Starnet Signs Simulcast Agreement With Northfield Park Racetrack - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[RAZ]

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/991110/starnet_co_1.html

Wednesday November 10, 10:41 am Eastern Time

Company Press Release

Starnet Signs Simulcast Agreement With Northfield Park Racetrack

CEO Comments on Sale of Adult Entertainment Division

ST. JOHNS, Antigua--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 10, 1999--Starnet Communications International Inc. (OTC-BB:SNMM - news; ``Starnet``), is pleased to
announce that its wholly owned subsidiary, World Gaming Services Inc. (www.worldgaming.net) has entered into a simulcast agreement with Northfield Park, a
racetrack located in Northfield, Ohio for inter-raceway and live Internet horse racing broadcasts.

Northfield Park features harness racing and ranks as one of the top five handled tracks in all of North America. The track is home to two of the largest stakes races
in the US: the $150,000 Battle of Lake Erie and the $200,000 Miller Light Cleveland Classic, both for pacers. Offering over 14 races per night, Northfield offers the
largest fields of any half-mile track in the US, averaging over 8.5 starters per race.

Meldon Ellis, chief executive officer of Starnet said, ``We continue to build our capabilities and presence in the horse racing market and are very pleased to partner
with a track that generates as much excitement as Northfield Park. We look forward to launching our live online racing services in the near future and to working
together with Northfield Park.``

Dave Bianconi, director of simulcasting and publicity for Northfield Park said, ``We are very excited to be partnering with Starnet to distribute Northfield`s races
online. As a reputable, cutting-edge industry leader, Starnet makes an excellent partner. Together we look forward to penetrating new markets and creating new fans
with exciting new products.``

``Northfield Park`s year-round schedule makes it a particularly attractive venue,`` said Brant Allen, director of simulcasting for World Gaming Services, Inc.
``Pari-mutuel fans will soon be able to enjoy wagering all year long via Starnet`s dependable, exciting new services. Northfield Park is well known for its slogan,
`Every 19 minutes the place goes crazy!` and World Gaming Services, Inc. is pleased to bring that type of excitement and enthusiasm to our international wagering
audience.``

Commenting on the sale of Starnet`s adult entertainment division, Ellis added, ``Negotiations on the terms of a definitive purchase agreement are moving forward, but
have not yet been finalized. Although these negotiations have exceeded our estimation of the time required to close the transaction, both parties remain fully
committed to the letter of intent, and I have full confidence that we will be able to announce signing of a definitive agreement shortly.``

Starnet is a fully reporting US (Delaware) corporation, which is currently listed on the National Association of Security Dealers (``NASD``) Over-The-Counter
Bulletin Board and commenced trading in September of 1997 under the symbol ``SNMM``.

The Wall Street Journal has described Starnet as ``one of the established leaders in Internet gaming and entertainment``.

Starnet is a leading developer and producer of Internet technologies for gaming applications. For more information, please visit www.snmm.com.

[Mr. Bucket]

Hi RAZ, da haben wir uns wohl verpaßt ... und inzwischen kommt es wohl auch über yahoo...

vielleicht an dieser Stelle noch mal kurz in zwei Sätzen die zusammenfassung für die Leute, die mit Englisch so ihre Probleme haben:

Starnet schließt ein weiteres Abkommen für Pferderennen. Zu den Pornoseiten sagen sie, Obwohl die verhandlungen die von Starnet veröffentlichte Frist überzogen haben, kommen sie gut voran und die Verhandlungspartner stehen weiterhin beide voll hinter der Absichterklärung.

Wir werden also wieder mal vertröstet... Naja, besser als nichts! Und Pferderennen sind ja auch was schönes

MfG
ingmar

[buy]

Neues Interview von Ellis unter:

http://www.igamingnews.com/headlines.cfm

http://www.igamingnews.com/desktop/111599MeldonEllis/form.cf…


--Expect to re-apply to NAS in 90 days.
--RCMP thought business was in BC.
--Rapidly growing industry. This year i-gaming is a 600 mil. business, expected to be 6 bil. in 2001.
--Expanding site to accommodate more foreign languages.
--Believes asset freeze doesn`t comply with legal precedent.
--CA are formulated by law firms, not shareholders.
--Will not change policy, now that they are in Antigua regarding Starnet accepting NA wagers.


Hört sich mal wie immer nur positiv an !
buy

[RAZ]

Klasse buy,

gute news, die Du da ausgegraben hast. Sei doch bitte so nett und poste die andere Nachricht vom 10.11.99 ...

Nov 10, 1999
A Productive Week for Starnet
It appears that Starnet Communications has switched gears from disaster recovery back into the business of making deals. The company finished last week by inking a simulcast agreement with Sunland Park Racecourse and started this week by signing two new licensees. Today it announced the
its second simulcast partnership in six days.......

Leider ist die Abfrage kostenpflichtig.

Beste Grüße
RAZ

[buy]

Raz ,

Ich habe die oben genannten Information bezüglich des Interviews auch nur aus den anderen Boards, jedoch stimmen mich die genannten Fakten von Ellis sehr positiv für die kommende Zukunft von Starnet !

buy

[RAZ]

I totally agree!

RAZ

[investor_007]

Hallo RAZ,

das Interview ist nicht kostenpfilchtig!

Man muß nur die Fragen beantworten,
keine Registrierung!

mfg
investor_007

[Mr. Bucket]

Jetzt kommt Leben in die Starnet Support Klage!
Ist jemand von euch mit dabei?


By Berger & Montague, P.C. Alleging Violations of the Federal Securities Laws

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- Berger & Montague, P.C. (http://home.bm.net) announced that on October 26, 1999 it filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Starnet Communications International, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SNMM) ("Starnet" or the "Company". The lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers of Starnet common stock between March 11, 1999, and August 20, 1999, inclusive (the "Class Period".

The complaint charges that Starnet and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. The complaint further alleges that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements about the nature of the Company`s business and failed to disclose potential liabilities throughout the Class Period in the Company`s public filings and public statements.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Starnet routinely violates
Canadian gambling laws, and that the Company accepts wagers from North
Americans, contrary to public representations made throughout the Class Period.

As a result of these misrepresentations and omissions, the price of
Starnet`s common stock was artificially inflated throughout the Class Period,enabling Defendants to sell thousands of shares and reap millions of dollars in illicit insider trading profits. On August 20, 1999, after a massive
police raid, the truth was finally revealed and the stock price plummeted by
approximately 60% of its market price.

If you purchased Starnet securities during the Class Period, you may wish
to join the action. You may move the court to serve as a lead plaintiff on or
before December 14, 1999.
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has over 50 attorneys, all of whom represent plaintiffs in complex litigation. The Berger firm has extensiveexperience in representing plaintiffs in class action securities litigationand has played lead roles in major cases over the past 25 years which have resulted in recoveries in excess of two billion dollars to investors. The firm is currently representing investors as lead counsel in actions against Waste Management, Inc., Sunbeam Corp., and numerous other companies.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights with respect to this matter, you may call or write to:

Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.

Arthur Stock, Esq.

Douglas Risen, Esq.

Susan Kutcher, Investor Relations Manager

Berger & Montague, P.C.

1622 Locust Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Phone: [phone] or 215-875-3000

Fax: [phone]

Website: http://home.bm.net

e-mail: [e-mail]

SOURCE Berger & Montague, P.C.
-0- 10/26/1999 R
/CONTACT: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., or Arthur Stock, Esq., or Douglas
Risen, Esq., or Susan Kutcher, Investor Relations Manager, 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, or fax, 215-875-4604, or [e-mail], all of Berger &Montague, P.C./

/Web site: http://home.bm.net /
(SNMM)

CO: Berger & Montague, P.C.; Starnet Communications International, Inc.
ST: Pennsylvania, Delaware
IN: CPR CNO
SU: LAW


Ich bin rechtlich nicht so bewandert. Die Frage, die sich mir stellt: Könnte die RCMP dadurch verpflichtet werden, mit offenen Karten zu spielen?

Was meint ihr dazu?

MfG
Ingmar

[Mr. Bucket]

Aus dem RB Board: Artikel über Inet Gaming insgesamt. Also ist bei weitem nicht nur Starnet diesen Repressionen ausgesetzt... Na Hölle!

Thursday November 11 11:42 AM ET

Online Gambling Growing Rapidly

By Paul Kirby

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - From casino-type games such as slot machines, blackjack and video poker to betting on
the National Football League, World Cup soccer and professional golf, gambling is big business on the Internet and
getting bigger.

No one knows for sure how much money is being gambled on the Net. One research firm estimates that worldwide
online gambling revenue will total $1.2 billion this year and could grow to $2.1 billion in 2001.

There are 400 Web sites offering gambling, according to one estimate. All it takes is a credit card and anyone can
gamble from the convenience of home, 24 hours a day.

In an effort to skirt U.S. laws against gambling, many companies with Web sites have set up operations offshore in
such
exotic Caribbean locales as Antigua, Curacao and the Dominican Republic. But federal law enforcement authorities
are
pursuing the companies anyway.

In March 1998, 22 owners, managers or employees of 11 Internet sports betting firms headquartered in the
Caribbean
were charged in federal court in New York. Nine of them have pleaded guilty, cases against four are pending and
seven
of those charged remain fugitives. Two cases were dismissed.

Federal authorities say they will continue to monitor and prosecute offshore betting operations, but they acknowledge
it
is a formidable task.

`A Fluid Situation`

``These web sites appear and disappear constantly. It`s a fluid situation,`` said Thomas Fuentes, chief of the FBI`s
organized crime section. ``They can move a site literally halfway around the world in a nanosecond.``

Managers of the gambling Web sites said they are being targeted unfairly.

``We don`t think what we`re doing is illegal,`` said Steve Schillinger, vice president and director of wagering for World
Sports Exchange, an Antigua-based operation that says it takes annual bets of $100 million to $200 million.

Schillinger, one of those charged last year with illegal sports betting, refuses to return to the United States. He said
the
U.S. government does not have jurisdiction over his company because it is not based here.

Another of the company`s founders also remains in Antigua, while a third is scheduled to go on trial in February.

Schillinger said his company is simply providing a service. ``Gambling exists. If they`re not gambling on the Internet
they`re going around the corner and meeting their local bookies. I just think this is a good professional way to do it.``

Online gambling has also come under scrutiny in Congress.

A bill introduced by Arizona Republican Sen. Jon Kyl would ban all forms of Internet gambling. The Senate approved it

last year but Congress adjourned before the House could act. A similar measure has been introduced in the House
this
year and a Kyl aide said he is optimistic the measure will pass.

State law enforcement officials and the National Collegiate Athletic Association support the bill. It got a boost when a
federally appointed panel that spent two years studying gambling recommended in June that the federal government
ban
Internet gambling and encourage foreign governments not to permit such operations that market to U.S. citizens.

The FBI`s Fuentes said Congress can update statues against gambling, but they will still be difficult to enforce.

MfG
Ingmar

[Mr. Bucket]

Und noch was von der Supporter Front!

