CAR_Public/020111.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Friday, January 11, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 8

                            Headlines

APPLEBEE'S GRILL: Native American Files Racial Discrimination Suit
BAYCOL LITIGATION: Kenneth Moll Filing Suit Over Anti-Cholesterol Drug
CALIFORNIA: Attorney Considers $500 Million Suit Against L.A. Jails
CHAMPIONS COMMUNITY: Sued For Overcharging Subdivision Residents $1M
GERMANY: Government Faces Suit Filed By Soldiers Exposed To Radiation

LIFE INSURANCE: $45M GA Settlement Nears In "Race Based Premiums" Suit
MENORAH GARDENS: Medical Examiner Testifies In Grave Desecration Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Parties In Private Suits Fail To Reach Agreement
MONSANTO INC.: Calhoun County Court Limits Class In PCB Pollution Suit
SOUTH KOREA: Villagers Sue Government For Noise From US Bombing Range

                        Securities Fraud

ACLN LTD.: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CREDIT SUISSE: Mortgage.com Creditors File "Unusual" Securities Suit
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HOMESTORE.COM: Donovan Searles Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA

HOMESTORE.COM: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in C.D. California
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: CEO Admits Trials For Cancer Drug Lacked Documentation
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Wolf Popper Lodges Second Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Wechsler Harwood Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LAIDLAW INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in SC

RACING CHAMPIONS: Settles Securities Suit in N.D. IL For 1.8 Million
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Purports "Full Compliance", Contrary To Allegations
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Texas
YORKTON SECURITIES: Faces Possible Securities Suits Over Business Ties


                            *********


APPLEBEE'S GRILL: Native American Files Suit Racial Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Avenue Applebee's Neighborhood Grill and Bar faces a class action
filed by a member of the Chippewa Indians in the US District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, alleging race discrimination following an
incident at the restaurant.

Michael O'Neill, a member of the Red Lake Band of the Chippewa Indians,
filed his suit on behalf of all persons of First Nation ancestry
specifically those 21 year old and above, after an Applebee's waitress
refused to honor his Tribal Identification Card when he tried to order a
brandy at the restaurant in November 2001.

The suit alleges that the restaurant violated his civil rights due to his
race and ancestry and asserts claims under Title II of the US Civil Rights
Act of 1964 and the Wisconsin Public Accommodations and Amusements Law.

Plaintiff's attorney Peter Nickitas told the Daily Telegram, "This is a
class action lawsuit because Applebee's has a policy of not honoring the
Tribal Identification Card. I'm going to argue to the court that this is a
simple class action case...Basically, Applebee's refused to serve my client
because he tried to use a Tribal Identification Card. They say they don't
accept those as a form of identification."

Mr. O'Neill alleges he used his Tribal Identification Card because he
doesn't have a driver's license. He mentioned that following the incident at
Applebee's, he and his family proceeded across the street to Grizzly's Grill
and Salon, where he wasn't required to present any identification card.

Mr. Nickitas asserts, "The tribal IDs are accepted every place except for
Applebee's. If he were to apply for a job at Applebee's as a janitor, for
instance, they would have to accept it. The feds have explicitly stated that
employers cannot pick and chose what forms of identification they can use."

The Wisconsin Equal Rights division has supported the case, saying it "found
probable cause for Mr. O'Neill's charge of racial and ancestral
discrimination against the defendants," according to the suit.

Hearing in the suit has been set for August 11,2002.  In a previous Daily
telegram interview, Mr. Nickitas said he's going to see about getting the
date moved up to one in March.



BAYCOL LITIGATION: Kenneth Moll Filing Suit Over Anti-Cholesterol Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth B. Moll and Associates Ltd. will file a worldwide class action
naming as class representatives multiple foreign plaintiffs from around the
world who have used the potentially deadly anti-cholesterol drug Lipobay
(Baycol in the United States).

The worldwide suit is part of an ongoing effort to ensure that all persons
around the world who used the potentially deadly drug Lipobay are justly
compensated and to assure that those who took the drug are properly informed
of its potentially dangerous propensities.

The complaint names plaintiffs from:

     (1) Germany,

     (2) Italy,

     (3) Australia,

     (4) Jamaica,

     (5) Canada,

     (6) Egypt and

     (7) the United States

Worldwide, there have been hundreds of "reported" cases of the deadly
condition rhabdomyolysis, including over 53 deaths, associated with patients
who used Lipobay/Baycol. An estimated 6,000,000 people worldwide have been
prescribed Lipobay/Baycol to reduce cholesterol.

The lawsuit alleges that, "It is believed that far more instances of serious
side effects and death caused by, or associated with taking Lipobay/Baycol
have occurred but have not yet been properly diagnosed or reported to the
appropriate governmental agencies because Bayer failed to put the medical
community on notice of the strong association between the use of
Lipobay/Baycol and rhabdomyolysis. As a result, symptoms of many patients
went undiagnosed and ultimately caused an increased risk of harm and death
to many patients."

For more information, contact Hal J. Kleinman by Phone: 312-558-6444 or by
Fax: 312-558-1112


CALIFORNIA: Attorney Considers $500 Million Suit Against L.A. Jails
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles attorney wants to expand a $50 million claim on behalf of a
Los Angeles jail inmate to a $500 million class action suit against the jail
system due to alleged inadequate medical care and inhumane treatment in the
city's prisons.

