NEW YORK, April 2, 2002 (PRIMEZONE) -- Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, www.kmslaw.com, reminds investors that securities class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of investors in the following securities during the periods set forth below by the law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, investors have a narrow window of time (as set forth below) to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in these lawsuits:
CORPORATION CLASS PERIOD
Corning, Inc. (NYSE:GLW) 09/27/00 - 07/10/01
(Lead Plaintiff deadline is 04/13/02)
Contact: Orie Braun at obraun@kmslaw.com
Medi-Hut (Nasdaq:MHUT) 04/04/00 - 02/04/02
(Lead Plaintiff deadline is 04/29/02)
Contact: Orie Braun at obraun@kmslaw.com
Metawave Communications Corp. (Nasdaq:MTWV) 04/24/01 - 03/14/02
(Lead Plaintiff deadline is 05/17/02)
Contact: Diem Tran at dtran@kmslaw.com
Specifically, the complaints filed in these actions allege:
CORNING, INC.: defendants, including certain of its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants knew that disclosure of the weakening of demand for the Company's products, accumulation of obsolete inventory, risks of an acquisition planned by the Company, and the inadequate basis for the Company's growth projections would derail the planned $4.4 billion common stock and zero-coupon convertible bond offering that they had announced on September 27, 2000. Corning's top executives determined to knowingly conceal adverse information about the company's operations and prospects. The resulting false and misleading statements and omissions in Corning's Prospectus/Registration Statement and other public statements during the Class Period were intended to allow, and did allow, Corning to successfully complete the multibillion-dollar public offering on November 6, 2001. Defendants were motivated to, and did, fraudulently and/or recklessly fail to disclose the material facts concerning these matters in order to raise $4.4 billion from the investing public through the common stock and zero-coupon convertible debenture offering and in order to use the proceeds thereof to bankroll the acquisition by the Company.
MEDI-HUT: defendants, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These violations, the complaint alleges, stem from defendants' materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period that, as detailed below: (i) misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial performance; and (ii) caused the Company's shares to trade at artificially-inflated prices. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Medi-Hut misled the investing public by failing to disclose that a Medi-Hut vice president, Lawrence Marasco, had a controlling interest in Larval Corp. ("Larval") -- the Company's largest customer. During fiscal year 2001, sales to Larval accounted for 62% of Medi-Hut's revenues. Because Marasco had a controlling interest in one of Medi-Hut's customers, generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") dictated that Medi-Hut identify sales to that customer as related party transactions. Defendants, however, failed to disclose the true nature of Medi-Hut's sales to Larval. Indeed, each report Medi-Hut filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period, including quarterly and annual reports, was devoid of any reference to the fact that one of its largest customers was controlled by a Medi-Hut employee. The complaint alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by defendants influenced the views of stock market analysts and the investing public and brought about an unrealistic assessment of the Company's performance and prospects; and that, as a result, Medi-Hut's stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. On February 4, 2002, the nature of the relationship between Medi-Hut, Marasco and Larval Corp. was revealed to the market. The investing public, recognizing that a majority of Medi-Hut's revenues in fiscal year 2001 were generated via sales to a related party, reacted swiftly and severely. By the close of business on February 4, shares of Medi-Hut had lost 51% of their value, falling $3.41 per share to $3.29 in unusually heavy trading. Four days later, Grant Thornton LLP resigned its position as Medi-Hut's independent auditor, only two weeks after having secured that position.
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION: defendants, including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The violations, as the complaint alleges, stem from the issuance of allegedly false and misleading financial statements and financial projections during the Class Period, which had the effect - during the class period - of artificially-inflating the price of Metawave's shares. On March 14, 2002, after the close of the markets, Metawave issued a press release disclosing a number of surprises concerning the company, including: (i) that it would restate its 2001 earnings, reducing revenue by $5 million to $7 million out of the $43.6 million of total revenue previously reported, a change of 11% to 15%, because of "unauthorized commitments" made to customers in Asia; (ii) that it would terminate its SpotLight GSM product line due to "insufficient customer demand"; (iii) that it would close its Taiwan facilities, cut its Chinese operation and reduce its United States workforce by 42% in an effort to lower operating expenses; (iv) that the restructuring would result in a first quarter (2002) charge of $23 million to cover inventory and accounts receivable write-offs, employee severance, facilities closures, and other shutdown costs; (v) that it had fired its Chief Financial Officer, Stuart Fuhlendorf; and (vi) that it had revised its first-quarter 2002 revenue guidance to about $6 million, well below the $8.5 million to $9 million range Wall Street had been led to expect for the Company's first quarter (2002) revenue. After disclosure that Metawave's current financial results would not be as expected, and that previously-reported financial results would be even lower than reported, Metawave's shares swiftly lost more than 70% of their value.
Pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, if you are a member of the proposed classes described above, you may, no later than the deadlines listed above, request the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as `lead plaintiff.' Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff.
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP, specializes in complex litigation, including securities class actions. Kirby McInerney & Squire has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various courts which have appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi-district litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and its achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in published decisions. More information about the firm, class actions in general, or about the role of the lead plaintiff in a securities class action can be obtained at Kirby McInerney & Squire's website at www.kmslaw.com, or you can contact the firm at: