CAR_Public/020215.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, February 15, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 32

                            Headlines

FLEET BANK: Panel Allows Suits V. Banks Over Bait & Switch Tactics
FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court To Consider Certification of Rollover Suit
INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Dep't To Issue Indians' Delayed Royalty Checks
MASTERCARD INC.: Denies Allegations in Antitrust Suit in S.D. New York
OHIO: Parties in Race Bias Suit Given Until April To Forge Settlement

TARGET CORPORATION: Labels Racial Discrimination Suit "Without Merit"
WASHINGTON: Property Owners Sue Federal Way City Over 1995 Sign Code
WASHINGTON: Plaintiffs Anticipate $7M Award After Favorable Decision
WATER POLLUTION: Arizona Companies Settle Suit Over Drinking Water

*401(k) Retirement Plan Lawsuits Could Lead To Significant Reforms

                        Securities Fraud

ADAPTEC INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
AVANEX CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
CORNING INC.: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in C.D. California
ELAN CORPORATION: Slotnick Shapiro Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

ELAN CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Glancy Binkow Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GLOBAL CROSSING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
GLOBAL CROSSING: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in NJ

GLOBIX CORPORATION: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Texas
HOMESTORE.COM: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in C.D. CA Suit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PNC FINANCIAL: Faruqi Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA

PSS WORLD: Court Approves Plaintiffs' Move To Consolidate Suits in FL
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in N.D. Florida
SATYAM INFOWAY: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SILICON GRAPHICS: Settlement Finally Approved In Acquisition Suit
SILICON GRAPHICS: Settles For $12M in Cash, Stock Securities Suit in CA

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VAN WAGONER: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
                            
                              *********

FLEET BANK: Panel Allows Suits V. Banks Over Bait & Switch Tactics
------------------------------------------------------------------
A unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Philadelphia recently ruled in a class action that consumers can sue
banks in Federal Court if the banks impose an annual fee after
promising there would be none, The Washington Post reported recently.

This decision has been hailed as a victory for consumers, however
banking lawyers who have studied the opinion said it conflicts with
opinions issued by other circuit courts.  The issue, therefore,
eventually could reach the US Supreme Court.

If the decision is upheld, it could mean that consumers may be
able to use the federal truth-in-lending law to challenge credit card
firms that change the terms of their agreements.  Up to now, consumers
have been able to bring such bait-and-switch allegations only in state
courts.  In some states, banks that are regulated cannot be sued for
unfair or deceptive practices.

"This is a major-league victory for consumers," said Michael Donovan,
the Philadelphia lawyer who represented Paula Rossman in her class
action against Fleet Bank.  "It demonstrates that credit card companies
don't have carte blanche to change their terms to do whatever they want
to do."  Alan Kaplinsky, Philadelphia counsel to Fleet, would not
comment on the ruling.

Robert McKinley, Chief Executive of CardWeb.com, which monitors the
credit card industry, said the ruling "could raise a challenge to all
issuers who are involved in this sort of marketing, promising one thing
and then changing terms shortly after the card is issued.  It's a
widespread practice in the industry," he added.  "Fleet is not alone."

However, Mr. McKinley noted that Fleet and other banks now limit
consumers' ability to sue, by requiring all disputes to be referred to
third-party arbitrators.  This requirement could lessen the impact of
the ruling, he said.

Ms. Rossman, the lead plaintiff, signed up for a Fleet credit card
after receiving a solicitation promising "no annual fee."  About six
months later, Fleet sent her a notice saying it was imposing a $35
annual fee on her account.  Fleet argued that it needed to add the fee
because the Federal Reserve Board raised the interest rates.  The bank
said it could impose an annual fee because its cardholder agreement
gave it the right to change its terms at any time.

The Appeals Court's decision reversed a lower court ruling that sided
with the banks.  The lower Court had said that the truth-in-lending law
required only that the terms banks disclosed be an accurate reflection
of the terms the consumer was relying on, on the day that consumer
received his/her credit card.  

In reversing the lower Court's opinion, US Circuit Judge Anthony J.
Scirica said the law was designed to protect consumers, and, therefore,
(the banks) should accurately disclose potential future actions as
well.

"Under the approach urged by Fleet, a credit issuer would be able to
disclose any terms it wanted to, with no intention ultimately to offer
those terms," Judge Scirica said.  "It could send, together with the
card, a new set of disclosures stating the terms it always actually
intended to provide."

Judge Scirica, who seemed particularly concerned that the fee was
imposed less than a year after the card was issued, said it wasn't easy
for consumers to switch cards even if they got proper notice from the
credit card company.


FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court To Consider Certification of Rollover Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will consider if the suit
brought against Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) and Bridgestone Corporation's
Firestone unit over last years rollover accidents involving the Ford
Explorer, should have been certified as a class action.

