs
believe that there are thousands of members of the Class.
Record owners and members of the Class may be identified from
records maintained by FVC or its transfer agent and may be
notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using the form
of notice similar to that customarily used in securities class
actions.
15. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the
members of the Class in that Plaintiffs and each Class member
purchased common stock of FVC during the Class Period and
sustained injury as a result.
16. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the members of the Class and has retained counsel
competent and experienced in class action and securities
litigation.
17. A class action is superior to other available methods
for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy
since joinder of all Class members is impracticable.
Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual Class and
members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of
individual litigation make it impossible for the Class and
members to seek redress individually for the wrongs done to
them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this
action as a class action.
18. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all
members of the Class and predominate over any questions
affecting solely individual members of the Class. Among the
questions of law and fact common to the Class:
(a) Whether the federal securities laws were
violated by Defendants' acts as alleged herein;
(b) Whether Defendants acted wilfully or recklessly
in omitting to state and misrepresenting material facts; and
(c) Whether the members of the Class have sustained
damages, and if so, what is the proper measure of damages.
FACTS
19. Defendant FVC, founded in 1993 by defendant Ungermann
and taken public on April 29, 1998, develops, manufactures and
markets video networking systems.
20. The Company sells its products worldwide through
original equipment manufacturer ("OEM") partners, distributors,
and resellers. The Company established strategic relationships
with, among others, Bay Networks, Inc. ("Bay Networks") in
November 1995 and with Northern Telecom, Inc. ("Nortel") in May
1997. In November 1995, the Company granted Bay Networks the
worldwide exclusive right to market and sell certain of the
Company's products. In September 1996, the Company granted Bay
Networks the worldwide non-exclusive right to market and sell
all of the Company's current and future products, under both
the Company's and Bay Network's names. In May 1997, the
Company granted similar rights to Nortel to market the
Company's products under the Company's name.
21. According to the Company's Form 10-Q for the third
quarter ended September 30, 1998 and filed with the SEC on
November 9, 1998, FVC's sales through Bay Networks represented
52%, 64%, and 29% of the Company's revenues in the nine months
ended September 30, 1998 and the years ended December 31, 1997
and 1996, respectively. In 1998, Nortel acquired Bay Networks
and, in connection therewith, Nortel changed its name to Nortel
Networks. FVC's third quarter 10-Q represented that "[t]he
Company does not believe that the acquisition of Bay Networks
by Nortel will have a material adverse effect on its future
operating results."
22. On October 14, 1998, FVC announced "record" third
quarter 1998 results, including revenues of $12 million, net
income of $1.2 million and earnings per share of $0.07. The
press release quoted defendant Ungermann as stating:
Our outstanding operating results reflect the
growing understanding and acceptance of Next
Generation Internet video for important business and
educational applications. . . During the quarter, we
made sales to customers in a number of our important
markets, such as telecommunications and health care
enterprises, government organizations, university
systems and school districts.
* * *
FVC.COM's distribution and system integration
partners include leading telecommunication and
networking companies throughout the world, such as .
. . Nortel (NYSE: NT).
23. With respect to the Company's revenue recognition
policies, the third quarter 1998 10-Q stated:
The Company recognizes revenues upon shipment of
products to customers, provided that no significant
obligations remain and collectibility is probable.
The OEM partners generally have no rights of return
and have historically carried limited amounts of
inventories of the Company's products.
24. During the Company's fourth 1998 fiscal quarter, the
Company issued press releases detailing significant projects
that were underway with Bay Networks. On October 22, 1998, FVC
issued a press release via BusinessWire announcing that it won
contracts with Lucent Technologies to provide, in partnership
with Bay Networks, two California school districts with a real-
time video learning network using the Company's "Next
Generation Internet Video Network" technology. Similarly, on
December 10, 1998, FVC issued a press release via BusinessWire
announcing that it was chosen by the City of New York to build
and provide a video network to be deployed over Bay Networks's
ATM broadband infrastructure at the City's Human Resources
Administration.
25. On December 14, 1998, the Company issued a press
release via the PRNewswire announcing that defendant Beyer had
joined FVC as President and Chief Executive Officer of FVC.
Beyer replaced Ungermann who would become Chairman of the
Board. The press release quoted defendant Ungermann as
stating:
We have pioneered this [video networking] market for
the last five years, and now that the deployment of
broadband networks is dramatically increasing,
FVC.COM faces a huge growth opportunity. . . . This
new management structure will allow me to focus my
full attention on the company's vision and critical
industry issues while Rich [Beyer] runs the company.
FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS
ISSUED DURING THE CLASS PERIOD
26. On January 21, 1999, FVC issued a press release via
the PRNewswire reporting its anticipated financial results for
the fourth quarter of 1998. The Company was expecting fourth
quarter 1998 revenues to be slightly above the $12 million
reported for the third quarter of 1998.
27. Commenting on the January 21, 1999 announcement,
defendant Beyer stated in the press release:
During the quarter, we continued to strengthen our
competitive position worldwide in providing Next
Generation Internet video systems. We achieved
record bookings, revenues and income in the fourth
quarter. However, orders were heavily back-end
loaded during the quarter, and we were unable to
fully ship all orders. We are taking a number of
operational steps to improve our ability to deal with
similar occurrences in future quarters. We are
pleased with another record quarter and remain
confident in the markets for our products and in our
plans for growth in 1999.
28. One week later, on January 28, 1999, the Company
issued a press release via the PRNewswire formally announcing
its fourth quarter 1998 financial results, stating:
Revenues for the quarter were $12.3 million, a 61
percent increase over revenues of $7.6 million in the
fourth quarter of 1997, and a 2.5 percent increase
over revenues of $12.0 million for the quarter ended
September 30, 1998. Net income for the quarter was
$1.2 million, or $0.07 per diluted share (on 17.5
million shares outstanding), compared with a net loss
of $100,000 in the same quarter of the previous year.
Revenues for the year were $44.4 million, up 136
percent over revenues of $18.8 million in 1997. Net
income for the year was $1.1 million (excluding a
one-time charge relating to the acquisition of ICAST
Corporation), or $0.07 per diluted share (on 16.0
million shares outstanding), compared with a net loss
of $4.3 million for 1997.
29. Eager to highlight the large number of orders booked
in the fourth quarter, as well as the significant projects that
the Company was working on with Nortel Networks (which now
included both Nortel and Bay Networks), defendant Beyer stated
in the January 28, 1999 press release:
We are pleased with the progress we made during the
quarter on a number of fronts . . . . We had a strong
quarter for booking orders, with a book to bill ratio
of 1.2, and we maintained solid profitability despite
a significant ramp up of marketing and sales
activities.
We continue to work with leading telecommunications,
networking and system integration companies as our
distribution partners . . . . We announced an
advanced interactive video network for telemedicine
and conferencing at VA Healthcare System of Ohio with
Nortel Networks as our partner, and also announced
Next Generation Internet video networks at two
Northern California School Districts with Lucent and
Nortel as our partners. In addition, we were chosen
by the City of New York to implement
videoconferencing throughout their largest agency,
the Human Resources Administration.
THE TRUTH EMERGES
30. On April 6, 1999, FVC disclosed in a press release
via PRNewswire that it was reducing its previously announced
revenues for the fourth quarter of 1998 by approximately $7.0
to $7.5 million to defer revenue on inventory of the Company's
products held by Nortel on December 31, 1998. Thus, sales for
the fourth quarter of 1998 would only be approximately $4.7 to
$5.2 million (as opposed to the $12.3 million in revenues
previously reported) and earnings per share were being reduced
from a profit of $.07 to a net loss per share of approximately
$0.20 to $0.22.