Attorney Margaret Wilson filed the suit on behalf of the Rev. James Stern,
who claims he went blind because of substandard care behind bars.  Ms.
Wilson told Daily News, "The human result of the monetary deficit has
created a situation in which cruel and unusual punishment is dispensed
instead of adequate medical care and prescribed medicine...Conditions have
become barbaric."

She added that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors should conduct a
public hearing on inadequate medical care in the jail system, asserting "The
standard delay for an inmate to see a doctor is now in excess of one month.
Once a doctor has been consulted, it often takes over two months to obtain
prescribed, often mandatory, medications."

Sheriff Lee Baca countered they were "constantly improving" the jail, "I
just need more money. I need more resources. This is not rocket science. I
have a lot of needy people in the jails."

County supervisors have pushed Baca to improve the medical and mental health
care of the 20,000 prisoners. They are expected to decide Jan. 29 whether to
provide an extra $2.5 million for more nurses and doctors.


CHAMPIONS COMMUNITY: Sued For Overcharging Subdivision Residents $1M
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the Champions East subdivision have filed a class action
against their homeowners association, Champions Community Improvement
Association, alleging that the association overcharged them for maintenance
fees for about 15 years.

The residents reportedly discovered an overcharge of $1 million while
investigating the case of Mrs. Wenonah Blevins whose foreclosed home the
plaintiffs fought with the association to return.  The plaintiffs attorney,
Marian Rosen, states, "While we were researching Mrs. (Wenonah) Blevins'
case, we discovered the association had violated its own bylaws," She
asserts that in 1987, the association increased maintenance fees from $72 to
$400 annually.  The suit contends that the association's amended Maintenance
Fund bylaws filed in 1965 stated fees would not exceed $72 per year through
1996.

She adds that more than 100 of the 900 homeowners in the Champions
subdivision have lived there since 1987 and paid the overcharges each year,
"This will add up to several thousands of dollars per homeowner and could
reach a million dollars" in damages.

The suit further alleges the homeowners were charged with unauthorized late
fees and charged interest exceeding the 6% listed in the association's
bylaws. The association is allegedly guilty of negligence, breach of
contract and fraud in passing the excess fees.

Champions Community Improvement Association President Albert C. Brooks
Contests this, saying the fees were not enough to cover extra law
enforcement patrol, garbage pickup, street lighting and other costs.  He
emphasizes, "If anyone thinks they have been overcharged, come see our
books."


GERMANY: Government Faces Suit Filed By Soldiers Exposed To Radiation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
German lawyer Reiner Geulen intends to file a class action against the
German Defense Ministry on behalf of more than 700 German military personnel
who claimed they developed cancer after working on radar systems in the late
1950s to around 1980, according to a Reuters report.  The suit will also
name as defendants the US manufacturers of the radar systems.

Mr. Geulen told Reuters Health that, for years, the German government had
covered up any connection between soldiers who link cancer and their
exposure to x-rays to their installing and maintaining the systems.  He
added that the problem may have affected soldiers of many NATO member
nations.

One of Mr. Geulen's clients has appeared on a German television news
magazine report and talked about the suit.  Peter Rasch said that special
representative Ulrich Birkenheier was not telling the whole truth in his
statements about the issue last December.

According to an earlier Class Action Reporter story, Mr. Birkenheier stated
that the government had investigated 1,868 complaints.  Of these complaints,
decisions have been reached in 143.  He also added that of the 143
decisions, only 5 soldiers were found to have developed cancer after working
on radioactive equipment.  These soldiers or their survivors will be
eligible for increased pension benefits.  However, the other 138 soldiers
did not suffer disabilities from working on radar equipment. Mr. Rasch
expressed anger at the statement, saying Mr. Birkenheier had "doctored" the
facts.

Mr. Birkenheier added that after 1980, changes in radar maintenance were
made to end the chance of harmful x-ray exposure.  Mr. Geulen agreed with
this, however, he noted that there were thousands of radar systems in
planes, ships, tanks, missile systems and ground stations, and that he
believes the protection from x-rays was not 100% throughout the military
until the late 1980s.

According to a Reuters report, of Mr. Geulen's 700 clients, about 400 had
worked on at least one of two widely used radar systems manufactured by US
companies.  One of those is the Hawk system, which he said was manufactured
by Raytheon Corporation, and the other the Nike system, manufactured by,
among others, Western Electric, formerly a part of the Bell System.

David Polk, a spokesman for Raytheon Corporation, said he was aware of the
radar issue in Germany. However, he declined direct comment, saying "I would
not be in a position to respond until we see what the suit alleges."


LIFE INSURANCE: $45M GA Settlement Nears In "Race Based Premiums" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Life Insurance Company of Georgia expects a timely settlement of the federal
class action accusing the Company of implementing "race based premiums," in
which it was alleged that, for decades, blacks were charged higher premiums
than whites.  The Company is currently in negotiations for a settlement
under which it will pay more than $45 million.

The suit was filed when a Georgia investigation uncovered that the Company
charged blacks up to 35 percent more than whites for the same or similar
coverage in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, according to the Associated Press.
The policies were basically sold door-to-door in the South to poor blacks,
often to cover burial expenses and usually paid out no more than several
hundred dollars.

Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine said at the Company,
all non-whites were lumped into a "substandard" category.  He added that
after 1960, the Company continued discriminating by marketing the policies
to people in certain neighborhoods and occupations, such as maids and
shoe-shiners.

Under the settlement, Life of Georgia will pay $45 million to $60 million,
almost all of it in restitution to black policyholders, a source told The
Associated Press on condition of anonymity. Payments could go to holders of
up to 3 million policies. Life of Georgia will also pay several million
dollars to the state insurance regulators, the source said.