Starnet Shareholders Condemn Class Action Suits: Pledge Support for Starnet Communications
PEBBLE BEACH, Calif., Nov. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Shareholders of common stock in Starnet Communications International, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: SNMM - news), a leading provider of Internet gaming services, have publicly denounced the class action suits brought against the company by law firms. So far, more than 460 shareholders, most of whom qualify to be plaintiffs in the suits, have added their names to a petition supporting Starnet and its officers.

``We believe public statements made by the class action attorneys are misleading and their accusations against Starnet are without merit,`` stated Ed Starrs, spokesman for the Starnet Investors Group, which organized the petition drive. In seeking clients, the attacking firms have issued a stream of press releases containing erroneous information regarding Starnet`s business model and the company`s relationship with its investors. According to Starrs, ``Investors believe these self-serving attorneys are merely trying to exploit Starnet`s recent and temporary misfortunes. Our petition demonstrates that sentiment.``

A copy of the supportive petition, which continues to grow, has been forwarded to Starnet`s CEO, Meldon Ellis. According to Starrs, ``We started an independent petition drive because we won`t stand by while avaricious lawyers threaten our company, and we`ve been overwhelmed by the response from shareholders.`` Within hours of its distribution, hundreds of investors had attached their names to the following statement:

``As members of the class identified in the class action lawsuits against Starnet Communications and its officers, we strongly disagree with the premise of the suits. We were made fully aware of the risks associated with our investments in Starnet. Starnet informed us of these risks in multiple communications, including the company`s press releases, annual reports, SEC filings, company conference calls, its investor package, and through the Starnet corporate website. As a result of these communications, we fully understand Starnet`s business model. Moreover, we do not believe Starnet or its officers have acted illegally or irresponsibly, either in the execution of that model or in describing the model, and its inherent risks, to potential investors.``

``Many of us stand ready to offer testimony to prove that the class action suits are without merit,`` warned Starrs.

Starnet Communications remains the leader in the rapidly emerging I-gaming industry, has operated profitably the last 5 consecutive quarters and continues to add shareholder value. For more information regarding Starnet, please visit http://www.snmm.com .

The Starnet Investors Group is an independent organization formed by shareholders seeking to speak with a common voice on issues that affect their interests. The Starnet Investors Group is not affiliated with Starnet Communications International, Inc., its subsidiaries or its officers. The views and opinions expressed by the organization are solely its own and based on due diligence conducted by Group members. Starnet shareholders wishing to join the petition drive and/or the Starnet Investors Group can contact the Group at [e-mail].

[rich]

Lest euch mal den Artikel von der Anwaltskanzlei durch.
Die wissen ganz genau wen sie klagen,die haben über 50? Anwälte und haben in den letzten 25 Jahren über
2 Milliarden??? Dollar bei Sammelklagen für die geschädigten Investoren erstritten!!

Das ist eine Top-Anwaltskanzlei, mit einer unglaublichen Erfolgsstatistik!

rich

[Offi]

Welche Anwaltskanzlei?,
wieviele Klagen?,
gegen welche Unternehmen?,
welche Art von Sammelklagen?,...
Links oder Quellen bitte!

Nix für ungut

Offi

[rich]

offi

vier Postings weiter oben
10.58Uhr

rich

[rich]

Hab mir mal grad die Homepage angeschaut, die haben heuer schon über 40 Sammelklagen eingebracht allein 8 im Oktober.
Die machen gar nichts anderes!

nachzulesen unter

http://home.bm.net/

hier die gewonnenen Sammelklagen:

Prominent Judgments & Settlements

Alan and Beverly Tapken, et al. v. David F. Brown, et al., (General Development Securities Litigation) Civil Action No. 90-0691 (S.D. Fl.): The firm achieved a $10 million settlement.

Church v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., No. C-90-2290-DLJ (N.D. Cal), reported at, inter alia, 1993 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. 7,743 (May 3, 1993), 1992 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. 7,047 (Sept. 14, 1992), 1991 Fed Sec. L. Rep. 96,162 (June 14, 1991): The firm acted as co-lead counsel on behalf of former employees of Emery Air Freight to assert claims for ERISA, securities and age discrimination violations in connection with the acquisition by Consolidated Freightways.

In re Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan and IRAP Litig., No. 85 Civ. 9545 (VLB) (S.D.N.Y.), reported at, inter alia, 957 F.2d 1020 (2d Cir. 1992): The firm, as co-lead counsel, participated in lengthy litigation with the U.S. Department of Labor to recover losses to retirement plans resulting from imprudent and prohibited investments. Settlements in excess of $20 million, which fully recovered lost principal, were obtained to resolve claims of fiduciary breaches in selecting and monitoring investment managers and investments.

Rose v. Cooney, No. 5:92-CV-208 (D. Conn.): The firm, acting as lead counsel, obtained more than $29 million in cash and payment guarantees from Xerox Corporation to resolve claims of breach of fiduciary duty for plan investments in interest contracts issued by Executive Life Insurance Company.

Allen Organ Co. v. North American Rockwell Corp., reported at, inter alia, 363 F. Supp. 1117 (E.D. Pa. 1973): The firm served as co-trial counsel for plaintiff in 1976 in a five and one-half month trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Honorable E. Mac Troutman which resulted in a complex multi-million dollar settlement for plaintiff.

Allwardt, et al, v. Barth, et al., C.A. No. 81-488-RJM (E.D. Wash.): The firm served as lead defense and trial counsel in an antitrust price-fixing case brought by hops growers.

AM International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. M-21-31 (S.D.N.Y.): The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained class settlements of approximately $20 million.

In re Amdahl Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-92-20609-JW(EAI) (N.D. Cal.): The firm obtained a class settlement of $13 million.

In re Ashland Oil Spill Litigation, Master File No. M-14670, (W.D. Pa 1990): The firm served as co-lead counsel and obtained $30 million settlement for damages resulting from one of the largest oil spills in the country.

In re Asbestos School Litig., No. 83-0268 (E.D. Pa.), reported at, inter alia, 104 F.R.D. 422 (E.D. Pa. 1984), aff`d in part, vacated in part sub nom., In re School Asbestos Litig., 789 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 182, 318 (1986): As co-lead counsel, the firm successfully litigated class certification of a nationwide class of elementary and secondary schools and school districts suffering property damage as a result of asbestos in their buildings. Pursuant to a recently approved settlement, the class receives $70 million in cash and $145 million in discounts toward replacement building materials.

In re Baldwin United Corp. Litigation, 105 F.R.D. 475 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), 607 F. Supp. 1312 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), 770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1985), 122 F.R.D. 424, 122 F.R.D. 429 (S.D.N.Y. 1986): The firm achieved settlements of $170 million in consolidated action against broker-dealers which sold Baldwin-United annuities.

BankAmerica Securities Litigation, CV 85-4779 (C.D. Cal.): A settlement of $39.25 million, believed to be the largest derivative settlement ever obtained in a securities action, was obtained by the firm.

Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., No. 71-1137 (E.D. Pa.), reported at inter alia, 561 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1086 (1978); 738 F.2d 587 (3rd Cir. 1984), 621 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985); 596 F. Supp. 62 (E.D. Pa. 1984): As sole lead counsel for a national class of more than 100,000 gasoline dealers against 13 major oil companies, the firm achieved settlements yielding more than $35 million plus equitable relief on the eve of trial.

In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., No. 94 C 897 (M.D. Ill.): The firm currently serves as co-lead counsel in this antitrust price-fixing class action on behalf of a class of purchasers of brand name prescription drugs. Following certification of the class by the district court, partial settlements were reached for $350 million, plus injunctive relief. The order affirming these partial settlements is currently the subject of an appeal to the Seventh Circuit.

In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 92 CIV. 4007 (JES) (S.D.N.Y.): As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained a class settlement of $19 million which was approved March 10, 1995.

Burger King Corporation v. Richard J. Colarusso and Cormani, Inc., No. 82-1963- Civ-JWK (S.D. Fla.) (Kehoe, J.) and Richard J. Colarusso, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Burger King Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 82-5324 (E.D. Pa.) (Shapiro, J.): The firm served as lead defense counsel for Burger King Corporation.

Local 56 U.F.C.W. v. Campbell Soup Co., 93-MC-276 (SSB) (D.N.J.): The firm represented a class of retired Campbell Soup employees in an ERISA class action to preserve and restore retiree medical benefits. A recent settlement has yielded benefits to the class with a present value of $114.5 million.

In re Carbon Dioxide Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 940 (M.D. Fla.): The firm was co-trial counsel in this antitrust class action which settled with the last defendant days prior to trial, for total settlements approximating $53 million, plus injunctive relief.

Cassidy Distributing Service v. ADVO-System, Inc., John Blair, Inc., and John Blair Marketing, Civil Action No. 84-34647 (E.D. Pa.) (Scirica, J.): The firm served as lead defense counsel in a monopoly and anti-merger case.

In re Cepahlon Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 96 CV-0633 (E.D. Pa.): As co-lead counsel, the firm achieved a class settlement of $17 million, approved July 30, 1999.

Challenge Communications, Ltd. v. Bell Canada, Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC" Decisions 77-11, 77-12 and 77-16: The firm served as lead counsel for Applicant (plaintiff) in three evidentiary hearings before the CRTC which resulted in the first precedent breaking Bell Canada`s monopoly over telecommunications equipment connected to its telephone network.

In re Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-1-83-1721 (S.D. Ohio): A class settlement of $13.9 million was achieved.

In re Coleco Securities Litigation, Master File No. 83 Civ. 9199 (S.D.N.Y.): As lead counsel, the firm obtained a class settlement of $15.75 million which was approved October 2, 1986.

In re Compaq Securities Litigation, Civil Action H-91-9191 (S.D. Tex.): The firm, as co-lead counsel achieved a class settlement of $14 million.

In re Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings in Ampex Securities Cases, Master File No. C-72-360-SW (N.D. Cal.): The firm obtained a class settlement of $9 million.

Continental-Illinois Securities Litigation, C.A.-No. 84-C-8596 (N.D. Ill.): As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained a class settlement of $17.5 million which was approved on January 21, 1987.

In Cook, et al. v. Rockwell International Corporation, et al., (Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Facility Litigation), Civil Action No. 90-181 (D. Col.) (Babcock, L.) (reported at, inter alia, 907 F. Supp. 1460 (D. Colo. 1995); 151 F.R.D. 378 (D.Colo. 1993); and 147 F.R.D. 237 (D. Colo. 1993)), after a one week trial conducted by Mr. Davidoff of Berger & Montague, Judge Kane held the United Department of Energy in contempt of court and levied precedent-setting sanctions against DOE in November 1995 and February 1996.

In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 310 (S.D. Tex.): The firm, by Mr. Montague, was co-trial counsel in an antitrust class action which yielded a settlement of $366 million, plus interest, following a trial.

Council on Social Work Education, Inc., et al. v. Texas Instruments Inc., et al., C.A.No. CA-83-1083-H (N.D. Tex.): Settled for $12 million, this case was then the largest securities class action settlement in the history of that Court.

In re Crocker Shareholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. No. 7405, Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, New Castle County: The firm obtained a class settlement estimated in excess of $35 million.

Cytryn, et al. v. Cook, et al., No. C-89-20801-RFP (N.D. Cal.) (Raychem Securities Litigation): The firm as co-lead counsel obtained a class settlement of $19.5 million, approved on May 1, 1992.

David Stein, et al. v. James C. Marshall, et al., No. CIV 89-66 PHX-CAM (D. Ariz.) (In re Residential Resources Mortgage Investment Corporation Securities Litigation): As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained a class settlement in excess of $10 million, approved on September 7, 1990.

Delgozzo v. Kenny, Docket No. L-04603-88 (Super. Ct. N.J.): This was a class action involving defective water heaters brought under state law theories of breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and contract.

Lawrence Robbins, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Case No. 90-896-Civ-J-10 (N.D. Fla.) (Koger Properties Securities Litigation): This was a class action in which an $81 million jury verdict was obtained on March 7, 1995 on behalf of a class of investors in Koger Properties against an accounting firm.

In re Diagnostek, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CIV-92-1274 JB/WWD (D. New Mex.): A class settlement of $16 million was achieved.

Dixie Brewing Co., Inc. v. John Barth, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 84-4112 and all related cases (E.D. Pa.) (Hannum, J.): The firm served as lead counsel for defendants in antitrust class action and in prior government proceedings.

In re The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc., 90 Civ. 6954 (MP), Chapter 11 Case No. 90 B 10421 (FGC), Jointly Administered, reported at, inter alia, 960 F.2d 285 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. dismissed, 506 U.S. 1088, 113 S.Ct. 1070, 122 L.Ed.2d 497 (1993) ("Drexel 1" and 995 F.2d 1138 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Drexel II": The firm was appointed co-counsel for a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(B) mandatory non-opt-out class consisting of all claimants who had filed billions of dollars in securities litigation-related proofs of claim against The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries. Settlements in excess of $2.0 billion were approved in August 1991 and became effective upon consummation of Drexel`s Plan of Reorganization on April 30, 1992.

Engel v. Elsner (Tandon Securities Litigation), CV 86-4566-RSWL (Kx) (C.D. Cal.): The firm obtained a class settlement of in excess of $16 million, approved March 15, 1988.

In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, Case No. A89-0095-CVCHRH (D. Alaska): The firm, by H. Laddie Montague, served as a member of plaintiffs’ executive committee and one of the lead trial counsel in this complex federal class action. On September 16, 1994, a jury trial of several months duration resulted in a record punitive damages award of $5 billion against the Exxon defendants and in favor of the class.

In re First Pennsylvania Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 77-1610 (E.D. Pa.): The firm obtained a class settlement in excess of $11 million.

Foyt Enterprises, Inc. v. Championship Auto Racing Teams, No. IP96-0794 (S.D.Indiana); and Championship Auto Racing Teams v. Indianapolis Motor Speedway, et al., No. 96-71301 (E.D. Mich.), Foyt v. Championship Auto Racing Teams, No.H-96-0006 (S.D. Tex.), and Foyt Enterprises, Inc. v. Championship Auto Racing Teams, H-96-1993 (S.D. Tex.): The firm, by Mr. Davidoff, successfully represented Championship Auto Racing Teams, Inc. in a group of related actions involving claims and counter-claims under the trademark and antitrust laws.

In re Genentech, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-88-4038-DLJ (N.D. Cal.): A class settlement of $29 million was achieved with the firm as co-lead counsel.

In re Glassine & Greaseproof Paper Antitrust Litig., reported at 88 F.R.D. 302 (E.D. Pa. 1980): The firm served as co-lead counsel in this antitrust action resulting in a recovery of approximately $16 million for plaintiff class members.

Glosser v. Posner, 89 Civ. 3789 (MP) (S.D.N.Y.): As lead counsel, the firm obtained a settlement in the amount of $21 million against Victor Posner, and additional settlements against related defendants, on behalf of the Trustee for Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. The settlement was approved by the District Court on August 31, 1994 and by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on October 27, 1994.

In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, Master File No. CY-91-3015-AAM (E.D. Wa.) (McDonald, A.): The firm serves as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in class actions alleging environmental contamination in nuclear weapons facilities` cases.

In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1087, Civ. No. 95-14-77 (C.D. Ill.): The firm serves as co-lead counsel in this antitrust price-fixing class action. The class was certified on June 28, 1996, and an early partial settlement with one relatively minor defendant has yielded $7 million to date.

In re Home Shopping Network Securities Litigation -- Action I, Case No. 87-428-Civ-T-13(A) (M.D. Fla.): As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained a class settlement of $18.2 million, approved on October 15, 1991.

In re Hops Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 706 and Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. John Barth, Inc., et al., MDL No. 706 C.A. No. 86-0420, et al., (E.D. Mo. 1986): The firm served as lead counsel for defendants in antitrust actions brought by four large U.S. brewers.

Houston Oil Securities Litigation, C.A. No. H-82-551 (S.D. Tex.): The firm had major participation in obtaining a class settlement of $45 million, approved on December 16, 1986.

Hoxworth v. Blinder Robinson & Co., 980 F.2d 912 (3d Cir. 1992): The firm won affirmance of $73 million default judgment.

In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 878 (N.D. Fla. 1992): The firm served as co-lead counsel in an antitrust class action where settlement with a final defendant was achieved two days prior to trial, bringing the total settlement proceeds to $125 million.

In re Insurance Antitrust Litig., No. C-88-1688 CAL (N.D. Cal.), reported at, inter alia, 113 S.Ct. 2891 (1993); 938 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1991): The firm served as lead counsel in an action resulting in structural reforms in the reinsurance market.

In re Ivan F. Boesky Securities Litigation, MDL Dkt. No. 732, M21-45-MP (S.D.N.Y.), reported at, inter alia, 948 F.2d 1358 (2d Cir. 1991): The firm, as co-lead/liaison counsel in complex multi-district proceedings consisting of over 24 class, derivative and individual actions arising out of alleged insider trading by Ivan F. Boesky, obtained settlements of more than $50 million from Boesky and related Boesky entities. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed these settlements on November 12, 1991, and additional substantial settlements with related defendants currently await final judicial approval.

J/H Real Estate Inc. v. Abramson, (US Healthcare Litigation), 901 F. Supp. 952 (E.D. Pa. 1995): The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement of $22 million on behalf of purchasers of US. Healthcare common stock.

Kaplan v. T. Rowe Price Association, Inc., Y-79-1434 (D. Md.): This securities class action successfully settled in May 1981 during a jury trial in Baltimore.

In re Kenbee Limited Partnerships Litigation, Civil Action No. 91-2174 (GEB) (D. NJ): The firm served as co-lead counsel in a class action involving 119 separate limited partnerships resulting in a cash settlement and debt restructuring with as much as $100 million in potential wrap mortgage reductions. The settlement was approved November 19, 1992.

In re LILCO Securities Litigation, 84 Civ. 0588 (LDW) (E.D.N.Y.): As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained a settlement of $48.5 million, approved on October 11, 1988.

In re Lomas Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. CA-3-89-1962-G (N.D. Tex.): The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement in excess of $20 million which was approved on January 28, 1992.

In re Louisiana Pacific Securities Litigation, CV95-849FRF (D. Or.): The firm, as Executive Committee member, achieved a settlement of $65 million.

In re Louisville Explosions Litigation, Master File No. 81-0080-L(B) (W.D. Ky.) (Ballantine, J.): The firm served as co-lead counsel for plaintiff class in the first mass tort class action trial in federal court resulting in a precedent-setting $26 million settlement for class members, on a formula basis, awarding 150%+ -- 300%+ of compensatory damages for over 17,000 residents, businesses and other entities in the City of Louisville, Kentucky.

In re Medical Care America, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 3-92 CV 1996-R (N.D. Tex.) A class settlement of $60 million was achieved.

In re Melridge Securities Litigation, CV87-1426FR (D. Or.): The firm served as lead counsel and co-trial counsel for a class of purchasers of Melridge common stock and convertible debentures. A four-month jury trial yielded a verdict in plaintiffs` favor for $88.2 million, and judgment was entered on RICO claims against certain defendants for $239 million. To date, the Court has approved settlements totaling $55.4 million.

Meyer Feldman v. Motorola, Inc., Consolidated Civil Action No. 90 C 5887 (N.D. Ill.): The firm, as sole lead counsel, obtained a class settlement of $15 million, approved June 28, 1995.

In re Michael Milken and Associates Securities Litigation, MDL Dkt. No. 924, M21-62-MP (S.D.N.Y.), reported at 995 F.2d 1138 (2d Cir. 1993): As Court-appointed liaison counsel, the firm was one of four lead counsel who structured the $1.3 billion "global" settlement of all claims pending against Michael R. Milken and over 200 present and former officers and directors of Drexel Burnham Lambert and more than 350 Drexel/Milken-related entities. The settlement became effective on September 29, 1993.

In re NASDAQ Market Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1023, 94 Civ. 3996 (S.D.N.Y.): The firm, served on the plaintiffs` class action and discovery committees in an antitrust class action lawsuit against 34 leading market makers on the NASDAQ securities market. On November 26, 1996, in a ground-breaking decision, the court certified a class of all purchasers and sellers of 1,659 different securities over a five-year class period. A settlement of over $1.02 billion was approved in 1998.

Naye v. Boyd, (Seafirst Securities Litigation), C83-771R (W.D. Wash.): The firm, as lead counsel, obtained a class settlement of $13.6 million, approved on March 24, 1987.

In re Oak Industries Securities Litigation, No. 83-0537-G(M) (S.D. Cal.): The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement in excess of $33 million, approved on August 29, 1986.

Penn Central Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 56: The firm obtained a total settlement for all plaintiff entities, including a shareholder class, in excess of $10.5 million.

In re Philadelphia Electric Company Derivative Litigation, No. 0387-7090 (C.P. Phila. County): A $34 million settlement was achieved by the firm.

Provident American Corporation, et al. v. The Loewen Group, Inc., et al. (U.S.D.C. Ed. Pa. CA No. 92-1964). The firm recovered $30 million for a claimed 10 year verbal contract case.

In re Policy Management Systems Corporation, Civil Action No. 3-93-0807-17 (D. S.C.) and Spear, et al. v. Ernst & Young, et al., Civil Action No. 3-94-1150-17 (D. S.C.): The firm, as lead counsel, achieved a class settlement of $32 million.

Presidential Life Insurance Co. v. Milken, 92 Civ. 1151 (MP), MDL Dkt. No. 924 (S.D.N.Y.): The firm was appointed class counsel to the claimants in an unprecedented "global" class action consisting of all persons with claims against Michael R. Milken and over 550 related persons and entities who had not previously asserted Milken-related claims in other proceedings. The action yielded a settlement of approximately $50 million, approved July 17, 1992.

In re Public Service Company of New Mexico Class and Derivative Actions, Master File No. 91-536-K-(M) (S.D. Cal.): The firm, as lead counsel for class plaintiffs, obtained a class and derivative settlement of $33 million, approved on June 29, 1992.

In re RAC Mortgage Investment Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. K89-1796 (D. Md.): The firm was a member of plaintiffs` executive committee which obtained a class settlement of $11 million and was approved on December 4, 1991.

Red Eagle Resources Corp., Inc., v. Baker Hughes, Inc., C.A. No. H-91-627 (S.D. Tex. 1991): The firm was a member of the plaintiffs` executive committee in this antitrust class action which yielded a settlement of $52.5 million.

Retla Steamship Co. v. Pan Ocean Bulk Carriers, Ltd., Civil Action No. 79,1437 HP (C.D. Cal.), reported at, inter alia, 1979-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) Para. 62,819 (C.D. Cal. 1979): The firm served as Lead counsel for Retla Steamship Co. in complex antitrust and Shipping Act litigations in the Central District of California and before the Federal Maritime Commission.

In re Revco Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:89-CV-00593 (N.D. Ohio) (Aldrich, J.): The firm served as lead counsel for plaintiffs in precedent-setting securities class action on behalf of high yield debtholders; settlements reached a total of $36 million.

In re Richard J. Dennis Litigation (Master File No. 88 Civ. 8928 (S.D.N.Y.): The firm, as lead counsel in a precedent-setting class action, secured a settlement whereby a commodities trader agreed to make a $2.5 million dollar cash payment and to disgorge one-half of its profits over a three year trading period.

RJR Nabisco Securities Litigation, 88 Civ. 7905(MBM) (S.D.N.Y.): This case settled for $72 million.

In re Smithkline Beckman Corporation Securities Litigation, CCH Fed. Sec. L. Rep. Para. 95,686 (E.D. Pa. 1990): A class settlement of $22 million was achieved.

The Southland Corporation Securities Litigation, Cause No. 87-8834-K (Dist. Ct., Dallas County, Tex.): The firm obtained a class settlement of more than $20 million, approved on October 20, 1987.

Steiner v. Phillips, Consolidated Civil Action No. 3-89-1387-X (N.D. Tex.) (Southmark Securities Litigation): The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained several class settlements approved on March 14, 1994 and November 28, 1994, which to date have generated recoveries of approximately $73 million.

In re Storage Technology Securities Litigation, Case No. 92-B-750 (D. Colo.) and Sally Felzen, et al. v. Ryal R. Poppa, et al. and Storage Technology Corp., Case No. 92-B-1059 (D. Colo.): As co-lead counsel, the firm obtained class and derivative settlements of $55 million, approved December 1, 1995.

In re Sunrise Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-95-3605-J(CGA) (S.D. Cal.) --A class settlement of $20 million was achieved.

In re Subaru of America, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Camden County, Master Docket No. C-00016-90: A class settlement with benefits to the class of over $70 million was achieved.

In re Synergen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 93 B-402 (D. Colo): The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement of $28 million which was approved March 7, 1995.

In re Three Mile Island Litigation, C.A. No. 79-0432: The firm obtained a settlement of $25 million in this mass tort class action. The firm, by Daniel Berger, was also principal counsel on behalf of the Three Mile Island Public Health Fund, a fund established pursuant to the settlement of class litigation arising out of the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility in 1979, and was instrumental in obtaining $20 million on behalf of property owners and commercial businesses for damages resulting from the TMI accident. As part of the award in the case, David Berger established a committee of internationally renowned scientists to determine the effects of escaped low level radiation on human beings. As a result, several important studies have been issued and are highly acclaimed by the press and scientific journals. These studies have been used in connection with the Chernobyl disaster.

In re Tucson Electric Power Company Securities Litigation, Civ. 89-1274 PHX WPC (D. Ariz.): A $30 million settlement of class and derivative actions was approved.

In re Unisys Corp. Retiree Medical Benefits ERISA Litig., MDL No. 969 (E.D. Pa.), reported at, inter alia, 58 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1995); 57 F.3d 1255 (3d Cir. 1995); 837 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Pa. 1993): The firm, as co-lead counsel, handled the presentation of over 70 witnesses, 30 depositions, and over 700 trial exhibits in this still-pending action that has resulted in partial settlements of over $110 million (approximately 70% of the face value of the settled plaintiffs` claims) for retirees whose health benefits were terminated.

In re U.S. Bioscience, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 92-0678 (E.D. Pa.): The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement valued at $15.25 million, approved April 4, 1994.

In re United Telecommunications, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 90-2251-EEO (D. Kan.): The firm, as co-lead counsel, obtained a class settlement of $28 million, approved June 1, 1994.

Walco Investments, Inc. et al. v. Kenneth Thenen, et al., (Premium Sales), 881 F. Supp. 1576 (S.D. Fla. 1995), 168 F.R.D. 315 (S.D. Fla. 1996), 947 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Fla. 1996): The firm, as a member of Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, obtained settlements of $141 million for investors victimized by a Ponzi scheme.

In re Warner Communications Securities Litigation, 618 F. Supp. 735 (S.D.N.Y. 1986): The firm obtained a class settlement of $18.4 million.

Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation, M.D.L. 551 (W.D. Wash): Class settlements of approximately $700 million were achieved.

In re Waste Management, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 97 C 7709 (N.D. Ill.): As co-lead counsel, the firm achieved a class settlement of $220 million in 1999.

In re Water Heater Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 379 (E.D. Pa., Slip Op. Aug. 8, 1980): The firm was lead counsel in this antitrust action yielding a recovery in excess of $30 million for class members.

In re Zenith Laboratories Securities Litigation, (D.N.J.): Settled for $12 million after three days of trial

[Gabriel_M]

Hey Rich,

so wie ich Dein Posting mal durchgelesen habe, sind die meisten Firmen die hier erwähnt werden, nicht wegen Insidergeschäften angeklagt worden. (oder liege ich falsch)

Eines ist aber sicher, auch wenn wir StarnetAktionäre uns nur das beste wünschen, wenn Insiderverkaüfe ohne Voranmeldung bei der SEC erfolgt sind
(und dies kann offensichtlich bewiesen werden) dann ist die Klage dagegen auch richtig. Ich weiss noch das genau in dieser Zeit die, es war auch ein Thema hier, Aktienanzahl von 24 Mill auf 30 Mill stieg. Also irgendwer hat gut Cash gemacht. Und wenn das ein Insider ist, dann soll er auch dafür bluten.
Für mich ist Starnet ein Investment, und keine Religion.

Gruss Gabriel

[GENlUS]

Bleibt noch die Frage, wie hoch deren Erfolgsquote ist.
Die aufgeführten Unternehmen sind doch gar nicht aussagekräftig.
Eine große Kanzlei wird auch immer einen bestimmten Prozentanteil ihrer Prozesse gewinnen.

Zudem könnten sich einige Unternehmen tatsächlich zu weit aus dem Fenster gelehnt haben in ihren Prognosen oder andern Dingen.

[rich]

gabriel

nein eher selten Insiderhandel, so blöd sind ja auch nicht viele die sich dabei erwischen lassen.
im übrigen wirft man Starnet ja auch nicht nur Insiderhandel vor sondern auch Falschaussagen,Unterlassung usw.

Geklagt haben die Jungs aber so ziemlich alles was Rang und Namen hat:
hier nur ein Auszug:



In the area of securities litigation, the firm represents institutional investors such as the City of Philadelphia and the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana as well as numerous individual investors with relatively small damages. The firm was co-lead counsel in the Melridge Securities Litigation in the Federal District Court in Oregon where an $88.2 million verdict was obtained. Other major class and derivative securities cases in which significant recoveries were obtained and where Berger & Montague served as a lead counsel are cases against the following companies: BankAmerica (derivative settlement of $39.25 million); Bristol-Myers Squibb (class settlement of $20 million); Crocker Bank (class settlement of $35 million); Raychem (class settlement of $19.5 million); Genentech (class settlement of $29 million); Home Shopping Network (class settlement of $18.2 million); Long Island Lighting Company (“LILCO”) (class settlement of $48.5 million); Motorola (class settlement of $15 million); Oak Industries (class settlement in excess of $35 million); Philadelphia Electric ($34 million derivative settlement); Policy Management (class settlement of $32 million); Public Service Company of New Mexico (class and derivative settlements of $33 million); Revco (settlements totaling $36 million); SmithKline Beckman (class settlement of $22 million); Southmark (several settlements totaling $73 million); Storage Technology ($55 million settlement); Sunrise Medical (class settlement of $20 million); Subaru (class settlement of $70 million); Synergen (class settlement of $28 million); Tucson Electric Power (class and derivative settlements of $30 million); U.S. Bioscience (class settlement valued at $15.25 million); United Telecommunications (class settlement of $28 million).


trotzdem würde ich diese Klage nicht überbewerten, Starnet steht und fällt mit der RCMP

rich

[Gabriel_M]

Genau Rich,


dies habe ich de öfteren gepostet.
Die Beweisaufnahme der RCMP und daraus
folgend eine Anklage, ist das Maß aller Dinge. Wobei eine Anklage, wie schon von mir erwähnt immer noch kein Urteil ist.

Deshalb habe ich schon mal gepostet, wenn die eingefrorenen Gelder freigegeben werden, dann kann man positiver in die Zukunft sehen. Solange dies nicht passiert hat die Staatsanwaltschaft etwas in der Hand.

Gruss Gabriel

[anil]

Hallo,
ich habe mich letzte Woche auch an der
Petition fuer Starnet beteiligt und an
SIG geschrieben.

Meine einfachen Fragen sind:
1. wenn der Kurs sich wieder aufgrund
der Funfamentals und Freigabe der Gelder oder aehnliches erholen sollte, sagen wir mal so in einem halben bis Jahr auf 10-15 US$, ist dann nicht
die Klage gegenstandlos geworden?
2. wenn auf der Supporter Seite
jetzt ca. einige hundert Investoren stehen,
die die Punkte der Klage durch Ihre
eigenen Aussagen und Stellungnahmen
entkraeften, ist dann nicht auch dann die Klage gegenstandslos geworden?

Fuer mich ist also nicht so klar und eindeutig ,dass Starnet in diesen Punkten der Falschaussage zu ihrem eigenem Geschaeft angeklagt werden kann,
oder sehe ich das falsch???
Ich besitze jetzt auch wieder einen kleinen Posten an Starnetaktien.
Gruesse
Anil Jain

[rich]

anil

Beiden Fragen ein klares Nein!!

Auch wenn sich der Kurs sofort wieder erhohlt haben in dieser Zeit viele Investoren einen Haufen Geld verloren, viele haben mit hohem Verlust verkauft.
Viele sind schon Banrott!!

Die Petition der 400 Starnet-Aktionäre ist eine völlig sinnlose Aktion!

rich

[buy]

NEWS !

Neuer Track !

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/991119/starnet_de_1.html