In November, Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker had granted class-action
status to the suit, which was filed on behalf of owners of Firestone
Wilderness AT tires or Ford's popular Explorer sport utility vehicle
between the 1991 and 2001 model years to claim economic damages.

The suits were commenced after investigations by federal agencies
linked the popular SUV to accidents which caused 271 deaths and more
than 8000 injuries last year.  The investigation uncovered that tread
separation from the tires caused the Explorer to rollover, hence the
accidents.  Both Ford and Firestone instituted million dollar recalls
of their products last year.

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes welcomed the development, telling
Reuters "We are.optimistic that after the facts are presented the Court
will agree that a class-action suit is frivolous and unwarranted."   
Jill Bratina, a Firestone spokeswoman also said "We believe the law is
very clear on the subject and we look forward to the opportunity to
present our case,"

Lawyers representing consumers said they aren't worried by the appeal,
according to Reuters.  "They probably are not going to overturn (Judge
Barker's) ruling," said Richard Denney, Co-Chair of the Plaintiff's
Trial Committee. "Her decision was supported by the evidence and well
thought out."

Oral arguments will be held the week of April 15 before the Appellate
Court in Chicago.


INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Dep't To Issue Indians' Delayed Royalty Checks
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interior Department will issue checks to tens of thousands of
Indians for royalty payments from oil and gas leases, which have been
hung up since US District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Department
to shut down its computers on December 5, the Associated Press recently
reported.  Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles recently told the
Senate Energy and Resources Committee that the checks will go out "as
soon as the system can cut them."

The Department collects about $500 million annually in royalties from
oil, gas, mining, grazing and logging leases on Indian land, and then
is required to distribute the money to the landholders.

Judge Lamberth had shut down nearly all of the Interior Department's
Internet connections after a court-appointed investigator discovered
that lax computer security left the trust fund's money at risk from
hackers.  As a result, many Indians have not received royalties from
the use of their land, money that many rely on to make payments on
their homes, cars, heating bills and the like.  Several tribes,
including the Navajo, Oglala Sioux and Blackfeet nations, have made
emergency money available to struggling members.

On January 25, Interior Department officials convinced the Court that
security was adequate and that they should be allowed to resume making
payments from the grazing and logging royalties.  However, the system
that handles oil and gas royalties, which are the bulk of the Indian
trust accounts, remains shut down.  The checks promised by Deputy
Secretary Griles therefore will be based on estimates of how much the
oil and gas royalties were worth during the past three months.  Once
the computer system pertaining to those royalties is operational, the
total will be calculated and any necessary adjustments made.

Judge Lamberth is presiding in a class action suit brought by Indians
who claim that government mismanagement of the royalties has cost them
at least $10 billion over the last century.  The government
acknowledges mismanagement but disputes the amount.


MASTERCARD INC.: Denies Allegations in Antitrust Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard, Inc. along with other credit card companies face a
consolidated class action pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging violation of federal
antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion
fee.   

The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Visa USA, Inc.,

     (2) Visa International Corporation,

     (3) Citibank (South Dakota), NA,

     (4) Citibank (Nevada), NA,

     (5) Chase Manhattan Bank USA, NA,

     (6) Bank of America, NA (USA), and

     (7) Diners Club

MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, NA were added as defendants in
late January 2002.

The consolidated suits arose from seventeen purported class actions.   
Seven of these suits were commenced in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2001. Five other suits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California in 2001, while another five were lodged in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suits uniformly allege violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act.  
MasterCard's and Visa's system of dual governance allegedly inhibits
competition between them and provides each with the ability and
incentive to collude and fix the asserted currency conversion "fee" in
violation of antitrust laws.

Pursuant to motions to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
and subsequent notices of tag-along rights, these actions were
centralized in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
January 22, 2002.

Mastercard, Inc. has denied the allegations and is due to file a
response to the suit on March 21, 2002.  The Company believes that it
is not currently possible to estimate the impact, if any, that the
ultimate resolution of theses matters will have on its results of
operations, financial position or cash flows.


OHIO: Parties in Race Bias Suit Given Until April To Forge Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Cincinnati is close to reaching an agreement with black
activists and the American Civil Liberties Union that would possibly
prevent the filing of a racial profiling class action against it.

The suit was commenced last year on behalf of businessman Bomani
Tyehimba, alleging the City discriminated against blacks for decades.  
The plaintiffs moved for class action certification, but the motion was
stayed pending the results of the negotiations.

US District Judge Susan Dlott gave the parties in the suit until April
5 to reach an agreement.  Under Judge Dlott's order, both sides must
conclude initial negotiations by February 19 and agree by February 27
on a monitoring process to be used if a settlement is reached.  By
March 18, final negotiations on the overall agreement must be finished
and drafts of a settlement presented to clients. Both parties will
either accept or reject the proposed settlement by April 5, according
to the Cincinnati Post.