31. Contemporaneously, FVC announced that revenues for
the first quarter of 1999 were expected to be significantly
below analyst expectations with a significant loss for the
quarter -- revenues would be between $8.0 and $8.5 million, and
the net loss per share between $0.20 and $0.22. Analysts
polled by First Call expected the Company to earn 3 cents a
share in the first quarter. Hambrecht & Quist analysts had
expected first quarter revenue of $13.2 million.
32. According to FVC's April 6, 1999 press release:
The Company attributed the drop in revenues to a
combination of factors, including a significant
decline in business through its major OEM partner,
Bay Networks, now a part of Nortel Networks. Bay
Networks has been FVC.COM's largest customer for the
last several years. Negotiations during the quarter
to restructure the companies' relationship resulted
in a significant reduction in joint sales activity.
Sales to Bay/Nortel fell to approximately 25 percent
in the first quarter, compared with approximately 43
percent as previously reported for the fourth quarter
of 1998. In addition, the Company stated that Nortel
has indicated its intention to move from stocking
inventory to having FVC.COM drop-ship to Nortel's
customers.
In order to reflect this change, CEO Rich Beyer, who
joined the Company in January of this year, stated
that the Company will now record its sales to Nortel
on a sell-through basis and has implemented this
change effective December 31, 1998. Therefore,
FVC.COM is reducing its previously announced revenues
for the quarter ended December 31, 1998 by
approximately $7.0 to $7.5 million to defer the
revenue on inventory of FVC.COM products held by
Nortel on December 31, 1998. Such revenues under the
revised policy are now being recognized as and when
such products are sold by Nortel. Sales for the
fourth quarter 1998 are being revised to
approximately $4.7 to $5.2 million; earnings per
share will be revised accordingly to a net loss per
share of approximately $0.20 and $0.22.
* * *
In view of the slower than expected growth of first
quarter revenues and the uncertainty of timing in
some major projects, FVC.COM is taking a more
cautious view of its near-term growth and will be
lowering its internal forecast for the year.
Revenues are expected to continue to grow throughout
the remainder of the year, although at a slower pace
than anticipated earlier.
33. Upon these disclosures, the price of FVC stock fell
$10-7/16 to $6-15/16, nearly 60%, in trading of 4.85 million
shares, almost 18 times the three-month daily average. FVC
stock was the second largest percent decliner on U.S. stock
exchanges on April 7, 1999.
34. FVC failed to file its Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1998. Instead, on March 31, 1999, FVC filed with
the SEC a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25. Therein,
the Company stated:
The Registrant anticipates that its results of
operations will be substantially different from the
corresponding period for its last fiscal year due to
increased revenues and costs of sales. The audit of
Registrant's financial statements for its last fiscal
year has not yet been completed and, as such, the
Registrant is unable to estimate such differences.
35. During the Class Period, defendants materially misled
the investing public, thereby inflating the price of FVC stock,
by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and
omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make
defendants' statements, as set forth herein, not false and
misleading. Said statements were materially false and
misleading in that they failed to disclose material adverse
information and misrepresented the truth about the Company, its
business and operations, including, inter alia, that:
(a) Joint sales activity between FVC and Bay Networks was
significantly declining due to efforts to "restructure" their
relationship;
(b) The Company's excessive shipment of product into the
indirect sales channel would ultimately result in decreased
sales of the Company's products, as OEM partners, distributors
and resellers such as Bay Networks worked through excess
inventory of FVC products;
(c) The Company's increased focus on indirect sales was
not successful and FVC's distributors were not effective at
selling its products which hurt FVC's current order flow and
future prospects;
(d) FVC's financial condition was weakened and diminished
because of undisclosed and adverse trends and circumstances
that contradicted and undermined defendants' assurances
regarding the Company's performance and prospects and the
intrinsic value of the stock disseminated to investors during
the Class Period;
(e) The Company's financial statements were not prepared
in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP") and in accordance with the securities laws and SEC
regulations concerning fair reporting;
(f) The Company had violated GAAP and its own accounting
policies by improperly recognizing revenues; and
(g) The Company's estimates and opinions as to its
expected earnings, revenues, income and value of its stock were
lacking in reasonable basis at all relevant times.
