CAR_Public/010525.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 25 2001, Vol. 3, No. 103

                              Headlines

AMERICO LIFE: Ohio Subsidiary Sued For Breach in Insurance Policy
ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Settles Securities Suits in Mass. For $1.2 Million
AVON PRODUCTS: 10 Year-Old Securities Suit Goes to Trial This Year
CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
CASINO DATA: Board of Directors Files Answer to Shareholders Complaint

CENTRAL GARDEN: Banks on $51 M Insurance to Cover Phoenix Liability
CINCINNATI GAS: Former Subsidiary Corporation Files Liability Suit
CLARUS CORPORATION: Shareholders File Consolidated Securities Plaint
CONSECO FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Appeal With 8th Circuit Remains Pending
CYMER INC.: Court Has Yet to Rule on Company's Motion to Dismiss

DEPARTMENT 56: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in Minnesota
ENCAD INC.: Opts to Settle Antitrust Lawsuit in Colorado For $1.5 M
EXXON MOBIL: Nearly 70,000 Gas Royalty Owners Sue Exxon
FEI COMPANY: Micrion Suit Under Advisement in Appellate Court
G&L REALTY: Denies Claims in Suits Filed in California And Maryland

GREAT SOUTHERN: Actively Pursuing Settlement With Texas Plaintiffs
GUESS? INC.: Lawsuit Filed by Managers Goes to Trial November 9
GUESS? INC.: Filing Deadline Set For Consolidated Complaint
HEALTH NET: Court Cancels Certification Hearing Scheduled This Month
LANDRY'S SEAFOOD: Faces Securities Suits Filed in Houston, Texas

LORILLARD TOBACCO: VP Issues Response to Racketeering Lawsuit
NETMANAGE INC.: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: $30 Million Settlement Pact Awaits Court Approval
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Motion to Consolidate Securities Suits Pending
NETZERO.COM: Securities Suit Begins in S.D. New York

OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Hearing Scheduled For This Month
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: No Response to Credit Card Suit in Pennsylvania
RURAL METRO: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Complaint in AZ Court
SEGUE SOFTWARE: Settlement Pact With Shareholders Awaits Court Nod
SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS: Denies Allegations False Disclosures Issued

SOURCE MEDIA: Discovery of Securities Suit Continues Indefinitely
STORAGE USA: Court Stays Late Fees Suit as Maryland Statute Disputed
STORAGE USA: NY Supreme Court Denies State, Nationwide Certification
STUDENT LOAN: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Delaware Remains Undecided
SUN HEALTHCARE: $1.02 Billion Claim Filed in Bankruptcy Court

TCW DW: Continues Vigorous Defense Against Florida Securities Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sued For Mold Infestation in Housing Units


                              *********


AMERICO LIFE: Ohio Subsidiary Sued For Breach in Insurance Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A regulatory document filed recently with the Securities and Exchange
Commission revealed that on March 13, 2001, a purported class action
lawsuit, Ernesto Cortes v. Ohio State Life Insurance Company, 11th
Judicial Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida, was filed against Ohio
State Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of AMERICO LIFE, INC.

The suit alleges Ohio State Life Insurance Company breached its
obligations under a term life insurance policy purchased by plaintiff
by failing to observe the guaranteed features of the policy. Ohio State
denies the allegations and intends to defend the action vigorously.


ANIKA THERAPEUTICS: Settles Securities Suits in Mass. For $1.2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Three putative class action complaints have been filed against Anika
Therapeutics, Inc., J. Melville Engle, and Sean Moran, the Company's
former chief financial officer, in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's shares between April 15, 1998 and May 30, 2000.  

     -- The first, filed on or about June 8, 2000, is captioned
        CASAZZA, ET AL. V. ANIKA THERAPEUTICS, INC., J. MELVILLE ENGLE
        AND SEAN MORAN, Civil Action No. 00-11127-WGY.

     -- The second, filed on or about June 26, 2000, is captioned
        NEMETH-COSLETT, ET AL. V. ANIKA THERAPEUTICS, INC., J. MELVILLE
        ENGLE AND SEAN MORAN, Civil Action No. 00-11257-WGY.

     -- The third, filed on or about August 2, 2000, is captioned
        ROCKEFELLER, ET AL. V. ANIKA THERAPEUTICS, INC., J. MELVILLE
        ENGLE AND SEAN MORAN, Civil Action No. 00-11540-WGY.

Each of these putative class action complaints encompasses the same
class period and covers almost identical allegations. On or about
August 7, 2000, David and Vivian West, alleged members of the Class,
filed a motion to appoint themselves lead plaintiffs, and their law
firm, lead counsel; as well as a motion for consolidation of the above
cases.

On or about September 13, 2000, the Court granted David and Vivian
West's motions, consolidated the cases and captioned the case IN RE
ANIKA THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No.
00-11127-WGY.

On or about October 30, 2000, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint. The complaint alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by, INTER
ALIA, making material misrepresentations and omissions in certain
public disclosures during the period between April 15, 1998 and May 30,
2000.

The alleged misrepresentations and omissions relate to the Company's
historical revenue recognition policies and its restatement of revenues
for 1998 and the first three quarters of 1999.

On December 14, 2000, the Company,  Engle and  Moran each filed motions
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On January 29,
2001, plaintiffs' counsel filed oppositions to defendants' motions to
dismiss.  The Defendants filed reply briefs on February 12, 2001.

The parties have negotiated and entered into an agreement in principle
to settle the action, which sets forth the terms of the proposed
settlement, subject to approval by the Court.

As part of the proposed settlement, defendants would pay a total of
$1.25 million into a settlement fund, which would, among other things,
be used to pay authorized members of the Class.

The Memorandum of Understanding and the proposed settlement will be
contingent upon, among other things:

     (i) the parties execution of an appropriate Stipulation of
         Settlement, which is acceptable to the parties;

    (ii) conditional certification of the Class for purposes of the  
         Settlement,

   (iii) Court approval of the Settlement; and

    (iv) dismissal of the Action with prejudice.


