CAR_Public/020206.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, February 6, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 26

                            Headlines

BSH HOME: Recalls 2,400 Thermador Gas Ranges Over Possible Burn Hazard
DVT LITIGATION: UK's DVT Class Action No Help For Australian Victims
ECKERD CORPORATION: Suit Claims Over $100M For Drug Overcharges
GREAT WESTERN: Iowa Court Approves Settlement in TAI Consumer Suit
HILTON HEAD: To Appeal State Judge's Decision Certifying Utility Suit

MANUFACTURERS LIFE: Barbados Policyholders Sue After Demutualization
NEW JERSEY: Health Care Suit Plaintiffs Told To File Amended Complaint
SULZER MEDICA: Forges Settlement of Ohio Implants Suit For US$725 M

                          Securities Fraud

CRITICAL PATH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California
CRITICAL PATH: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. TX
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX

DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in TX
ELAN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. CA
ELAN CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ELAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ELAN CORPORATION: Multiple Suits Don't Dim Chairman's Positive Outlook

GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
PNC FINANCIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
PNC FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
PNC FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA

REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in FL
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NJ

SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Harvey Greenfield Investigates Securities Claims
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
TALX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in N.D. OK
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
                              
                            *********

BSH HOME: Recalls 2,400 Thermador Gas Ranges Over Possible Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BSH Home Appliances Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 2,460
Thermador brand gas ranges.  Hot air is vented below the small oven and
causes the metal surface on the door of this oven to get too hot,
presenting a burn hazard to consumers.  The Company has received one
report of high temperatures on the surface of one of the ranges. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled ovens are 48-inch All-Gas Professional Ranges sold under
the Thermador brand name. The ranges are stainless steel and have small
and large side-by-side ovens. Only model numbers
PRG484GGUS, PRG486GDUS, and PRG486GLUS and serial number ranges
98020001-98129999, 99010001-99129999, 20010001-20129999 and 81010001-
81119999 are included in this recall.  The model and serial number are
located on a data plate behind the kick panel at the bottom front of
the range.

Appliance and specialty stores nationwide sold the ranges from March
1998 through November 2001 for between $5540 and $6370.  

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 735-4328
between 5 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday.


DVT LITIGATION: UK's DVT Class Action No Help For Australian Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action over deep vein thrombosis (DVT), launched by travelers
in Britain, would have no impact on test cases being brought in
Australia, a lawyer leading the Australian action said, according to a
recent report by AAP News.  

A British court recently cleared the way for a class action against up
to 30 airlines worldwide over blood clots suffered by passengers on
long-haul flights, dubbed "economy class syndrome."  The British class
action will be heard at England's High Court later this year.

Qantas faces multi-million dollar claims under the action set in motion
by the death of Emma Christoffersen, 28, soon after she disembarked
from a Qantas flight from Sydney to London in December 2000.  Between
600 and 800 Australians are part of a separate class action being
brought by Melbourne law firm, Slater and Gordon, which this month will
launch a test case in the Victorian Supreme Court.

However, law firm partner Paul Henderson said the UK action will not
assist their case.  It does not have any effect whatsoever (on the
Australian case)," he said.  "Unless the class action proceeds earlier
in the UK, and they get a decision that assists us.  If  (the Court)
determines that DVT was incurred in the course of a long-haul flight,
then it will be of significance."

Mr. Henderson did say that the UK ruling showed DVT is a global problem
and not some rare event that only occurs in Australia because of its
geographical location.  Mr. Henderson also said that Slater and Gordon
will launch a number of test cases to test various propositions
relating to DVT.  Those that are successful will be followed up in the
class action, he said.

World-wide, airlines have said there is no definitive proof linking DVT
to air travel, but some have agreed to help a World Health Organization
study in whether a link exists.


ECKERD CORPORATION: Suit Claims Over $100M For Drug Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Customers of drugstore chain, Eckerd Corporation, recently filed a
class action in State Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, against the
Company, alleging that the drugstore chain overcharged customers more
than $100 million by charging them for more medicine than they
received, the Wall Street Journal recently reported.

The suit says the chain, which has 2,650 stores, employs a system
called "rounding up" under which its prescription labels round to the
next higher whole numbers the amount of medicine actually dispensed in
the prescription.  Charges are based on the "rounded up" amount.

In one example of alleged "rounding up" provided in the suit, plaintiff
Shirley Minsky says she purchased Xalatan eyedrops for glaucoma from an
Eckerd pharmacy in Sunrise, Florida, and was charged $57.29 for the
prescription.  The Eckerd label indicated she was given three
milliliters of the solution, but in fact she received only 2.5
milliliters, according to the lawsuit.  The price for the 2.5
milliliter bottle should have been $47.49, resulting in an overcharge
of $9.80, the suit says.  The manufacturer supplies the solution in 2.5
milliliter bottles, according to the Xalatan product label.

In another example, the lawsuit claims the Company "rounded up" when
dispensing Penlac, a nail-fungus treatment, indicating the customers
were receiving 4 milliliters when the package actually contained 3.3
milliliters.  The resulting overcharge was $12.10, the suit charges.  
Additionally, the suit claims that about 1,800 drugs sold by the
Company were packaged in amounts that lent themselved to rounding.  It
said the practice dates back to 1998.

The suit also charges that the Company engaged in "up rounding" to
boost profitability.  When JC Penney Company of Plano, Texas acquired
the chain in 1997 for $3.3 billion, the Company's performance had been
faltering for about a year and a half.  It was plagued by inefficient
inventory-tracking systems and an inability to move higher-margin non-
pharmacy merchandise.  It now shows a profit.

In a statement, the Company said, "We are confident that our pharmacy
billing systems and procedures accurately bill our customers and comply
with all governmental and industry standards."