"We're moving with a real tight time line now," said Jay Rothman,
president of Aria Group, a Yellow Springs, Ohio-based conflict
resolution firm leading the mediation.  The settlement is expected to
include specific plans, policies and procedures that would be monitored
by the federal court.


TARGET CORPORATION: Labels Racial Discrimination Suit "Without Merit"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said that a federal lawsuit recently filed in
Milwaukee by the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC), charging it with
race discrimination in hiring, was without merit, The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel recently reported.

The class action alleges that the Company denied interviews to two
African-American women and failed to hire an African-American man who
scored higher on a test than the white person hired for the position
being sought by the latter two applicants.  All three black applicants
were college graduates seeking management jobs, the lawsuit says.

The EEOC suit also contends that the Company failed to keep proper
records of job applicants.  The EEOC is seeking monetary damages for
the three people mentioned in the lawsuit as well as any other blacks
who were denied employment because of their race since January 1, 2000.

In a prepared statement, the Minneapolis-based retail Company said,
"Target Corporation is, and always will be, an equal opportunity
employer."  The statement continues, "We are proud of our track record
and commitment to diversity in our workforce.  We were surprised and
disappointed by the (EEOC's) recent actions and the manner in which
they were communicated."  Target added that it has been cooperating
with the EEOC for more than a year regarding the allegations, including
opening its books and sharing requested information.


WASHINGTON: Property Owners Sue Federal Way City Over 1995 Sign Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Federal Way, Washington faces a possible class action filed
by property owners along its state highway, after a three-judge
appellate panel ruled that the City should compensate business owners
if they wanted the businesses' pole signs removed from their highway.

The City wanted to implement its sign code, adopted in 1990 and amended
in 1995, which required business owners to convert to pedestal- or
ground-mounted signs instead of pole signs.  According to the Federal
Way Mirror, the City gave business owners 10 years to conform to the
code. In 2000, City code enforcement started issuing notices of
violation for businesses that didn't abide by the sign code. The fine
for violating the sign code is $100 for each day the sign is left in
place.

The code sprang from a state law passed in 1970, called the Scenic
Vista Act.  Under this act, many signs were removed with the trade-off
that compensation would be required for any future signs the State
required someone to remove.  It was later amended in 1977 to include
that counties, cities and towns that want signs removed or changed
along state highways have to compensate the business owners just like
the State would be required to compensate them, the Federal Way Mirror
reports.

Des Moines attorney, Drake Bozarth, expects to file the class action on
Monday on behalf of Harry Horan, owner of Horan Real Estate, and David
Rhodes, owner of two strip mall developments in Federal Way, who filed
suit after receiving notices of violation for their signs in Aug. 2000.

The two first filed a complaint in King County Superior Court, seeking
compensation for business owners located along state highways from the
City.  The State Court ruled in their favor, but the City filed an
appeal with the State Court of Appeals.  A three-judge panel upheld the
lower Court's decision this week.

Assistant City Manager Derek Matheson told the Mirror the City
disagrees with the decision.  He adds the Appellate Court was unsure
whether amortization, giving business owners several years before they
had to replace out-of-code signs, was fair compensation, but city
officials think it should be.  "We feel strongly that a very generous
amortization period is just compensation," he said.


WASHINGTON: Plaintiffs Anticipate $7M Award After Favorable Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against the City expect an award of $7
million after Grays Harbor Superior Court Judge Mark McCauley ruled
that the City's water and sewer charges were unconstitutional, the
Daily World reports.

Owners of the city's undeveloped lots filed the suit in 1999,
challenging the City's "availability" charges, access fees charged to
residents for water and sewer systems, even if they were unconnected.  
The plaintiffs seek reimbursement of fees paid since 1996, plus 12 -
percent interest, or about $7 million.

City attorney Stephen Dijulio told the Daily World that the City
implemented the charges in concurrence with state law. He asserted the
City should not have to pay the plaintiffs because the City relied on a
"presumptuously valid" rule or ordinance and a state statute that was
"presumed constitutional."  He said, "This City's position has been
consistent.The law under which the City was operating was in place
before the city began charging availability charges.The statute remains
on the books today. It is argued and can be speculated " that perhaps
the statute could be invalidated, but it has not been invalidated."

Attorney for the plaintiffs, William Severson, countered this argument,
saying the City never had statutory authority to implement the fees.  
"The notion that you can impose a standby fee under a statute that
authorizes charges on users, is just nonsense.It's an absolutely
garbled reading of the statute."

He further told the Daily World that the availability charges have
always been illegal and that the City should be required to reimburse
the property owners.  "The money doesn't belong to the City, it belongs
to the property owners," he said. "They're entitled to their money."