AVON PRODUCTS: 10 Year-Old Securities Suit Goes to Trial This Year
------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1991, a class action suit was initiated against Avon Products, Inc.
on behalf of certain classes of holders of Avon's Preferred Equity-
Redemption Cumulative Stock.  This lawsuit alleges various contract and
securities law claims relating to the PERCS (which were fully redeemed
that year).  

While it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, Avon has
rejected the assertions in this case, believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims and is vigorously contesting this lawsuit.  It
is anticipated that a trial may take place in late 2001.


CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY: Court Dismisses Securities Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In March and April 1999, certain stockholders of Cambridge Technology
Partners (Massachusetts), Inc. filed ten separate class action lawsuits
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. These were
consolidated by the District Court.

The suits alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding
Cambridge's future growth prospects and progress of Cambridge's
reorganization in violation of federal securities laws. On March 30,
2001, the District Court dismissed the case in its entirety, with
prejudice.


CASINO DATA: Board of Directors Files Answer to Shareholders Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 23, 2001, Dwayne Alberts, allegedly a shareholder of Casino
Data Systems, filed a purported class action complaint against the
Company and the Company's Board of Directors in the District Court of
Clark County in the State of Nevada, Case No. A429714IX, alleging a
claim of breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the announced
transaction between the Company and Aristocrat Leisure Limited.

In the action,  Alberts has alleged, generally, that the Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties by taking actions designed to
deter higher offers from other potential acquisitors so as to ensure
Casino Data insiders receive personal benefits at the expense of Casino
Data shareholders.

Accordingly, the defendants timed the announcement of the merger to
place an artificial cap on the price for Casino Data's stock to enable
[Aristocrat] to acquire the stock at the lowest possible price and
timed the announcement [of the merger agreement] to come within days
before they would disclose Casino Data's fourth quarter results.

Alberts is seeking class certification, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief preventing the consummation of the merger and directing the
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties in the manner described
by plaintiffs, attorney fees and costs, and such other and further
relief as the court deems just and proper.

The Company and the Board of Directors deny all of Alberts'
allegations.  

"It is the position of the Board of Directors that they did not breach
any fiduciary duties and that they took reasonable steps under the
circumstances to maximize the value for the stockholders of the
Company, evaluated and allowed for the possibility of entering into a
merger or similar agreement with companies other than Aristocrat,
solicited bids from at least two other companies, took reasonable steps
to allow other potential bids to be made, and that they have in fact
obtained the maximum value for the Company's shareholders under the
circumstances," says a regulatory document recently filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company and the Board of Directors filed an answer to the complaint
on March 8, 2001 and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the
allegations.


CENTRAL GARDEN: Banks on $51 MM Insurance to Cover Phoenix Liability
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 2, 2000, a fire destroyed leased warehouse space of Central
Garden & Pet Company in Phoenix, Arizona, and an adjoining warehouse
space leased by a third party.

The adjoining warehouse tenant, the building owner, and nearby
businesses have presented claims for property damage and business
interruption. Local residents have filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging claims for bodily injury and property damage as a
result of the fire.

In addition, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is
monitoring the cleanup operations, and the Company, the building owner
and the adjoining warehouse tenant have submitted a plan and are
currently assessing whether the fire and fire suppression efforts may
have caused environmental impacts to soil, groundwater and/or surface
water. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has also sent
the Company a request for information regarding the Phoenix fire.

The overall amount of the damages to all parties caused by the fire,
and the overall amount of damages which the Company may sustain as a
result of the fire, have not been quantified.

At the time of the fire, the Company maintained property insurance
covering losses to the leased premises, the Company's inventory and
equipment, and loss of business income. The Company also maintained
insurance providing $51 million of coverage, without deductible,
against third party liability.

The Company believes this insurance coverage will be available
with respect to third party claims against the Company if parties other
than the Company are not found responsible. The precise amount of the
damages sustained in the fire, the ultimate determination of the
parties responsible and the availability of insurance coverage are
likely to depend on the outcome of complex litigation, involving
numerous claimants, defendants and insurance companies.


CINCINNATI GAS: Former Subsidiary Corporation Files Liability Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A latest regulatory document of Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission reveals that in
January 2000, Cinergy Investments, Inc., which holds the Company's
domestic non-regulated businesses and investments, sold Cinergy
Resources, Inc. (CRI), a former subsidiary, to Licking Rural
Electrification, Inc. doing business as The Energy Cooperative.

In February 2001, Cinergy Corporation (a subsidiary), CGE and CRI were
named as defendants in three class actions lawsuits. These lawsuits are
in connection with Energy Cooperative's removal from the Ohio Gas
Customer Choice program and the failure to deliver gas to customers.

Subsequently, these class action suits were amended and consolidated
into one suit. CGE has been dismissed as a defendant in the
consolidated suit.

On March 30, 2001, Cinergy Corporation, CGE and CII were named as
defendants in a lawsuit filed by both Energy Cooperative and CRI. This
lawsuit concerns any obligations or liability CII may have to Energy
Cooperative following its sale of CRI.


CLARUS CORPORATION: Shareholders File Consolidated Securities Plaint
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the public announcement of Clarus Corporation on October 25,
2000, of its financial results for the third quarter, the Company and
certain of its directors and officers were named as defendants in
fourteen putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all purchasers of common stock of the Company during various periods
beginning as early as October 20, 1999 and ending on October 25, 2000.

The fourteen class action lawsuits filed against the Company were
consolidated into one case, Case No. 1:00-CV-2841, pursuant to an order
of the court dated November 17, 2000.

On March 22, 2001, the Court entered an order appointing as the lead
Plaintiffs John Nittolo, Dean Monroe, Ronald Williams, V&S Industries,
Ltd., VIP World Asset Management, Ltd., Atlantic Coast Capital
Management, Ltd., and T.F.M. Investment Group. Pursuant to the previous
Consolidation Order of the Court, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was
filed on May 14, 2001.

The class action complaints allege claims against the Company and other
defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
with respect to alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in
public filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
certain press releases and other public statements made by the Company
and certain of its officers relating to its business, results of
operations, financial condition and future prospects.  As a result of
which, it is alleged, the market price of the Company's common stock
was artificially inflated during the class periods.

The class action complaints focus on statements made concerning an
account receivable from one of the Company's customers. The Company
believes that it has complied with all of its obligations under the
Federal securities laws and the Company intends to defend these
lawsuits vigorously.


CONSECO FINANCE: Plaintiffs' Appeal With 8th Circuit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Finance Corporation revealed in a recent regulatory document
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it is currently
facing various related lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

These lawsuits were generally filed as purported class actions on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased common stock or options to
purchase common stock of Conseco Finance during alleged class periods
that generally run from February 1995 to January 1998.  One action
(Florida State Board of Admin. v. Green Tree Financial Corp., Case No.
98-1162) did not include class action claims.

In addition to Conseco Finance, certain current and former officers and
directors of Conseco Finance are named as defendants in one or more of
the lawsuits.

Conseco Finance and other defendants obtained an order consolidating
the lawsuits seeking class action status into two actions, one of which
pertains to a purported class of common stockholders (In re Green Tree
Financial Corp. Stock Litig., Case No. 97-2666) and the other which
pertains to a purported class action of stock option traders (In re
Green Tree Financial Corp. Options Litig., Case No. 97-2679).

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In each case, plaintiffs
allege that Conseco Finance and the other defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, making false and misleading
statements about the current state and future prospects of Conseco
Finance (particularly with respect to prepayment assumptions and
performance of certain loan portfolios of Conseco Finance) which
allegedly rendered Conseco Finance's financial statements false and
misleading.

On August 24, 1999, the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota issued an order to dismiss with prejudice all
claims alleged in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed
the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, and the
appeal is currently pending.


CYMER INC.: Court Has Yet to Rule on Company's Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cymer Inc. has been named as a defendant in several putative
shareholder class action lawsuits that were filed in September and
October 1998 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Certain executive officers and directors of Cymer are also named as
defendants. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all persons
who purchased Cymer's Common Stock between April 24, 1997 and September
26, 1997. The complaints allege claims under the federal securities
laws. The plaintiffs allege that Cymer and the other defendants made
various material misrepresentations and omissions during the Class
Period.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action and a class
representative has been appointed by the court. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in early August 1999.

On November 5, 1999, Cymer and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended claim for failure to state a cause of
action. On April 1, 2000, the court granted defendant's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on June 5, 2000.
Cymer moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 4, 2000. On
January 22, 2001, the court heard oral argument on Cymer's motion to
dismiss, but has not yet decided the motion.


DEPARTMENT 56: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On and following March 5, 2001 lawsuits seeking unspecified
compensatory damages were filed against Department 56, Inc. and its
Chairwoman and Chief Executive Officer Susan E. Engel, in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota purportedly on
behalf of the class of persons who purchased Department 56 common stock
during the period February 24, 1999 through April 26, 2000.

The purported class action lawsuits allege the Company and its
Chairwoman violated federal securities laws by making a series of false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's financial
statements.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits.


ENCAD INC.: Opts to Settle Antitrust Lawsuit in Colorado For $1.5 Mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
ENCAD INC. disclosed in a regulatory document recently filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that it has decided to settle the
antitrust lawsuit in Colorado.

In November 1998, the lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging antitrust
violations pertaining to the sales of a specified printer product.

Class members sought damages caused by the allegedly faulty ink used in
the printer, including the cost of the ink, the cost of the third party
replacement ink, and damage to printing projects caused by the ink.

The Company believed the claims were without merit and that it could
have successfully defended the lawsuit.  Nevertheless, the Company
settled the lawsuit, believing that it was in the best interests of its
stockholders. The court approved the settlement in March 2001.

All of the Company's settlement obligations terminate after January
2002. The exact amount of the settlement has not been released.


EXXON MOBIL: Nearly 70,000 Gas Royalty Owners Sue Exxon
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward C. Prado of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas in San Antonio has certified a nationwide class
action suit against the Exxon Mobil Corporation, which will unite
nearly 70,000 gas royalty owners who allege that Exxon unfairly
determined the royalties they should receive from natural gas and
natural gas liquids sales.

The Houston-based law firm of Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. filed the
suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, who leased their mineral rights to
Exxon in exchange for royalties produced from the sales of natural gas
and natural gas liquids.

Under the terms of the suit, royalty owners seek redress for numerous
actions perpetrated upon them by Exxon. They allege that Exxon and its
affiliates have engaged in a "gas value chain" scheme of operation in
which Exxon allows its affiliates to produce, gather, process,
transport, and market the gas, while making unreasonable and excessive
profits at each stage of this chain.

Meanwhile, the suit says, royalties are calculated on the transfer of
the gas to Exxon's affiliates, not on the actual value of the gas
received from third parties. In doing this, substantial value is
shifted away from the royalty owners to Exxon.

"Exxon has been skimming money off the top and leaving these royalty
owners high and dry," said attorney Robert R. Herring of Fleming &
Associates.

"They funnel money to themselves through their affiliates, unfairly
calculating the basis on which royalties should be paid, thus
underpaying royalty owners. Exxon clearly has violated its contractual
duty to market this gas diligently and to obtain the highest price
reasonably possible. So many royalty owners across the country have
been affected by these unfair practices that a class action suit is the
best way to address these wrongs," he added.

For further details, contact: Robert R. Herring, Jr.
(Tel.) 713.621.7944, 800.654.7139


FEI COMPANY: Micrion Suit Under Advisement in Appellate Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, FEI COMPANY disclosed that in conjunction with its
acquisition of Micrion Corporation in August 1999, the Company assumed
potential liability in connection with a 1996 class action securities
suit brought against Micrion.

In December 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted the Company's renewed summary judgment motion. In
January 2000, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

The appeal is pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which
heard oral argument in the case on December 6, 2000, and currently has
the matter under advisement. The Company expects that it will be
several months before the appeal is decided. The Company continues to
believe the complaint to be without merit and intends to continue its
vigorous defense of the claims.


