CAR_Public/020124.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Thursday, January 24, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 17

                            Headlines

AT&T WIRELESS: CO Court Certifies Consumer Suit Over Out-Of-State Calls
BEST BUY: Appeals Court Reinstates Consumer Suit in Macomb State Court
BROWN WILLIAMSON: Faces Consumer Suit Over Light Cigarettes in Illinois
CANADA: Ottawa Residents Sue School Administrators For Breach of Trust
CANADA: Schizophrenia Drug Recalled For Possible Link To Heart Ailments

CAPE MAY: Recalls Chopped Clams for Possible C. botulinum Contamination
DVT LITIGATION: British Airways Says No Link Between Air Travel and DVT
EASY GARDENER: Recalls 345T Root Feeders For Possible Injury Hazard
FLORIDA: Black Farmers Advocacy Group To Revive 1997 Federal Loan Suit
MISSOURI: Court Rejects Taxpayers Suit Against Versailles District

PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Sues Over Unfairness of Pennsylvania's Megan's Law
PROTEVA COMPUTER: Illinois Judge Certifies Suit Against Bankrupt Firm
SORBATES LITIGATION: Ontario Superior Court Approves CA$3M Settlement
SULZER MEDICA: Attorneys Negotiate Settlement As Trial Date Draws Near
WAL-MART STORES: Employees File Motion For Conditional Certification

                        Securities Fraud

AVAYA INC.: Disgruntled Shareholders File Suit To Block Stock Splits
ELBIT MEDICAL: Court Extends Application For Settlement Eligibility
ENRON CORPORATION: Milwaukee Charity Seeks Key Role In Securities Suits
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Illinois

SECURITIES LITIGATION: IPO Allocation Rules To Change After CSFB Pact
SYNSORB BIOTECH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
SYNSORB BIOTECH: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TALARIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

VAN WAGONER: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
VAN WAGONER: Ademi O'Reilly Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
VAN WAGONER: Cauley Geller Expands Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
VAN WAGONER: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
VAN WAGONER: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
VARIAGENICS INC.: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
                              
                            *********

AT&T WIRELESS: CO Court Certifies Consumer Suit Over Out-Of-State Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver District Court granted class action certification to a
lawsuit commenced in December 1999 against AT&T Wireless, for alleged
delays in billing on some out-of-state calls that forced some customers
to exceed their designated minutes and pay a fine.

The suit cites that most wireless telephone companies, including AT&T
Wireless, provide limited minutes of usage during a month, at various
prices. For instance, AT&T Wireless has packages allowing 450, 1,100
and 2000 minutes at $59.99, $119.99 and $199.99 respectively, with
other levels in between. Any excess requires the customer to pay a
penalty of 25 cents or 35 cents per minute. Most calling plans also
charge for "roaming" outside a designated area, according to an iWon
report.

Michael Kleinman, lawyer for the plaintiffs, asserts "We allege when
you take your cell phone out of state in January.and you're there for a
week, and you run up 500 minutes, that should be billed to your January
minutes.and you should pay a flat fee."

That's not the way it works with the Company, he added.  The Company
waits to receive information about the out-of-state calls, which is
often delayed because the calls originate on another carrier's system,
according to the suit.  Those minutes end up on the next month's bill,
lumped in with another month's worth of calls, the complaint says.


BEST BUY: Appeals Court Reinstates Consumer Suit in Macomb State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in favor of plaintiffs filing a
class action against Best Buy computer store, reinstating the suit in a
2-1 decision in Macomb County Circuit Court, according to a Macomb
Daily report.  

Former director of Warren Communications Department Joseph Munem filed
the suit, after he and two other residents tried to take advantage of
the store's "Buy Two, Get One Free" rebate on software in 1998.  The
three plaintiffs later learned that the offers were expired or invalid.
Earlier, the Court dismissed the case for having no legal basis.

In its ruling, the Appeals Court stated "Assuming Munem's claims to be
true, this factual scenario would show (Best Buy) represented to
customers that they would receive a free software program, without
clearly.disclosing that the offer had already expired."

Mr. Munem welcomed the ruling, saying he might try for a class action
if many customers had the same experience with Best Buy.

The Company has not commented on the suit.


BROWN WILLIAMSON: Faces Consumer Suit Over Light Cigarettes in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois state court ruled that a class action is the appropriate
vehicle to pursue the claims against major tobacco company, Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corporation, according to Lexis One Legal News.  
Plaintiff Sara Howard and others commenced the suit in Madison County
Circuit Court, seeking to recover the purchase price of light
cigarettes.

The Company had argued that the plaintiffs were not adequate
representatives of the class, because they were improperly splitting
the claims of the absent class members by seeking only to recover the
purchase price of light cigarettes, thereby precluding personal injury
claims relating to smoking that class members may have against the
Company.

The Court ruled that ".there is no impermissible splitting of claims
here since this consumer fraud action seeking the return of the
purchase price of light cigarettes presents legal claims separate and
distinct from any personal injury claims relating to smoking that the
class members may have now or in the future against the Defendant."

The Court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the class
definition, approving the new class definition as "All persons who
purchased Defendants' Misty Lights, GPC lights, Capri Lights and Kool
Lights cigarettes in Illinois for personal consumption, from the first
date that Defendant sold Misty Lights, GPC Lights, Capri Lights and
Kool Lights cigarettes in Illinois through this date."

The Court further found out that:

     (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all the members is
         impracticable;

     (2) common questions of fact and law exist that predominate over
         questions affecting only individual class members;

     (3) the representatives are adequate and will protect the
         interests of the class; and

     (4) that class action is an appropriate method of fair and
         efficient adjudication of this controversy between parties.


CANADA: Ottawa Residents Sue School Administrators For Breach of Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Brothers of the Christian Schools of Ontario faces a class action
suit filed by an Ottawa resident for breach of trust in the
distribution of a 1992 compensation agreement with victims who
allegedly suffered abuse while at St. Joseph's Training School in
Alfred, Canada.

The Brothers run St. Joseph's, a reform school for boys ages seven
through twelve.  Lead plaintiff David McCann was the first victim to
come forward with complaints of abuse. His complaints led to an
investigation that uncovered abuse at St. Joseph's and St. John's
training school in Uxbridge, northeast of Toronto, which is also run by
the Brothers, according to a Canada.com report.

The investigation resulted in twenty Brothers being convicted of
charges of assault, buggery or indecent assault in the 1950s, `60s and
`70s.  In 1992, the Brothers agreed to compensate 265 victims in Ottawa
and Toronto for an average of $10,000 per person from the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board of Ontario. In addition, the Ottawa victims
received a settlement averaging $6,000 per person from the Ottawa
branch of the Brothers. The parties in the litigation also agreed that
when the Ottawa victims received their settlement, they would share it
with the Toronto victims, and vice versa.

Mr. McCann alleges that the Toronto branch of the Brothers and their
lawyers proceeded to a settlement with some of the Toronto victims,
without regard for the obligation the Toronto victims have to the
Ottawa victims.

Mr. McCann told Canada.com, "We were told that the Toronto Brothers
have some of this money and that some of it has been handed out.This
lawsuit is all about finding where that money has gone and then to get
it back to the right people."


CANADA: Schizophrenia Drug Recalled For Possible Link To Heart Ailments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Canada warns the public about the schizophrenia drug clozapine,
which is sold under the name Clozaril.  Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the
drug's manufacturer, says it may cause people taking it to have a
greater risk of developing heart ailments such as:

     (1) heart attack,

     (2) pericarditis (inflammation of the heart membrane), and

     (3) mycarditis (inflammation of the heart's walls)

In Canada, nine reported cases of myocarditis and three deaths have
been linked to the drug, while around the world, 30 deaths have been
reported. Clozaril has been available in Canada since 1991, with about
10,000 Canadians using it.

Letters have been sent to doctors in Canada warning of the effects of
Clozaril.  Novartis asserts the possibility of developing heart
problems is low, and that it has not been proven that the drug caused
the attacks.   Company spokesperson Jason Jacobs told CBC News Online,
"This is a much-needed drug for patients with a certain type of
schizophrenia called `treatment-resistant' schizophrenia.It means that
they have failed on a number of medications and in a lot of cases, this
is a last resort for these patients."

The company warns anyone experiencing these symptoms should immediately
contact their doctor:

     (1) a racing heart rate,

     (2) chest pain,

     (3) shortness of breath, and

     (4) swelling ankles and feet

Jacobs also says those with a family history of heart failure or have
severe heart problems should not take the drug.


CAPE MAY: Recalls Chopped Clams for Possible C. botulinum Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape May Foods of Cape May, N.J., is recalling LaMonica Brand 6.5-ounce
chopped clams because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can cause life-threatening
illness or death.

Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or
smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning,
can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these
problems should seek immediate medical attention.

LaMonica Brand chopped clams were distributed primarily to states in
the northeast states and can be identified by a can code C271C. People
experiencing the aforementioned symptoms should seek immediate medical
attention.

For more information, call 1-866-227-3629.


DVT LITIGATION: British Airways Says No Link Between Air Travel and DVT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A health team from British Airways asserts there is still no clear link
between air travel and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a condition that
occurs when a blood clot develops because a person is immobile for long
periods of time.  DVT can prove fatal when the clot occurs in the
heart, lungs or brain.

Several class actions have been launched against major airlines over
DVT, also called "economy class syndrome."  The condition gained
attention when Emma Christofferson, 28, collapsed at London's Heathrow
Airport in September 2000 after a long flight from Australia.

Dr. Michael Bagshaw, head of the British Airways team, said there is no
clear link between air travel and DVT.  According to a CBC News report,
Dr. Bagshaw said the condition could occur whether a person is sitting
on a plane or in a theater.  He also said the "economic class syndrome"
label was a misnomer because DVT has also affected people in business
and first class.  He emphasized that the airline industry isn't in
denial about DVT, but says the "jury is still out" on the matter.

The World Health Organization is carrying out research with the
International Civil Aviation Organization to examine the risks of DVT
while flying.


EASY GARDENER: Recalls 345T Root Feeders For Possible Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Easy Gardener, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 345,000 Ross Root
Feeders, in order to replace their mixing chamber caps. The root feeder
is a device used to distribute food, water and insecticide to the roots
of trees and shrubs. The mixing chamber caps on these feeders can
detach during use and strike nearby consumers, resulting in injuries.  
The Company has received one report of a woman who received dental and
other mouth injuries when struck by a cap from one of these root
feeders.

The root feeders are about 30-inches tall, have a green hose
connection and plastic yellow handles. "ROSS" and "MODEL 1200C" are
imprinted on the side of the root feeder. The recall includes model
1200C Ross Root Feeders with "24207" or "24208" imprinted on the top of
the clear, plastic chamber caps. Ross Root Feeders with the number
"24208-A" caps are not part of the recall.  Home and garden centers and
hardware stores sold these feeders from October 1994 through January
2002 for about $33.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-621-4769
between 7 am and 7 pm CT Monday through Friday, or visit the Website:
http://www.rosscap.com.


FLORIDA: Black Farmers Advocacy Group To Revive 1997 Federal Loan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida black farmers national group is trying to revive a 1997 class
action against the US Department of Agriculture, alleging the
Department refused to grant federal loans, which lead to the rapid
decline and foreclosure of black-owned farms, according to an
Associated Press report.

Last week, 80 people met in Ocala for a meeting with the National
Resource Information Center. The group contends that the federal
government still owes black farmers money.  According to a
TampaBayonline report, the government has paid more than 12,000 farmers
more than $614 million.  However, the department rejected about 8500
farmers, roughly 39% of all claims.

The group is asking farmers to contribute up to $250 to push for the
lawsuit.  Legal experts are not sure whether the lawsuit will
materialize.


MISSOURI: Court Rejects Taxpayers Suit Against Versailles District
------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri Supreme Court Judge George Flanigan dismissed a multi-million
dollar class action filed against the Versailles School district by
Morgan County taxpayers, saying the taxpayers waited too long to file
the suit, forfeiting their right to the $3 million refunds they sought,
according to a Lake Sun Leader report.

Couple Liston and Martha King originally filed the suit in February
1998, on behalf of property owners who paid property taxes at any time
in Morgan County from 1994 to 1998 against the district and three
elected county officials.  The suit alleges that property taxes weren't
being rolled back although the county's assessed valuation had gone up.
The district allegedly collected taxes over and above the maximum
amount allowed, knowingly and with the support of the county assessor.

In his ruling, Judge Flanigan said the time for the adoption,
certification, imposition and payments of the 1994-1997 property tax
levy rates and resulting property taxes had passed by the time the
taxpayers had filed their suit. As a result, "the plaintiffs' claim for
a refund of the taxes were not timely and (they) are barred from
asserting those claims," he wrote.

The school district's attorney Alex Bartlett told the Lake Sun Leader,
"We feel Judge Flanigan's judgment was proper and what was required
under the law.We feel we won the case on its merits and that the school
district did not file its suit on a timely basis. We also felt the
taxpayers were not due any type of refunds."

The taxpayers' attorney, Craig Johnson, however, said the Judge's
decision was clearly wrong, "The Judge violated several Supreme Court
decisions with this move.It seems that these judges rule in this manner
so they will not have to take it to trial. We are thoroughly convinced
that it will be reversed on appeal just as before."

Last week, Judge Flanigan dismissed a similar class action filed in
Camden County against the Lebanon School District.


PENNSYLVANIA: ACLU Sues Over Unfairness of Pennsylvania's Megan's Law
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is seeking class-action
status for a federal lawsuit which charges the state probation board
with being tougher on out-of-state offenders than with those convicted
of similar crimes in Pennsylvania, the Associated Press recently
reported.

Under Pennsylvania's version of Megan's Law, anyone convicted of a
sexual offense is required to notify police about their whereabouts.
However, sexually violent predators also must notify their communities.  
The ACLU and other lawyers say all out-of-state offenders are required
to register with the police and notify their neighbors, regardless of
whether they are judged to be violent.  "Unfortunately, Pennsylvania
treats all out-of-state offenders as violent predators regardless of
whether there's any evidence of that," said Witold Walczak, Director of
the ACLU's Pittsburgh chapter.

State legislators and probation officials say there is no double
standard and that, despite what the ACLU claims, out-of-state offenders
are not automatically required to notify their communities.  Crimes
committed by out-of-state offenders are first matched with an
equivalent crime in Pennsylvania to determine whether the community
should be notified, according to the state probation board's
spokeswoman Keldeen Stambaugh.  Notification of the community is not
automatic, she said.

The ACLU's lawsuit involves a Philadelphia man, identified only by his
initials D.T.C., convicted of a sex crime in New Jersey in 2000.  He
has been required to register with police and notify Pennsylvania
neighbors about his conviction, the lawsuit claims.  Federal Judge
Louis H. Pollack is reviewing the case and will rule whether the case
should continue.  If Judge Pollack rules the case should continue, the
ACLU will petition him to make the case a class-action lawsuit that
would apply to current and future out-of-state sex offenders, Mr.
Walczak said.

The ACLU won a case in September 2000 in the U.S. District Court of
Western Pennsylvania on behalf of an unidentified offender who had
moved into the state and was surprised when local police distributed
fliers identifying him as a sexual predator.  Judge Robert J. Cindrich
ruled the state treated out-of-state offenders differently than in-
state offenders, but he limited the ruling to that case.

Senator Stewart Greenleaf, a Montgomery County Republican who sponsored
Pennsylvania's Megan's Law, contends there isn't a double standard and
said the law was designed to protect the public.  "It protects people
from violent repeat sexual offenders," said Senator Greenleaf, who is
chairman of the state's senate judiciary committee.  "The bottom line
is the public has to be protected."  State police estimate there are
more than 5,000 registered sex offenders in the state and less than 100
are out-of-state offenders, Mr. Walczak said.

Megan's Law is named after Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old New Jersey
girl who was raped and killed by a neighbor who was a convicted sexual
offender.  All 50 states have differing versions of the law.


PROTEVA COMPUTER: Illinois Judge Certifies Suit Against Bankrupt Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A suit filed against now-bankrupt Proteva Computer Corp. was recently
certified as a class action, says a ConsumerAffairs.com news release.  

The lawsuit, originally filed in September 1999, was allowed to proceed
as a class action by Judge Julia Nowicki of the Circuit Court of Cook
County.  Class members, however, were limited to Illinois residents
only.

The suit accuses the company of defrauding consumers by failing to
provide adequate technical support, failing to mail rebates and using
used parts in their products, the press release says.

"It's unfortunate that so many people spent all of their spare money
buying these computers, only to find, far too often, that the computer
never worked properly," says lawyer Clifford Horwitz, who represents
the plaintiffs.

According to the news release, Proteva has a pending suit in Florida
that seeks to represent plaintiffs nationwide.  Proteva filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection shortly before the Illinois suit was
lodged in 1999.


SORBATES LITIGATION: Ontario Superior Court Approves CA$3M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario's Superior Court of Justice has approved the final settlement
agreement on a class action suit filed against five manufacturers
accused of sorbates price-fixing in Canada.

In a court document obtained by the Class Action Reporter, Justice
Peter A. Cumming approved the agreement that sets up a CA$3,055,743
settlement fund to be paid to four sets of class members.  The pact was
approved on January 14. (To see actual document, click on this link:
http://bankrupt.com/misc/Endorsement.pdf

According to Justice Cumming, his endorsement of the deal was partly
hinged on avoiding a long and protracted litigation that is
considerably uncertain.

"There is a risk in respect of proving any damages and of achieving a
result whereby damages are dealt with to a large extent on an
aggregate, rather than an individual basis.  To date, there is limited
class action case law involving allegations of price-fixing," Justice
Cumming said.  

"There is considerable uncertainty with respect to the claims of
indirect purchasers involving alleged antitrust violations being
advanced by means of class proceeding," he added.

There are three separate class action suits currently pending in Canada
related to sorbates price-fixing, one in British Columbia and another
in Quebec.  In Ontario, Alfresh Beverages Canada Corp. filed the case
in March 2000 against seven defendants:

     (1) Hoechst AG,

     (2) Eastman Chemical Company, Inc.,

     (3) Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd,

     (4) Ueno Fine Chemical Industry, Ltd.,

     (5) Chisso Corporation,

     (6) Nippon Gohsei, and

     (7) Cheminova Agro A/S

Plaintiff claims the defendants conspired to fix the prices and
allocate the market share of sorbates between January 1, 1979 and
December 31, 1996 in violation of Canada's Competition Act R.S.C. 1985.  
According to court documents, settling defendants: Hoechst, Eastman,
Daicel, Ueno and Nippon, had total sales of CA$24,143,000 during the
alleged conspiracy period.

The settlement fund amount was reached using the formula adopted in an
earlier settlement of a similar case resolved by the U.S. District
Court of Northern California.  In that case, settlement was based on
payment of 11.2% times the defendants' sales.

Generally, the "Ontario class" includes all persons other than the
defendants who purchased sorbates in Canada, excluding those resident
in Quebec and British Columbia.  The fund, however, will be distributed
to four different sets of class members: distributors, manufacturers,
intermediaries and consumers.  The claim process will be administered
by Crawford Adjusters Canada.

The class members were represented by C. Scott Ritchie and Charles M.
Wright of Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler, who took home CA$585,000 in
total fees, plus disbursements of CA$35,847.

For more information, contact Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler by Mail:
199 Queens Street East, Dresden, Ontario, Canada, N0P 1M0 by Phone:
519-683-4222 by Fax: 519-683-1644 or contact Scott Ritchie Q.C. by
Phone: 519-672-2121 ext. 252 by e-mail: scott.ritchie@siskinds.com or
Charles M. Wright by Phone: 519-672-2121 ext. 211 or by e-mail:
charles.wright@siskinds.com

You may also contact Crawford Adjusters Canada by Mail: 103A-48
Alliance Blvd., Barrie, On L4M 5K3 by Phone: 800-313-6618 or by Fax:
877-325-3344

Click on this link to see a copy of the settlement agreement:
http://bankrupt.com/misc/SettlementAgreement.pdf


SULZER MEDICA: Attorneys Negotiate Settlement As Trial Date Draws Near
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class actions against Sulzer Medica Corporation have
until February 1 to iron out the proposed settlement in the suits for
all US plaintiffs.  The federal injunction staying all pending suits
against the Company in Alameda County State Court in California will
expire on that day.

The suits commenced after the Company recalled 40,000 hip implants and
withdrew some knee implants last year.  The implants allegedly were not
bonding properly to adjacent bones.  Later, the Company determined that
oil residue on the hip and knee implants caused the problem.

Later, the Company proposed a $783 million agreement to settle the
class actions.  Under the settlement, the Company will pay patients who
needed surgery after receiving the faulty hip or knee implants between
$57,500 and $97,500 in cash and stock.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, however, criticized the proposed
settlement, saying it was not enough.  Attorney for the plaintiffs Luke
Ellis explains that under the proposed settlement, patients who had
serious medical complications after they underwent "revision" surgery
to fix the problem got the same amount of money, $60,000, as patients
who had no medical problems after the procedure.  The proposal also
included compensation in the form of one-third of the Company's stock,
which experts criticized, saying the Company's assets would be
protected by a series of liens that would keep the money out of the
reach of plaintiffs who opt out of the settlement.

Attorneys for both sides came back to the negotiating table to hammer
out a better deal with state court attorneys and are preparing to
return to the courtroom this week to set trial dates for the first set
of California cases, which will be heard by Alameda County Superior
Court Judge Ronald Sabraw.


WAL-MART STORES: Employees File Motion For Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. employees is asking for conditional
class certification a class action against the retail giant, charging
the Company of engaging in a "systematic scheme of wage abuse" against
its hourly paid employees from August 15, 1996.

The suit was commenced in August last year, alleging the Company
required hourly employees to work "off the clock" without compensation.  
Hourly workers allegedly were not paid for missed and/or interrupted
meal and rest breaks and were asked to alter time records, according to
a Tahlequah Daily Press report.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a lengthy memorandum and affidavit
in the Court, citing cases that support the conditional certification,
which would allow the case to proceed as a class action.  The
memorandum states the case meets all the requirements under state law,
and that the law authorizes and encourages conditional certification in
such cases because it is the only method the "tens of thousands of
class members" can vindicate their rights, the Associated Press
reports.



                          Securities Fraud


AVAYA INC.: Disgruntled Shareholders File Suit To Block Stock Splits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications company Avaya, Inc. (NYSE:AV) faces a class action
suit filed by disgruntled stockholders in opposition to alternative
stock splits it proposed to reduce the number of shareholders and cut
administrative costs, according to a Reuters report.

The stockholders, who each hold less than 50 shares, filed the suit
after the Company revealed the proposal in a filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  The three proposals consist of reverse stock
splits followed by forward stock splits. The Company plans to call for:

     (1) a 1-for-30 reverse stock split followed by a 30-for-1 split;

     (2) a 1-for-40 reverse stock split followed by a 40-for-1 split;
         and

     (3) a 1-for-50 reverse stock split followed by a 50-for-1 stock
         split

The Company added that, under the various alternatives, shareholders
with fewer shares than those under the plans would receive cash for
their stock and no longer be its shareholders.  The Company said that,
despite the suit, they will proceed with a vote on the proposal for its
annual meeting on February 26.


ELBIT MEDICAL: Court Extends Application For Settlement Eligibility
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tel-Aviv District Court has approved a 60-day extension for class
members to avail of the agreement proposed by Elbit Medical Imaging
Ltd. (Nasdaq: EMITF) to settle a securities class action relating to
the sale of Elscint, Inc, its subsidiary to third parties.  The
extension was approved due to the low number of class members that
applied for the settlement.

The Company's shareholders filed the suit, alleging the Company failed
to announce or issue an immediate notice to the securities authorities
regarding the sale of Elscint, Ltd and also names as defendants:

     (1) Elbit Medical Imaging Ltd. (EMI),

     (2) Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. and

     (3) Mr. Emmanuel Gill

The settlement agreement provides for the dismissal of the claim
against the Company and all other defendants except EMI.  A newspaper
notice concerning the extension will be published on the commencement
day of the extended term.


ENRON CORPORATION: Milwaukee Charity Seeks Key Role In Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Milwaukee charity is seeking lead plaintiff status in the dozens of
investment fraud lawsuits filed against the Enron Corporation, the
Associated Press reported recently. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee
Supporting Fund Inc. (AMS Fund) wants a judge to name it a lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuits filed against the former energy-
trading giant.  The Company filed for bankruptcy on December 2, after
acknowledging that it had overstated its profits by nearly $600
million.

The AMS Fund, which is separate from the Catholic archdiocese but
supports its charitable work, said it lost $70,000 on Enron bonds
bought in June 2000, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in Houston.  A variety of investors have sued Enron's executives
and its recently fired auditing firm, Arthur Andersen.

The fund's attorney, Neal Rothstein, wants a federal judge overseeing
the Enron investment fraud cases to name the fund as one of the lead
plaintiffs, even though its loss is less than others claimed by
investors.  Lead plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits are appointed to
direct litigation that typically represents thousands of people making
claims against a corporation.  Under federal law, judges are supposed
to appoint lead plaintiffs that claim the greatest losses.

Mr. Rothstein said the fund would be a good choice for lead plaintiff
because its loss could be considered significant, as it directly harms
the organization's charitable activities.  "Any loss by a nonprofit
group is material," said Mr. Rothstein, of Scott & Scott, a firm based
in Colchester, Connecticut.  Mr. Rothstein hopes a decision on lead
plaintiffs will be made soon.

Douglas Thompson, of Washington, D.C.-based Finkelstein, Thompson &
Loughran, said the Fund's chances of being appointed lead plaintiff are
slim.  However, Britt Tinglum, of Seattle-based Keller Rohrback, said
the Fund's status as a charity could help persuade a judge to make the
lead plaintiff appointment.

The AMS Fund, formed in 1992, made grants through 1999, totaling $40.5
million, according to court documents.  The recipients include Messmer
High School, St. Vincent Family Center, Marquette University and an
immigrant assistance progam on Milwaukee's south side.


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Globix Corporation (Nasdaq: GBIX) during the period of
November 16, 2000 through and including December 27, 2001, 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, on November 16, 2000, in an effort to
stabilize the price of Company stock and to assuage investor concerns
over it continuing as going concern, defendants set forth the Company's
business plan which stated 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 Marc S Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-
643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities of HA-LO Industries
Inc., (NYSE: HMK) between February 18, 1999 and November 23, 2001
inclusive, 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 its
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, 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 Marc S Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-
643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


SECURITIES LITIGATION: IPO Allocation Rules To Change After CSFB Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Securities and Exchange Commission might change the regulations
regarding initial public offering (IPO) stock allocations following the
landmark settlement with investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston
(CSFB), according to an Infoconomy report.

Speculations grew over the changes when CSFB agreed to settle for about
$100 million the SEC investigation into its IPO allocation practices
during 1999-2000.  Under the settlement, CSFB also agreed to adopt the
SEC's revised policies and procedure for allocating IPOs, according to
reports in The Wall Street Journal.  The changes could include the
appointment of a new committee to review IPO allocations and the
obligation to pre-qualify accounts, such as hedge funds, to insure that
they have been active for at least 60 days prior to the IPO allocation.

These changes could also apply to other banks who face litigation and
investigations for its IPO allocation practices during the dot-com
boom, including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase and
FleetBoston Financial investment bank Robertson Stephens.  SEC Chairman
Harvey Pitt has said that the agency may extend new guidelines to the
entire industry after the CSFB case ends, according to Infoconomy.

CSFB, however, still faces hundreds of private class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging federal securities violations.  The settlement may not affect
the suits that much, as analysts said that it has been structured in a
way not to imply guilt and therefore aid the class-action cases.

Lawyer Stanley Bernstein, for some of the plaintiffs in the suits,
however, told the Wall Street Journal that the SEC settlement was "the
equivalent of a fine for running through a red light."  He goes on to
say that his clients are suing "for the accident caused when you ran
the red light."


SYNSORB BIOTECH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Synsorb Biotech Inc. (Nasdaq: SYBB)
between April 4, 2001 and December 10, 2001, inclusive, against the
Company and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout the
class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

The suit alleges that throughout the class period, defendants touted
the successful progression of its SYNSORB Cdr Phase III clinical trials
while concealing from the public that:

     (1) defendants had "concerns about enrollment;"

     (2) defendants knew that "the completion of the trial would reach
         out years beyond" what they had forecast;

     (3) the FDA had directed defendants to use a more stringent
         protocol in its Phase III trials;

     (4) defendants had repeatedly failed to increase enrollment in the
         Phase III trials during the class period;

     (5) defendants had been experiencing "unacceptably high drop out
         rates;"

     (6) defendants could not afford to continue to finance the Phase
         III clinical trials

After the market close on December 10, 2001, Synsorb issued a press
release announcing the termination of its SYNSORB Cdr development
program, and in a conference call the next morning, revealed the true
facts concerning the Phase III clinical trials. These shocking
revelations made in the press release and in the conference call had a
dramatic effect on the price of Company stock, causing the stock to
plummet over 52% and causing plaintiff and the class to suffer damages.

For more information, contact Marc S Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-
643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


SYNSORB BIOTECH: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven PA initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Synsorb Biotech, Inc.
(Nasdaq:SYBB) securities between April 4, 2001 and December 10, 2001,
inclusive in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers and/or
directors:

     (1) David Cox,

     (2) Bill Hogg and

     (3) Dr. Murray Ratcliffe.

The suit charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


TALARIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Talarian Corporation (NASDAQ:
TARL) between July 20, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, against
the Company and:

     (1) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated,

     (4) Paul A. Larson,

     (5) Michael A. Morgan and

     (6) Thomas J. Laffey

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  In July 2000, Talarian
commenced an initial public offering of 4,200,000 of its shares of
common stock, at an offering price of $16.00 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

The suit further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) Lehman, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch had solicited and
         received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which Lehman, Robertson Stephens and
         Merrill Lynch allocated to those investors material portions
         of the restricted number of Company shares issued in
         connection with the IPO; and

    (ii) Lehman, Robertson Stephens and Merrill Lynch had entered into
         agreements with customers whereby they agreed to allocate
         Company shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares in
         the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For more information, contact Marc S Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-
643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


VAN WAGONER: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
behalf of all purchasers of shares of these funds from April 28,2000 to
June 30,2001, inclusive:

     (1) Van Wagoner Technology Fund (Nasdaq: VWTKX),

     (2) Van Wagoner Mid-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: VWMDX),

     (3) Van Wagoner Post-Venture Fund (Nasdaq: VWPVX), and

     (4) Van Wagoner Micro-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: VWMCX)

The suit charges that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Funds' net asset value (NAV) and performance.
Specifically, the suit alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Funds' NAV calculation,
value of its private placement investments, investment limitations and
risks.

In addition, Ernst & Young, LLP failed to follow generally accepted
accounting practices and generally accepted auditing standards by
specifically approving the changes in net assets utilized by the Funds
between the end of 1999 and the end of 2000. These statements were
materially false and misleading because:

     (i) the NAV of the Funds were materially overstated as the Funds
         had overvalued a material portion of their holdings of certain
         private placement investments;

    (ii) the Funds' performance was materially overstated as those
         figures were based on the Funds' NAV, which figures were
         materially overstated because the Funds had materially
         overstated NAV; and

   (iii) the risk of investing in the Funds was materially understated
         as the Funds 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 Funds were not meaningful because they failed to
advise investors that the Funds were materially overstating their NAV.

The suit names as defendants:

     (a) Van Wagoner Funds, Inc.,

     (b) Van Wagoner Capital Management, Inc.,

     (c) Van Wagoner Technology Fund,

     (d) Van Wagoner Mid-Cap Growth Fund,

     (e) Van Wagoner Post-Venture Fund,

     (f) Van Wagoner Micro-Cap Growth Fund,

     (g) Sunstone Financial Group, Inc.,

     (h) Garrett R. Van Wagoner,

     (i) Larry P. Arnold,

     (j) Robert S. Colman and

     (k) Ernst and Young, LLP

On June 30, 2001, defendants' gross overvaluation of the private
placement investments in the Funds was disclosed when defendants
revalued nine such private placement investments, held in varying
amounts by the Funds, originally valued at $28.6 million in total on
December 31, 2000 to a total of $9.00, and marked down additional
holdings by approximately 50% to 75%.

Following the revaluations of these private placement investments the
Funds' per share prices would all experience a severe decline with
particular funds losing as much as 40% of their per share value.

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:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


VAN WAGONER: Ademi O'Reilly Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit
against each of Van Wagoner Funds, Inc. mutual funds, on behalf of
purchasers of shares between April 28, 2000 and June 30, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Wisconsin.  These funds are:

     (1) Van Wagoner Emerging Growth (Nasdaq:VWEGX),

     (2) Van Wagoner Technology (Nasdaq:VWTKX),

     (3) Van Wagoner Mid-Cap Growth (Nasdaq:VWMCX),

     (4) Van Wagoner Micro-Cap Growth (Nasdaq:VWMDX), and

     (5) Van Wagoner Post-Venture (Nasdaq:VWPVX)

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and
misleading registration statements and prospectuses. The defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the Funds'
net asset value (NAV) and performance.

These statements were materially false and misleading because:

     (1) the NAV of the Funds were materially overstated as the Funds
         had overvalued a material portion of their holdings of certain
         private placement investments;

     (2) the Funds' performances were materially overstated as those
         figures were based on the Funds' NAV; and

     (3) the risk of investing in the Funds were materially understated
         as the Funds 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 Funds were not meaningful because they failed to
advise investors that the Funds were materially overstating their NAV.

For more information, contact Robert O'Reilly by Phone: 866-264-3995 by
Fax: 414-482-8001 or by E-mail: vanwagoner@ademilaw.com


VAN WAGONER: Cauley Geller Expands Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP expanded the pending securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:VWEGX) between April 28,2000
to June 30,2001 inclusive, to include other Van Wagoner mutual funds:

     (1) Van Wagoner Technology Fund (Nasdaq:VWTKX),

     (2) Van Wagoner Mid-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:VWMDX),

     (3) Van Wagoner Post-Venture Fund (Nasdaq:VWPVX), and

     (4) Van Wagoner Micro-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:VWMCX)

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
and the Investment Company Act of 1940. Specifically, the suit alleges
that the Funds and their investment advisors and investment managers
disseminated a series of prospectuses/registration statements to the
class during the class period which reflected materially inflated net
asset values (NAVs) (the prices at which Fund shares are purchased and
sold).  The NAVs were materially inflated because the Funds had
overvalued a material portion of holdings in certain privately held
companies.

In addition, the Funds' performances were materially overstated since
those figures were based on the materially overstated NAVs of the
Funds. The lawsuit also alleges that the risk disclosures contained in
the prospectuses/registration statements disseminated during the class
period were not meaningful, and were themselves misleading, because
they failed to disclose that the Funds were materially overstating
their NAVs.

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


VAN WAGONER: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of investors who, between April 28, 2000 and June 30, 20001,
purchased shares of any of the five mutual funds listed below:

     (1) Van Wagoner Mid-Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ:VWMDX),

     (2) Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ:VWEGX),

     (3) Van Wagoner Technology Fund (NASDAQ:VWTKX),

     (4) Van Wagoner Post Venture Fund (NASDAQ:VWPVX) and

     (5) Van Wagoner Micro-Cap Growth Fund

The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Wisconsin against defendants:

     (i) Van Wagoner Funds, Inc.,

    (ii) Van Wagoner Capital Management, Inc.,

   (iii) Sunstone Financial Group, Inc.,

    (iv) Van Wagoner Mid-Cap Growth Fund,

     (v) Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund,

    (vi) Van Wagoner Technology Fund,

   (vii) Van Wagoner Post Venture Fund,

  (viii) Van Wagoner Micro-Cap Growth Fund,

    (ix) Ernst & Young, LLP,

     (x) Garrett R. Van Wagoner,

    (xi) Larry P. Arnold, and

   (xii) Robert S. Colman

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and
misleading registration statements and prospectuses. As alleged in the
suit, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Funds' net asset value (NAV) and performance. These
statements were materially false and misleading because:

     (a) the NAV of each of the Funds was materially overstated as
         defendants had overvalued a material portion of the Funds'
         holdings of certain private placement investments;

     (b) the Funds' performance was materially overstated as those
         figures were based on the Funds' NAV, which figures were
         materially overstated because defendants had materially
         overstated NAV; and

     (c) the risk of investing in the Funds was materially understated
         as defendants had failed to disclose the true risk attendant
         to the Funds' portfolio securities and specifically the
         private placement investments.

Accordingly, defendants' statements about the risks associated with
investing in the Funds were not meaningful because they failed to
advise investors that the Funds net asset values were materially
overstated.

The suit also alleges that Ernst & Young, LLP failed to follow
generally accepted accounting practices and generally accepted auditing
standards, by specifically approving the changes in net assets utilized
by the Funds between the end of 1999 and the end of 2000.

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 2 holdings
by precisely 50% or 75%. During the class period, the Funds' value
decreased by as much as 75%.

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


VAN WAGONER: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on
behalf of all investors who bought Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund
(Nasdaq: VWEGX) securities between April 28, 2000 and June 30, 2001,
alleging that the Fund issued false and misleading statements
concerning its net asset value (NAV) and performance.

The suit 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 it had materially overstated NAV; and

     (3) the risk of investing in the Fund was materially understated
         as it 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 S Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-
643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
      

VARIAGENICS INC.: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven PA commenced a securities class
action against Variagenics, Inc. (Nasdaq:VGNX) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suit asserts that on or about July 21, 2000, the Company commenced
an initial public offering of 5 million of its shares of common stock
at an offering price of $14 per share.  In connection therewith, the
Company filed a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus, with the SEC.

The suit further alleges that the prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which those underwriters allocated to those investors material
         portions of the restricted number of IPO shares issued in
         connection with the IPO; and

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate shares to those
         customers in the Company's IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

For further details, contac Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-332-0030 by E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.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  * * *