CAR_Public/020115.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Tuesday, January 15, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 9

                            Headlines

BAYER AG: Attempt To Include German Cases In US Suit Will Be Rejected
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Court Approves $450M Late Fees Suit Settlement
CALIFORNIA: East Palo Alto Faces Suit Saying 5% Utility Tax "Illegal"
CANADA: Egg Marketing Board Sued For Interfering With Organic Producers
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: $3.75B Settlement Final After Opt-Out Date Passes

GOLDENDALE ALUMINUM: Hagens Berman Files Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Owner-Operators File Breach-Of-Contract Suit in IA
HOME BUILDERS: NY Fraud Suit Amended To Include Racketeering Charges
IBP INC.: Appealing Certification of Alabama Cattlemen's Antitrust Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Rejects Antitrust Lawsuits' $1B Settlement

SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Rejects Pork Producers' Antitrust Suit in GA
TEXAS: Judge Rules Arlington Street Maintenance Fee "Illegal"

                         Securities Fraud

ACLN LTD.: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
APW LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
FINISAR INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

GLOBIX CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Sued For Breach of Fiduciary Duty Over Aloha Merger
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: James Bashian Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Files Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MCLEOD USA: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Iowa
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Final Approval To 800T Settlement
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Dyer Shuman Commences Securities Suit in CO
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in CO

VAN WAGONER: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. WI
XO COMMUNICATIONS: Hoffman Edelson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VI

                            *********


BAYER AG: Attempt To Include German Cases In US Suit Will Be Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical giant, Bayer AG said it is confident that the US Courts
will reject the attempt to include German cases in the class action
litigation brought about by cholesterol drug Lipobay, according to a
Reuters report.  Several lawsuits were filed against the Company when
it recalled Lipobay last August after it was linked with more than 50
deaths around the world.

Last week, German lawyer Michael Witti announced that US lawyers have
found a way to represent German cases for US courts.  Mr. Witti is
cooperating with American law firm Kenneth B. Moll and Associates.

In a press statement, the Company said "German courts applying German
law should decide disputes between German citizens and a German
corporation.This principle is supported by American law."


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Court Approves $450M Late Fees Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
State Judge Milton Gunn Shuffield has finally approved the package
proposed by rental chain Blockbuster Inc. to settle a class action suit
originally filed in Beaumont, Texas State Court by two customers who
returned their videos late between January 1, 1992 and April 1, 2001.
The plaintiffs alleged the fees were unreasonable, in most cases,
almost the original rental price.

Under the settlement, the Company will issue certificates or coupons
for free or dollar-off movie rentals to its customers for a total face
value estimated at $450 million.  If the Judge's ruling is not
appealed, customers could begin getting the coupons in two to three
months, lawyers who sued the video chain told Associated Press.

The settlement allows the Company to continue its current practice of
charging customers for a new rental period when they return a tape
late, lawyers said. Judge Shuffield upheld the late-fee policy.
Company spokesman Randy Hargrove said the company will keep its current
late-fee policy.  The company agreed to the settlement because it is
"more efficient" than battling a number of lawsuits filed around the
country.

Kevin Buchanan, one of the lawyers who sued Blockbuster, estimates that
the settlement could cost the chain at least $100 million, based on a
company official's testimony that 20 percent of coupons were redeemed
in a similar refund in Michigan, according to an Associated Press
report.

Blockbuster and the plaintiff lawyers who negotiated the settlement
hope the Beaumont Judge will issue a final settlement next week, which
they believe will virtually kill other pending class action lawsuits
around the country.

About 500 Blockbuster customers opted out of the Beaumont settlement
and could sue the company on their own, but lawyers said that was
impractical given the small amounts due to individual customers.


CALIFORNIA: East Palo Alto Faces Suit Saying 5% Utility Tax "Illegal"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
East Palo Alto, California faces a class action suit accusing the City
of illegally collecting tax that amounts to nearly $1 million a year.
The suit alleges that the city's 5% utility tax is illegal and violates
state laws because it never received voter approval.

The city is one of the more than 100 California cities that has
collected such a tax, and has been for 13 years.  The suit was spurred
after the California Supreme Court ruling last year involving La Habra,
a southern California City.

La Habra passed Proposition 62 in 1986, requiring voter approval for
all new taxes.  In 1991, an appellate court declared the proposition
"unconstitutional."  The California Supreme Court later reversed that
ruling, leaving the tax vulnerable to challenge.

East Palo Alto is seeking additional clarification on the Supreme Court
ruling.  It has continued to collect the taxes but has placed the money
in escrow.


CANADA: Egg Marketing Board Sued For Interfering With Organic Producers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia's Egg Marketing Board faces a class action suit filed
in B.C. Supreme Court, saying the Board has no jurisdiction over
organic eggs and organic producers.  The suit seeks damages, claiming
the Board has interfered in their market share.