G&L REALTY: Denies Claims in Suits Filed in California And Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative shareholder class actions have been filed against G&L
Realty Corporation and its directors arising out of the proposal by
Daniel M. Gottlieb and Steven D. Lebowitz, the Chief Executive Officer
and President, respectively, of the Company, to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock not currently owned by
them.

The first suit, Lukoff v. G&L Realty Corp. et al., case number BC
241251, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, on December 4, 2000. The second suit, Abrons
v. G&L Realty Corp. et al., case number 24-C-00-006109, was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, on December 14, 2000.

Both actions assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seek, among
other things, compensatory damages and to enjoin the transaction.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Abrons action on the
ground that the complaint fails to state a claim. All of the
Defendants, except the Company, have filed an additional motion to
dismiss the Abrons action for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants
also have filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Abrons action on
grounds of forum non conveniens and comity.

In the Lukoff action, Defendants have filed a demurrer to the complaint
on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action. Defendants deny the claims.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Actively Pursuing Settlement With Texas Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Four purported class action lawsuits against Great Southern Life
Insurance Company were consolidated in May 1998 for multi-district
litigation pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (In Re Great Southern Life Insurance
Company Sales Practice Litigation).  

These lawsuits allege deceptive sales practices in the marketing of
Great Southern's whole life and universal life insurance policies and
seek unspecified compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages.  

On March 14, 2000, the court filed an order certifying a class of all
current and former owners of excess interest whole life and/or
universal life policies issued from 1982 through 1997.  Management is
pursuing settlement of this case with plaintiffs. However, any such
settlement will require court approval.


GUESS? INC.: Lawsuit Filed By Managers Goes to Trial November 9
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guess? Inc. disclosed recently, in a regulatory document filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, that a complaint was filed against
the Company March 28, 2000 in San Diego County Superior Court, The
case,  entitled Snodgrass v. Guess? Inc. and GUESS? Retail, Inc.
purports to be a class action filed on behalf of current and former
store management employees in California. Plaintiffs seek overtime
wages and a preliminary and permanent injunction. The parties have
stipulated that a limited class composed only of visual co-managers and
co-managers should be certified. The Court certified this limited class
on March 16, 2001. The trial date has been set for November 9, 2001.


GUESS? INC.: Filing Deadline Set For Consolidated Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
On January 30, 2001, Guess? Inc., Maurice Marciano, Armand Marciano,
Paul Marciano, and Brian Fleming were named as defendants in a
securities class action entitled David Osher v. Guess? Inc., et al.,
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Seven additional class actions have been filed in the Central District,
naming the same defendants:

     (i) Robert M. Nuckols v. Guess? Inc. et al.,

    (ii) Brett Dreyfuss v. Guess? Inc. et al.,

   (iii) Jerry Sloan v. Guess? Inc., et al.,

    (iv) Jerry Byrd v. Guess? Inc., et al,

     (v) Patrick and Kristine Liska v. Guess? Inc., et al,

    (vi) Darrin Wegman v. Guess? Inc., et al., and

   (vii) Rosie Gindie v. Guess? Inc., et al.

All eight complaints purport to state claims under Section 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allege
that defendants made materially false and misleading statements
relating to the Company's inventory and financial condition during the
class period.

In Osher, Nuckols, Byrd, Wegman and Sloan, the class period is February
14, 2000 through January 26, 2001; in Dreyfuss, Liska and Gindie the
class period is February 14, 2000 through November 9, 2000.

On April 25, 2001, the court entered an order consolidating all of the
eight class actions, captioned In re Guess, Inc. Securities Litigation.
The lead plaintiff for the class is the Policeman and Fireman's
Retirement System of the City of Detroit.

The lead plaintiff has until June 25, 2001 to file a consolidated
complaint. Defendants have 45 days after service of the consolidated
complaint to file a motion to dismiss.


HEALTH NET: Court Cancels Certification Hearing Scheduled This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. disclosed in a regulatory document recently filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that on November 22, 1999, a
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi in a lawsuit entitled Pay v.
Foundation Health Systems, Inc. (2:99CV329).

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class action and
alleges that cost containment measures used by the Company's health
maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations and point-
of-service health plans violate provisions of the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the federal
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The action seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

The case was stayed on January 25, 2000, pending the resolution of
various procedural issues involving similar actions filed against
Humana Inc. On June 23, 2000, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints
in a Humana action that had been consolidated pursuant to the multi-
district litigation statute in the Southern District of Florida to add
claims against other managed care organizations, including the Company.

On October 23, 2000, the court allowed the plaintiffs to further amend
the complaint against the Company to add two new named plaintiffs and
withdraw the originally named plaintiff, Kerrie Pay, from the action.
Consequently, this case was now be entitled Romero v. Foundation Health
Systems, Inc.

On October 23, 2000, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ruled that the action originally filed against the Company in the
Southern District of Mississippi should be consolidated, for purposes
of pre-trial proceedings only, with other cases pending against managed
care organizations in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida in Miami.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the case. Briefing on the
motion to dismiss has been completed and the matter is currently
pending before the court. Preliminary discovery and briefing regarding
the plaintiff's motion for class certification has also been completed.

On April 13, 2001, the court, on its own initiative, canceled the class
certification hearing that had been scheduled for May 8, 2001. The
Company intends to vigorously defend the action.


LANDRY'S SEAFOOD: Faces Securities Suits Filed in Houston, Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Seafood Restaurants, Inc. disclosed recently in a regulatory
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, that several class
action lawsuits were filed in June and July of 1999 against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division.

These actions name as defendants the Company, all of its current
executive officers, directors and underwriters that participated in the
Company's offering of Common Stock in March 1998. Such lawsuits allege
that the defendants violated Federal securities laws during certain
periods while individually selling the Company's common stock.


LORILLARD TOBACCO: VP Issues Response to Racketeering Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------

The following is the statement of Steve Watson, Vice President,
External Affairs, Lorillard Tobacco Company, in response to the filing
of a racketeering lawsuit against Lorillard and other cigarette
manufacturers by Johnnie Cochran and Michael Hausfeld:

"Although we have not yet reviewed the complaint, we believe this class
action has absolutely no merit. Nationwide class actions of this nature
have consistently been rejected by the courts. Lorillard is
disappointed that our judicial system is once again being used as a
tool to generate publicity for plaintiffs' attorneys whose real
interests are strictly financial.

"Lorillard has never marketed or sold its products to youth and is
committed to reducing youth smoking in this country. Under the landmark
Master Settlement Agreement reached in 1998 with all 50 states, we
provided further assurances that teens would not have access to our
advertising or our products through severe restrictions on our
marketing practices. Additionally, through the MSA, we are paying more
than $260 billion to the states, including $1.45 billion to fund a
foundation dedicated to reducing teen smoking.

"In addition, Lorillard has entered the third year of its voluntary
Youth Smoking Prevention Program. This nationwide, multifaceted effort
is unique in its approach and has received critical acclaim for its
effectiveness. Among its components is an advertising campaign aimed at
kids, 'Tobacco is Whacko if You're a Teen'; as well as a parenting
program, 'Take 10,' which helps to educate adults with children on how
to talk to them about not smoking.

"Further, in an effort to eliminate teen access to tobacco products,
Lorillard is an active and major sponsor of the 'We Card' program,
which has enlisted more than 400,000 retailers across the country. The
program educates and trains retail employees on how to best comply with
age restriction laws and the proper method of verifying a patron's age.

"At Lorillard, we are very proud of our efforts and reiterate our
strong desire to significantly reduce teen smoking. At Lorillard, our
position is clear -- smoking is an adult choice and kids should not
smoke."


NETMANAGE INC.: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1996, a securities class action complaint, Zeid, et al. v.
Kimberley, et al., Case No. C-96-20136SW, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California against
Firefox Communications Inc. and certain of its former officers and
directors. FTP Software, Inc. (acquired by Netmagage, Inc. in 1998)
bought Firefox in July 1996.

The complaint alleged that, between July 20, 1995 and January 2, 1996,
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or
misleading statements about Firefox's operations and financial results.

On May 8, 1997, the district court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Oral argument on the appeal was held on September 14, 1998.

On November 1, 1999, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued
an order vacating the judgment of the district court and remanded the
case back to the district court for reconsideration in light of its
recently issued landmark decision in the securities litigation case of
Janas v. McCraken (In re Silicon Graphics Inc.).

After remand, the Company renewed its motion to dismiss. On March 22,
2000, a hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss was held by the
district court and on March 20, 2001, the Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: $30 Million Settlement Pact Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 7, 1999, a putative securities class action, captioned Knisley
v. Network Associates, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. C-99-1729-SBA,
was filed against the Company and several of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock between
January 20, 1998 and April 19, 1999.

Twenty-five similar actions asserting virtually identical allegations
were filed by other plaintiffs. The Court consolidated these cases and
an amended complaint was filed. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on June 6, 2000. The Court granted in part and dismissed in
part the motion to dismiss.

The Court allowed only plaintiffs' claims related to In-Process
Research and Development to go forward and shortened the class period
to April 6, 1999. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated
Complaint, and defendants filed an answer.

In February 2001, the Company settled the class action. The amount of
the settlement is $30 million and is being funded principally by the
Company's Directors and Officers insurance carriers. The settlement is
subject to court approval.

    
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: Motion to Consolidate Securities Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Between December 29, 2000 and February 7, 2001, Network Associates Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers and directors
were named in securities class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The cases are captioned as follows:

     (i) Lukoff v. Network Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. CV-01-
         0008-MEJ;

    (ii) Armour v. Network Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. C00-4849-
         EDL;

   (iii) Ann & Wendall Prevat. v. Network Associates, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. C01-0007-WDB;

    (iv) Rizzuti v. Network Associates, et al., Case No. C-01-20008-
         EAI;

     (v) McDougald v. Network Associates, et al., Case No. CV01-20103-
         ADR;

    (vi) 539, Inc. v. Network Associates, et al., Case No. C 01 0599-
         MMC.

The Armour, Wendel, Rizzuti, McDougald, and 539, Inc. complaints assert
claims against Network Associates, William Larson and Prabhat Goyal on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Network Associates
stock between July 19 and December 26, 2000.

The Lukoff complaint asserts claims against Network Associates, William
Larson, Prabhat Goyal, Leslie Denend, Virginia Gemmell, Edwin Harper
and Enzo Torressi on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased and/or acquired Network Associates stock between October 16
and December 26, 2000.

All of the complaints assert causes of action and seek unspecified
damages for alleged violations of Exchange Act Section 10(b)/SEC
Rule 10b-5 and Exchange Act Section 20(a). In particular, the
complaints allege that defendants made false and misleading statements
about the Company's anticipated financial results for the fourth fiscal
quarter of 2000, and that the Company's class period financial
statements failed to comply with GAAP.

Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead
plaintiffs' lead counsel were filed on February 27, 2001. A motion for
consolidation was also filed on that date. A hearing was held May 8,
2001 the result of which is unknown at this time.


NETZERO.COM: Securities Suit Begins in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed, Wednesday, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of NetZero.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:NZRO) common stock between
September 23, 1999 and April 18, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants NetZero.com, Inc., Mark R.
Goldston, Ronald T. Burr, James A. Armstrong, Jennifer S. Fonstad, Bill
Gross, David Bohnett and Paul G. Koontz violated the federal securities
laws by issuing and selling NetZero common stock pursuant to the
September 23, 1999 IPO without disclosing to investors that some of the
underwriters in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors.

The complaint alleges that, in exchange for the excessive commissions,
lead underwriter The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and underwriters Salomon
Smith Barney, Inc. and BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. allocated
NetZero shares to customers at the IPO price of $16.00 per share.

To receive the allocations (i.e., the ability to purchase shares) at
$16.00, the underwriters' brokerage customers had to agree to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at progressively higher prices.