Last month, two South Carolina insurance companies, Atlantic Life Insurance
Co. and Liberty Life Insurance Co., were ordered to pay millions of dollars
to black policyholders after state investigators concluded the companies had
charged blacks higher premiums for decades.


MENORAH GARDENS: Medical Examiner Testifies In Grave Desecration Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A former chief medical examiner for Miami-Dade County has identified human
bone in the woods near the Menorah Gardens and Funeral Services, in the
ongoing investigation of the class action charging the cemetery's owner
Service Corporation International, with desecrating graves and moving human
remains to accommodate more graves, according to the Miami Herald.

Joseph Davis identified the bone found behind Menorah Gardens as "clearly a
human femur" or thighbone.  Mr. Davis identified the bone from photographs
of evidence in the lawsuit filed by relatives of people buried at Menorah
Gardens cemetery and two other area cemeteries, claiming the company
misplaced bodies, oversold plots and dumped remains in the woods to recycle
graves.

Company spokesman Don Mathis said he would not contest Mr. Davis' testimony.
He said "Mr. Davis has a great reputation, I'm not questioning it at all."
Company President Jerry Pullins had told state officials that bones dug up
near the Palm Beach County cemetery by the company's investigators came from
animals, citing "university tests."


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Parties In Private Suits Fail To Reach Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than a day away from a court-imposed deadline, software giant Microsoft
Corporation (MSFT) is nowhere near a compromise with attorneys who are
opposing the controversial $1 billion package proposed by the Company to
settle a raft of private antitrust class actions in Baltimore federal court,
according to an iWon report.

Federal Judge J. Frederick Motz gave both parties until 5 p.m EDT (2200 GMT)
today to reach a compromise, if not, Judge Motz will hand down a preliminary
ruling on the settlement.  Under the settlement, the Company will provide $1
billion worth of computers, software and training to the nation's poorest
schools.

The settlement raised many objections from lawyers and critics, saying it
was an inadequate punishment for the Company's anticompetitive behavior.
Notably, California attorneys have objected to the settlement, saying the
money should be reimbursed directly to customers who were overcharged for
Company software.  Judge Motz himself said he was unsure how he was going to
decide on the matter, and ordered the two sides into mediation last month.

Company spokesman Jim Desler said that the Company "continues to make every
effort in the hopes that this worthwhile settlement will achieve preliminary
approval from the judge."  The Company and the settling attorneys have said
the package was the best compensation and will go a long way in closing the
digital divide between schools.

Representatives of Microsoft and the class action attorneys both declined to
comment on the negotiations, according to an iWon report.


MONSANTO INC.: Calhoun County Court Limits Class In PCB Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Calhoun County Circuit Court has limited the scope of a environmental
class action against chemical firm Monsanto Corporation, only including in
the class residents with an illness linked to chemicals discharged by the
Company, according to an Associated Press report.

More than 3,500 Anniston residents originally filed the suit, accusing the
Company of releasing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a highly toxic
chemical that harms humans, animal and fish, into local waterways and hiding
the hazards from them.

Judge Joel Lard issued the ruling based on a state Supreme Court decision
last year stating that people exposed to dangerous chemicals could not sue
for medical monitoring when they had no apparent illnesses.  The Supreme
Court also noted that state law requires a present illness before a
plaintiff may recover monetary damages.

Judge Laird told Associated Press he did not know how many plaintiffs would
be eliminated from the case as a result of his ruling Tuesday.  Jury
selection for the trial resumed Wednesday.

Solutia, Inc., the Monsanto spin-off company, has not yet released any
statement concerning the matter.  Company officials have asserted that there
was no credible evidence that PCBs caused illness.


SOUTH KOREA: Villagers Sue Government For Noise From US Bombing Range
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 2,000 South Koreans filed a class action against the Seoul
government for the "unbearable" noise from the US bombing range near the
Maehyang-ri village on the West Coast.  The suit is pending in the Seoul
District Civil Court.

The onshore and offshore range has been used by US troops stationed in South
Korea to deter a possible North Korean invasion.  Villagers allege that the
noise from the strafing and bombing exercises caused them to suffer physical
and mental damage.  They also claim that nine people have died to accidents
linked to the range.  The US military stopped strafing exercises last year,
but bombing exercises continue.

Last April, the District Court issued a landmark ruling in a separate case,
holding the government responsible for the negative effects of the US
strafing and bombing exercises in the range.  The ruling stated that the
noise during the US bombing exercises was twice that permitted by law for
residential areas.  The court also ordered the government to pay the 14
plaintiffs $100,000. The government promptly filed an appeal, but last week,
an appeals court upheld the district court's ruling.

Plaintiffs in the class action have hailed the decision, saying it would
greatly affect their suit.  Chun Man-kyu, spokesman for the plaintiffs, told
Associated Press "We welcome the ruling. We're sure that the other suit will
also be successful."


                            Securities Fraud


ACLN LTD.: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross PC commenced a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of ACLN, Ltd. (NYSE: ASW) between December 21, 1998 and
December 20, 2001, inclusive against the Company, and:

     (1) Joseph Bisschops,

     (2) Aldo Labiad and

     (3) Alex De Ridder.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing materially false and misleading statements to the market. Beginning
on June 29, 2000, and continuing throughout the class period, defendants
issued multiple press releases and filed quarterly and annual reports with
the SEC which highlighted the Company's growth and strong financial
performance.