The suit alleges that the Marketing Board has imposed regulations and
quotas without lawful jurisdiction, and claims the Board has made
damaging public statements suggesting organic eggs are less safe than
conventional eggs. The lawsuit further alleges says the Board wanted no
part of the organic industry in the early 1990s, but now wants to share
in its success.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: $3.75B Settlement Final After Opt-Out Date Passes
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug maker American Home Products announced that the $3.75 billion
settlement package in the class action filed by thousands of people who
took the Fen-Phen diet drug combination is now final, as no one opposed
it by the set January 2, 2002 deadline.

The suits against the Company commenced after they recalled the drug in
1997 amid concerns that diet drugs Pondimin, the fenfluramine half of
fen-phen, and Redux caused heart valve damage in some patients.
Phentermine, the other drug in the combination was not implicated in
the suit.  About 6 million people took the drug before it was pulled
off the shelves.

Plaintiffs or health insurers could have asked the US Supreme Court to
review the settlement by the deadline, but no request was filed.
Company Spokesman Doug Petkus said "That means the settlement is
finally approved by the courts."

Final court approval means people who used the drugs and want to file a
claim must do so by August, according to attorneys for plaintiffs and
the trust administering the settlement.

The Company has paid about $11 billion to settle with individual
claimants, including those who won jury awards and those who developed
a potentially fatal lung condition.  The Company has also taken a total
of $13.2 billion in charges to cover the settlement and lawsuits
brought by plaintiffs who chose to pursue individual cases, company
spokesman Lowell Weiner said.

For more information, visit the Website:
http://www.settlementdietdrugs.com


GOLDENDALE ALUMINUM: Hagens Berman Files Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldendale Aluminum and Chairman Brett Wilcox faces a class action
filed by Hagens Berman LLP in the US District Court in Spokane on
behalf of an estimated 2000 workers at their Goldendale facility, over
profits generated from the sale of electricity.

The suit alleges that Mr. Wilcox improperly diverted $285 million in
income from the sale of electricity to avoid a profit-sharing
obligation to company employees.  The Company had exercised a clause in
its contract with energy supplier Bonneville Power Association (BPA) to
sell back electricity, which BPA then resold to other electric
consumers, which generated approximately $285 million in revenue
between December 2000 and September 2001.

Rather than recognize the $285 million as revenue for Goldendale
Aluminum, which would be subject to the company's profit-sharing
program, the complaint contends that Mr. Wilcox diverted the funds to
Northwest Energy Development, LLC, a company he owns.

Plaintiffs' attorney Steve Berman asserts, "The employees don't know
what's worse in this case, that the CEO shuts down a factory and idles
hundreds of workers to cash in on the energy contract windfall, or, in
their view, to turn around and deprive those same employees of the
profit-sharing from the deal."

Mr. Wilcox acquired the Company in 1996 and entered into an agreement
with the United Steelworkers of America, Local 8147. That agreement
included a profit-sharing plan that required the company to pay workers
20 percent of its profits, the suit states.

Under its agreement with BPA, The Company had:

     (1) the right to purchase electricity at a fixed rate from BPA;

     (2) the right to decline delivery of the power;

     (3) the right to ask BPA to remarket the power to third parties;
         and

     (4) the right to receive the proceeds after BPA deducted costs and
         expenses

Beginning in December 2000, the Company curtailed production to 5
percent of capacity. Since the Company re-marketed its energy contracts
to BPA, the plant has stood idle and is near financial collapse, the
complaint contends. The suit additionally claims that the Company
breached its fiduciary responsibilities as the administrator of the
profit-sharing plan, including the obligation to act in the sole
interests of the plan participants.

For more information, contact Steve Berman by Phone: 206-623-7292 by E-
mail: steve@hagens-berman or Mark Firmani by Phone: 206-443-9357 or by
E-mail: mark@firmani.com


HEARTLAND EXPRESS: Owner-Operators File Breach-Of-Contract Suit In IA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Trucking company Heartland Express faces a class action suit filed by
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, on behalf of
the Company's owner-operators since 1996.

The suit alleges that the Company failed to adequately inform the
owner-operators of certain deductions from their settlement statements
in violation of Department of Transportation regulations.  The suit
further alleges that the Company's standard contract with owner-
operators violates those regulations.

The Company has labeled the allegations "without merit" and intends to
defend against the suit vigorously. The Company also stated that if it
does not prevail, its operations and financial condition could be
materially and adversely affected.


HOME BUILDERS: NY Fraud Suit Amended To Include Racketeering Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The lawyers for some minority residents whose class action suit
originally charged that one of Suffolk County's largest developers and
his son conspired with others to sell them shoddily built, overpriced
homes, recently filed an amended lawsuit. The nearly 600 page document
was filed in US District Court in Brooklyn, alleging racketeering
charges against the pair and more than 70 other defendants, according
to a recent Newsday report.

The original lawsuit against Robert Toussie and his son Isaac, and more
than 20 lenders, was expanded to name several title-search companies,
including that of Suffolk County's former director of real estate,
Allan Grecco, who resigned last month amid allegations that his
dealings with Robert Toussie represented a conflict of interest.

In addition, the amended document names lawyers, appraisers and
construction companies, as well as many more lenders than did the
previous lawsuit.  More than 200 plaintiffs are now named, up from the
five named in the original suit.  The amended lawsuit continues to seek
class action status on behalf of the increased number of homeowners,
most of whom live in Suffolk County.

The plaintiffs charge, among other things, that Mr. Grecco's Company,
Peerless Abstract, and other abstract companies, falsified deeds to
make it appear that the homes were in better neighborhoods than some of
the drug-infested areas in which the families said they wound up.

Mr. Grecco denied these charges, saying, "If Toussie presented to the
purchasers that this was a desirable neighborhood, that is his
representation.  All we do is research records."

The latest lawsuit reiterates the allegations in the original suit,
that the Toussies preyed on minorities by advertising in newspapers and
other media that catered primarily to prospective African-American and
Hispanic homebuyers.  The amended suit also charges that the Toussies
colluded with other defendants to misrepresent the values of the homes
sold, their quality and the property taxes.

The plaintiffs' lawyers said they brought their charges under the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in part
because they maintain the Toussies crossed state lines when they used
the US mail, radio and television in the tri-state area "in furtherance
of a criminal conspiracy to defraud."

Isaac Toussie pleaded guilty last May to a federal felony charge in
connection with falsifying homeowners' incomes in order to qualify them
for FHA loans and is awaiting sentencing.  Robert Toussie was not
charged with this offense.

In addition, the federal government arrested 19 lawyers, appraisers,
salesmen and loan officers, most of whom are being sued by the
families.  Thirteen have pleaded guilty.

"We thought that based on the fact that there is an admitted `criminal
conspiracy' that it was appropriate to file charges under RICO
statutes," said Barry Weprin of the Manhattan-based Milberg, Weiss,
Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, the plaintiffs' lawyers.  RICO statutes allow
the plaintiffs to sue for triple damages.

As a result of the alleged conspiracy, the lawsuit says that about 50
percent of the known plaintiffs are in arrears on their mortgage
payments.  More than 25 percent have been served with foreclosure
documents and about 6 percent already have lost their homes.


IBP INC.: Appealing Certification of Alabama Cattlemen's Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat packing giant IBP, Inc. will appeal an Alabama federal court
decision granting class action status to a suit filed by a group of
cattlemen accusing it of illegally cornering the beef market and
conspiring to fix prices on the open market.

10 cattlemen originally filed the suit, claiming the Company violated
the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 by buying mostly packer-owned
cattle and cattle committed to packers under long-term contracts
instead of bidding on auction markets.  This was allegedly done to
unfairly lower prices paid to producers.

In December, Judge Lyle Strom broadened the lawsuit to potentially
include all US cattle producers and owners who sold cattle to the
Company on a cash basis since February 1994.  The ruling makes it
possible for more than 30,000 cattlemen from across the country to join
the suit and makes clearer the possibility of a trial.

In a press statement, IBP expressed confidence that it will "ultimately
prevail."  The statement further said, "Numerous studies have proven
that changes in cattle prices are due to basic supply and demand, not
packer concentration or livestock marketing agreements."

According to plaintiff Pat Goggins, a Billings, Montana, owner of a
livestock auction who is also a rancher and cattle feeder and the
publisher of Western Livestock Reporter, "The industry is actually
going to be stronger because it's going to put some competition back
into the red meat sector."

The suit could affect thousands of producers who sold 12 million head
of cattle annually since 1994. Omaha attorney David Domina, who
represents the producers, says there are two possible outcomes if they
win, payment of damages or court-ordered limits to IBP's captive
supply.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Rejects Antitrust Lawsuits' $1B Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Federal Judge J. Frederick Motz rejected the controversial $1
billion agreement proposed by software giant Microsoft Corporation
(MSFT.O) to settle hundreds of private antitrust class actions filed
against it. He said the proposal was "critically under-funded" and gave
the Company an edge over rival Apple Computer in the school computer
market.

Under the proposed settlement, the Company promised to provide $1
billion worth of software, computers and training to the nation's
poorest schools, claiming that the settlement was the best way to
bridge the "digital divide" between schools.  The lawyers who crafted
the settlement also said that it was the best way, since plaintiffs in
the suits could most likely receive $10 as compensation, if they
divided the settlement money among themselves.

However, lawyers, educators and rivals like Apple Computer, criticized
the settlement, saying it was not enough to punish the Company for
overcharging on software and for practicing "anti-competitive"
behavior.  The settlement also allegedly gave the Company an edge in
one of the few sectors where rival Apple Computer still held a
traditional edge.

In his 21-page ruling, Judge Motz said the settlement "raises
legitimate questions since it appears to provide a means for flooding a
part of the kindergarten through high school market, in which Microsoft
has not traditionally been the strongest player (particularly in
relation to Apple), with Microsoft software and refurbished software."

He also said that the "widely divergent views" between estimates of the
value of the claims being settled prevented him from granting approval.
The Company had earlier argued that it could be responsible for as
little as $200 million, while some economists for the plaintiffs
estimated the company's liability to be upwards of $18.9 billion.

Company spokesman Jim Desler said Microsoft officials were
"disappointed that this unique opportunity to advance very significant
social benefits has been blocked."  Deputy General Counsel Thomas Burt
also said "Microsoft went the extra mile to make this settlement work.
We sought input from educators to fully address issues regarding the
independence of the education foundation that was a key part of the
proposed settlement. We also made modifications to the original
agreement to ensure that schools would have the option to use the
software and platform of their choice."

He added that, while the Company is confident that it will ultimately
prevail in these suits, it is always open to looking for reasonable
ways to resolve litigation. "We will review the court's opinion and at
the same time move forward with the next steps in the litigation," he
said.

Microsoft will now have to start from scratch in negotiating a new
settlement or fight the scores of suits in court. Earlier, Judge Motz
ordered the Company and the dissenting attorneys to meet with prominent
negotiator Kenneth Feinberg to settle their differences.  The talks
ended a day before the decision without reaching any compromise.

Judge Motz added the proposal might have been acceptable if the Company
had agreed to fund the settlement entirely with its own cash to buy
computers and software for schools rather than relying largely on
donations and its own free software.

"Having donated the money to create the fund, Microsoft could then
compete with other software manufacturers to sell licenses for its
products to the eligible schools through the grants program," he said.


SMITHFIELD FOODS: Court Rejects Pork Producers' Antitrust Suit In GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk, Georgia Federal Court rejected a class action suit filed
against Smithfield Foods, Inc. by pork producers in Georgia, claiming
the Company's ownership of pigs or paying growers directly to raise
them violated the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 governing the
relationship between meat packers and farmers and ranchers.

The suit contends that the Company's "vertical integration of producing
and packing pork" depresses prices for the meat. The law requires
packers to buy their hogs from independent producers in cash markets,
the producers alleged, according to a Richmond Times report.

Smithfield Foods' attorneys have refuted this allegation, saying the
law makes no such requirement.  Attorney Thomas G. Slater Jr. asserts
that outlawing the practice "would be a devastating blow to the ability
of pork and beef packers to compete for space on the American dinner
plate by providing high-quality meat at a reasonable price."

Federal Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. requested the parties to present
enough evidence to show whether the practice violated the law.  He said
the law requires a packer's intent to deceive or discriminate and added
it was not enough for vertical integration to have that effect.

He wrote in his ruling, "The plaintiffs' complaint is not directed at
how Smithfield did business with them, but instead is directed at
Smithfield's failure to do business with them.The plaintiff's evidence
demonstrates that economic developments in the industry have overtaken
them; their evidence does not demonstrate that their economic woes were
caused by any actionable wrongdoing" under the federal law or any other
legal theory.

By his decision, Judge Morgan deferred a decision on whether the
producers who filed the suit could meet the legal requirements for a
class-action suit. Lawyers for the producers say they will appeal the
decision to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals.


TEXAS: Judge Rules Arlington Street Maintenance Fee "Illegal"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bonnie Sudderth, State District Judge of the 352nd District
Court, recently ruled that Arlington, Texas' year-old street
maintenance fee is illegal, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram recently
reported.  Judge Sudderth's summary judgment ruling said that the fee,
which has raised more than $5 million to jump-start road repairs in the
Texan city, is an unlawful tax, writing "The Arlington City Council
exceeded its authority by imposing a tax without permission from the
citizens."

Judge Sudderth's ruling rejects Arlington's arguments that the fee is
legal and cannot be altered by a district court.  She writes, "The
decision to impose a tax of this nature belongs to the citizens, not to
the City Council.  By taxing the citizens without their consent, the
city exceeded its authority."

Judge Sudderth's ruling does not stop the collection of the fee nor
force refunds.  She has not yet ruled on motions related to these
issues.  The class action, filed by Dallas assistant city attorney
Lawrence Scalf, asserts that the fees are an illegal tax.  A hearing
has not yet been set to certify the class.

The ruling raises the possibility that Arlington officials could be
forced to refund millions of dollars in revenue to residents and
merchants who pay water bills, the class upon whom the tax was
imposed.   "It would be very devastating; I can't argue with that,"
said David Broiles, the Fort Worth lawyer representing Arlington.  "The
money has been spent."

City leaders say they will appeal.  "As a lawyer, I can tell you that
district court opinions get overturned every day by appeals courts and
the Supreme Court," Councilman Pat Remington said.

The City Council approved the fees in October 2000, asserting that it
was the only way to address a backlog of roadwork without raising
taxes.  The city added the fees onto monthly water bills in December
2000 and has collected more than $5 million since.  Residents pay a $2
fee added to their monthly water bills while businesses are billed
based on their property's size, amount of pavement and amount of
traffic generated.

Mr. Scalf said the council has only itself to blame for any financial
crisis that could result from refunds.  He said he will press for
refunds even if the council sends a street sales tax election to the
voters.  "Those who would criticize me for pressing this issue haven't
considered the policy decisions the council has been faced with.  The
council are the ones who have created the crisis; they have known for
nine months that this day was coming," he asserted.

Mayor Elzie Odom declined to comment on the ruling, but several City
Council Members said they expected it and support an appeal.  City
Transportation Director, Mike Hasler and City Attorney, Jay Doegy said
there is no contingency plan if Arlington loses the case.  One
alternative would be to reduce street repairs, he said.   Repairs to
Arlington's crumbling streets could, of course, be sharply curbed or
reevaluated.  The ruling also may deter other cities from adopting
similar funding schemes.

"It's important that people know this ruling is just a first step, and
it obviously has to go to the Court of Appeals," Mr. Doegy said.  "It's
a first-impression case; there is no other one out there like this in
Texas."


                          Securities Fraud


ACLN LTD.: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of ACLN, Ltd. (NYSE: ASW) between June
29, 2000 and December 20, 2001, inclusive. The suit is pending in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York 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.

For more information, contact Mark J. Nemetz by Mail: 1000 Seventh
Avenue, Suite 10000, New York, New York 10018 by Phone: 212-239-4340 or
by E-mail: mark@lawssb.com


APW LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of APW, Ltd. (NYSE:APW) common stock
between September 26, 2000 and March 20, 2001, inclusive, against the
Company and:

     (1) Richard G. Sim, at all relevant times, Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer, and a Director of the
         Company, and

     (2) William Albrecht, at all relevant times, Senior Vice President
         of Electronics operations in the Americas

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. Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants
repeatedly issued statements indicating that, among other things, the
Company was growing at a rapid pace, due, in significant part, to
strong demand for its product offerings by its customers.

The suit alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things, they failed to disclose or
misrepresented that:

     (i) in fact, the Company was experiencing decreased demand for its
         products as its primary customers were substantially
         decreasing their orders;

    (ii) due to the declining demand, customers were overstocked with
         the Company's products and, accordingly, would be decreasing
         their orders in the future while they worked down their
         bloated inventories; and

   (iii) in response to these negative factors, the Company was
         attempting to slash costs and, in this regard, had started to
         reduce its workforce.

On March 2001, defendants finally disclosed this information and
reported that the Company's sales growth had slowed dramatically and
reported a loss of $0.15 per share, compared to analysts' expectations
of a $0.27 per share profit. Defendants also disclosed that the
Company's reduced performance, combined with other factors, caused it
to be in breach of certain covenants in its credit agreement.

In response to this announcement, the price of the Company's common
stock dropped from $20.65 per share on March 20, 2001, to close at
$7.39 per share on March 21, 2001. Prior to this disclosure, defendant
Albrecht was able to sell shares of his personally-held stock for gross
proceeds of more than $1.7 million and the Company was able to complete
its acquisition of Mayville Metal Products, which was partially paid
for using the Company's stock as currency.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M. Nespole,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com.E-mail should refer to APW.



FINISAR INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar, Inc. labeled "without merit" the allegations in a securities
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from November 17, 1999 through December 6, 2000. The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Jerry S. Rawls, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Frank H. Levinson, Chairman of the Board and Chief Technical
         Officer,

     (3) Stephen K. Workman, Vice President, Finance and Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (4) an investment banking firm that served as an underwriter for
         the Company's initial public offering in November 1999 and a
         secondary offering in April 2000

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and, as to the underwriter only, Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the
offerings failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriter had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriter allocated to those investors material
         portions of the shares of our stock sold in the initial public
         offering, and

    (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate shares of our stock
         sold in the initial public offering to those customers in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         shares of our stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
         prices.

The Company believes this suit is part of the rash of lawsuits being
filed against companies who made their initial public offerings in 2000
and 2001, saying "We are aware that similar allegations have been made
in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000."

The Company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it intends to contest them vigorously. However, the
Company cannot make an assurance that it would prevail in the
litigation.


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action against Globix Corporation (Nasdaq: GBIX) and certain of its
senior officers for violations of the federal securities laws in a
class action lawsuit brought 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 from November
16, 2000 through December 27, 2001 inclusive.

The suit charges 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, among other things that starting on
November 16, 2000 defendants set forth the Company's business plan
which stated in no uncertain terms that the Company 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
SEC and thereafter in Company press releases and conference calls.

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

The suit further alleges that defendants' misrepresentations caused the
price of the Company's common stock to be artificially inflated
throughout the class period.

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


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired Globix Corporation (Nasdaq: GBIX) common stock
between November 16, 2000 and December 27, 2001, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things that starting on
November 16, 2000 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 SEC
and thereafter in Company press releases and conference calls.

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

The suit further alleges that defendants' misrepresentations caused the
price of Globix common stock to be artificially inflated throughout the
class period.

For more information, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by
Phone: 1-800-889-3701 by E-mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.com or
Nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files 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 Globix Corporation
(Nasdaq: GBIX) from November 16, 2000 through December 27, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges 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, among other things that starting on
November 16, 2000 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 SEC
and thereafter in Company press releases and conference calls.

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

The suit further alleges that defendants' misrepresentations caused the
price of the Company's common stock to be artificially inflated
throughout the class period.

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


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division. The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers
of HA-LO Industries Inc. (OTC: HMLOQ) (formerly NYSE: HMK) publicly
traded securities during the period between February 18, 1999 and
November 23, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Lou Weisbach, President and CEO until November 1999, Chairman
         of the Board,

     (2) John R. Kelley Jr., President and CEO from November 1999 until
         February 15, 2001,

     (3) Marc S. Simon, CEO since February 15, 2001 and

     (4) Gregory J. Kilrea, CFO.

The Company has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code and is not a defendant in this lawsuit.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 18, 1999 and November 23, 2001, concerning its
financial performance for the Company's fiscal years 1998, 1999 and
2000 and the first quarter of 2001.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued press releases reporting
HA-LO's quarterly and year-end financial performance, and filed reports
confirming such performance with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission. These reports positively portrayed the Company's
performance during the class period.  These statements, as alleged in
the complaint, were materially false and misleading because the Company
had, throughout the class period, improperly recognized revenues,
thereby inflating its reported sales and earnings.

On November 23, 2001, HA-LO issued a press release announcing the
restatement of its previously filed financial statements for the period
1998 to 2000 and that the Company "may also restate its first quarter
2001 Form 10-Q." According to the press release, the restatement will
have the effect of decreasing the Company's reported class period
pretax income by a total of $15 million, including $1.2 million if the
restatement includes the first quarter of 2001.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.classlawyer.com


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of HA-LO Industries
Inc. (NYSE: HMK) between February 18, 1999 and November 23, 2001
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division against:

     (1) Lou Weisbach, President and CEO until November 1999, Chairman
         of the Board,

     (2) John R. Kelley Jr., President and CEO from November 1999 until
         February 15, 2001,

     (3) Marc S. Simon, CEO since February 15, 2001, and

     (4) Gregory J. Kilrea, CFO.

The Company has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code and is not a defendant in this lawsuit.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 18, 1999 and November 23,
2001, concerning its financial performance for the Company's fiscal
year 1998, 1999 and 2000 and the first quarter of 2001.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued press releases reporting
the Company's quarterly and year-end financial performance, and filed
reports confirming such performance with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission. These reports positively portrayed the
Company's performance during the class period.  These statements, as
alleged in the complaint, were materially false and misleading because
the Company had, throughout the class period, improperly recognized
revenues, thereby inflating its reported sales and earnings.

In November 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing the
restatement of its previously filed financial statements for the period
1998 to 2000, and that the Company "may also restate its first quarter
2001 Form 10-Q." According to the press release, the restatement will
have the effect of decreasing the Company's reported class period
pretax income by a total of $15 million, including $1.2 million if the
restatement includes the first quarter of 2001.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: halocase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Sued For Breach of Fiduciary Duty Over Aloha Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaiian Airlines faces a class action filed in Hawaii State Court by
Crandon Capital Partners on behalf of all of the Company's public
stockholders seeking to stop the proposed merger of the Company and
Aloha Airlines.

The suit claims that the Company's Board of Directors structured the
merger deal to give Hawaiian Air's controlling shareholder, John Adams
a financial windfall.  The suit alleges that Mr. Adams, also Chairman
of the Board, stands to gain $17 million plus 1 million shares of the
new merged company.  The Company's Board of Directors allegedly
breached its fiduciary duties at the expense of its other shareholders.

Spokespeople for Hawaiian and Turnworks, the company that wants to run
the merged airline, said they will not comment until they have a chance
to see the lawsuit, according to the HawaiianChannel.com.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: James Bashian Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
James V. Bashian PC initiated a securities class action against ImClone
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:IMCL) and certain of its senior officers for
violations of the federal securities laws in a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common stock during the
period beginning on December 31, 2001 through January 4, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about the status of its
application for the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of
Erbitux, the Company's 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 December 28 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 James V. Bashian or Sarah Setrakian by
Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700, New York, New York 10110 by Phone:
212-921-4110 or 800-556-8856 (toll-free) or by E-mail:
Jbashian@bashianlaw.com or ssetrakian@bashianlaw.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Files Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody amended the securities class action pending
against Imclone Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMCL) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between May 12, 2001
and January 9, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges claims against ImClone and certain of its officers and
directors based upon false and misleading information disseminated by
the Company regarding its application pending before the Food & Drug
Administration (FDA)for approval of its drug Erbitux, which was
designed for the treatment of colorectal cancer. In fact, one of the
defendants, Sam Waksal, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and
President, has admitted being aware of FDA guidelines while at the same
time violating them in the Company's application to the FDA.

In addition, the complaint alleges that certain officers and directors
sold their Company shares while in possession of material non-public
and adverse information regarding the Erbitux application, thereby
receiving proceeds of over $145 million.

For more information, contact Howard T. Longman by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, New York 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 or 1-800-371-
4788.


MCLEOD USA: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of McLeodUSA Inc.,
(NASDAQ:MCLD) between January 30, 2001 and December 3, 2001 inclusive
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa,
against the Company and:

     (1) Clark McLeod, Company's Chairman and Co-CEO,

     (2) Steve Gray, Company's President and Co-CEO and

     (3) Chris Davis, Company's Chief Operating and Financial Officer
         since August 1, 2001

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market between January 30, 2001 and December 3, 2001.

The suit further alleges that the Company issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations and
financial statements that failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company was failing to timely and properly recognize
         hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in
         connection with certain acquisitions, such as Splitrock
         Services, Inc. and Caprock Communications Corp.;

    (ii) that the Company did not have the funds necessary to complete
         its National network and that it would soon have to abandon
         its plans to finish the network; and

   (iii) that the Company was unable to service its substantial debt
         and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to avoid a
         restructuring.

During the class period, prior to the disclosure of the true facts
about the Company, the Company purchased Intelispan for $40 million in
Company stock

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: mcleodusacase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Final Approval To 800T Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted final approval to an $800,000 package proposed by Nanophase
Technologies Corporation (Nasdaq: NANX) to settle the remaining
securities class action filed against the Company, certain of its
former officers, certain of its former and current directors, and the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering of common stock.

The suit alleges certain claims under the federal Securities Act of
1934 on behalf of certain former preferred shareholders whose shares of
preferred stock were converted into common stock on or about the date
of the initial public offering.

The defendants supposedly issued fraudulent material misstatements and
omissions relating to the solicitation of consents to proceed with the
offering from certain of the Company's preferred stockholders.  The
settlement successfully resolves and dismisses all claims against all
defendants in the suit, without any admission of liability by any
party.

Company President and CEO, Joseph Cross said in a press statement, "We
believe that settlement of this last class action arising from the
company's initial public offering for an amount within insurance policy
limits advances our shareholders' best interests.The settlement permits
us to focus our attention, without distraction, on the company's
numerous business development opportunities and anticipated progress
toward increasing our product revenues during 2002. Management
continues to recognize that shareholder value is effectively enhanced
by Nanophase's expected steady revenue growth and further expanding of
our technology lead in the nanocrystalline material industry."

Nanophase Technologies Corporation provides engineered solutions
utilizing nanocrystalline materials for a variety of industrial product
applications.


RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Dyer Shuman Commences Securities Suit in CO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Shuman LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Rhythms NetConnections, Inc. (NASDAQ:
RTHMQ) between January 6, 2000 and April 2, 2001, inclusive against:

     (1) Catherine Hapka,

     (2) Steve Stringer,

     (3) Scott C. Chandler, and

     (4) John W. Braukman

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 during the class period.

Throughout the class period, the Company portrayed itself as a fast-
growing and expanding provider of DSL services and repeatedly
represented that it could continue to expand its broadband network
throughout the United States and reassured investors that it was
financially able to continue this expansion.

As alleged in the suit, defendants' statements issued throughout the
class period were materially false and misleading when made as they
failed to disclose the following adverse facts which were then known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (i) that the Company lacked the financial resources necessary to
         execute its business plan of a full national network
         expansion;

    (ii) that the Company's efforts to scale back its expansion plans
         were not meeting with success as the Company was unable to
         generate the necessary financing;

   (iii) that the Company was not well-funded or well-positioned to
         continue its growth, as the Company's expenses, including its
         ongoing debt payment obligations, were far outpacing its
         revenues and rapidly depleting the Company's cash reserves;

    (iv) that the Company did not have adequate cash reserves and was
         not sufficiently "stable" and "financially strong" that it
         would be able to fund the Company's operational needs into the
         first quarter of 2002, as defendants repeatedly promised
         investors - defendants were not even able to keep the Company
         running though 2001, as it had earlier guaranteed; and

     (v) that without the influx of additional capital, the Company
         would be forced to seek bankruptcy protection, which would
         render Company stock worthless.

While in possession of these undisclosed facts about the Company and
its business, defendants and other insiders collectively sold 600,000
shares of their common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $16
million.

For more information, contact Jeffrey A. Berens or John M. Martin by
Mail: 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80218-1417 or by Phone:
303-861-3003 or 303-861-3003


RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of Rhythms NetConnections, Inc. (OTC: RTHMQ)
publicly traded securities during the period between January 6, 2000
and April 2, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market.
Throughout the class period, the Company portrayed itself as a fast-
growing and expanding provider of DSL services and repeatedly
represented that it could continue to expand its broadband network
throughout the United States and reassured investors that it was
financially able to continue this expansion.

As alleged in the suit, defendants' statements issued throughout the
class period were materially false and misleading when made as they
failed to disclose the following adverse facts which were then known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company lacked the financial resources necessary to
         execute its business plan of a full national network
         expansion;

     (2) that the Company's efforts to scale back its expansion plans
         were not meeting with success as the Company was unable to
         generate the necessary financing;

     (3) that the Company was not well-funded or well-positioned to
         continue its growth, as its expenses, including its ongoing
         debt payment obligations, were far outpacing its revenues and
         rapidly depleting the Company's cash reserves;

     (4) that the Company did not have adequate cash reserves and was
         not sufficiently "stable" and "financially strong" that it
         would be able to fund the Company's operational needs into the
         first quarter of 2002, as defendants repeatedly promised
         investors - defendants were not even able to keep the Company
         running through 2001, as it had earlier guaranteed, and

     (5) that without the influx of additional capital, the Company
         would be forced to seek bankruptcy protection, which would
         render the Company's common stock worthless.

While allegedly in possession of the true facts about the Company and
its business, the defendants and other Company insiders collectively
sold 600,000 shares of common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $16
million. Over $12.6 million was received by one defendant, Catherine
Hapka. The Company raised hundreds of millions of dollars in preferred
stock sales and debt issuances.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


VAN WAGONER: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. WI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging that Van
Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:VWEGX) issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Fund's net asset value (NAV) and performance.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all investors who bought Van
Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund securities between April 28, 2000 and June
30, 2001.

The complaint alleges that the Fund issued false and misleading
statements to the public about Ernst & Young, LLP, failing to follow
generally accepted accounting practices and generally accepted auditing
standards by specifically approving the changes in net assets utilized
by the Fund between the end of 1999 and the end of 2000.

These statements were materially false and misleading because:

     (1) the NAV of the Fund was materially overstated as the Fund had
         overvalued a material portion of its holdings of certain
         private placement investments;

     (2) the Fund's performance was materially overstated as those
         figures were based on its NAV, which figures were materially
         overstated because the Fund had materially overstated NAV; and

     (3) the risk of investing in the Fund was materially understated
         as the Fund had failed to disclose the true risk attendant to
         its portfolio securities and specifically the private
         placement investments.

Accordingly, defendants' statements about the risks associated with
investing in the Fund were not meaningful because they failed to advise
investors that the Fund was materially overstating its NAV.

In June 2001, defendants' gross overvaluation of the private placement
investments was disclosed when defendants revalued nine such private
placement investments originally valued at $28.6 million on December
31, 2000 to a total of $9.00 and marked down an additional two holdings
by precisely 50% or 75%. During the class period, the Fund's value
decreased by approximately 75%.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


XO COMMUNICATIONS: Hoffman Edelson Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson LLC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on behalf
of purchasers of XO Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:XOXO) securities
between April 4, 2001 and November 29, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names
as defendants, the Company and:

     (1) Daniel F. Akerson, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
         Board of Directors,

     (2) Nathaniel A. Davies, President, Chief Operating Officer and
         Director,

     (3) Craig O. McCaw, the Company's founder, controlling
         shareholder, and Director

The suit charges the defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by,
among other things, issuing false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's financial condition as well as its present and future
business operations.

In particular, the suit alleges that defendants misled the investing
public concerning the Company's ability to finance its business
operations until it would be cash-flow positive. Throughout the class
period, defendants stated that the Company would be able to survive at
least into the middle of 2003 without the need for further financing.
These statements were false, and on November 29, 2001, defendants
announced a transaction where the shareholders' equity was destroyed in
exchange for a cash infusion of $800 million. Trading in the Company's
stock was halted following this announcement and its stock was
voluntarily delisted.

For more information, contact Marc H. Edelson by Mail: 45 W. Court
Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 by Phone: 877-537-6532 (toll free) by Fax:
215-230-8735 or by E-mail: medelson@hofedlaw.com.


                              *********


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  * * *