WATER POLLUTION: Arizona Companies Settle Suit Over Drinking Water
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a class action over poisonous drinking
water in Scottsdale, Arizona, the Associated Press recently reported,
after 10 years of legal struggle.  Motorola Corporation and other
companies entered the settlement, which will pay about $61 million to
22,000 residents in Scottsdale and others in east Phoenix.

The money is to be used for medical monitoring, personal injuries and
property damage.  Once lawyers' fees and costs are factored in, the
average south Scottsdale homeowners will get a check for $370,
depending on how long they have owned their property, said Tony Lucia,
an attorney for the plaintiffs.

"It's putting an end to a sad chapter in the story of companies using
this degreaser and not disposing of it properly, and it may have caused
some people some problems," Mr. Lucia said.  Scottsdale class
representative Michelle Unterberger called the damage award pitiful.

In February, 1992, seven Maricopa County residents claimed Motorola and
other companies improperly disposed of the cleaning solvent for more
than 20 years, beginning in 1957.  Trichloroethylene, a cancer causing
agent, found its way into groundwater, creating three noxious plumes,
two in Phoenix and one in Scottsdale.  Wells that sent the water to
homes were closed in 1981, and officials, using at least $70 million
from the companies responsible, began cleaning up the solvent.  While
officials say there is no threat to public health now, authorities
estimate it will take as long as 50 years to completely remove the
solvent.

Attorneys for the residents lost two cases that would have increased
the amount of the damage awards.  In 1998, a judge decided the
plaintiffs did not have enough expert evidence to prove the solvent
caused health problems, including lupus, leukemia and cardiac birth
defects.  In January 2000, the two sides reached a partial settlement
with other defendants for $29 million.

During a four-month trial last year, a jury decided thousands of
Scottsdale homeowners and businesses were not entitled to more money,
because their properties were over the toxic plume.

However, Motorola, worried about expensive appeals from this decision,
recently agreed to pay $5.5 million to Scottsdale residents and $4.5
million to east Phoenix residents for property damages.  It also agreed
to pay $800,000 that will be used for informational brochures and
research to better understand the effects of trichloroethylene.

"We certainly felt it was time to settle this if we could find a
mutually agreeable financial settlement," said Motorola spokesman Jeff
Gorin.


*401(k) Retirement Plan Lawsuits Could Lead To Significant Reforms
------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees and former employees of Enron Corporation, Lucent
Technologies, Ikon Office Solutions, Nortel Networks and Providian
Financial Corporation have filed lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary
duty in their 401(k) plans.  All these suits revolve around losses in
company stock.  Once a rarity, such lawsuits have become more prevalent
since the stock market collapsed, and they are expected to become even
more common in the wake of Enron's huge 401(k) losses.

These 401(k) lawsuits, however, may lead the way to reforms, according
to recent San Francisco Chronicle report.  Although there have been, in
the past, very few lawsuits won against employers who sponsor 401(k)
plans, some experts say the mere threat of litigation may cause some
firms today to loosen restrictions on company stock.  Lawsuits are
"distracting and costly," said David Wray, President of the Profit
Sharing/401(k) Council of America, which represents plan sponsors.

Providian Financial changed the terms of its 401(k) plan on January 1,
The San Francisco Chronicle observes, just a few days after it was
named in a 401(k) lawsuit.  Previously, employees could not sell
company stock they acquired through a company match until they left
Providian.  Now, they can sell the stock as soon as it has vested.  
However, Mr. Wray doubts that Providian's decision to institute changes
in its plan is wholly in response to the lawsuit.  "Companies don't
make lightning-like decisions," he said.  "My guess is that it was in
the works."

Some companies are changing their plans even without being sued.  In
late January, Diebold Inc., which makes automated teller machines, said
it would let employees sell company stock they acquired in a company
after one year, instead of having to wait until age 55.

John Doyle, a spokesman for T. Rowe Price retirement plan services,
said that about 20 percent of the 401(k) plans his firm administers
offer company stock.  Few of the firms restricting the sale of company
stock have made changes since the Enron disaster, but many are
considering it, he said.  "I think the (legal) liability is definitely
weighing on their decisions," Mr. Doyle said.  He adds that another
factor could be the proposed legislation that would cap the amount of
company stock permitted in 401(k) plans.

Legal liability is a big unknown for both employers and employees
because so few 401(k) cases have been tried or settled.  Employees who
own company stock in a 401(k) plan can't participate personally in
shareholder class action filed against their employer because they
don't own shares directly.  Instead, the shares are owned by the plan,
which can and often does join in shareholder suits.  

However, 401(k) participants can sue under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), which governs pension and other employee
benefit plans.

"Under ERISA, there is a provision whereby plan participants - current
or past employees - can seek to recover losses caused by breaches of
fiduciary duty," says Douglas Dalton, a Phoenix attorney representing
employees in several 401(k) suits.  The defendants vary from case to
case.  They can be any person or entity that is named or acts as a
fiduciary, including the company itself, a committee of officers or
even the Board of Directors, Mr. Dalton said.