The requirement that customers make additional purchases at
progressively higher prices as the price of NetZero stock rocketed
upward (a practice known on Wall Street as "laddering") was intended to
(and did) drive NetZero's share price up to artificially high levels.

This artificial price inflation, the complaint alleges, enabled both
the underwriters and their customers to reap enormous profits by buying
stock at the $16.00 IPO price and then selling it later for a profit at
inflated aftermarket prices, which rose as high as $30.63 during its
first day of trading.

Rather than allowing their customers to keep their profits from the
IPO, the complaint alleges, the underwriters required their customers
to "kick back" some of their profits in the form of secret commissions.
These secret commission payments were sometimes calculated after the
fact based on how much profit each investor had made from his or her
IPO stock allocation.

The complaint further alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 because the Prospectus distributed to investors and the
Registration Statement filed with the SEC in order to gain regulatory
approval for the NetZero offering contained material misstatements
regarding the commissions that the underwriters would derive from the
IPO transaction and failed to disclose the additional commissions and
"laddering" scheme discussed above.

For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody by calling toll-free 1-800-337-4983, or by e-mail at
SSBNY@aol.com, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull
& Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Hearing Scheduled For This Month
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 20, 2000, Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. and its chief
executive officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer
were named as defendants in certain litigation brought by Ronald M.
Dickerman, in his individual capacity, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the complaint, Dickerman contends that the Company and the named
executive officers violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   
Dickerman subsequently amended the complaint to assert his claims on
behalf of an unnamed class of plaintiffs.  

On July 28, 2000, Benjamin LeBorys commenced a class action lawsuit
making similar allegations against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The cases have been consolidated, and LeBorys has been named lead
plaintiff. The Company believes that the litigation is without merit
and is defending vigorously. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was filed
with the Court on February 16, 2001.  The hearing on this Motion was
scheduled for May 23, 2001.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: No Response to Credit Card Suit in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2001, Providian Financial Corporation was named as a
defendant in a consumer class action suit entitled Ross v. VISA,
U.S.A., Inc., et al., which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against VISA, MasterCard
and a number of credit card issuing banks.

The suit alleges that uniform foreign currency surcharges allegedly
imposed by the defendants are the result of a conspiracy in restraint
of trade and violate the federal antitrust laws, and that the defendant
banks failed to separately identify these surcharges to their customers
on their monthly statements in violation of the federal Truth-in-
Lending Act. A number of similar lawsuits have since been filed in
California and New York. The Company has not yet filed a response to
these actions.


RURAL METRO: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Complaint in AZ Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Metro Corporation disclosed in a recent regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that Warren S. Rustand, former
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, James
H. Bolin, former Vice Chairman of the Board, and Robert E. Ramsey, Jr.,
former Executive Vice President and former Director, have been named as
defendants in two purported class action lawsuits:

     (i) Haskell v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., Civil Action No.
         C-328448 filed on August 25, 1998 in Pima County, Arizona
         Superior Court, and

    (ii) Ruble v. Rural/Metro Corporation, et al., CIV 98-413-TUC-JMR
         filed on September 2, 1998 in United States District Court for
         the District of Arizona.

The two lawsuits, which contain virtually identical allegations, were
brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities including its common stock between April 28,
1997 and June 11, 1998.

Haskell v. Rural/Metro seeks unspecified damages under the Arizona
Securities Act, the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, and under Arizona
common law fraud, and also seeks punitive damages, a constructive
trust, and other injunctive relief.  Ruble v. Rural/Metro seeks
unspecified damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaints in both actions allege that between April 28, 1997 and
June 11, 1998 the defendants issued certain false and misleading
statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's financial status
and that these statements allegedly caused common stock of the Company
to be traded at artificially inflated prices.

The complaints also allege that Bolin and Ramsey sold stock during this
period, allegedly taking advantage of inside information that the stock
prices were artificially inflated.

On May 25, 1999, the Arizona state court granted the Company's request
for a stay of the Haskell action until the Ruble action is finally
resolved. The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the Ruble action.

On January 25, 2001, the Court granted the motion to dismiss, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to enter another plead. On March 31, 2001,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Company intends to
defend the actions vigorously.


SEGUE SOFTWARE: Settlement Pact With Shareholders Awaits Court Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
On or about April 27, 1999, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against Segue Software Inc., its Chief Executive Officer and a former
Chief Financial Officer of Segue, captioned Nathan Rice v. Segue
Software, Inc., et al., Civil No. 99-CV-10891-RGS.

The class action complaint alleged the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations and omissions in
certain public disclosures during the period beginning on
October 13, 1998 through April 9, 1999, inclusive. The public
disclosures relate to, among other things, Segue's past and future
financial performance and results.

On or about May 3, 1999, another similar putative class action
complaint was filed against Segue, its Chief Executive Officer and a
former Chief Financial Officer of Segue in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Anthony Moumouris v.
Segue Software, Inc., et al., Civil No. 99-CV-10933-RGS.

These cases were consolidated under the caption In Re Segue Software,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil No. 99-CV-10891-RGS, and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 27, 1999
alleging a putative class period of July 14, 1998 through
April 9, 1999, inclusive.

After the court granted Segue's motion to dismiss and pending appeal of
this order, Segue and the plaintiffs agreed to settle this matter. The
trial court must approve the settlement.


SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS: Denies Allegations False Disclosures Issued
--------------------------------------------------------------------
During April 2001, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by an
alleged shareholder of Sensormatic Electronics Corporation following an
announcement that corporate earnings for the third quarter of fiscal
year 2001 would be below expectations.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made false
and misleading statements by disclosing future prospects and contracts
without disclosing adverse information concerning the Company's
financial results and business conditions, and that certain officers
and directors of the Company sold shares during the class period.

The Company believes that its public disclosures were at all times
appropriate to the circumstances when made and intends to vigorously
defend against this suit.


SOURCE MEDIA: Discovery of Securities Suit Continues Indefinitely
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 1998, the first of fourteen class action complaints were
filed against Source Media Inc. and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas asserting violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b5 promulgated thereunder.

The Court consolidated the complaints into one action entitled Hartsell
et al. v. Source Media, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3-98-CV-1980-M.
The Source Media defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 19,
1999. The Court denied the motion on July 16, 1999.

On August 16, 1999, plaintiffs filed a related complaint against Ernst
& Young LLP. The action against Ernst & Young was consolidated with the
Source Media action on August 31, 1999. On November 19, 1999, Ernst &
Young moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and the Court granted that
motion with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint against Ernst & Young on
April 20, 2000. Ernst & Young moved to dismiss plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint, and on January 11, 2001 the Court issued an Order
denying Ernst & Young's motion.

In the January 11 Order, the Court required the parties to complete
discovery related to the claims against Ernst & Young within 120 days.
On March 26, 2001, the Court granted Ernst & Young's unopposed motion
to extend that deadline by 60 days.

There is currently no deadline for the completion of discovery related
to claims against the Source Media defendants and no trial date has
been set. Discovery related to the Ernst & Young claims is on-going.

The Company believes it is adequately insured against losses from this
litigation and that this case is totally without merit. The Company
intends to defend itself, and its officers and directors, vigorously.


STORAGE USA: Court Stays Late Fees Suit as Maryland Statute Disputed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 1999, a purported statewide class action was filed against
Storage USA, Inc. and SUSA Partnership, L.P. in the Circuit Court of
Montgomery County, Maryland, under the style Ralph Grunewald v. Storage
USA, Inc. and SUSA Partnership, L.P., case no. 201546V, seeking
recovery of certain late fees paid by tenants and an injunction against
further assessment of similar fees.

The Company filed a responsive pleading on September 17, 1999, setting
out its answer and affirmative defenses. The Company believes that it
has defenses to the claims in the suit and intends to vigorously defend
it.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion
for Class Certification, but before Storage USA was required to respond
to these motions, the case was stayed until June 2001. The stay was
entered in part because of a new statute passed by the Maryland
legislature relating to late fees. The constitutionality of that
statute has been challenged in an unrelated litigation not involving
the Company.


STORAGE USA: NY Supreme Court Denies State, Nationwide Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 1999, a purported nationwide class action was filed
against Storage USA, Inc. and SUSA Partnership, L.P. in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Ulster County, under the style West
125th Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Storage USA, Inc. and SUSA
Partnership, L.P., case no 99-3278, seeking the recovery of certain
late and administrative fees paid by tenants and an injunction against
similar fees.

The Company filed a responsive pleading on January 28, 2000 and
the case was transferred to New York County, case no. 401589/00. On
July 6, 2000 the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and a Motion for
Class Certification. On February 6, 2001, the New York Supreme Court,
in an oral ruling by Justice Gammerman, declined to certify either a
New York or nationwide class. The ruling may be appealed by the
plaintiffs.


STUDENT LOAN: Motion to Dismiss Suit in Delaware Remains Undecided
------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the public announcement of Citigroup Inc.'s proposal to
acquire the 20% stocks of STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION that Citigroup does
not already beneficially own, in October 1999 six putative class action
complaints were filed in Delaware Chancery Court against the Company
and its directors (as well as Citigroup and certain subsidiaries).

In November 1999, one of the six complaints was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice. In December 1999, the Delaware Chancery Court
consolidated the five remaining complaints under the caption "In re The
Student Loan Corp. Shareholders Litigation" and, on February 3, 2000,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that because Citigroup holds a majority position (80 percent of
the Company's outstanding common stock) in the Company there have been
no steps taken to ascertain the Company's true value and that
defendants have engaged in a series of self-dealing transactions
artificially depressing the Company's stock price.

The relief plaintiffs seek includes enjoining Citigroup's offer, or, if
the proposed transaction is consummated, rescinding the transaction and
recovering monetary damages caused by defendants' alleged breach of
fiduciary duties.

On February 17, 2000, Citigroup and the Special Committee of the
Company's independent directors, formed to evaluate the proposal,
publicly announced the termination of discussions regarding the
proposal. The same day, the Company and several other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim. That motion has not yet been ruled upon and the action remains
pending.


SUN HEALTHCARE: $1.02 Billion Claim Filed in Bankruptcy Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In May 1999, a former employee of SunBridge Healthcare Corporation, a
long-term care subsidiary, filed a proposed class action complaint   
against SunBridge in the Western District of Washington.  

The plaintiff sought to represent certain current and former employees
of SunBridge who were allegedly not paid appropriate wages under
federal and state law since May 1996.
  
In August 1999, several former employees of SunDance Rehabilitation
Corporation, another subsidiary of the Company, filed a proposed class
action complaint against SunDance in the Western District of
Washington.  

The plaintiffs sought to represent certain current and former employees
of SunDance who were allegedly not paid appropriate wages under federal
and state law since August 1996.

The same legal counsel represents the plaintiffs in both of these
actions.  These lawsuits are currently stayed as a result of the
Company's pending Chapter 11 cases.  

In June 2000, the plaintiffs in the SunBridge Action and the SunDance
Action filed motions in the Bankruptcy Court seeking to certify their
respective classes they seek to represent and an enlargement of the bar
date for their class members.  

Plaintiffs filed claims in the pending Chapter 11 cases in the amount
of $780.0 million in the SunDance Action and $242.0 million in the
SunBridge Action, plus interest, costs and attorney fees.  


TCW DW: Continues Vigorous Defense Against Florida Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Orange, against some of
the Trustees and officers of TCW DW TERM TRUST 2002, one of its
underwriters, the lead representative of its underwriters, the
Investment Adviser, the Manager and other defendants (but not against
the Trusts) by certain Shareholders of the Trusts and other trusts for
which the defendants act in similar capacities.

These plaintiffs generally allege violations of state statutory and
common law in connection with the marketing of the Trusts to customers
of one of the underwriters.

On or about October 20, 1995, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
consolidating these four actions. The defendants thereafter filed
answers and affirmative defenses to the consolidated amended complaint.
The defendants' answers deny all of the material allegations of the
plaintiffs' complaint.

In 1996, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, their
claims against two defendants who were Independent Trustees of the
Trusts. In March 1997, all of the remaining defendants in the
litigation filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, seeking
dismissal of all of the claims asserted against them.

The defendants' motions were fully briefed by all parties and were the
subject of a hearing before the Court on April 18, 1997. In July 1997,
the Court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In August 1997, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In
their motion, the plaintiffs requested certification of a "nationwide"
class of Trust purchasers. On June 1, 1998, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court ruled that plaintiff's motion was "granted as to [a
California] statewide class," but was "denied as to a nationwide
class."

On October 13, 1998, three separate class actions alleging similar
claims on behalf of the residents of the states of Florida, New Jersey
and New York were filed in the state courts of those states. The
defendants removed the Florida action to federal court and the
plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to state court was denied.

Motions to dismiss were filed by the defendants in the Florida action
on August 30, 1999, in the New Jersey action on July 26, 1999 and in
the New York action on September 10, 1999.

The New Jersey action was dismissed by the court with prejudice and no
appeal was filed. The motion to dismiss the Florida action was denied
on January 27, 2000 and the litigation remains pending. The Supreme
Court of the State of New York dismissed the New York action with
prejudice on April 25, 2000 and no appeal was filed.

Certain of the defendants in these suits have asserted their right to
indemnification from the Trusts.  The ultimate outcome of these matters
is not presently determinable, and no provision has been made in the
Trusts' financial statements for the effect, if any, of such matters.


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sued For Mold Infestation in Housing Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Alameda County Superior
Court on behalf of University of California, Berkeley students living
in the university's married student housing that is allegedly
contaminated with health endangering mold.

The suit names as defendants the University of California Board of
Regents and was filed by the Concord law firm of Kasdan, Simonds,
Epstein & Martin. The Kasdan, Simonds firm is representing the
plaintiffs, David Alexander Garcia, a UC Berkeley student, and his
young son, Elias David Garcia.

The suit has been filed as a class action on behalf of the two
plaintiffs as representatives of the class, and alleges that more than
800 student residents of university housing have potentially been
exposed to mold and/or fungi that could lead to health problems.

According to the lawsuit, David and Elias Garcia "have experienced
cough, congestion, runny nose, eye irritation, fevers, and breathing
problems as a result of this exposure to the mold and/or fungi."

"Mold is a pernicious agent that can severely affect a person's health
in many different ways, and in some cases when a person's immune system
is weakened, mold can cause toxic reactions," said Kenneth Kasdan,
partner of the Kasdan, Simonds firm. "As identified by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, certain molds excrete micotoxins that
have been identified as carcinogenic.

"What makes this case even more egregious is that the housing where Mr.
Garcia and the other Berkeley students have lived caters to families
with young children. As with Elias, these children can become extremely
ill from continuously living and playing in a mold-infested
environment.

"The university has a legal and moral responsibility to provide these
students with housing that is safe and free from contamination," Kasdan
added. "The problems here could be the tip of the proverbial iceberg,
an iceberg made of mold."

Along with compensatory and punitive damages for health problems and
related medical expenses, the suit is also asking for injunctive relief
from the defendants in the form of "abatement of the nuisance and
medical monitoring of class members."

"We believe, as does Mr. Garcia, that the university and the Regents
have an undeniable responsibility to ensure that the housing they rent
to students, or anyone else, is clean and healthy," Kasdan stated. "As
far as we are concerned, they grossly ignored their responsibility
towards Mr. Garcia and the other students who lived in this
contaminated housing."

The university housing cited in the suit includes at least 136 separate
buildings with approximately eight living units per building. The suit
also states that on-site daycare facilities for students' children are
located in the same buildings and potentially are contaminated with
mold.

The suit alleges that during the past year, testing was performed on 55
family student housing residences in which Garcia and his family lived.
Of those tested, at least 33 units had excessive amounts of air borne
mold and student residents of three of the units were forced to leave
their homes.

"The residents of these three units were instructed to leave their
personal belongings behind," the suit alleged.

Following the detection of the mold, the university health services
held an informational meeting with the occupants of the 33 infected
residences, and subsequently held another general meeting for all
residents of student family housing managed by UC Berkeley. For
students who were either forced to leave their homes or elected to
leave, the university reportedly offered the affected students the
opportunity to go on a waiting list for more expensive housing in newer
units.

The suit alleges that Garcia, who was a resident of the affected
student family housing complex during the past four years, subsequently
"was required to and did employ physicians to examine, treat and care
for himself and (his son) Elias, and did incur and will continue to
incur medical and incidental expenses."

Additionally, the suit alleged that Elias suffered serious physical
distress, and the family incurred and will continue to incur medical
and related expenses. It alleges that Elias will also be required to
undergo future medical monitoring.

The suit also alleges that the defendants "were required to put the
premises in a condition fit for human occupation before renting them,
and to repair all subsequent dilapidation's ... that rendered the
premises untenable.

"At the time of the rental of the premises to Plaintiffs, defendants
... so negligently owned, maintained, and repaired the premises so as
to cause them to be unfit for human occupation, in that the premises
substantially failed to provide effective waterproofing and weather
protection, allowing for growth of mold and/or fungi, resulting in
buildings, grounds and appurtenances that were not clean and sanitary
or otherwise fit for human habitation.

"As a proximate result of defendants' negligence and defendants'
failure to repair the defective and dangerous conditions, or to have
them repaired within a reasonable time or at all, Plaintiffs suffered
serious emotional and physical distress. Plaintiffs were required to
and did incur medical and related expenses, and suffered property
damage and economic loss including but limited to, personal property."

Kasdan pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency has just
released a study, "Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial
Buildings."

"If the EPA is turning its attention to mold, you know the federal
government has finally recognized this as a national health problem,"
Kasdan said.

For more information, contact: Contact: Kasdan, Simonds, Epstein &
Martin Ken Kasdan, 949/851-9000


  
                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and Beard Group, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.  Larri-Nil G. Veloso and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
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.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 301/951-6400.

* * *  End of Transmission  * * *