As alleged in the suit, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to describe the true state of financial
affairs at the Company. Specifically, defendants:

     (i) failed to disclose certain self-dealing transactions between
         defendant Bisschops and certain private entities which he
         controlled;

    (ii) overstated the Company's assets by listing a shipping vessel,
         the Sea Atef, as an asset of the Company, when, in fact, the
         Company did not own the Sea Atef;

   (iii) understated the Company's selling, general and administrative
         expenses, causing the Company's net income to be overstated;
         and

    (iv) violated generally accepted accounting principles and the
         Company's own stated policy with regard to recognition of
         revenue by reporting revenue for the cars that it sold as soon
         as the ship carrying the cars left the port and not when the
         shipment was completed.

The truth about these statements finally came to light on December 20, 2001,
in an article published by Herb Greenberg on theStreet.com. In response to
the questions raised in Greenberg's article, shares of the Company plunged
64%, falling $16.71 to close at $9.40 per share.

For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail: 1515
Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
800-849-3120(toll-free), 866-561-3600(toll-free) or 215-561-3600 or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


CREDIT SUISSE: Mortgage.com Creditors File "Unusual" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse First Boston faces a unusual class action filed on behalf of
MDCM Holdings, which represents creditors of failed online group
Mortgage.com, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, according to a Financial Times report.

The suit alleges that the Company breached its underwriting duties by
unlawfully under-pricing the Mortgage.com IPO and others as part of a scheme
to enrich itself and its trading clients.  The Company underwrote the
Mortgage.com IPO in August 1999, and sold 7.4 million shares to the public
at $8 per share and the shares nearly tripled in value in their first weeks
of trading.

The case is considered unusual, because this was the first time an issuer
has sued its underwriter.  Other securities suits name both the issuing
company and the underwriters as defendants.

Other issuers, however, have been reluctant to follow MDCM's lead, since
many of these issuers still have close business ties with their
underwriters.  If successful, the case could begin a trend in which
companies that have recently had initial public offerings sue their
underwriters for damages related to possible unlawful IPO practices in 1999
and 2000.

The Company says it will vigorously oppose the class action and  believes it
is close to reaching a settlement agreement in coming weeks.  Other
investment banks, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, are also being
probed on possible trading violations.


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP lodged a securities class action
against DJ Orthopedics, Inc. (NYSE: DJO) on behalf of all those persons or
entities who purchased the common stock of DJ Orthopedics pursuant or
traceable to a registration statement/prospectus dated November 14, 2001.
The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company and:

     (1) Leslie H. Cross, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Cyril Talbot III, Senior Vice President of Finance and Chief
         Financial Officer,

     (3) Charles T. Orsatti, Chairman,

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (5) J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., and

     (8) First Union Securities, Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933. In November 2001, the Company completed an
initial public offering (IPO) of 9 million shares of stock at $17 per share
for total proceeds of $153 million. In the prospectus, the defendants
represented that the Company was dependent, in part, on international sales
to fuel its revenue growth and profitability.

The suit alleges that the statements in the prospectus were false and
misleading because the offering price contained in the prospectus was
artificially inflated as it was based in material part on the Company's
earnings estimates for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2001. The
complaint charges that prior to the IPO, defendants knew that the Company
would not achieve its 4th Quarter earnings estimates due to a slowdown in
international sales and that such a decline should have been disclosed in
the prospectus.

Moreover, it is alleged that this information was disclosed selectively to
certain of the underwriting defendants who, as a result of the change in the
Company's 4th Quarter projections, declined to support or otherwise purchase
the shares in the "after market" and advised their institutional clients of
the negative change, some of whom withdrew from the offering. Thus, contrary
to the representations in the Prospectus and obligations of the defendants,
the prospectus omitted material facts, rendering the Prospectus false and
misleading.

As a result of this news, the price of the Company's shares fell, closing at
$15.25 per share, more than a 10% drop from the offering price. The
following day, shares fell another $1.05 to close at $14.20.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529 (or
888-4-POMLAW) toll free by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy and Levy PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Globix Corporation (Nasdaq:
GBIX) between November 16, 2000 and December 27, 2001, inclusive, against
the Company and:

     (1) Marc Bell,

     (2) Peter Herzig, and

     (3) Brian Reach

The suit charges that the defendants violated federal and state securities
laws by, among other things, issuing false misleading statements regarding
the Company's financial condition as well as its present and future business
prospects.

As alleged in the complaint, in November 2000, in an effort to stabilize the
price of Company stock and to assuage investor concerns over the Company
continuing as going concern, defendants set-forth the Company's business
plan which stated in no uncertain terms that it would be fully funded to
fiscal 2003 and thereafter cash flow positive. This sentiment was repeated
in the Company's annual report filed on Form 10-K with the Securities
Exchange Commission and numerous times thereafter in Company press releases
and conference calls.

Despite such assurances, on December 27, 2001, defendants shocked the
investing community by announcing that management had been secretly
negotiating with its bond holders and preferred stock holders to effectuate
a pre-packaged bankruptcy that would result in a near total dilution of the
existing common stockholders' interest in the Company.

For more information, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 866-338-3674
(toll free), 203-564-1920 or by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com


HOMESTORE.COM: Donovan Searles Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Searles LLC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased Homestore.com (NASDAQ: HOMS) securities between July
20, 2000 and December 21, 2001, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Stuart H. Wolff,

     (2) Peter B. Tafeen,

     (3) John M. Geisecke Jr., and

     (4) Joseph J. Shew

The suit charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price
of the Company's securities, defendants misrepresented the Company's true
prospects in an effort to conceal its improper acts until the individual
defendants were able to sell at least $16 million of their own stock.