Plaintiffs' attorneys say that employees may be able to recover more
losses from a 401(k) suit than they could in a securities fraud suit,
according to The San Francisco Chronicle.  That is because ERISA
lawsuits are not subject to some of the limitations imposed by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  

"There are a number of ways the ERISA claims may have broader damages,"
said Mr. Dalton.  "The defendants are different and insurance is
different.  A lot of companies have separate fiduciary liability
policies that cover these claims."

Additionally, in securities fraud cases, if the defendant files a
motion to dismiss the case, discovery is halted until the Court rules
on the motion.  That "could take months to over a year," said Britt
Tinglum, a lawyer with Keller & Rohrback in Seattle, which represents
employees in 401(k) suits.  In an ERISA case, discovery is not halted
pending a motion to dismiss.

Even so, David Wray, industry spokesman for the organization
representing plan sponsors, said that 401(k) cases "are hard to win if
the company is continuing and there isn't outright fraud."

D. Cameron Findlay, a Deputy Secretary with the US Department of Labor,
agreed that 401(k) lawsuits "have an important part to play" in pension
reform.  However, he said, government agencies "have an even more
important role."  The Labor Department, which oversees pension plans,
"has only one objective:  Get to the bottom of the facts and get as
much relief to employees as possible."  

Lawsuits, said Mr. Findlay, are expensive and time-consuming.  "It can
take months to decide just who the lead plaintiff is going to be.  And
attorneys keep (on average) 33 percent of recoveries.  We give it all
back to employees."

Mr. Findlay said the Labor Department recovers more than $600 million
per year for workers bilked out of 401(k) and traditional benefit
pension plans. The methods by which these recoveries are achieved by
the Labor Department, Mr. Findlay did not explain.   One of the
problems with Enron's plan, he said,  is that the fiduciaries were
Enron officers whose loyalties were divided between employees and their
employer.  The Labor Department is seeking to replace those Enron
executives with an outside fiduciary.  Enron also says it is trying to
do just that.

However, the Labor Department does not want a blanket prohibition
against company officers acting as fiduciaries.  "That would be a blunt
instrument," Mr. Findlay said.

The role of legislative restrictions and legislative oversight
provisions in achieving 401(k) plan reform were not addressed in The
San Francisco Chronicle's report.  Perhaps the contours of new
effective legislation to protect the 401(k) plans will become clearer
as the current Congressional hearings continue and reports with
recommendations are written.

                           Securities Fraud

ADAPTEC INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed with prejudice the amended securities suit filed
against Adaptec, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors.

The suit was commenced in 1998, alleging that the Company made false
and misleading statements at various times during the period between
April 1997 and January 1998 in violation of federal securities laws.

The Company moved to dismiss the suit in April 2000, and the Court
granted the motion, but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend the suit.  
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint in July 2000,
and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.  The Court later
dismissed the suit without prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed
that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Adaptec believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously.


APPLE COMPUTER: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. labeled "without merit" three securities class
actions commenced in September 2001 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against the Company and its
Chief Executive Officer.

The suits, filed on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000, and September 28,
2000, alleged violations of the 1934 Securities Act.  The Company
allegedly issued false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.

Specifically, the suits allege that in July 2000, the Company
introduced its new Power Mac G4 Dual Processor, G4 Cube and iMac
personal computers, representing that they were exceptionally powerful,
fast and attractive, coming with exceptionally attractive designs and
containing new and revolutionary features.   At this time, the Company
represented that the development of these new products was completed,
they were ready for mass production and would be available in quantity
very shortly. The Company claimed this would result in its achieving
strong revenue and earnings per share (EPS) growth in the 4th Quarter
2000 and 2001.

The Company intends to defend against theses allegations vigorously.


AVANEX CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Avanex Corporation faces a consolidated securities class action pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging federal securities violations on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock between February 3,2000 and December 6,2000.

The suit arose from several class actions filed against the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and four underwriters in its
initial public offering (IPO).  The suits generally alleged that
various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the
Company's initial public offering of securities.

The suits were later consolidated.  The consolidated suit and all other
IPO allocation securities suits currently pending in the Southern
District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin
for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
against it and intends to defend itself vigorously.


CORNING INC.: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Corning, Inc. (NYSE:GLW) between September 27, 2000
through July 10, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants knew that disclosure of the weakening
of demand for the Company's products, accumulation of obsolete
inventory, risks of an acquisition planned by the Company, and the
inadequate basis for the Company's growth projections would derail the
planned $4.4 billion common stock and zero-coupon convertible bond
offering that they had announced on September 27, 2000.  The Company's
top executives determined to knowingly conceal adverse information
about the company's operations and prospects.

The resulting false and misleading statements and omissions in the
Company's prospectus/registration statement and other public statements
during the class period were intended to allow, and did allow, the
Company to successfully complete the multibillion-dollar public
offering on November 6, 2001.

Defendants were motivated to, and did, fraudulently and/or recklessly
fail to disclose the material facts concerning these matters in order
to raise $4.4 billion from the investing public through the common
stock and zero-coupon convertible debenture offering and in order to
use the proceeds thereof to bankroll the acquisition by the Company.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone:
310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


ELAN CORPORATION: Slotnick Shapiro Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slotnick Shapiro and Crocker LLP initiated a securities class acton on
behalf of all persons who acquired Elan Corporation, PLC (NYSE: ELN)
during the period from April 23, 2001 and January 29, 2002 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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. The suit
alleges, among other things, that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition.

The suit further charges that as part of their effort to boost the
price of Company securities, defendants materially overstated the
Company's revenues by creating entities that were essentially
controlled by the Company for research and development.  The Company
immediately took back its investment in the form of a license fee,
which it recorded as revenue.  In some instances the joint ventures had
no money left for the development of drugs and the Company ended up
lending money to the entity.

After the market closed on January 29, 2002, The Wall Street Journal
described the Company's accounting as a "charade" and quoted a former
SEC accountant as stating that it is like "taking money out of one
pocket and putting it in another."

On this news the price of Company securities dropped from $35.20 to
$29.25. It continued to drop after further disclosures were made.

For more information, contact Stephen D. Oestreich by Mail: 100 Park
Avenue, 35th Floor New York, NY 10017 by Phone: (212) 687-5000 or
888-367-5291 by Fax:  (212) 687-3080 or by E-Mail: soestreich@sscny.com



ELAN CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP lodged a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Elan Corporation (NYSE: ELN) between April 23, 2001 and
January 30, 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 during
the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.

The suit alleges, among other things, that defendants misled investors:

     (1) by issuing false and misleading financial statements in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles;

     (2) by reporting favorable financial results for the Company,
         while concealing expenses through joint ventures;

     (3) recognizing income from companies in which the Company had
         invested (round-trip revenue); and

     (4) concealing material related-party transactions.

This misconduct caused the market prices of Company securities to be
artificially inflated during the class period.

On January 30, 2002, following disclosure of certain of the Company's
accounting practices, the market price for its publicly traded
securities dropped nearly 17% in a single day.  The Company's publicly
traded securities, which had traded at a high of $65.00 per share
during the class period, traded as low as $22.50 per share.

For mor einformation, contact Shaye J. Fuchs by Phone: 1-800-721-3900
by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or Jayne Nykolyn by Phone: 1-800-263-7337 by
E-mail: jnykolyn@zsz.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.zsz.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Glancy Binkow Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased securities of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE:
GX) between January 2, 2001 and October 4, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of its financial statements caused the Company's stock price
to become artificially inflated.

For further details, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone:
310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.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. The suit is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock of Global Crossing 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, alleging 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, the Company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, making
it the fourth-largest bankruptcy in U.S. history.

For more information, contact Frederic 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 contact Laurence D. King by Mail: 601
Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 by Phone: (415) 772-4700 by
Fax: (415) 772-4707 or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all acquirors of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE:GX)(OTC BB:GBLXQ) common
stock pursuant to the merger which closed on September 28, 1999 between
the Company, its subsidiary and Frontier Corporation and and all
purchasers of the common stock of Global Crossing between March 17,
1999 and January 28, 2002, inclusive.

The suit asserts claims against certain of the Company's officers and
directors and Arthur Anderson LLP for violations of Sections 10(b),
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5
and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, by failing to disclose material adverse information and
misrepresenting the truth about the Company.

For more information, contact Aaron Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street,
New York NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP lodged a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Global Crossing,
Ltd. (NYSE:GX) during the period between January 2, 2001 and January
30, 2002, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, names as defendants certain senior executive officers and
directors of the Company. The Company filed for bankruptcy on January
28, 2002 and its stock has been delisted from the NYSE, so it cannot be
named as a defendant.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting inflated revenues and
earnings for the Company during the class period. As a result, it is
alleged, Company stock was artificially inflated throughout the class
period causing injury to plaintiff and the other class members.
Defendants, meanwhile, allegedly profited by nearly $150 million in
insider stock sales.

As charged in the suit, among other things, the Company would "trade"
bandwidth capacity with other companies, allowing the Company to
inflate its reported revenues, in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP).

Specifically, the Company would contract with telecommunications
carriers to sell bandwidth capacity on the Company's fiber-optic
network. Such contracts provided the telecommunications carriers what
is known as an indefeasible right of use (IRU) of its network for a 20-
year period of time.  The Company would report as revenue a substantial
part of the 20-year proceeds gained from the IRU contracts, up-front,
in one large sum.