Internal Company documents show that its pharmacists recently were
instructed to accurately input the amount and prices of prescriptions
"that had been previously rounded to the next full unit."  When asked
specifically if the practice of "rounding up" had occurred in the past
and was recently amended, a J.C. Penney's spokesman said, "I cannot
comment on that yet."  Another J.C. Penney representative said company
lawyers had not yet seen the lawsuit, but added, "We take these issues
very seriously, and concern for our customer is No. 1."

In July 2001, the Company agreed to pay the US Department of Justice
$1.2 million to resolve a 1996 criminal investigation related to
partial-fill prescriptions.  Drugstores frequently fill only a portion
of a prescription when inventory is low and then fill the balance after
it restocks.  When customers did not return to pick up the rest of
their medication, the Company billed the payer for the full amount.  A
Company spokesman said the billing was a result of an older computer
system's limitations.

At the time of the settlement, the Company's general counsel, Robert
Lewis said the Company discontinued the practice when it first became
aware of the government's concerns.  The Company and the Justice
Department are in discussions on a related civil case that the
government filed in 1998.

A year ago, Company sales at stores open at least a year were growing
at half the rate of market leaders Walgreen Co. and CVS Corp.  In
October 2000, the Company hired Wayne Harris, a longtime supermarket
executive, to run the Company.  After closing more than 200 under-
performing stores, upgrading computer systems and lowering prices on
front-end merchandise, the Company's performance began to improve.  The
Company later reported operating profit of $30 million in its fiscal
third quarter ended October 27, 2001, compared with a loss of $63
million a year earlier.


GREAT WESTERN: Iowa Court Approves Settlement in TAI Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa District Court in Lee County, Iowa has approved the proposal
initiated by Great Western Bank to settle its part in a class action
filed against Thousand Adventures, Inc. (TAI) and 18 lenders, including
the Company, with respect to retail installment sales contracts
originated by TAI in connection with its sale of campground
memberships.

The suit alleges that more than 50,000 class members purchased
campground memberships at a cost ranging from $990 to $10,000 and that
TAI assigned the contracts outright or as collateral to the lenders.  
The primary claim of the amended petition appears to be that the
lenders, as holders of the installment contracts, are subject to all
claims the members had against TAI, which allegedly include breach of
contract and consumer fraud, among other things.

In July 1997, a default judgment was entered against TAI certifying
that action against it as a class action. TAI is the Debtor in a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding pending in Iowa's Federal Bankruptcy
Court.

In October 2001, the Company was dismissed as a defendant in the above-
described action and was named as sole defendant in a new proceeding,
all pursuant to a pending final settlement agreement, which was
approved by the Court in the same month.

Notice of the pending settlement agreement was mailed to members of the
class, and a hearing to finally approve the pending settlement
agreement was held November 9, 2001 at which the pending settlement
agreement became final. The time for appeal has expired with no appeal
filed.

As a result of the final settlement, the amount of potential claims the
Company will be obligated to pay will not have a material adverse
effect on the financial condition or results of operations of either
the Company or its parent, Spectrum Bancorporation.


HILTON HEAD: To Appeal State Judge's Decision Certifying Utility Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Public utility Hilton Head No. 1 Public Service District plans to
appeal 14th Circuit Court Judge Perry Buckner's decision to grant class
action status to a 1998 lawsuit charging the utility with illegally
collecting taxes, fees and charges.

The suit was filed on behalf of everyone in the 10,000-customer
District who has paid in excess of $100 for one or more:

     (1) availability fees or taxes levied by the District and
         collected by the County,

     (2) personal property taxes levied by the District,

     (3) fees or taxes collected by the County for the District,

     (4) District capacity fees, and

     (5) District inspection fees.

The suit could affect more than 200 residents in the District.

Company attorney Joel Bailey said it probably would be years before the
class action issue is determined in the case, but said that if an
appellate court overturns Buckner's December ruling, the case likely
would be over. However, he added, the case could be appealed to the US
Supreme Court, according to an Island Packet report.

Danielle Sturm, utility spokeswoman, confirmed the case was in State
Court, but said she could not comment further.  "All of those documents
are back in the office, and we'd have to look through them to see what
is and is not public record," she said.


MANUFACTURERS LIFE: Barbados Policyholders Sue After Demutualization
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife) faces a $150 million
class action filed by four residents of Barbados in the Ontario Supreme
Court of Justice, challenging the Company's demutualization.

Manulife policyholders Wismar Greaves, Marcus Jordan, Anthony Bowen,
and Richard Mandeville filed the suit after they reportedly received
nothing after the Company was demutualized.  The suit states "As a
result of the demutualisation, policyholders in Canada and the United
States got substantial monies for the rights in Manufacturers Life."

Mr. Greaves told Nation News Barbados, "The Barbadian policy-holders,
who owned approximately .05 per cent of the company before
demutualisation, got nothing."  He said the Company owed its Barbadian
policyholders the same benefits as it paid the policyholders in the
United States and Canada.

He added, "At the time of the hearing of Manufacturers Life's
transaction in Barbados, I objected to the fact that policyholders were
not getting compensation."  He urged all Company policyholders not to
cash surrender their policies, saying "They should hold on to them and
seek to support the class action suit."

The plaintiffs will meet today at the Lester Vaughan School, Cane
Garden, St. Thomas, to get more information on the action to be taken
and how they can benefit.


NEW JERSEY: Health Care Suit Plaintiffs Told To File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against New Jersey officials alleging
the State failed to protect disabled children and furnish legally
required services to them were ordered to file an amended complaint,
after the New Jersey Trial Court dismissed most of the causes of the
action.

The suit alleges these failures violated the United States Constitution
federal statutes and federal common law.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Christine Todd Whitman, then-New Jersey Governor,

     (2) the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and

     (3) Charles Venti, Director of the Division of Youth and
         Family Services

The Court dismissed the suit in January 2000, and denied plaintiffs'
motion seeking to appeal the decision.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was dismissed without prejudice and plaintiffs were
ordered to file an amended complaint.


SULZER MEDICA: Forges Settlement of Ohio Implants Suit For US$725 M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss medical device company, Sulzer Medica, achieved a breakthrough in
the hip and knee implants class action as all parties involved in the
litigation signed an enhanced and definite term sheet for settlement,
to be submitted to Ohio Federal Court Judge Kathleen O'Malley.

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 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. However, attorneys for the
plaintiffs contested the proposed settlement, calling it unfair.

Parties then engaged in intense negotiations to resolve the suit, which
resulted in the definitive proposal, which the Company described in its
statement as having "significant advantages to all."

The settlement offers considerably higher compensation for affected
patients, with the total contribution from the Company amounting to USD
725 million, in the form of USD425 million in cash and USD300 million
in financial instruments (Callable Convertible Instruments (CCI)). The
inclusion of CCIs requires no dilution of the company's stock and
allows existing shareholders to further benefit from the positive
development of the company's share price.

The term sheet also includes a payment from the Company's former parent
company Sulzer AG. Sulzer AG agreed to release the Company from its
obligation of indemnification.  Additionally, proceeds from the 2000
policy with Winterthur International Insurance will be added to the
agreement. Contributions from the 2001 policy are still being
negotiated.

The compensation to patients will amount to approximately USD200,000.
As of February 1, some 2,786 patients have undergone hip revision
surgery. The corresponding figure for knee implant patients is 561.
These figures are considerably lower than the Company's total estimate
of 4,000 patients who can be covered by the final agreement.

Company CEO Dr. Stephen Rietiker said in a press statement, "The term
sheet for a class action settlement that has now been signed by all
parties is a decisive milestone on the path to resolving the US
litigation against Sulzer Orthopedics Inc.The patients will quickly
receive a considerably larger compensation."

He added "This definitive agreement allows us to look confidently into
the future. The patients will receive greater compensation and we can
proceed under the assumption that there will be a very small number of
opt-outs.This agreement is one that we can afford, and it will allow us
to again focus on our central business activities of further growing
our company on the basis of our outstanding products."

Judge O'Malley will hold the fairness hearing on May 14, 2002 as
planned. The broad-based support for the agreement shown by plaintiffs'
lawyers gives Sulzer Medica a great deal of confidence that the number
of opt-outs will remain minimal. The injunction on the filing of
individual claims remains in effect until February 22 2002.


                            Securities Fraud


CRITICAL PATH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ:CPTH)
common stock during the period between April 21, 2000 and September 25,
2000.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company
provides e-mail hosting services to a variety of organizations, and
many of these types of companies were new and were suffering from a
downturn in Internet-related funding which began in the spring of 2000.

The suit alleges that the problems many of these companies were having
raising money had reached crisis levels and were impacting the
Company's ability to collect receivables. The defendants had also known
for months that new accounting regulations would negate the Company's
ability to continue to recognize up-front license fees in the 4th
Quarter 2000. The defendants knew this would severely impair the
Company's future revenue growth and impair their ability to make future
stock sales and extract future bonuses, which were tied to its
performance. Thus, defendants continued to make positive but false
statements about the Company's business and projections for the 3rd and
4th Quarter 2000 and beyond.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


CRITICAL PATH: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, PA commenced a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Critical Path, Inc. (Nasdaq: CPTH) securities
between April 21, 2000 and October 19, 2000, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market during 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


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacq International (NASDAQ:DYII) labeled the recent securities class
actions pending against the Company and Chairman Chiu Chan "spurious,
frivolous and without merit."

The suits were commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities during the period between Nov. 29, 1999 and
Jan. 16, 2002, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants represented
that the Company's favorable financial results were due to its
commitment to quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the class
period, defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's financials were
strong and that it was consistently achieving "record results."  
Defendants actually knew that the quality of the Company's balance
sheet was eroding, that it was violating federal law in the maintenance
of its facilities and that it improperly cared for patients.

Company Chairman and CEO, Chiu Chan, stated in a press release "Nothing
has changed in the financial fundamentals of Dynacq in which we
announced record earnings for both fiscal 2001 and the first quarter of
2002. Dynacq has more than $6 million cash on hand and has paid out of
earnings for doubling surgical facilities in metropolitan Houston as
well as the Baton Rouge acquisition. In addition, Dynacq has an unused
line of credit of $7.5 million."

He continues, "In regard to the media's recent negative articles on
Dynacq.one must ask what due diligence these reporters did on Dynacq,
whether they are responsible financial journalists and are they
abetting an orchestrated program to drive down Dynacq's share price?"

The Company develops, owns and operates surgical facilities and is
committed to providing quality patient care.

For more information, contact Dick Schey of Schey Advertising/Public
Relations by Phone: 713-522-8300 by E-mail: raschey@sbcglobal.net or
visit the Company's Website: http://www.dynacq.com


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP lodged a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of Dynacq International Inc. (NASDAQ:DYII)
publicly traded securities during the period between November 29, 1999
and January 16, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants represented that the
Company's favorable financial results were due to its commitment to
quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the class period,
defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's financials were strong
and that it was consistently achieving "record results."

According to the suit, defendants actually knew that the quality of the
Company's balance sheet was eroding, that it was violating federal law
in the maintenance of its facilities and that it improperly cared for
patients.

On January 16, 2002, TheStreet.com ran an article on the Company
entitled, "Dynacq's Doubtful Accounts Send Distress Signals."  
Essentially, the article exposed many of the Company's problems that,
in the days that followed, caused the Company's share price to crumble.
These disclosures shocked the market, causing Company stock to decline
to less than $15 per share before closing at $15.20 per share on
January 17, 2002, on volume of more than 2.6 million shares, and later
plummeting to less than $12 per share.

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


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Dynacq International, Inc.
(NASDAQ:DYII) publicly traded securities during the period between
November 29, 1999 and January 16, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants represented that the
Company's favorable financial results were due to its commitment to
quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the class period,
defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's financials were strong
and that it was consistently achieving "record results."  Defendants
actually knew that the quality of the Company's balance sheet was
eroding, that it was violating federal law in the maintenance of its
facilities and that it improperly cared for patients.

Then, on February 4, 2002, it was revealed that one of the named
defendants, Chiu Moon Chan, was identified by a news agency as one of
the 15 largest insider sellers for the reported week of January 25,
2002 to February 1, 2002. The news agency report stated that Mr. Chan
sold approximately $525,000 worth of his personal shares in January
2002. These sales took place during the class period.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Dynacq International,
Inc. (NASDAQ:DYII) from November 29, 1999 through January 16, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants represented that the
Company's favorable financial results were due to its commitment to
quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the class period,
defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's financials were strong
and that it was consistently achieving "record results."

However, the defendants actually knew that the quality of the Company's
balance sheet was eroding, that it was violating federal law in the
maintenance of its facilities and that it improperly cared for
patients.

On January 16, 2002, TheStreet.com ran an article on the Company
entitled, "Dynacq's Doubtful Accounts Send Distress Signals."  
Essentially, the article exposed many of the Company's problems, which,
in the days that followed, caused the Company's share price to crumble.
These disclosures shocked the market, causing Company stock to decline
to less than $15 per share before closing at $15.20 per share on Jan.
17, 2002, on volume of more than 2.6 million shares, and later
plummeting to less than $12 per share.

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


ELAN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Elan Corporation, PLC (NYSE:ELN)
publicly traded securities during the period between April 23, 2001 and
January 29, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants reported favorable
financial results for the Company, while concealing expenses through
joint ventures, recognizing income from companies in which the Company
had invested (round-trip revenue) and concealing material related-party
transactions. As a result, the Company's stock traded as high as $65.

Then, in January 2002, The Wall Street Journal published an article on
the Company's accounting entitled, "Research Partnerships Give Irish
Drug Maker Rosy Financial Glow."  The article quoted Lynn Turner, a
former chief accountant for the SEC, as saying "What's the real
substance?.I'm taking money out of one pocket and putting it in
another. That is a charade." The article went on to describe several
transactions in which the Company had recognized revenue where it had
funded the entire purchase price. On this news, Company stock dropped
to as low as $22.40, before closing at $29.25 on volume of 37.1 million
shares.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


ELAN CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of Elan Corporation PLC (NYSE: ELN)
securities between December 21, 2000 and February 1, 2002, inclusive,
against the Company, certain of its officers, and its auditors KPMG
LLP.

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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported revenues and earnings. Moreover, the Company omitted
to state material information necessary in order to make prior
statements not misleading.

The complaint additionally alleges that the Company engaged in improper
accounting practices that:

     (1) artificially inflated the Company's reported revenues;

     (2) artificially increasing the asset side of its balance sheet;
         and

     (3) improperly reduced its reported expenses.

On January 30, 2002, the Wall Street Journal first reported on some of
the Company's accounting practices and on February 4, 2002, the Company
issued a press release providing information about two "qualified
special purpose entities," or QSPEs, which it said were not
consolidated in its final results as presented under U.S. accounting
principles. It is said that the value of the investment of the two
QSPEs was "insufficient to pay the indebtedness of the entities."

In response to these revelations, the market price of Company stock
dropped precipitously from a class period high of $65 to below $15 on
February 4, 2002.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole,
Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by
Mail: 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. All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to ELAN.


ELAN CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of Elan Corporation, PLC (NYSE:ELN) American
Depository Receipts (ADRs) between January 2, 2001 and January 29,
2002, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The alleged violations, according to the complaint, flow from
the Company's publication of materially false and misleading financial
results during the class period. The complaint alleges that, during the
class period, the Company's misleading financial results caused the its
ADRs to trade at artificially inflated prices, thereby damaging
investors who purchased them.

On January 29, 2002, after the market closed, The Wall Street Journal
issued a detailed expose about the Company's accounting practices. The
report detailed instances of the Company creating revenue out of thin
air by establishing an company-controlled entity for research and
development purpose, funding the entity through a multi-million dollar
"investment" and then immediately taking back the "investment" in the
form of a "licensing fee," which it then recorded as revenue.  The Wall
Street Journal quoted the SEC's former chief accountant, who described
the practice as a "charade" that is akin to "taking money out of one
pocket and putting it into another."

On January 30, 2002, following the release of the Wall Street Journal
report, the Company's ADR price fell nearly 17% in a single day, to
trade at $29.25 per ADR, some 34.7% below the $44.80 per ADR at which
the ADRs had closed just days earlier, on January 17, 2002.

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


ELAN CORPORATION: Multiple Suits Don't Dim Chairman's Positive Outlook
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elan Corporation (NYSE:ELAN) is confident that its accounting and
business practices can stand up to any scrutiny, Company Chairman Donal
Geaney said after three major law firms filed class action suits
against Elan for federal securities violations.

The suits uniformly allege violations of Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company allegedly issued false or misleading statements
regarding its financial results to defraud investors.  The suits also
claim that the Company used deceptive accounting practices to inflate
its revenue.

Law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach commenced a suit in the
Southern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock between April 23, 2001 and January 29, 2002.  Another
lawsuit was filed by Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who bought the
stock between December 21, 2000 and February 1, 2002.  Kirby McInerney
and Squire filed the third in the Southern District of New York.

All three suits cite a January 30, Wall Street Journal article that
detailed allegedly improper accounting methods used by Elan to
recognize revenue.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE:GX)
common stock during the period between Jan. 2, 2001 and Oct. 4, 2001.  

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants issued false and
misleading statements and press releases concerning the Company's
financial statements, their ability to offset declining wholesale
demand for bandwidth capacity with higher-margin, customized data
services and its ability to generate sufficient cash revenue to service
its debt.

During the class period, before the disclosure of the true facts, the
individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
personally held Company stock generating more than $149 million in
proceeds and the Company raised $1 billion in an offering of senior
notes.

However, the full extent of the Company's cash flow crisis, and its
failure to compete in the market for customized communications
services, began to emerge on Oct. 4, 2001. On that date, the Company
issued a string of stunning announcements, relating that cash revenues
in the third quarter would be approximately $1.2 billion, $400 million
less than the $1.6 billion expected by a consensus of analysts surveyed
by Thomson Financial/First Call. The cash revenue shortfall was
purportedly the result of a "sharp falloff" in wholesale IRU sales to
carrier customers.

The Company further announced that it expected recurring adjusted
EBITDA to be "significantly less than $100 million" compared to
forecasts of $400 million. Following these announcements, the Company's
share priced plunged by 49% to $1.07 per share.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Hanover Compressor Company (NYSE:HC) publicly traded
securities during the period between Nov. 8, 2000 and Jan. 28, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hanover is a
provider of natural gas compression, gas handling and related services
in the United States and selected international markets. The suit
alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
defendants' issuance of false financial statements and other false and
misleading statements about the Company's operating performance.

The true facts, which were known by the defendants during the class
period but concealed from the public, were:

     (1) the $16 million in revenue and $2.6 million in net income
         recognized in the 3rd and 4th Quarter associated with the
         Hampton Roads fabrication project should not have been
         recognized as it did not reflect the percentage of the
         project's completion;

     (2) Hanover's "former majority partner" in the Hampton Roads
         project was actually replaced on March 19, 2001, not July
         2001;

     (3) defendants "paid off" the investor in Hampton Roads the sum of
         $1 million in exchange for the investor's signature on the
         sham transaction documents on or before Sept. 30, 2000, in
         order for the Company to use the same to inflate its revenue
         and earnings as early as 3rd Quarter 2000;

     (4) defendants issued a "side letter" to the Hampton Roads
         investor offering to loan up to $40 million to the joint
         venture in order to induce the investor to enter into the
         agreement by Sept. 30, 2000;

     (5) in winter 2000, defendants actually knew that the Hampton
         Roads project completion date had been pushed out to 2003 or
         2004, not 2001;

     (6) the Registration Statement omits the Hampton Roads project and
         incorporates the Company's false and misleading 3rd and 4th
         Quarter 2000 financial results;

     (7) the Company's financial statements for 1st and 2nd Quarter
         2001 were false in that the revenue and EPS were overstated
         and they failed to disclose the impact of the dubious Hampton
         Roads project. Moreover, these statements (in addition to the
         registration statement/prospectus) concealed the fact that the
         investor in the transaction advised defendants in February
         2001 that it sought to back out of the venture; and

     (8) on Feb. 6, 2001, the investor in Hampton Roads demanded a
         refund of his $4 million. Further, in a secret "behind-the-
         scenes" type transaction, the Company refused to refund the
         money directly to the investor.

Instead, defendants forwarded the money to a company related to the
investor so that the transaction would go uncovered. Finally,
defendants arranged for the "related company" to issue a Promissory
Note to Hanover in the amount of $4 million (the same amount as the
refund) which it agreed in an oral "side agreement" not to insist upon
payment.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE:
PNC) securities between July 19, 2001 and January 29, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against the Company and:

     (1) Ernst & Young, LLP,

     (2) James E. Rohr and

     (3) Robert L. Haunschild

The suit charges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market during 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, PA 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


PNC FINANCIAL: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated the first securities class action
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: PNC) from July 19, 2001 through January 29,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and its auditor and consultant Ernst & Young, LLP with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that during the
class period, defendants misrepresented the Company's financial results
and issued false and misleading statements with regard to its financial
condition. Defendants failed to properly consolidate liabilities
associated with three subsidiaries PNC had established with American
Insurance Group (AIG).

Throughout the class period, defendants misrepresented the Company's
earnings as well as its ability to reduce its liabilities related to
non-performing assets. In fact, defendants' failure to conform with
proper accounting standards produced inflated earnings and misled
investors as to the Company's true financial condition.

The suit further alleges that while acting as auditor and a consultant
for the Company, Ernst and Young LLP was also acting as a consultant
for AIG. In fact, as the Company's auditor, Ernst and Young approved
its transactions with AIG while at the same time acting as an
"accounting adviser" to AIG.  Ernst and Young drew up the financial
structure for the subsidiaries in question and approved them for
implementation by AIG, and also issued a letter that helped AIG pitch
its product to banks.

On January 29, 2002, the Company announced that the Federal Reserve
Board had contacted it about accounting inaccuracies and as a result,
its financial results for 2nd Quarter 2001 and 3rd Quarter 2001 would
be restated and its financial results for 4th Quarter 2001 would be
revised.

The Company also stated that the updated financials would result in
year-end earnings being reduced $155 million to approximately $412
million, or $1.38 a share. The Company also revealed that these
accounting adjustments would cause its non-performing assets to rise by
$125 million to $393 million.

In addition, the Company announced that the Federal Reserve Board and
the SEC were making inquiries about the Company's transactions and that
it would cooperate with their investigations. These disclosures shocked
the market, causing its stock to close on January 29, 2002 down $5.79
or nearly 10% at $56.08 in extremely heavy trading volume of 6,305,100
shares.

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


PNC FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in W.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. (NYSE:PNC) between July 19, 2001 and January 29,
2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District
Court, Western District of Pennsylvania against the Company and:

     (1) Ernst & Young, LLP,

     (2) James E. Rohr and

     (3) Robert L. Haunschild

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 a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 19, 2001 and January 29, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's securities.

The suit alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants issued
multiple press releases reporting the Company's quarterly 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.

As alleged in the complaint, however, these statements were materially
false and misleading because:

     (i) the Company was engaged in improper and/or suspect accounting
         practices which affected the accuracy of its financial
         results; and

    (ii) contrary to the statements in documents filed with the SEC
         during the class period, the Company's financial statements
         issued during the class period were not prepared in accordance
         with generally accepted accounting principles.

In January 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that the
Federal Reserve Board had raised concerns about accounting inaccuracies
in its financial statements for the second, third, and fourth quarters
of fiscal year 2001. Specifically, the Company had failed to
consolidate preferred interests in three subsidiaries.

As a result, the Company announced that it would restate its earnings
for the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2001 and revise its
fourth quarter earnings for the same year, resulting in year-end
earnings being reduced $155 million to approximately $412 million, or
$1.38 a share. The Company also revealed that these accounting
adjustments would cause its non-performing assets to rise by $125
million to $393 million.

Additionally, the Company stated that the Federal Reserve Board and SEC
were making inquiries about its transactions and that the Company would
cooperate with the investigations. In response to these disclosures,
Company shares fell $5.79, or nearly 10%, to close at $56.08 on
extremely heavy trading volume of 6,305,100 shares.

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


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Regeneration
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:RTIX) between July 25, 2001 and January 31,
2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Florida Gainesville Division, against the
Company and:

     (1) Richard Allen,

     (2) James Grooms and

     (3) Brian Hutchinson

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 made
highly positive statements regarding the Company's financial results.

The Company reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial
results and strong revenue growth which caused the price of its
securities to trade as high as $12.82 per share during the class
period. These statements were allegedly false and misleading because
the Company failed to take a charge to earnings to recognize worthless
inventory.

On February 2, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it was delaying its fourth quarter and year-end results for fiscal year
2001 while "management completes its evaluation of certain inventory
issues."  The Company also announced that its Chief Financial Officer
Richard Allen and Vice President of Marketing and Sales, James Abraham,
are leaving the Company, effective immediately.

The Company further announced that it is "evaluating whether these
issues may affect RTI's previously reported financial results" and
although "RTI's annual results have not been finalized, company
officials expect to report a loss for both the quarter and the year."  
In response to the news the price of the Company's stock plunged more
than 50% from $10.15 on January 31, 2002 to $5.19 on February 1, 2002.

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 or Kenneth J. Vianale or Tara Isaacson by Mail:
5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
561-361-5000 by E-mail: regenerationcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates LLP commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of Regeneration Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq: RTIX) publicly traded securities during the period between
July 25, 2001 and January 31, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of 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 made highly
positive statements regarding the Company's financial results.  The
Company reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial results
and strong revenue growth, which caused the price of the Company's
securities to trade as high as $12.82 per share during the class
period.  These statements were allegedly false and misleading because
the Company failed to take a charge to earnings to recognize worthless
inventory.

On February 1, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it was delaying its fourth quarter and year-end results for fiscal year
2001 while "management completes its evaluation of certain inventory
issues."  The Company also announced that its Chief Financial Officer
Richard Allen and Vice President of Marketing and Sales, James Abraham,
are leaving the Company, effective immediately. The Company further
announced that it is "evaluating whether these issues may affect RTI's
previously reported financial results" and although "RTI's annual
results have not been finalized, company officials expect to report a
loss for both the quarter and the year."  In response to the news the
price of Company stock plunged more than 50% from $10.15 on January 31,
2002 to $5.19 on February 1, 2002.

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


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf
of purchasers of Suprema Specialties, Inc. (Nasdaq: CHEZ) common stock
between August 15, 2001 and December 21, 2001, inclusive.  The Company
and certain of its officers and directors are named as defendants.

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.  Additionally, the suit alleges a violation of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of investors who purchased
Suprema stock pursuant to its secondary offering of November 8, 2001.  
The suit alleges that throughout the class period defendants knowingly
or recklessly disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition.

The suit alleges that the Company's financial statements were not in
conformity with GAAP and that defendants' misrepresentations caused the
price of the Company's common stock to be artificially inflated
throughout the class period.

For more information, contact Conor R. Crowley by Phone: 866-592-1960
(toll-free) or 202-337-8000 by E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.ftllaw.com


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired Suprema Specialties, Inc. (Nasdaq:CHEZ) common
stock between August 15, 2001 and December 21, 2001 in the United
States District Court in New Jersey.

The Complaint 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 throughout
the Class Period defendants knowingly or recklessly published
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition.

For more information, contact Jennifer Haas or Nancy Kaboolian by
Phone: (800) 889-3701 by E-mail: Nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or
Jhaas@abbeygardy.com.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Suprema Specialties, Inc. (Nasdaq:CHEZ) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, in the US District Court for the District of
New Jersey.  The suit seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's
securities between August 8, 2001 through December 21, 2001.  Named as
defendants in the case are the Company and:

     (1) Mark Cocchiola, Chairman and CEO,

     (2) Steven Venechanos, CFO and Secretary,

     (3) Marco Cocchiola, director,

     (4) Rudolph Acosta, director,

     (5) Paul Desocia, director, and

     (6) Barry Rutcofsky, director

The suit alleges that the Company throughout the class period knowingly
or recklessly disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition. These statements, among
others, are alleged to have been materially false and misleading:

     (1) August 8, 2001 and August 15, 2001 press releases announcing
         the Company's 2001 year end financial results;

     (2) 2001 Form 10-K filed with the SEC on September 28, 2001;

     (3) the Company's registration statement filed with the SEC on
         November 6, 2001 for the public offering of over 4 million
         shares of stock at $12.75 of which 500,000 shares were sold
         by, among others, Mr. Cocchiola and Mr. Venechanos;

     (4) November 15, 2001 press release announcing the Company's
         results for the first quarter of 2002, ended September 30,
         2001; and

     (5) the Company's Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal 2002.

In each of its SEC filings, the Company assured the public that its
financials were in conformity with GAAP. The complaint alleged that the
Company's financial statements were, in fact, not in conformity with
GAAP. On December 21, 2001 the Company announced that its CFO, Mr.
Venechanos' was resigning and disclosed that it had launched an
investigation into its prior reported financial results. In response to
this report the NASDAQ halted trading of Company stock.

For more information, contact the firm's Shareholder relations manager
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.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Harvey Greenfield Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield is investigating possible claims for
violation of the civil enforcement provisions of the federal securities
laws against Suprema Specialties, Inc. (NASDAQ: CHEZ) for alleged
misrepresentations and false statements in their financial reports.

Other suits have been filed on behalf of all investors who bought the
Company's securities between August 8, 2001 through December 21, 2001,
and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Law
Firm of Harvey Greenfield has not filed a lawsuit against the Company
and is still investigating the alleged violations.

For more information, contact Harvey Greenfield or Laura Perrone by
Phone: 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2001 New York, New York 10165 by
Phone: 212-949-5500 by Fax: 212-949-0049 or by E-mail:
harvey.greenfield@verizon.net


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO) common stock between February 24, 2000 and December
17, 2001, both dates inclusive.

This action, based on violations of section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, arises out of a series of false and misleading
statements, and omissions of material fact by the Company and certain
of its officers and directors causing the Company to overstate its
revenue for each of the quarters of fiscal 2000 and the fiscal year
2000 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2001.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants materially
misrepresented the Company's financial results and performance for each
of the quarters of and full year of fiscal 2000, ended October 31,
2000, and each of the first three quarters of fiscal 2001, ended
January 31, 2001, April 30, 2001 and July 31, 2001, respectively, by
improperly recognizing revenue on sales to distributors.

On August 24, 2001, the truth about the Company's financial condition
began to emerge when the effects of defendants' scheme began to
negatively impact its financial results. It was not until December 14,
2001 and December 17, 2001, however, that the market began to learn
that defendants had caused the Company to improperly recognize revenue
for products shipped to distributors, where the distributors did not
have a binding commitment to pay for the products, in direct
contravention of generally accepted accounting principles.

Significantly, defendants' unlawful accounting practices enabled
defendants to portray the Company as a financially strong company that
was experiencing dramatic revenue growth, and which was poised for
future success when, in fact, its purported success was the result of
improper accounting practices.

On December 14, 2001, following rumors of a possible restatement of the
Company's financial results, its common stock fell 31% - $4.72 a share
to $10.33 per share. During the class period, Company shares traded as
high as $24.50 per share.

Defendants were motivated to misrepresent the Company's financial
results, by among other things, their desire to sell approximately
900,000 shares of common stock during the class period at artificially
inflated prices for proceeds of over $15 million.

For more information, contact Eric Belfi or Maurice Pesso by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212)
682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Take-Two
Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO) from February 24, 2000
through December 17, 2001, inclusive.

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 24, 2000 and December 17,
2001, concerning its financial performance for the Company's fiscal
year 2000 and the first three quarters of its fiscal year 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 and discussed several
quarters of supposedly "record" results.

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 December 14, 2001, the price of Company stock plunged 31%, falling
from $15.05 to $10.33, as news leaked that the Company will likely
restate previously filed financial reports. On December 17, 2001 the
Company issued a press release announcing that it will restate its
financial results for its fiscal year 2000 and the first three quarters
of its fiscal year 2001.

According to the press release, the Company had improperly recognized
revenue on products that were subsequently returned to it. For fiscal
year 2000, the restatement will have the effect of decreasing net sales
by $12-$15 million and decreasing net income by $3.1-$3.7 million. For
the three quarters of 2001, the restatement will have the effect of
decreasing net sales by approximately $9.5 million and increasing net
income by $0.3 million.

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


TALX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of Talx Corporation
(NASDAQ: TALX) common stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit charges the Company, and certain of its officers and
directors, with violations of the federal securities laws. In August
2001, the Company completed a secondary offering of 3.245 million
shares of its stock (including over-allotments, and also including the
sale of 253,000 shares by the Company's CEO), raising gross proceeds of
approximately $100 million for the Company, pursuant to a registration
statement and prospectus dated August 2, 2001.

The suit alleges that the registration statement/prospectus was false
and materially misleading because:

     (1) Defendants had failed to disclose that the Company had
         improperly capitalized significant amounts of software related
         to the Company's customer premised systems line of business,
         which assets were already substantially impaired and which
         would have to be written off in the near term;

     (2) Defendants failed to properly account for the true value of
         the Company's inventory, such that the overstated value of its
         impaired inventory would have to be written down in the near
         term;

     (3) Defendants misrepresented that the Company's business was
         expanding, when it was not, and at which time defendants were
         already planning on reducing staff and closing offices;

     (4) Defendants were already planning to take at least $2.8 million
         in write-offs; and

     (5) the outsourced benefits enrollment business was not operating
         according to the expectations that had been promoted by the
         defendants, and this line of business was not a significant
         growth-driver as represented by the Company.

The suit further alleges that, throughout the class period, the same
factors which were not properly disclosed in the Company's secondary
offering registration statement/prospectus were also hidden by the
defendants from the Company's public shareholders.

Defendants misled investors and analysts by issuing a series of false
and materially misleading public statements designed to, and which did,
artificially inflate the value of Company shares. This inflation
allowed the Company and its CEO to reap almost $100 million from the
sale of stock.

Then, on October 1, 2001, weeks after the defendants had sold almost
$100 million worth of Company stock and used over $11 million in
Company stock to acquire Ti3, that the defendants issued a press
release which revealed that the Company's fiscal 2002 earnings would be
only $0.58-$0.62, excluding charges, on revenues of less than $50
million and that second quarter fiscal 2002 revenues would be less than
$12 million. The Company also announced it would recognize charges of
$2.8 million to write off capitalized software costs, inventory and to
close offices.

As a result of the defendants' shocking disclosures, Company stock
declined to less than $17 per share, representing a loss to investors
of over 50% of the value of their investment by the end of the class
period.

For more information, contact Fred T. Isquith, Gregory Nespole, Thomas
Burt, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com. E-mail should refer to TALX.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of TYCO
International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC), between February 1, 2000 through
February 1, 2002, inclusive, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

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 a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's common stock.

The suit alleges that the Company's representations were rendered false
and misleading by defendants' failure to disclose:

     (1) that the Company would achieve its earnings targets only
         through undisclosed acquisitions;

     (2) that the individual defendants sold in excess of $100,000,000
         of their individual stock holdings to the company; and

     (3) that the Company's management procedures were to make large
         payments to insiders, including a $20,000,000 payment to one
         director and his charity for furthering the interests of the
         Company.

The suit further alleges that external rule changes required the
Company to cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices
and recognize the revenues from its security contracts only as the
monies thereunder were received. Throughout the class period,
defendants were allegedly aware that the adverse financial effect of
the rule change by the Securities and Exchange Commission would be
approximately $1,000,000,000.

However, defendants allegedly failed to disclose this adverse financial
effect until partial disclosure was made in October 2001. As defendants
belatedly announced portions of the foregoing material facts between
October 2001 and January 2002, the Company's stock fell allegedly by
more than 40 plus percent.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Ian T. Stoll by
Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110 by Phone: 212-608-1900
or by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Berger Montague Files Securities Suit in N.D. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC lodged a securities class action suit against
Williams Companies, Inc. (NASDAQ: WMB) and Williams Communications
Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: WCG) and certain of their principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased WMB or
WCG securities between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, inclusive.  

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the suit
alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information regarding the
spin-off of WCG from WMB, the accounting and financial impact of the
contingent liabilities retained by WMB, and the nature of the assets
and liabilities of WCG, causing the common stock of both companies to
trade at artificially inflated prices.

On January 29, 2002, WMB shocked the market by announcing that it would
be delaying the release of its 2001 earnings "pending an internal
assessment of Williams' contingent obligations to Williams
Communications."  According to the press release, WMB "expects to be
able to estimate the financial effect, if any, regarding its ultimate
obligation related to WCG's $1.4 billion debt and network lease
agreement covering assets that cost $750 million."

In response to WMB's announcement, the price of WMB common stock, which
was already substantially eroded from its prior year's high, declined
sharply, falling from approximately $24 per share to as low as $18.70
per share, and the already depressed WCG common stock declined to as
low as $1.30 per share.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Michael T. Fantini or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Williams Companies, Inc. (NASDAQ:WMB)
and/or Williams Communications Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:WCG) between July
24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
against the two Companies and:

     (1) Keith E. Bailey,

     (2) Howard E. Janzen and

     (3) Scott E. Schubert

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 a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of WMB common stock and WCG common stock.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that WMB and WCG issued a series of
statements concerning their businesses, financial results and
operations which failed to disclose:

     (i) that the spin-off of WCG from WMB was not in the best
         interests of both WMB and WCG shareholders as the primary
         motivation for the spin-off of WCG was to allow WMB to shore
         up its balance sheet so that it could then issue more stock
         and/or debt to acquire companies using its common stock as
         currency and protect its debt rating;

    (ii) that WCG was operating at levels well below company-sponsored
         expectations, such that revenue projections were overstated,
         and costs and expenses were understated, and also such that,
         in an effort to control costs, defendants would soon have to
         take actions which would have a further adverse impact on
         WCG's profitability;

   (iii) that approximately $2 billion of WCG debt that was guaranteed
         for payment by WMB around the time of the spin-off was
         improperly footnoted by WMB as a mere contingent obligation of
         WMB, which was materially false and misleading because the
         declining financial condition of WCG made it increasingly
         certain that WMB would be forced to pay on such guaranties,
         for which it did not adequately reserve;

    (iv) that WCG's assets were permanently impaired and had to be
         written-off and that WCG avoided taking such write-offs on its
         own books through the series of financial machinations
         described in the complaint;

     (v) that WMB was carrying on its financial statements receivables
         from WCG that were impaired, not collectible and should have
         been written-off in whole or in substantial part. Rather than
         writing off these impaired assets, which amounted to tens of
         millions of dollars, WMB agreed to extend up to $100 million
         of WCG's receivables with an outstanding balance due on March
         31, 2001, to March 15, 2002; and

    (vi) that the sale and leaseback of WCG's office properties in or
         about September of 2001 was a non-arm's-length transaction at
         an inflated value for the properties whose motive and intent
         was to funnel monies to WCG and avoid forcing WMB to perform
         its guaranties and thereby adversely affect its results and
         debt ratings.

On January 29,2002, as alleged in the complaint, WMB shocked the market
by announcing that it would be delaying the release of its 2001
earnings "pending an internal assessment of William's contingent
obligations to Williams Communications."  According to the press
release, WMB "expects to be able to estimate the financial effect, if
any, regarding its ultimate obligation related to WCG's $1.4 billion
debt and network lease agreement covering assets that cost $750
million."

In response to WMB's shocking announcement, as alleged in the
complaint, the price of WMB common stock, which was already
substantially eroded from its prior year's high, declined sharply,
falling from approximately $24 per share to as low as $18.70 per share
and the already depressed WCG common stock declined to as low as $1.30
per share.

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