In particular, defendants overstated the Company's revenues and assets in
2nd, 3rd and 4th Quarters 2000 and 1st, 2nd and 3rd Quarters 2001, in
violation of generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules. On
December 21, 2001, the Company disclosed that the board of directors was
conducting an inquiry into its accounting practices. The Company then
announced that it would restate certain of its financial statements.

In response to this announcement, the NASDAQ stock market halted trading of
the Company's stock. On January 2, 2002, the Company announced that it had
overstated its on-line advertising revenues in the first 3 quarters of 2001
by between $54 million and $95 million in connection with certain
advertising transactions that should have been accounted for as barter
transactions.

The suit alleges that defendants knew that the Company's revenues were
inflated and sold thousands of shares of their holdings while in possession
of that adverse information. The suit further alleges that defendants'
misrepresentations caused the price of the Company's securities to be
artificially inflated throughout the class period.

For further details, contact Michael D. Donovan by Mail: 1845 Walnut Street,
Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: (800) 619-1677 or (215)
732-6067 by E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.donovansearles.com


HOMESTORE.COM: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Homestore.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: HOMS) common stock during the
period between July 20, 2000 and December 21, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In July 2000 (after the
close of the market), the Company issued a release of its positive 2Q 00
results, causing its stock price to soar by more than $7 (or 25%) the
following trading day.

The suit alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price of Company
stock, defendants misrepresented the Company's true prospects in an effort
to conceal its improper acts until they were able to sell at least $16
million of their own stock.

In order to overstate revenues and assets in 2nd, 3rd, 4th Quarter 2000 and
1st,2nd and 3rd quarter 2001, the suit charges that the Company violated
generally accepted accounting principals and SEC rules by engaging in
improper transactions. These transactions had the effect of dramatically
overstating revenues and assets.

Following the release of the Company's 3rd Quarter 2001 results, the Company
also slashed its revenue projections for 2002 from $563 million to $375-$425
million as a result of a material decline in its business with its main
partner. On this news the Company's shares dropped by more than 50% the
following trading day. Then, on December 21, 2001 (after the close of the
market), the Company partially admitted that its past accounting for its
prior results was inaccurate. On this news the Company's shares were halted.
Trading resumed on Monday, January 7, 2002 at a price well below where the
stock traded during the class period.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by Phone:
800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
drscott@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scott-scott.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: CEO Admits Trials For Cancer Drug Lacked Documentation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imclone Systems, Inc. Chief Executive, Sam Waksal acknowledge that the
trials they conducted of its experimental cancer drug Erbitux were defective
because they failed to collect key documentation essential in satisfying the
requirements for their "Fast Track" application with the United States Food
and Drug Administration.

The latest development comes at the heels of several securities suits filed
against the Company in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of investors who claim the company failed to
disclose gaps in its filing to the FDA. The suits uniformly allege the
Company issued misleading press releases highlighting successful progress of
its application to the FDA of Erbitux when it knew the deficient application
would be rejected.

The Company filed the application in June last year.  On December 28, 2001,
the Company disclosed that the FDA had refused to accept its deficient and
defective application for approval of Erbitux.  The revelation drove the
Company's shares from a high of $73.83 to $55.25.
A report from The Cancer Letter revealed on January 4,2002 revealed that the
FDA had repeatedly informed the Company of the deficit in the documentation
for the application, a development that drove Company shares even lower.

Initially, Company officials claimed they had the documentation needed to
satisfy the requirements of the application. Now it is less certain.  Chief
Executive Sam Waksal revealed to investors that "We put together a faulty
package and we screwed up...If we are unable to correct the database we are
going to have to do new trials, or give them new clinical data."

According to an Associated Press report, Mr. Waksal said the crux of the
FDA's refusal is that the company failed to provide documentation of the
"refractory" nature of patients enrolled in the trial used to support the
FDA application. Refractory is the term used to describe patients who have
become resistant to other therapies. He said "That documentation does not
exist...If you don't have a denominator, you don't have a study."

He added the Company has yet to meet with the agency to discuss how to
remedy its application.  Solutions include filing a separate application for
the drug as a treatment for head and neck cancer, using data from other
colorectal cancer trials to satisfy the FDA concerns or conducting new
studies of the drug.

Mr. Waksal also defended the company against accusations that it failed to
update investors on the status of the FDA filing, saying that the company
did not complete its application until October, before which all
communications with the FDA related to guidance on filing formats, timing
and logistics for the manufacturing portion of the application.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
all purchasers of the common stock of ImClone Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMCL)
from June 28, 2001 through December 28, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing materially false and misleading statements to the market. Throughout
the class period, defendants issued multiple press releases highlighting the
successful progress of its "Fast-Track" application to the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for approval of IMC-C225, its blockbuster drug used for
the treatment of colorectal cancer and also known as Erbitux, and the
positive impact that the drug's approval would have on the Company's
revenues.

As alleged in the suit, these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

     (i) defendants failed to comply with the FDA's requirements for
         filing the "Fast Track" application for approval of Erbitux;
         and

    (ii) as such, defendants knew, or should have known, that their
         deficient application would be rejected and would thus
         negatively impact the Company's future earnings.

The suit further alleges that defendants filed their application, despite
lacking the skill and expertise to make a proper filing, in order to
convince Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to purchase at least $1 billion in Company
stock, of which approximately $150 million was tendered by Company insiders,
including the individual defendants, and to convince Bristol-Myers to make
an additional $1 billion cash investment in the Company.

On December 28, 2001, the Company disclosed that the FDA had refused to
accept its deficient and defective application for approval of Erbitux,
confirming almost two weeks of speculation that had already driven down the
price of Company stock by 21%, from a class period high of $73.83 per share
on December 5, 2001 to $55.25 per share at the close of regular trading on
December 28, 2001. Immediately following this shocking revelation, however,
shares dropped precipitously, falling $5.25 per share in after hours
trading, or 9.5%, to close that session at $50 per share. On December 31,
2001, shares continued to trade lower, and closed at $46.46 per share.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Wolf Popper Lodges Second Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a second securities class action against ImClone
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMCL) and certain of its senior officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period beginning on May 12, 2001 through January 4, 2002, inclusive.

This second complaint contains additional allegations supporting the
plaintiffs, claims of securities fraud, based on the reported contents of a
December 28, 2001 letter from the US Food and Drug Administration to the
Company.  On January 4, 2002, The Cancer Letter reported that it had
obtained a copy of the FDA's letter to the Company dated December 28, 2001.
According to that FDA letter, the FDA had repeatedly informed the Company
and the individual defendants about the problems with ImClone's clinical
trials.

As alleged in this most recent complaint, the detailed disclosures contained
in The Cancer Letter report have led investors to question the integrity of
Company management. One money manager is quoted in the complaint as stating,
"This gives the entire biotech and drug sector a black eye...This is going
to have investors questioning whether they can trust anything that a biotech
executive says anymore."

As a result of the January 4, 2002 revelations, the Company's common stock,
which had traded at a high of $75.45 during the class period, plummeted to
close on January 7, 2002 at $35.83 per share. The individual defendants
benefited from the fraud during the class period by selling or filing to
sell approximately 2.3 million shares of stock for gross proceeds of
approximately $160 million.

For more information, contact Robert C. Finkel by Mail: 845 Third Avenue,
New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 877-370-7703 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of ImClone Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMCL) between June 28,
2001 and December 28, 2001, inclusive. The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Samuel D. Waksal,

     (2) Harlan W. Waksal,

     (3) Robert F. Goldhammer,

     (4) John Mendelsohn,

     (5) William R. Miller,

     (6) Paul B. Kopperl,

     (7) David M. Kies and

     (8) Richard Barth

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing materially false and misleading statements to the market. Throughout
the class period, defendants issued multiple press releases highlighting the
successful progress of its "Fast-Track" application to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of IMC-C225, its blockbuster drug
used for the treatment of colorectal cancer and also known as Erbitux, and
the positive impact that the drug's approval would have on the Company's
revenues.

As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

     (i) defendants failed to comply with the FDA's requirements for
         filing the "Fast Track" application for approval of Erbitux;
         and

    (ii) as such, defendants knew, or should have known, that their
         deficient application would be rejected and would thus
         negatively impact the Company's future earnings.

The suit further alleges that defendants filed their application, despite
lacking the skill and expertise to make a proper filing, in order to
convince Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to purchase at least $1 billion in Company
stock, of which approximately $150 million was tendered by insiders,
including the individual defendants, and to persuade Bristol-Myers to make
an additional $1 billion cash investment in the Company.

On December 28, 2001, the Company disclosed that the FDA had refused to
accept its deficient and defective application for approval of Erbitux,
confirming almost two weeks of speculation that had already driven down the
price of Company stock by 21%, from a class period high of $73.83 per share
on December 5, 2001 to $55.25 per share at the close of regular trading on
December 28, 2001.

Immediately following this shocking revelation, however, shares of the
Company dropped precipitously, falling $5.25 per share in after hours
trading, or 9.5%, to close that session at $50 per share. On December 31,
2001, shares ImClone continued to trade lower, and closed at $46.46 per
share.

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by Phone:
800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
drscott@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scott-scott.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy and Levy PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of ImClone Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMCL) between June 28, 2001
and December 28, 2001, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Samuel D. Waksal,

     (2) Harlan W. Waksal,

     (3) Robert F. Goldhammer,

     (4) John Mendelsohn,

     (5) William R. Miller,

     (6) Paul B. Kopperl,

     (7) David M. Kies and

     (8) Richard Barth

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing materially false and misleading statements to the market.
Throughout the class period, defendants issued multiple press releases
highlighting the successful progress of its "Fast-Track" application to the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of IMC-C225, its
blockbuster drug used for the treatment of colorectal cancer and also known
as Erbitux, and the positive impact that the drug's approval would have on
the Company's revenues.

As alleged in the suit, these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

     (i) defendants failed to comply with the FDA's requirements for
         filing the "Fast Track" application for approval of Erbitux;
         and

    (ii) as such, defendants knew, or should have known, that their
         deficient application would be rejected and would thus
         negatively impact the Company's future earnings.

The suit further alleges that defendants filed their application, despite
lacking the skill and expertise to make a proper filing, in order to
convince Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to purchase at least $1 billion in Company
stock, of which approximately $150 million was tendered by insiders,
including the individual defendants, and to convince Bristol-Myers to make
an additional $1 billion cash investment in the Company.

On December 28, 2001, the Company disclosed that the FDA had refused to
accept its deficient and defective application for approval of Erbitux,
confirming almost two weeks of speculation that had already driven down the
price of Company stock by 21%, from a class period high of $73.83 per share
on December 5, 2001 to $55.25 per share at the close of regular trading on
December 28, 2001.

Immediately following this shocking revelation, however, shares of the
Company dropped precipitously, falling $5.25 per share in after hours
trading, or 9.5%, to close that session at $50 per share. On December 31,
2001, shares continued to trade lower, and closed at $46.46 per share.

For more information, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 866-338-3674
(toll free), 203-564-1920 by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.levylawfirm.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf
of purchasers of shares of ImClone Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:IMCL) between May
12, 2001 and January 4, 2002, inclusive in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges in this action that during the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about the progress of the
Company's application for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of
Erbitux, a new cancer treatment drug.

On December 28, 2001, the Company shocked the market by issuing a press
release that disclosed that the FDA had rejected its filing of a Biologics
License Application (BLA) for Erbitux. Company shares plummeted $11.15, or
20%, to $44.10. On January 4, 2002, a publication known as The Cancer Letter
reported that the FDA repeatedly informed the company about the problems
with the clinical trials during and before the class period. After these
additional facts were disclosed, the Company's shares fell further to open
on January 7, 2002 at $34.96 per share.

For more information, contact Ira Press or Melissa Fleming byMail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 212-317-2300 or
888-529-4787 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.kmslaw.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague PC initiated a securities class action against ImClone
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMCL) and two of its principal officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period from May 12, 2001 through January 7, 2002.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lead cancer drug, ERBITUX or
IMC-C225 and the prospects for near-term approval of that drug for the
treatment of colorectal cancer by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA).

Among other things:

     (1) defendants repeatedly represented that ERBITUX was a
         blockbuster drug that would become "one of the important new
         drugs in the history of oncology;"

     (2) defendants told investors that ERBITUX would "be on the market
         next year" for the treatment of colorectal cancer, and that
         they were confident that the drug would be evaluated at the
         February 2002 meeting of the FDA Advisory Committee, stating:
         "We believe we'll be before the FDA Oncology Drug Advisory
         Committee in February and the drug should be approved shortly
         thereafter;"

     (3) defendants represented that the results of the Company's
         clinical trial of ERBITUX in the treatment of patients with
         colorectal cancer produced results that exceeded FDA
         requirements

The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, among other things:

     (i) contrary to directives to the Company by the FDA, the trial
         was not designed to demonstrate that ERBITUX was responsible
         for the reported results;

    (ii) the clinical trial on which the application was based was
         seriously flawed by the protocol violations, and was not
         "adequate and well controlled;" and

   (iii) the safety database for the trial was incomplete and contained
         inconsistencies and discrepancies. As such, defendants knew or
         should have known that the FDA would refuse to file the
         Company's defective application, which would have a disastrous
         effect on the price of the Company's stock.

The suit further alleges that defendants made these false and misleading
statements, in part, in order to convince Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. to
purchase $1 billion of the Company stock, of which approximately $150
million was tendered by Company insiders and to persuade Bristol-Myers to
make an additional $1 billion cash investment in the Company.

In December 2001, the Company shocked the market by issuing a press release
that disclosed that the FDA had rejected its filing of a Biologics License
Application (BLA) for ERBITUX. Company shares plummeted $11.15, or 20%, to
$44.10. On January 4, 2002, a publication known as The Cancer Letter
reported that the FDA repeatedly informed ImClone about the problems with
the clinical trials by the FDA during and before the class period.  After
these additional facts were disclosed, the price of the Company's stock fell
further to open on January 7, 2002 at $34.96 per share.

On January 9, 2002, the Company issued a press release that admitted that
the Company "may need to conduct new trials of...ERBITUX, potentially
delaying the treatment's launch by months."

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick, or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bm.net


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Wechsler Harwood Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP commenced a securities class action
against ImClone Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMCL) and certain of its senior
officers for violations of the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period beginning on December 31, 2001 through
January 4, 2002, inclusive, alleges that during the class period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements about status of
its application for the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of
Erbitux, its alleged new "blockbuster" drug for cancer treatment.  The
foregoing representations were materially misleading because, among other
things, defendants failed to describe accurately the reasons the FDA refused
to accept its application to sell Erbitux.

In reliance on the truth and accuracy of defendants' public statements,
Company shares traded as high as $47.69 per share during the class period.

On December 28, 2001, the Company issued a press release stating the FDA, in
a letter dated December 28, 2001 had rejected its filing of a Biologics
License Application (BLA) for Erbitux, and one of the individual defendants
stated that such rejection resulted largely from record-keeping mistakes. It
was not until January 4, 2002, that the truth was revealed and that in fact
the letter included a long list of concerns about Erbitux's application
going far beyond mere record-keeping errors.

After these additional facts were disclosed, Company shares plunged, opening
on January 7, 2002 at $34.96 per share.

For more information, contact Ramon Pi¤on by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 or by E-mail: rpinoniv@whhf.com.


LAIDLAW INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in SC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laidlaw, Inc. (TSE:LDM) has reached an agreement in principle with parties
in the securities fraud class action filed on behalf of the Company's
bondholders who purchased securities of Laidlaw during the period September
24, 1997 through and including March 13, 2000 in the United States District
Court in South Carolina.

The suit alleged that during that period, the Company and the other
defendants disseminated to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the relative priority of
certain of its debentures and its financial condition.

The Company and the other defendants have denied all liability.  The
proposed settlement provides for a release of all claims that the plaintiffs
have and may have against the Company and the other defendants, including
certain of its former and current officers and directors, underwriters in
the bond offerings at issue in the lawsuit and accountants, and a release of
claims by the Company.