36. In order to inflate the price of FVC stock,
defendants falsely reported the Company's financial results for
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998 through improper revenue
recognition, thereby materially overstating FVC's revenue,
income and earnings per share in the fourth quarter of 1998, in
violation of GAAP. Ultimately, as described above, FVC
admitted that its results had been misstated and revealed that
it would have to adjust its results to eliminate previously
reported revenue and income for the fourth quarter of fiscal
1998.
37. GAAP are those principles recognized by the
accounting profession as the conventions, rules, and procedures
necessary to define accepted accounting practice at a
particular time. SEC Regulation S-X (17 C.F.R. §210.4-
01(a)(1)) states that financial statements filed with the SEC
which are not prepared in compliance with GAAP are presumed to
be misleading and inaccurate, despite footnotes or other
disclosure. Regulation S-X requires that interim financial
statements also comply with GAAP, with the exception that
interim financial statements need not include disclosure which
would be duplicative of disclosures accompanying annual
financial statements 17 C.F.R. §210.10-01(a).
38. Due to these accounting improprieties, the Company
presented its financial results and statements in a manner
which violated GAAP, including the following fundamental
accounting principles:
* The principle that interim financial reporting should
be based upon the same accounting principles and practices
used to prepare annual financial statements (APB No. 28,
¶12).
* The principle that financial reporting should provide
information that is useful to present and potential
investors and creditors and other users in making rational
investment, credit, and similar decisions (FASB Statement
of Concepts No. 1, ¶34).
* The principle that financial reporting should provide
information about the economic resources of an enterprise,
the claims to those resources, and effects of
transactions, events and circumstances that change
resources and claims to those resources (FASB Statement of
Concepts No. 1, ¶40).
* The principle that financial reporting should provide
information about how management of an enterprise has
discharged its stewardship responsibility to owners
(stockholders) for the use of enterprise resources
entrusted to it. To the extent that management offers
securities of the enterprise to the public, it voluntarily
accepts wider responsibilities for accountability to
prospective investors and to the public in general (FASB
Statement of Concepts No. 1, ¶50).
* The principle that financial reporting should provide
information about an enterprise's financial performance
during a period. Investors and creditors often use
information about the past to help in assessing the
prospects of an enterprise. Thus, although investment and
credit decisions reflect investors' expectations about
future enterprise performance, those expectations are
commonly based at least partly on evaluations of past
enterprise performance (FASB Statement of Concepts No. 1,
¶42).
* The principle that financial reporting should be
reliable in that it represents what it purports to
represent. That information should be reliable as well as
relevant is a notion that is central to accounting (FASB
Statement of Concepts No. 2, ¶¶58-59).
* The principle of completeness, which means that
nothing is left out of the information that may be
necessary to insure that it validly represents underlying
events and conditions (FASB Statement of Concepts No. 2,
¶79).
* The principle that conservatism be used as a prudent
reaction to uncertainty to try to ensure that
uncertainties and risks inherent in business situations
are adequately considered. The best way to avoid injury
to investors is to try to ensure that what is reported
represents what it purports to represent (FASB Statement
of Concepts No. 2, ¶¶95, 97).
39. Further, the undisclosed adverse information
concealed by defendants during the Class Period is the type of
information which, because of SEC regulations, regulations of
the national stock exchanges and customary business practice,
is expected by investors and securities analysts to be
disclosed and is known by corporate officials and their legal
and financial advisors to be the type of information which is
expected to be and must be disclosed.
DEFENDANTS' INSIDER SELLING
40. FVC's insiders issued false and misleading statements
about FVC's business for the purpose of selling 535,000 shares
at inflated prices for proceeds exceeding $7.3 million.
Notwithstanding their access to non-public information
resulting from their positions and responsibilities with the
Company, the Individual Defendants and other top officers filed
to sell and/or sold the following amounts of FVC shares during
the Class Period without disclosing the material non-public
information known to them:
Shares Sold
Name or Filed To Be Sold Proceeds
James M. Nielsen 115,000 $1,564,325
Allwyn Sequeira 90,000 $1,223,400
Alan McMillan 70,000 $ 954,851
James O. Mitchell 60,000 $ 805,200
Ralph Ungermann 200,000 $2,756,525
Total 535,000 $7,304,301
AS AND FOR A
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Against All Defendants
(Section 10(b), Securities Act)
41. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 40 above as if fully set forth herein.
42. The reported financial results of FVC were materially
false and misleading, and Defendants knew or were reckless in
not knowing they were so, because they failed to disclose
material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about
the Company, its business and operations, as described in
paragraph 35 above, in violation of GAAP and SEC regulations,
in order to enable them and other senior officers of hte
Company to sell 535,000 shares of FVC common stock at inflated
prices for proceeds of over $7.3 million.
43. Defendants employed devices, schemes, and artifices
to defraud and engaged in acts, practices, and a course of
conduct in an effort to maintain artificially high market
prices for FVC common stock in violation of section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.
44. As a result of the dissemination of the aforesaid
false and misleading reports and releases, the market price of
the common stock of FVC throughout the Class Period was higher
than it would have been had the true facts concerning the
Company's financial condition been known by the market.
45. In ignorance of the artificially high market prices
of FVC's publicly traded common stock, and relying upon the
integrity of the market in which that stock was traded--the
Nasdaq National Market System--plaintiffs and the other members
of the Class acquired FVC common stock during the Class Period
at artificially inflated prices and were damaged thereby.
46. Had the market known of the true financial condition
of FVC, which was falsely represented by defendants, plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class would not have purchased or
otherwise acquired their FVC common stock during the Class
Period at artificially inflated prices at which they did.
Hence, plaintiffs and the other members of the Class were
damaged by defendants' violations of Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5.
AS AND FOR A
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Against Defendants Ralph Ungermann,
Richard M. Beyer, and James O. Mitchell
(Section 20(a), Exchange Act)
47. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations
of paragraphs 1 through 46 above as if fully set forth herein.
48. This claim is asserted against the Individual
Defendants and is based on section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The Individual Defendants acted as controlling persons of FVC
within the meaning of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. By
reason of their positions as officers and directors of FVC and
ownership of FVC stock, the Individual Defendants had the power
and authority to cause or to prevent the wrongful conduct of
herein and did exercise such power and authority.
49. By reason of the foregoing, the Individual Defendants
are liable jointly and severally with, and to the same extent,
as FVC for FVC's violations of section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the
Class, pray for judgment as follows:
(i) Declaring this action to be a proper plaintiff
class action maintainable pursuant to rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
declaring Plaintiffs to be a proper representative of the
Class.
(ii) Awarding Plaintiffs and all of the other
members of the Class damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, together with prejudgment interest thereon;
(iii) Awarding Plaintiffs the costs and expenses
incurred in this action, including reasonable attorneys',
accountants', and experts' fees; and
(iv) Granting Plaintiffs and the other members of
the Class such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
Dated: Los Angeles, California
November 24, 1999
LAW OFFICES OF LIONEL Z. GLANCY
By: _________________________
Lionel Z. Glancy
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Century City, CA
(310) 201-9150
RABIN & PECKEL LLP
Brian Murray
275 Madison Avenue, 34th floor
New York, New York 10016
(212) 682-1818
THE LAW OFFICE OF LEO W.
DESMOND
2161 Palm Beach Lake Blvd.
Suite 204
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
(561) 712-8000
REINHARDT & ANDERSON
Randall Steinmeyer
E-1000 National Bank Building
332 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612) 227-9990
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Source: File to epost from Law Offices of Lionel Z. Glancy