Then, the Company would "trade" with the same telecommunications
carriers by buying similar bandwidth capacity for nearly identical
amounts, recording the cost as a capital expense to be spread over the
life of the contracts.  The Company would emphasize this capital
expense as separate from operating expenses to its customers.

In other words, it is charged that defendants caused the Company to
improperly recognize revenues from barter or even sham transactions.
Indeed, the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation are reportedly investigating the Company's accounting
practices.

It was only on January 30, 2002, that the public began to learn about
the wrongdoing at the Company when The Wall Street Journal and Los
Angles Times reported that during at least 2001, the Company was
engaged in barter transactions on which it improperly recognized
revenue in violation of GAAP.

By February 4, 2002, the Company admitted that a senior officer had
informed the Company of these problems as early as August 2001. It has
now been reported that the SEC had made inquiries regarding the
Company's revenue recognition policies as early as July and August
2000.

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


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against Globix
Corporation (OTCBB:GBIX) during the period of November 16, 2000 through
and including December 27, 2001.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws,
including Sections 10(b) and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, by issuing materially false and misleading information concerning
the Company's financial condition and prospects.

For more information, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by
Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Hanover Compressor Company
(NYSE:HC) securities between November 8, 2000 and January 28, 2002,
inclusive, in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

It is alleged 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 Leo W. Desmond by Mail: 2161 Palm Beach
Lakes Blvd., Suite 204, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 by Phone:
888-337-6663 by E-mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.


HOMESTORE.COM: Milberg Weiss Expands Class Period in C.D. CA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP expanded the class period in
the securities class action commenced in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against Homestore.com,
Inc. (NASDAQ: HOMS) to include purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between May 4, 2000 and December 21, 2001.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for
violating generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules by
engaging in improper "roundtrip" transactions. These transactions had
the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and assets.

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


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Juniper Networks, Inc.
(NASDAQ:JNPR) publicly traded securities during the period between
April 12, 2001 and June 7, 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 stated that the
Company was on track to have 2nd Quarter 2001 revenues of $330+ million
and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and that deferred revenue (i.e.,
revenue not yet recognized because customers had not yet accepted
products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles were shorter
than in the past.

The defendants also represented the Company was on track to report 2001
EPS of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma, causing its stock to trade as high as
$69.50. Defendants took advantage of this inflation selling 747,463
shares, for proceeds of $42.9 million.

Then, in June 2001, Juniper disclosed that its 2nd Quarter 2001
revenues would be much lower than previously represented and earnings
would be less than half of prior estimates. Defendants also admitted
that customer acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than in the
past, stretching from days to months. One analyst noted that the
Company's announcement was matched in "severity by its tardiness."

On this news, Company shares dropped to $38.02, or more than 46% lower
than the class period high of $69.50. Ultimately, the Company reported
a loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of just $0.50, half what defendants
represented, and its stock has declined to $13.

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


PNC FINANCIAL: Faruqi Faruqi Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi and Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all purchasers of PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
(NYSE:PNC) securities between July 19, 2001 through January 29, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges defendants with violations of federal securities laws
by, among other things, issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning the Company's financial results
and business prospects.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company overstated its net
income as a result of its failure to consolidate three subsidiaries of
a third party financial institution in which it has preferred
interests.

It is further alleged that PNC was engaged in improper and/or suspect
accounting practices, which affected the accuracy of its financial
results.  Also, contrary to the statements in documents filed with the
SEC during the class period, the Company's financial statements issued
during the class period allegedly were not prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.

On January 29, 2002, however, 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.  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.

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.

For more information, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 by
E-mail: Avozz@faruqilaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.faruqilaw.com


PSS WORLD: Court Approves Plaintiffs' Move To Consolidate Suits in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the
plaintiffs' motion in the multiple securities class actions against PSS
World Medical, Inc. to consolidate the suits.

The suits, filed on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the
Company's common stock at various times during the period between
October 26, 1999 and October 3, 2000, allege violations of Sections  
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5  
promulgated thereunder.  

The suits allege that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts concerning the
Company's financial condition.  The plaintiffs further allege that
because of the issuance of false and misleading statements and/or
failure to disclose material facts, the price of the Company's common
stock was artificially inflated during the class period.

In December 2001, certain plaintiffs filed a motion for consolidation
of the above actions and for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  That motion was granted on January 14, 2002.  Plaintiffs are
required to serve and file a consolidated amended complaint by March
14, 2002.  

The Company and other defendants are required to answer, move or
otherwise respond to the consolidated amended complaint by April 29,
2002.  The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaints are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against
the claims.  


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in N.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Florida - Gainesville Division, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: RTIX) between July
25, 2001 and January 31, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and
certain of its officers.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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 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, Regeneration announced that it was delaying its
fourth quarter and year-end results for fiscal year 2001 due to certain
inventory issues.  It further reported that it expected to report a
loss for both reporting periods and that it was evaluating whether it
would need to restate previously reported financial results.

In response to these revelations, the market price of Company stock
dropped over 50% from $10.15 on January 31, 2002 to $5.19 on February
1, 2002.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: at
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to RTI.


SATYAM INFOWAY: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Satyam Infoway Ltd. vows to vigorously oppose a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) between October 20, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The suit, which names the Company, certain of its executive officers,
and certain underwriters involved in its initial public offering as
defendants, alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by failing to disclose that they had solicited and received
undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements
with, certain investors who purchased stock in the Company's initial
public offering.  The suit further alleges that the underwriters had
entered into undisclosed arrangements with certain investors whereby
the underwriters allocated shares in the initial public offering to
those investors in exchange for their agreement to purchase shares in
the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The suit also alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a registration statement in connection with
the initial public offering that contained material misstatements
and/or omissions because it did not disclose that these allegedly
undisclosed arrangements had occurred.

Satyam believes it has meritorious defenses to the suit.  However, it
could be forced to incur material expenses in the litigation, and in
the event there is an adverse outcome, its business could be harmed.


SILICON GRAPHICS: Settlement Finally Approved In Acquisition Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Connecticut approved the agreement
proposed by Silicon Graphics, Inc. to settle, for an undisclosed
amount, a securities class action involving Alias Research Inc., which
the Company acquired in June 1995.

The suit alleged that Alias and a former officer and director made
material misrepresentations and omissions during the period from May
1991 to April 1992.  In April 2001, the plaintiffs and the defendant
reached an understanding that resolved this litigation.   

The Company welcomed the settlement and expressed confidence that it
will not have a material adverse impact on its financial condition or
operating results.


SILICON GRAPHICS: Settles For $12M in Cash, Stock Securities Suit in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Graphics, Inc. settled for a total of $12 million several
securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California and in California Superior Court for
the County of Santa Clara alleging that the Company and certain of its
officers made material misrepresentations and omissions during the
period from July to October 1997.

The settlement, which involved a payment of $4 million in cash and the
issuance of $8 million shares of the Company's common stock to the
settlement class, received final court approval on January 3, 2002.

Accordingly, the Company recorded approximately $21 million of expense
in the six months ended December 28, 2001 in Other Non-recurring Income
(Expense), Net. Approximately 2.4 million shares have been issued to
date in satisfaction of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the remaining
shares are expected to be issued later this calendar year as the
members of the settlement class are identified.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond lodged a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Take-Two Interactive Software Inc.
(Nasdaq:TTWO) securities between February 24, 2000 and December 17,
2001, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Ryan A. Brant,

     (2) Larry Muller,

     (3) Kelly G. Sumner,

     (4) James H. David Jr. and

     (5) Paul Eibeler.

It is alleged 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 Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663 or
561-712-8000 by E-Mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of holders of Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE: TYC)
common stock between February 5, 1999 and February 4, 2002 inclusive,
against the Company, its CEO, L. Dennis Kozlowski and its CFO, Mark H.
Swartz.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose hundreds of acquisitions during the
class period which improperly inflated reported revenue and earnings.

For more information, contact Fred T. Isquith, Michael Miske, George
Peters, Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer  
to Tyco.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE:TYC) and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of all persons who acquired its common stock
between February 5, 1999 and February 4, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws,
including Sections 10(b) and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, by issuing materially false and misleading information concerning
the Company's financial condition and prospects.

For more information, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by
Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com


VAN WAGONER: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, on behalf of investors who, between April 28, 2000 and June
30, 2001, inclusive, purchased shares in the Van Wagoner Emerging
Growth Fund.

The suit names as defendants the Fund, its managers and administrators,
and its auditors, and alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading registration
statements and prospectuses.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Fund's net asset value
(NAV) and performance. These statements were materially false and
misleading because:

     (1) the NAV of the Fund was materially overstated as the Fund had
         over-valued a material portion of their holdings of certain
         private placement investments;

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

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

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

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

On June 30, 2001, defendants' gross overvaluation of the private
placement investments was disclosed when defendants revalued nine such
private placement investments originally valued at $28.6 million on
December 31, 2000 to a total of just $9.00 and marked down an
additional 2 holdings by precisely 50% and 75%. During the class
period, the Fund's value decreased by approximately 75%.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole,
Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail:
270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735
by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com.All e-mail correspondence should make reference  
to VAN WAGONER.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Williams
Companies Inc. (NYSE:WMB) or Williams Communications Group Inc.
(NYSE:WCG) securities between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
and 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 Steven J. Toll or Lisa Polk 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
lpolk@cmht.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  * * *