The settlement is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement
agreement and the approval of the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina, as well as the approval of the Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of New York in which the chapter 11 case of the
Company is pending and the court in Canada that is presiding over its
reorganization. In addition, certain aspects of the settlement are subject
to the confirmation of a satisfactory plan of reorganization for the
Company.

Concurrently, an agreement in principle was reached to settle a class action
by the Company's bondholders against the indenture trustee for the Laidlaw
bonds, subject to court approval. Separately, an action by a purchaser of
options on Laidlaw bonds is also being settled.

If the settlement of the bondholder actions receives the required judicial
approvals and is implemented, the plaintiff bondholder classes would be paid
$42.875 million and the bankruptcy estate of the Company would receive $12.5
million.

Laidlaw Inc. is a holding company for North America's largest providers of
school and intercity bus transportation, municipal transit, patient
transportation and emergency department management services.

For more information, contact Ivan R. Cairns, Senior Vice President and
General Counsel, by Phone: 800-563-6072 or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.laidlaw.com


RACING CHAMPIONS: Settles Securities Suit in N.D. IL For 1.8 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division has approved a $1.8 million package proposed by toy car maker
Racing Champions (NASDAQ:RACN) to settle a securities class action brought
against the Company in 2000.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 1, 1999 and June 23, 1999, alleges that the Company
violated certain federal securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between February 1, 1999 and June 23, 1999,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the its common stock. The Court
has dismissed all claims with prejudice against all defendants.

Racing Champions is a producer and marketer of innovative collectibles and
toys sold in multiple channels of distribution and available at more than
20,000 retail outlets.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Purports "Full Compliance", Contrary To Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCII) will vigorously oppose several class
action suits filed in the US District Court in Texarkana on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 25,2001 through October
8,2001.  The suit alleges the Company and its executives issued misleading
statements about the Company's finances.

The suit alleges the Company issued, in April 2001, a press release
announcing record results for the first quarter of 2001 and highlighting the
company's resilience in a weakening economy. According to the complaint, the
press release was "materially false and misleading because the company did
not disclose that its expenses were rising dramatically as Rent-A-Center
attempted to combat weakening demand with deep discounts and promotions."

Rent-A-Center Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Chris Korst,
declined to comment on specifics but said in an interview with the Dallas
Business Journal, "The company believes very strongly that it has been and
remains in full compliance with all applicable securities laws, and we look
forward to the opportunity to show that in a court of law."


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy and Levy PC initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Rent-A-Center, Inc. (Nasdaq: RCII) from
April 25, 2001 through October 8, 2001, inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) J. Ernest Talley, Chairman and CEO until October 8, 2001,

     (2) Mitchell E. Fadel, President and Director,

     (3) Robert D. Davis, CFO and Treasurer and

     (4) Mark E. Speese, Directorv until October 8, 2001, thereafter
         Chairman and CEO

The suit alleges the defendants issued false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that on April 25, 2001, the Company issued a press release
announcing record results for the first quarter of 2001 and highlighting its
resilience in a weakening economy.

The representations in the press release were, according to the allegations
of the complaint, materially false and misleading because the Company did
not disclose that its expenses were rising dramatically as it attempted to
combat weakening demand with deep discounts and promotions.

While in possession of this adverse non-public information, the Company
completed a secondary offering of 3,200,000 shares of its common stock at
$42.50 per share, on May 25, 2001. Defendant Talley sold 1,700,000 shares in
the secondary offering, grossing over $72 million, and defendant Speese sold
500,000 shares, grossing over $21 million. Then, on May 31, 2001, defendant
Talley sold an additional 1,955,000 shares of common stock at $40.38 per
share, grossing over $78 million.

Subsequently, on October 8, 2001, only five months after the secondary
offering, the Company issued a press release announcing that earnings for
the third and fourth quarter of 2001 would be significantly less than its
previous guidance to the market, due to rising expenses. In response to this
announcement, Rent-A- Center's stock price dropped by 19% in one day on
heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford Plaza,
263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone: 866-338-3674 (toll
free), 203-564-1920 by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.levylawfirm.com


YORKTON SECURITIES: Faces Possible Securities Suits Over Business Ties
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada-based Yorkton Securities, Inc. could face a securities class action
from disgruntled investors centering on its business dealings with several
companies, which include Book4golf.com, Games Trader Inc. and Ecompark, Inc.
in which the brokerage and its executives acted as lead underwriters,
investors, promoters and directors.

According to the Financial Post, the Ontario Securities Commission had
investigated the Company, censuring it for activities that were "contary to
public interest."  The commission also suggested that conflicts were allowed
to foster because of a permissive "culture of non-compliance."

The Company and four of its employees later reached a settlement with the
commission, agreeing to pay a $1.25 million fine and to shoulder for
$200,000 the cost of the agency's investigation.  Former Company chairman
Scott Patterson, also settled for $1 million, $100,000 in costs and a
six-month trading ban.

Calgary-based attorney Clint Docken told the Financial Post he was gathering
a list of shareholders in hopes of launching a claim against the embattled
brokerage firm.  He stated "What we're doing is researching the issue and
compiling names of individuals who have suffered losses. It's an issue we're
hoping to pursue further."

Mr. Docken said his company began looking into the conflicts at Yorkton last
summer, particularly the multiple roles the brokerage and some of its key
executives played in financing, advising and promoting various stocks.


                              *********


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.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima Antonio
and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  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 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *