CAR_Public/020212.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, February 12, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 30

                            Headlines

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles 1998 NationsBank Merger Suit For $490 Million
CCC INFORMATION: Inks Agreement To Settle Ohio Insurance Valuation Suit
CENDANT CORPORATION: Century 21 Sues Over Favoritism Shown Other Brands
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Dwyer Collora Lodges Retirement Plan Suit in NY
HERBAL PRODUCTS: Products Contaminated With Prescription Drugs Recalled

ILLINOIS: Attorney General To Join State Suit V. Enron, Arthur Andersen
INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Secretary To Testify In Her Contempt Trial
KENTUCKY: Suit Seeks Federal Law Enforcement For Mentally Retarded
METLIFE INC.: Sets Up Reserve For Race Discrimination Suit Settlement
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Federal Judge Sets Fairness Hearing For March

OKLAHOMA: Regents Settle Reverse Discrimination Suit For $3.3 Million
PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Court Allows Light Cigarette Suit To Proceed
VITAMIN ANTITRUST: MA Court Allows Suit To Proceed Under Consumer Act

                        Securities Fraud

BIOPURE CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: Court Approves $3M Securities Suit Settlement
DT INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in W.D. Missouri
ELAN CORPORATION: Faces SEC Investigation Over Accounting Practices
ELAN CORPORATION: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

ELAN CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NH
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NH
GLOBAL CROSSING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York

HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
HOMESTORE.COM: Goodkind Labaton Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Holzer Holzer Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in FL
SONICBLUE INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Federal Securities Violations

SONICBLUE INC.: Settles Suits Over Diamond Acquisition For $15 Million
SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO
SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in CO
SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in CO
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in N.D. OK
XOMA LTD.: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suits in CA
                              
                            *********


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles 1998 NationsBank Merger Suit For $490 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation will settle for $490 million several class
action suits filed against it relating to the 1998 merger of
NationsBank and BankAmerica, where Charlotte-based NationsBank bought
Bank of America, taking its name, according to the Detroit News.

Reports cropped up after the merger about the former Bank of America's
involvement with the New York hedge fund DE Shaw and Company resulted
in the newly merged bank's decision to write down a $1 billion loan. In
October 1998, the Company disclosed that it had lost $372 million on a
$1.3 billion unsecured loan to DE Shaw.

The scandal led then Bank of America chairman, David Coulter, to resign
and spawned a class action lawsuit on behalf of 300,000 NationsBank
shareholders, and two other independent suits filed in California and
Maine.  

Under the settlement, the Company will pay $333.2 million to
NationsBank shareholders who sued on issues deriving from the Company's
connections to Shaw, and will provide $156.8 million to former
BankAmerica shareholders.  The payments will come from existing
reserves and insurance, and will not affect the bank's financial
results, the Company said.
   
Company Chairman Ken Lewis told the Detroit News, "While we believed
our actions in 1998 were totally appropriate, we also felt it was best
to get this litigation behind us.These cases have taken an inordinate
amount of management's time, and it is clearly in the best interests of
shareholders that we are now free to devote our full attention to
executing our customer-focused strategies in order to create future
value for our shareholders."


CCC INFORMATION: Inks Agreement To Settle Ohio Insurance Valuation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services Inc., together with one of its insurance
company customers, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, has entered
into an agreement to settle the class action suit pending in the Court
of Common Pleas, Franklin County Ohio since August 200l.

The suit alleges that Nationwide, using valuations prepared by the
Company, offered the plaintiffs inadequate amounts for their total loss
vehicles and that the Company's total loss valuation product provides
values that do not comply with applicable state regulations governing
the adjustment of total loss claims.

If consummated, the proposed settlement in the Whitworth case would
resolve all claims on behalf a national settlement class consisting of
all policyholders of Nationwide (and all its affiliates):

     (1) who have submitted first party property damage claims;

     (2) whose vehicle was declared a total loss;

     (3) for whose vehicle Nationwide (or its affiliate) received a
         valuation of the total loss vehicle from the Company; and

     (4) who received payment for the total loss claim between January
         1, 1987 and the date on which notice of the settlement is
         mailed.

Class members who do not opt out of the settlement would release any
and all claims against the Company and Nationwide (and its affiliates)
arising out of or relating to first party property damage claims made
to Nationwide (or its affiliates) and/or the Company's valuation of
their total loss vehicles for Nationwide. Class members who exercise
their right to opt out of the settlement, however, would not be bound
by the settlement and would not release any claims as part of the
settlement.

Pursuant to the proposed settlement, Nationwide has agreed to provide
certain cash compensation to members of the class who submit timely and
accurate claim forms. In addition, Nationwide has agreed to pay for the
costs of notice and administration of the settlement as well as class
counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses (up to the amount of $8,750,000)
that may be awarded by the Court.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to provide
certain information necessary to identify and provide notice to class
members as well as the information necessary to administer the
settlement. In addition, the Company has agreed to the entry of
injunctive relief requiring it, for a period of three years, to
undertake additional periodic studies to validate certain of the
information used in its total loss valuation product.

The Company has agreed to enter into the settlement agreement for the
purpose of avoiding the expense and distraction of protracted
litigation, without any express or implied acknowledgment of any fault
or liability to the plaintiffs, the settlement class, or anyone else.

The settlement agreement does not require any cash contribution by the
Company.  The Company estimates that the cost of the settlement would
not, on a yearly basis, have a material impact on operating cash flow.
Nationwide has previously demanded indemnification from the Company in
connection with the suit, but that demand is unaffected by the
settlement agreement in the suit.  The Company has asserted various
defenses to Nationwide's indemnification demand.

The parties in the suit have filed a stipulation of settlement setting
forth the terms of the settlement agreement and the plaintiff's counsel
has filed a motion requesting preliminary approval of the settlement
and conditional certification of the settlement class for purposes of
the settlement.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for preliminary
approval and conditional class certification to be held on February 15,
2002. If the Court grants that motion, the consummation of the
settlement remains subject to final approval at a fairness hearing, at
which time the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, whether the settlement class should be
certified and whether to grant class counsel's petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.


CENDANT CORPORATION: Century 21 Sues Over Favoritism Shown Other Brands
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Century 21 franchisee filed a lawsuit against Cendant Corporation
alleging that the New York-based real estate and travel franchiser
favors competing real-estate brokers and funnels money allocated for
Century 21 advertising to other brands, The Wall Street Journal
reported recently.  

The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey Superior Court, in Morris County, said
further that the Company, which owns the Century 21 real estate
brokerage brand, employed "anticompetitive, willful and intentional
conduct.in misappropriating and diverting money and resources derived
from Century 21 franchisees.and allotting them, instead, to other
Cendant-owned companies, including Coldwell Banker."

The suit, which seeks class-action status and unspecified damages,
alleges that the Company, whose predecessor company acquired the
Century 21 brand in 1995, has unfairly given an advantage to other
brands it owns, Coldwell Banker and ERA, primarily by funding
acquisitions of real estate brokers through NRT Inc., a Parsippany, New
Jersey joint venture with Apollo Management, LP.

When the Company bought the Coldwell Banker brand, it also acquired
about 300 Coldwell Banker broker offices.  At the time, the Company was
strictly a franchiser of brands, including lodging names such as Ramada
Inn and Travelodge, and did not want to own any actual real estate
brokerage offices.

NRT was formed in 1997 with Apollo to take the brokerage offices off
the Company's balance sheet.  Through December 2000, according to
Securities and Exchange Commission filings, the Company had spent $611
million, and NRT had paid $372 million, to acquire real estate brokers,
which were rolled into NRT.  Some of them were already franchisees of
one of the Company's brands, but in many cases they were independent
brokers, which were re-branded and now pay royalty fees to the Company.  

In 2001, the Company received about $200 million in royalties from NRT.  
The Company is currently evaluating its option to buy the 50% of NRT it
does not already own.  To date, NRT has acquired more than 200 real-
estate brokers, which it has rolled into one of 24 business units.  Of
those 24 units, 19 are franchised to Coldwell Banker and four are
franchised to ERA.

The suit alleges that in spending money to buy out brokers that are re-
branded as Coldwell Banker or ERA brokers, the Company is unfairly
competing with its Century 21 franchisees.  The lawsuit further alleges
that Century 21 has lost market share as a result.  The lawsuit also
claims that the Company, which collects approximately $40 million in
advertising fees from its franchisees annually, has spent some of that
money to promote other brands.

A Company spokesman said, "There is absolutely no merit to this suit."


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: Dwyer Collora Lodges Retirement Plan Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dwyer & Collora, LLP initiated a class action brought on behalf of all
former New York employees of Citigroup, Inc., Travelers Group, Inc.,
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and their subsidiary corporations who
automatically forfeited a portion of their earned wages when they left
the defendants' employ, pursuant to the defendants' "Capital
Accumulation Plan" (CAP Plan).

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges that under the CAP Plan the defendants
withheld up to twenty-five percent of certain employees' earned wages.
The defendants would return the withheld wages in the form of Travelers
or Citigroup stock after a two or three year period, but only to those
employees who were still employed with the defendants at that time.  
The only way for employees in the CAP Plan to avoid wage forfeiture was
to die, become totally disabled, retire, or be terminated without
cause.

The suit alleges that the CAP Plan's wage forfeiture scheme has
resulted in millions of dollars in windfall profits for the defendants
in the form of wages that were earned but never paid to employees.  The
suit further alleges that the forfeiture of wages pursuant to the CAP
Plan violates the New York Labor Law. The Complaint also alleges that
the forfeitures constitute unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty,
and unlawful conversion of employees' wages.

For more details, contact Michael A. Collora, David A. Bunis, or Jill
R. Gaulding, by Mail: 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts by
Phone: 800-767-0214 or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.dwyercollora.com.


HERBAL PRODUCTS: Products Contaminated With Prescription Drugs Recalled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Food and Drug Administration warned consumers to stop using two
herbal treatments for the prostate and immune system, after a
California investigation discovered the products contained powerful
prescription drugs, the Washington Post reported.

The two products, PC SPES and SPEC, were, made by Brea, California-
based BotanicLab, Inc.  PC SPES has been touted to be effective as a
prostate cancer treatment in medical journals.  However, investigators
from the California Department of Health Services' Food and Drug Branch
Discovered that PC SPES had been contaminated with warfarin, a
prescription anti-coagulant known by the trade name Coumadin.

SPES, on the other hand is a herbal treatment for bolstering the immune
system. State investigators found that SPES had been contaminated with
alprazolam, a habit-forming prescription tranquilizer sold under the
trade name Xanax.

Victor Raczowski, acting Director of the FDA's Division of
Gastrointestinal and Coagulation Drug Products told the Washington
Post, "At this point, this issue is actively under investigation.What
we're doing is to warn consumers not to consume either product."  Three
class action suits have been commenced in Los Angeles on behalf of
three California prostate cancer patients, charging that BotanicLab
systematically adulterated its products with prescription drugs to
enhance their effects.

Company spokesman John Sonego said the Company has voluntarily issued a
national recall on both products.


ILLINOIS: Attorney General To Join State Suit V. Enron, Arthur Andersen
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan has joined with other states in
their suit against Enron Corporation by launching a formal probe of
accounting firm Arthur Andersen's involvement in the energy giant's
collapse, according to Chicagobusiness.com.

Mr. Ryan has commenced a "civil investigative demand" which will
investigate Arthur Andersen on two fronts, legal action under state
law, and a lead plaintiff role among several states involved in federal
class action.   The demand is the equivalent of a subpoena under the
Illinois False Claims Act.  An aid for the attorney general said Mr.
Ryan was seeking a "fairly broad" range of Enron-related documents.

Mr. Ryan was, until now, silent on whether to pursue a class action
against the firm, but obviously he decided to flex legal muscle as the
top law enforcement official in the Chicago-based accounting firm's
home state, according to legal observers.  Chicagobusiness.com states
he has now decided that Illinois will join Ohio, Georgia, Washington
and several other states whose attorneys general are vying to be named
the lead plaintiff by that court.


INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Secretary To Testify In Her Contempt Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth wants to hear from Interior
Secretary Gale Norton before he decides whether to hold her in contempt
of court for failing to fix a system of American Indian trust funds,
the Associated Press recently reported.  Government attorneys recently
wrapped up their defense of Secretary Norton in the contempt hearing
that started nearly two months ago.

In order to counter the government's arguments in defense of Ms.
Norton's performance, attorneys for American Indians, who brought the
class action for an accounting from Interior of their mismanaged trust
funds, have said they would call the Secretary to testify.  Judge
Lamberth has ordered Ms. Norton to prove that the Interior Department
did not commit a fraud on the court by concealing the failure of key
Indian trust fund accounting systems.

Although much of the alleged wrongdoing occurred during the tenure of
her predecessor, Bruce Babbitt, Ms. Norton is on trial as the current
head of the department.  The Secretary's attorneys argued she should
not be forced to testify, but Judge Lamberth scheduled her to take the
stand on February 13, before which a hearing will be held to determine
the scope of her testimony.

In 1999, Judge Lamberth held Mr. Babbitt and Treasury Secretary Robert
Rubin in contempt and fined them $600,000 for failing to turn over
documents in the five-year-old class action.  The suit stems from a
century of mismanaged mining, grazing and timber royalties and rents
from 45 million acres of Indian land held in trust by the Interior
Department.  Money intended for Indian beneficiaries was lost,
misappropriated, stolen or never collected.  The Indians' attorneys
claim the government owes 300,000 Indian account holders more than $10
billion.

The lawsuit asks that the Interior be stripped of its responsibility
and that the trust be assigned to an outside receiver.  Ms. Norton, on
the other hand, has proposed creating a new bureau within the
department to manage the money.  That plan has been met with resistance
among Indian leaders.


KENTUCKY: Suit Seeks Federal Law Enforcement For Mentally Retarded
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was recently filed in US District Court, in
Frankfort, Kentucky, asking the Judge to order state officials to begin
providing services to nearly 2,000 mentally retarded people within 90
days, rather than keeping them on waiting lists for months, even years,
according to a recent Associated Press report.

The suit was filed by the State Division of Protection and Advocacy
against the State's Cabinet for Health Services (Cabinet) as the main
defendant.  Officials with the Cabinet denied being in violation of
federal law and said they are working to reduce the waiting list.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four mentally retarded people and
their caregivers and seeks class action standing on behalf of all
those on the waiting list.  The suit claims that under federal law, the
State must provide help to mentally retarded adults, allowing them to
live in community settings with assistance.  Services might include
supervised living, or assistance with bathing, dressing, eating, taking
medications and keeping medical appointments.

The lawsuit contends further that the Cabinet is in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and federal law and court rulings that
say Medicaid services must be provided within a reasonable period to
those eligible.

Maureen Fitzgerald, Director of the Division of Protection and
Advocacy, which represents the disabled, said her agency realizes the
State is under budget pressures, but must act on behalf of the many
mentally retarded adults on the waiting list.  State lawmakers are
already struggling with a tight budget and a looming $230 million
shortfall in Medicaid, which would pay for the services.

Two years ago, the State added $50 million to try to reduce what was
then a waiting list of about 1,300 people.  It will spend an additional
$27 million in state and federal money over the next two years to try
to serve 500 more mentally retarded people, many being cared for by
aging relatives.   There are now 1,969 on the waiting list, which
continues to grow even as the State tries to reduce it.  A 1998 study
found there are more than 7,000 mentally retarded Kentuckians being
cared for by people older than 60.

Ms. Fitzgerald said federal law is clear on what the State must do for
the mentally retarded.  Similar cases have been won or settled on
behalf of plaintiffs in about a dozen other states, including Florida,
Massachusetts and West Virginia.


METLIFE INC.: Sets Up Reserve For Race Discrimination Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. recently confirmed that it has set aside funds to cover
an expected settlement of a class-action lawsuit alleging race
discrimination, and said the move will result in a $250 million pretax
charge for its 2001 fourth quarter, The Wall Street Journal reported.

As reported in a recent issue of The Wall Street Journal, the nation's
largest life insurer is creating a reserve to cover the costs of
resolving the lawsuit brought by black policyholders and an
investigation by the New York State insurance department.  

The Company is due to release its year-end and fourth-quarter earnings
next Tuesday.  Bear Stearns analyst, Andrew Kligerman, said the charge
will shave about 20 cents from the Company's fourth quarter earnings,
and he now estimates that MetLife will report operating earnings of 57
cents a share.  For its 2000 fourth quarter, the Company reported net
income of $591 million, or 74 cents a share.

Analysts generally interpreted the charge as a positive sign that
MetLife was moving to get the discrimination problem behind it.  Mr.
Kligerman and others also said it appears that additional charges
related to the issue are unlikely.

In a brief statement, the Company said only that the charge stems from
"the anticipated resolution" of the class action suit and New York
investigation "involving alleged race-conscious insurance-underwriting
practices prior to 1973."  A spokesman said MetLife would not comment
on whether it still stands by its statements of last year denying that
the Company owes any compensation to nonwhite policyholders.

People close to the negotiations, however, said a settlement may not
cover all of the Company's costs from discriminatory practices.  The
Texas Insurance Department is conducting a separate inquiry into Texas
Life Insurance Company, which the Company acquired in 1988.  Texas
officials said that inquiry is still in an early stage.  According to a
front-page article in The Wall Street Journal about MetLife, in 2000,
Texas Life's official practice, at least through 1953, was to accept
"some Negro risks on (a) substandard basis," as quoted from earlier
insurance industry manuals.

Final terms of the expected settlement are still being negotiated.  It
is unclear whether the settlement would exceed the largest to date in
the chain of lawsuits and investigations relating to life insurers
charging higher rates to non-whites.  In 2000, American General
Corporation agreed to pay $215 million to settle charges that it had
continued to collect higher premiums from blacks on older policies.
MetLife's $250 million reserve is meant to cover not only the actual
amount of a settlement but also related costs such as legal fees,
mailings and advertising.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Federal Judge Sets Fairness Hearing For March
--------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly set for the week of March 4
the fairness hearing on the pact forged by Microsoft Corporation with
the US Justice Department and nine states to settle antitrust charges
against the software giant.

While Judge Kollar-Kottelly announced the date for the hearings, she
did not reveal her decisions about how long the hearings would be or
whether the critics of the settlement will be allowed to participate.  
A Reuters report described Judge Kollar-Kotelly as saying, "I see the
structure of the hearing as sort of an evolving process.I'll be making
decisions as I'm provided information."

She asked lawyers from both the Company and the government whether they
would present issues at the hearing common to both the settlement and
to tougher sanctions sought by a group of states that have rejected the
deal. She told the Justice Department to respond to the critics who
have given their public comments on the matter, and implored Company
attorneys to respond to allegations that the Company did not disclose
all its contacts with government officials during the settlement talks,
as is required under the Tunney Act.

According to a Reuters report, legal analysts said her remarks
indicated the dissenting states may get a chance to start making their
case for more drastic sanctions against the Company before the Judge
decides on whether to endorse the settlement.

Robert Lande, a law professor at the University of Baltimore told
Reuters, "I think that really means she's not going to decide the
(settlement) before March 11.she's taking these public comments so
seriously.if you take the public comments real, real seriously, you
don't dispose of them in a week."

Under the Tunney Act, Judge Kollar-Kotelly must decide if the
settlement is in the public's interest after reviewing the public
comments on the deal.  Nine states have already expressed their
dissent, saying the proposed settlement is not strong enough to punish
the Company's anti-competitive practices.  In the event that Judge
Kollar-Kotelly approves the settlement, the dissenting states will find
it more difficult to ask for tougher sanctions.


OKLAHOMA: Regents Settle Reverse Discrimination Suit For $3.3 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Oklahoma's higher education Regents settled for $3.3
million a reverse discrimination lawsuit filed by white university
student, Amy Condit, on behalf of other white students who were
allegedly denied scholarships in favor of Asian students.

Ms. Condit and 20 other plaintiffs commenced the suit after state
regents agreed to settle for $340,000 a federal lawsuit filed by
University of Tulsa student, Matthew Pollard.  Mr. Pollard alleged that
he was denied an academic scholarship even though his test scores on
the ACT college entrance exams were better than several minority
students who got scholarships, NewsOK.com reports.  After the
settlement, the state Legislature revised the scholarship program in
1999 and removed explicit references to race and gender.

Ms. Condit and the plaintiffs filed the suit although they had never
applied for the full-tuition scholarships.  Ms. Condit did not apply
for a scholarship because, according to the rules, her ACT cumulative
scores were not high enough. Allegedly, the rules required that white
males, white females and Asians have higher scores than some
minorities, including Hispanics, American Indians and blacks.

Ms. Condit hailed the settlement, saying "It means that when
scholarships are being funded by the State, all students will have an
equal opportunity."  Under the settlement, each of the plaintiffs will
receive $10,900, while the 1,300 students who joined the suit will be
awarded $750.  Plaintiffs' attorneys will receive $1.1 million.

According to NewsOK.com, education Regents voted unanimously to agree
to the settlement. Hans Brisch, State Chancellor for Higher Education,
said the scholarship program now allows "the best and the brightest,"
regardless of race or gender, to compete for scholarships.


PHILIP MORRIS: Florida Court Allows Light Cigarette Suit To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Palm Beach Circuit Court judge has certified the class in the lawsuit
charging tobacco giant Philip Morris with deceptive practices to
proceed, allowing almost a million Florida smokers who bought Marlboro
Light or Marlboro Ultra Light cigarettes since 1971 to seek damages.

According to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, the suit claims the
smokers were deceived into believing the so-called "light" cigarettes
contained less tar and nicotine than other brands, so people switched
cigarettes rather than quit. The suit additionally cites health studies
that show people who smoke light cigarettes compensate for lower-
nicotine levels by smoking more, drawing on cigarettes harder and more
frequently, or covering up the cigarette vent holes in the filter.

Company lawyers have opposed the class certification, saying the users
of light cigarettes were much too dissimilar to proceed as a class.  
They allege these lawsuits cannot fairly be tried as class actions,
because each person's decision is unique and each person's smoking
technique varies.  Company Vice President and General Counsel, William
Ohlmeyer adds the Company should not be sued on a health-related claim
when every pack of cigarettes contains a health warning written by the
U.S. Surgeon General and required by an act of Congress.

Judge Lucy Chernow Brown dismissed the arguments in her ruling, saying
"Neither the individual purchasers' subjective motivation, nor their
individualized smoking habits, are relevant to the central issues in
this case.The salient point the class members have in common is Philip
Morris' conduct."

The order allows the suit to proceed to discovery.  Gary Farmer, lawyer
for the plaintiffs advised smokers who think they might be class
members to "sit tight for now."  He told Reuters the Court will conduct
hearings shortly to determine how notice of the case will be sent to
potential class members and adds the notice probably will involve
advertisements on television, in newspapers and on Web sites and would
tell people how to join the lawsuit.


VITAMIN ANTITRUST: MA Court Allows Suit To Proceed Under Consumer Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a landmark court ruling, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
today ruled that Massachusetts consumers can sue companies engaged in
price-fixing for damages under the State's Consumer Protection Act.

Suits by consumers, who did not purchase products directly from the
price-fixers, and so are known as "indirect purchasers," are not
generally allowed under Federal and Massachusetts anti-trust laws even
though, in many cases they paid inflated prices as a result of the
price-fixing.

The ruling came in a class action case filed in June 1999 which alleged
that vitamin manufacturers, including BASF A.G., Rhone-Poulenc Animal
Nutrition SA, and F. Hoffman LaRoche Ltd., had engaged in an
international price-fixing conspiracy from 1990 to 1999. Several of the
companies have pleaded guilty to price-fixing charges in Federal Court
and paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines.

As consumers in Massachusetts could not sue under the anti-trust laws,
lawyers for the proposed class filed the case under the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act.

"This is a tremendous victory for Massachusetts consumers. Now there is
a clearly established remedy for those who have been harmed by the
companies' illegal anti-competitive activity," said Edward Rapacki, one
of the attorneys for the consumers who argued the case before the
Supreme Judicial Court.

Six of the companies have already settled suits with consumers of 22
other states which have previously recognized a consumer remedy for
price-fixing.

For more information, contact Edward D. Rapacki by Phone: (617) 523-
4800

                            Securities Fraud

BIOPURE CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA filed a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Biopure Corporation
(Nasdaq:BPUR) securities between May 8, 2001 and December 6, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer.

The action charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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 further details, 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 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pivenlaw.com


CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: Court Approves $3M Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to a settlement of the class action
against Cholestech Corporation, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

The suit, commenced in February 1999, alleges that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning
Cholestech and its business during the period of June 28, 1996 through
June 25, 1998.

The Company forged an agreement in principle in June 2001 to resolve
the matter for a payment of $3.0 million by its insurance carrier. The
Company recorded a $1.3 million charge during the year ended March 30,
2001 for legal fees and insurance costs related to resolving this
Matter, and paid $855,000 to its insurance company and $121,000 for
legal fees in the quarter ended September 28, 2001.


DT INDUSTRIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action against DT Industries has been revived, as
plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended suit in the US
District Court for the Western District of Missouri last month.  The
Court dismissed, without prejudice, the first suit in October 2001.

The consolidated suit arose from five suits filed last year against DT
Industries and its subsidiaries, Kalish Inc. and Sencorp Systems Inc.  
The suits alleged violations of Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during various periods, all of which fall between September 29, 1997
and August 23, 2000.

The suit specifically alleges, among other things, that accounting
irregularities caused the Company's previously issued financial
statements to be materially false and misleading.

The Company intends to defend against the amended suit vigorously.
Company officials believe that the Company and its officers and
directors have adequate liability insurance to cover the liabilities,
costs and expenses arising out of the suit.  However, they cannot give
an assurance that an adverse outcome in respect to the suit will not
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flow.


ELAN CORPORATION: Faces SEC Investigation Over Accounting Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission has launched an investigation
into the accounting processes of Elan Corporation, after several class
actions were commenced against the Company in the US District Court for
the Northern District of California last week.

The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly
traded securities during the period between April 23, 2001 and January
29, 2002, alleges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The suit further contends 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.

The Company refused to reveal the details of the probe but said it will
cooperate fully with the SEC's investigation.


ELAN CORPORATION: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of
Elan Corporation PLC (NYSE: ELN) between January 2, 2001 and January
29, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, an Irish pharmaceutical corporation,
and three of its top officers misled the investing public during the
class period through improper accounting practices that seriously
distorted the Company's financial results.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Company improperly recorded as
revenue investments it made in joint ventures which it controlled, and
improperly recorded proceeds from the sales of entire product lines as
product revenue, rather than as one-time gains.

On January 30, 2002, The Wall Street Journal published a detailed
article about the Company's accounting practices, with comments from
the SEC's former chief accountant questioning the legitimacy of the
Company's reported financial condition.

On this news, the Company's ADRs, which had traded as high as $65.00
per ADR during the class period, fell nearly 17% in a single day and
traded as low as $22.50 per ADR. More recently, on February 7, 2002,
the Company revealed an on-going investigation by the SEC into its
accounting practices.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman or
Wayne T. Boulton by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06016@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


ELAN CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Elan Corporation, PLC (NYSE:ELN) for allegedly
using improper accounting methods to artificially inflate its stock
price.  The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all investors who bought Elan American
Depository Receipts (ADRs) from April 23, 2001 through January 20,
2002.

The suit charges the Company, an Irish pharmaceutical manufacturer, and
its three top officers with issuing a series of false and misleading
statements to the investing public. These news releases and financial
statements, contrary to what the Company said, failed to comply with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Specifically, the lawsuit accuses the Company of using more than 50
sham joint ventures to keep research-and-development costs off its
books, pump up earnings and artificially inflate its stock price.
According to the complaint, the Company actually funded these purported
joint ventures itself then signed licensing deals that, in effect, paid
itself money that it then booked as revenue. In addition, the Company
listed its "investments" in the joint ventures as balance-sheet assets.

News of the Company's accounting practices sent its stock reeling.
After The Wall Street Journal published an article exposing the ploys
on January 30, 2002, the price of the Company's ADRs fell 16%, from
$35.20 the previous day to $29.95. When the company announced a few
days later that its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2001 would drop
84%, its ADRs fell a whopping $15.10 per share - a 50% decline in a
single day of trading.  On February 7, 2002, the Company further
revealed that the US Securities and Exchange Commission was
investigating it.

For more information, contact Chauncey D. Steele IV by Mail: One
Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail:   
law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Enterasys Networks,
Inc. (NYSE: ETS) between September 26, 2001 and February 1, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court,
District of New Hampshire against the Company and officers, Enrique P.
Fiallo and Robert J. Gagalis.

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 September 26, 2001 and February 1, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly financial
performance and filed reports confirming such performance with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The suit
alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, among other things:

     (1) the Company's Asia Pacific region operations, which
         represented a material portion of the Company's revenues, was
         improperly recognizing revenues in violation of its accounting
         policies and generally accepted accounting principles. As a
         result, the Company's operating results were materially
         misrepresented and overstated;

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition;

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements
         concerning the Company's prospects were lacking in a
         reasonable basis at all times.

On February 1, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company shocked
the market when it announced that it would be delaying the release of
its fourth quarter and fiscal year financial results because it was
reviewing the revenue recognition practices of its Asia Pacific
operations. The Company also announced that the SEC was investigating
it.

In response to these disclosures, on February 4, 2002, the first day of
trading following the Company's announcement, its shares closed at
$4.20 per share, a loss of more than 61% since its previous close of
$10.80 on February 1, 2002, on volume of more than 35 million shares
traded.

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


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Enterasys Networks, Inc.
(NYSE:ETS) securities between September 26, 2001 and February 1, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire against the Company and officers Enrique P. Fiallo and Robert
J. Gagalis.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, 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 details, 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 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pivenlaw.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against certain Global Crossing, Ltd. (NYSE: GX) officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons purchasers of the Company's common stock
between January 2, 2001 and October 4, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges certain of the Company's officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that during the class period, defendants
improperly recorded revenue on the Company's bandwidth trading
contracts, in violation of GAAP, thereby substantially overstating
earnings. Additionally, defendants failed to inform investors of the
declining demand for bandwidth.  

Furthermore, while the Company's shares were artificially inflated,
certain defendants engaged in heavy insider trading, selling of a total
of more than $135 million of their personal shares.  On January 22,
2002, Global Crossing declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, making it the
fourth-largest bankruptcy in US history.

For more information, contact Frederick S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine or
Shelley Thompson by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980 by Fax: (212) 687-7714
by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Global Crossing,
Ltd. (NYSE: GX) (OTC Bulletin Board: GBLXQ) during the period from
April 28, 1999 through October 4, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that certain of the Company's officers and directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges
that during the class period, defendants issued false and misleading
statements, press releases, and SEC filings concerning the Company's
financial condition, as well as its ability to generate sufficient cash
revenue from new revenue sources considering the failing market for
broadband access.

Prior to the disclosure of the Company's true financial condition, the
individual defendants and other Company insiders sold holdings of stock
for proceeds of more than $149 million. In addition, during the class
period defendants caused the Company to sell notes on favorable terms
to itself, which generated $1 billion in investor capital.

On Oct. 4, 2001, the Company announced that cash revenues in the third
quarter would be approximately $1.2 billion, $400 million less than the
$1.6 billion expected by analysts and forecast several times earlier in
the year by defendants. In addition, the Company and the defendants
stated that they expected recurring adjusted EBITDA to be
"significantly less than $100 million" compared to forecasts of $400
million made several times earlier in the year.

Following this series of announcements, the Company's share priced
plummeted nearly 50% to $1.07 per share on extremely heavy trading
volume. Subsequently, with its stock trading at well under a dollar per
share of common stock, the Company filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
protection on January 28, 2002 after becoming unable to service its
debt.

For further details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
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 November 8, 2000
and January 28, 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
charges that during the class period, defendants issued false and
misleading statements, press releases, and SEC filings concerning the
Company's financial condition. These statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the price per share of the Company's common
stock and other securities.

The Company's true state of fiscal affairs was in fact substantially
different than reported to the markets. On January 28, 2002, the
Company would reveal various investments and joint ventures for which
it never recorded the investment amount or purchase price, but for
which the Company recorded revenue from in order to bolster its claims
of growth.

Specifically, the true facts, which as alleged in the complaint 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;

     (2) the registration statement omits the Hampton Roads project and
         incorporated the Company's false and misleading 3rd and 4th
         quarter 2000 financial results; and

     (3) the Company's financial statements for 1st Quarter 2001
         through the 3rd Quarter 2001 were false in that the revenue
         and EPS were overstated and they failed to disclose the impact
         of the questionable Hampton Roads joint venture.

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


HOMESTORE.COM: Goodkind Labaton Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the
common stock of Homestore.com Inc. (NASDAQ: HOMS) during the period of
April 25, 2001, to December 21, 2001 inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants the Company, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Stuart H. Wolff, and former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Joseph J. Shew.

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 suit alleges that during the class period,
the defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market in press releases and SEC filings thereby artificially inflating
the price of Company securities.

Specifically, the complaint charges that during the class period, the
Company overstated its advertising revenue, which caused the price of
shares to be artificially inflated.  Mr. Wolff and Mr. Shew then took
advantage of the artificially inflated share price to sell millions of
dollars of their own shares for personal profit. In addition, the
Company utilized the artificially inflated shares to purchase iPlace,
an Internet credit information service.

On December 21, 2001, the Company surprised the class by announcing it
would have to restate revenues for the first three financial quarters
of 2001. Following publication of the article, the NASDAQ Exchange
halted trading of Company stock and the Company has instituted
disciplinary measures against seven persons within the Company.

For more information, contact Emily Komlossy or Henry Young by Mail:
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York NY 10017-5563 by Phone: 212-907-
0700 by E-mail: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com or hyoung@glrslaw.com  or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com  



IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Holzer Holzer Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer lodged a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against ImClone
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:IMCL) on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded
securities during the period between June 28, 2001 and December 28,
2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of
the Company's publicly traded securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, defendants issued
multiple press releases highlighting the successful progress of its
"Fast-Track" application to the US Food and Drug Administration for
approval of IMC-C225, its blockbuster drug used for the treatment of
colorectal cancer and also known as Erbitux, and the positive impact
that the drug's approval would have on the Company's revenues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr. by Phone: (404)
847-0085 (if in Atlanta) or (888) 508-6832 (if outside Atlanta) or by
E-mail: michaelfisteljr@msn.com


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC initiated 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 Jan. 31, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws, by issuing false and
misleading statements to the market.  The Company reported quarter
after quarter of "record" financial results and strong revenue growth,
which caused the price of Company 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 yearend 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 RTIX's previously reported financial results" and
although "RTIX'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 Jan. 31, 2002, to $5.19 on Feb. 1, 2002.
Trading has been halted by NASDAQ until the Company satisfies NASDAQ's
request for additional information.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. Mary Ann Fink by
Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 -- West Tower Washington,
D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888/240-0775 or 202/408-4600 by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cmht.com


SONICBLUE INC.: Faces Multiple Suits For Federal Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SONICblue, Inc. faces a number of federal securities class actions
filed in federal and state courts on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock at various times between April 18, 1996 and
November 3, 1997.

The suits name as defendants the Company, certain of its officers,
former officers, and directors.  The suits allege that the defendants
violated federal and state securities laws by misrepresenting and
failing to disclose certain information about the Company's business.

In addition, certain stockholders have filed derivative actions in the
State Courts of California and Delaware seeking recovery on behalf of
the Company, alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
by the individual defendants.

The plaintiffs in the derivative action in Delaware have not taken
any steps to pursue their case. The derivative cases in California
State Court have been consolidated, and plaintiffs have filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The Court has entered a stipulated order in those derivative cases,
suspending court proceedings and coordinating discovery in them with
discovery in the class actions in California State Courts. On
plaintiffs' motion, the Federal Court has dismissed the federal class
actions without prejudice. The class actions in California State Court
have been consolidated, and plaintiffs have filed a consolidated
amended complaint. The Company has answered that complaint. Discovery
is proceeding.

In January 2001, four of the insurance carriers which issued directors
and officers insurance to the Company filed suit against all parties
named as defendants in the securities litigation, claiming that the
carriers have no obligation to provide coverage under the California
Insurance Code.  In May 2001, the Court entered an order staying the
insurance action pending resolution of the securities litigation.

While management intends to defend the actions against the Company
vigorously, there can be no assurance that an adverse result or
settlement with regard to these lawsuits will not have a material
adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations.


SONICBLUE INC.: Settles Suits Over Diamond Acquisition For $15 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SONICblue, Inc. settled, for approximately 15 million, several class
action suits filed in California Federal and State Courts, challenging
its acquisition of Diamond Multimedia, Inc.

The suits were commenced in June and July 1996 and June 1997 in
the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County and the US
District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that
Diamond and the Company made various material misrepresentations and
omissions during the class period.

The parties have tentatively agreed to settle this matter, subject to
final documentation and court approval, for a payment of $15.0 million.
The Company funded $4.5 million of the settlement, and previously
accrued this amount in connection with the merger with Diamond.

The Company believes that Diamond's insurance covers the remaining
$10.5 million of the settlement, and Diamond's insurers have funded
that amount into the settlement.  However, one of these insurers has
served a notice of arbitration disputing its obligation to pay $3
million of the $10.5 million. The Company intends to defend the
arbitration vigorously.


SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Spectralink
Corporation (NASDAQ: SLNK) between July 19, 2001 and January 11, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court,
District of Colorado against the Company and officers Bruce Holland and
Nancy K. Hamilton.

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 securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements which represented that the Company was experiencing
continued growth and increasing its market share and would continue to
do so in the future. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Company was
suffering from a host of undisclosed adverse factors which were
negatively impacting its business and which would cause it to report
declining financial results, materially less than the market
expectations defendants had caused and cultivated.

Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing declining sales as its business
         began to be affected by general market forces. Throughout the
         class period, defendants repeatedly emphasized that the
         Company was not being affected by the slowdown in the US
         economy, when, in fact, that was not true;

     (2) the Company was becoming increasingly reliant on end-of-the-
         quarter sales to meet its sales forecasts. This sales pattern
         necessarily subjected the Company to the increased risk that
         it would not meet its sales expectations should it not
         successfully complete certain anticipated sales; and

     (3) certain of the Company's customers were experiencing financial
         difficulty such that it was highly unlikely that they would be
         able to complete anticipated sales, thereby causing it to
         suffer a decline in its revenues.

On January 14, 2002, before the open of the NASDAQ stock market, the
Company issued a press release announcing preliminary financial results
for its fourth quarter of 2001, and disclosed, for the first time, that
its revenue and earnings would in fact be affected by the slowdown in
the overall economy.

In response to this announcement, the price of Company common stock
dropped precipitously, falling from $16.02 per share to $10.16 per
share, a decline of more than 36%. While the Company was being
adversely affected by the aforementioned factors, but prior to any
disclosure to the market, the individual defendants and other senior
executives sold more than $13.7 million worth of their personally-held
common stock to the unsuspecting public.

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


SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Spectralink Corporation
(Nasdaq: SLNK) securities between July 19, 2001 and January 11, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado against the Company and officers Bruce Holland and Nancy K.
Hamilton.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, 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, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pivenlaw.com


SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of SpectraLink Corporation (Nasdaq: SLNK) publicly
traded securities during the period between July 19, 2001 and January
11, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements which represented that the Company was experiencing
continued growth and increasing its market share and would continue to
do so in the future.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Company was suffering from a
host of undisclosed adverse factors which were negatively impacting its
business and which would cause it to report declining financial
results, materially less than the market expectations defendants had
caused and cultivated.

Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing declining sales as its business
         began to be affected by general market forces. Throughout the
         class period, defendants repeatedly emphasized that the
         Company was not being affected by the slowdown in the US
         economy, when, in fact, that was not true;

     (2) the Company was becoming increasingly reliant on end-of-the-
         quarter sales to meet its sales forecasts. This sales pattern
         necessarily subjected the Company to the increased risk that
         it would not meet its sales expectations should it not
         successfully complete certain anticipated sales; and

     (3) certain of the Company's customers were experiencing financial
         difficulty such that it was highly unlikely that they would be
         able to complete anticipated sales, thereby causing the
         Company to suffer a decline in its revenues.

On January 14, 2002, before the open of the Nasdaq stock market, the
Company issued a press release announcing preliminary financial results
for its fourth quarter of 2001, and disclosed, for the first time, that
its revenue and earnings would in fact be affected by the slowdown in
the overall economy.

In response to this announcement, the price of the Company's common
stock dropped precipitously, falling from $16.02 per share to $10.16
per share, a decline of more than 36%. While the Company was being
adversely affected by the aforementioned factors, but prior to any
disclosure to the market, the individual defendants and other Company
executives sold more than $13.7 million worth of their personally-held
Company stock to the unsuspecting public.

For more details, 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


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Holzer Holzer Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer lodged a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Take-Two
Interactive Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:TTWO) on behalf of purchasers of
publicly traded securities during the period between February 24, 2000
and December 17, 2001, inclusive.
The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors issued a series of material misrepresentations regarding its
financial performance to the market between February 24, 2000 and
December 17, 2001. Throughout the class period, the suit alleges,
defendants issued press releases that positively portrayed the
Company's performance and discussed several quarters of supposedly
"record" results.

These statements, as alleged in the suit, were materially false and
misleading because the Company had, throughout the class period,
improperly recognized revenues, thereby inflating its reported sales
and earnings.

The suit further alleges that 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, as alleged in the suit, 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.  The press release stated the Company had improperly recognized
revenue on products that were subsequently returned to it.

For more information, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr. by Phone:
(404) 847-0085 (in Atlanta) or (888) 508-6832 (outside Atlanta) or by
E-mail: michaelfisteljr@msn.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Denied Allegations in Securities Suits in N.D. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Communications Group strongly denied allegations in the
multiple securities filed against it and parent The Williams Companies
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB) (WMB) and/or Williams
Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE: WCG) (WCG) between July 24, 2000 and
January 29, 2002 and alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market during the class period, 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.

The Company declined to comment further on the litigation, but vows to
vigorously defend against the suits.


XOMA LTD.: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suits in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
XOMA Ltd. vehemently denies allegations in multiple securities class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging violations of federal securities laws,
relating to the Company's development of a psoriasis drug, Xanelim.

The suits were commenced in late 2001 on behalf of purchasers of
Company shares from May 24,2001 to October 4,2001.  The suits also name
Genentech, the Company's collaborator in the development of Xanelim, as
defendant.  The suits uniformly allege that material misrepresentations
and omissions were made concerning the anticipated timetable for the
filing of a biologics license application with the FDA in connection
with the Company's development of XanelimT.  

A complaint with similar factual allegations was recently filed in the
California Superior Court in San Diego County purporting to assert
claims against the Company and Genentech under the California Unfair
Competition Act.

The Company believes the suits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against them.  It, however, said it cannot give an
assurance that the suits will not be determined in favor of the
plaintiffs and result in consequences materially adverse to us. In a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
stated that such litigation could result in substantial costs and
divert management's attention and resources, which could result in a
material adverse consequence to the Company.

                              *********


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  * * *