CAR_Public/020218.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Monday, February 16, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 34

                            Headlines

BARR LABORATORIES: Sued For Agreement With Zeneca Over Tamoxifen Drug
BARR LABORATORIES: Sued For Antitrust Practices Over Anthrax Drug Cipro
BOSTON CHICKEN: Underwriters Agree To Settle Securities Suit For $19M
CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles County Faces Suit For Detaining Teens Too Long
CHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls 1.6M Jeeps Due to Transmission Defect

COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Appeals Court Certification of Consumer RESPA Suit
COVERDELL COMPANY: Faces Suit For Consumer Law Violations in E.D. MI
FIRST UNION: Investors File Suit For Losses Due To Broker's Misconduct
INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Secretary Defends Self Against Contempt Charges
MALLINCKRODT INC.: Settles Pollution Suit Filed By Mapleton Residents

MEMBERWORKS INC.: Ohio State Court Denies Certification To Fraud Suit
MEMBERWORKS INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense Against Consumer Suits
MERRILL LYNCH: FL Court Dismisses Fraud Suits Over Growth Fund Shares
OXYCONTIN LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Decide Not To Pursue Class Action

                        Securities Fraud

DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
GLOBAL CROSSING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GLOBAL CROSSING: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA

HI/FN INC.: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in N.D. California
HOMESTORE.COM: Neiman Garland Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. New York
MCLEODUSA INC.: Abraham Paskowitz Files Securities Suit in N.D. Iowa
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in S.D. NY

PNC FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Collins Truett Lodges Securities Suit in FL
RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Glancy Binkow Commences Securities Suit in CO
RICA FOODS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
RICA FOODS: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Florida

SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Harvey Greenfield Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit in NJ
TALX CORPORATION: Missouri Federal Court Consolidates Securities Suits
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OK

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
                             
                            *********

BARR LABORATORIES: Sued For Agreement With Zeneca Over Tamoxifen Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Laboratories faces 30 consumer or third party payor class action
suits, filed in various state and federal courts against the Company
and Zeneca, Inc. and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP over the breast
cancer drug, Tamoxifen.

The suits allege, among other things, that the 1993 settlement of
patent litigation between Zeneca, Inc. and the Company insulates them
from generic competition and enables Zeneca, Inc. to charge
artificially inflated prices for Tamoxifen citrate.

The Company believes that each of its agreements with Zeneca, Inc.,
respectively, is a valid settlement to a patent suit and cannot form
the basis of an antitrust claim. Although it is not possible to
forecast the outcome of these matters, the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself.  The Company, however, asserts that an
adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact on its
consolidated financial statements.


BARR LABORATORIES: Sued For Antitrust Practices Over Anthrax Drug Cipro
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Laboratories faces 39 class action complaints filed in various
state and federal courts early this month by direct and/or indirect
purchasers of anti-anthrax drug, Ciprofloxacin (better known as Cipro)
from 1997 to present.

The suits name as defendants:

     (1) Barr Laboratories,

     (2) Aventis SA,

     (3) Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,

     (4) Rugby Laboratories, Inc. and

     (5) Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The plaintiffs in these suits allege that they are direct or indirect
purchasers of Cipror who were damaged because the Company's settlement
of the Barr ANDA (IV) litigation prevented generic manufacturers from
selling a generic version of Cipror.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated various federal antitrust and state business,
antitrust, unfair trade practices and consumer protection statutes.

These proceedings are at an early stage. None of the relevant courts
has certified a class. The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation
Panel, transferred 35 of these cases to the US District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit, and expects
that it will take several years before litigation is resolved.  It also
said that an adverse outcome in this litigation could materially harm
their business.


BOSTON CHICKEN: Underwriters Agree To Settle Securities Suit For $19M
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Chicken's auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP and its underwriters have
agreed to settle for $19.4 million the class action filed against them
by the Company's shareholders.  The suit alleges that the firms helped
Boston Chicken to hide its true financial condition.  Also named in the
suit are Merrill Lynch & Co., Alex Brown & Sons and Morgan Stanley &
Co.

Shareholders filed the suit after the fast-food Company filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1998.  Prior to the bankruptcy, the Company
recruited hundreds of franchisers as part of an aggressive expansion
plan, loaning the entrepreneurs money to start their restaurants.  Kip
Shuman, lawyer for the plaintiffs, told The Denver Post Online, that
the suit alleges the Company never told shareholders about the
liabilities attached to the franchisers.  The suit also alleges Arthur
Andersen and the underwriters knew Boston Chicken was hiding losses
through off-balance-sheet financing arrangements with franchisers.

Mr. Shuman added, "This is similar to the Enron case, in that the
existence of these entities were disclosed, but the huge liabilities
weren't."  The suit states that auditors had a responsibility to alert
shareholders, but instead issued misleading opinions.

Arthur Andersen and the other underwriters refused to admit any
liability in entering the settlement, which, if approved, will give the
plaintiffs a total of $19.4 million.


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles County Faces Suit For Detaining Teens Too Long
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class action status recently was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, on behalf of 19 juveniles, alleging that Los
Angeles County has repeatedly violated Court orders by detaining
teenagers too long, sometimes weeks after they are supposed to be
freed, the Associated Press reported recently.

Sanford Jossen, a Manhattan Beach attorney for the plaintiffs, claims
that youths as young as 13 were wrongfully imprisoned in violation of
their civil rights.  "When a judge says that you get out of custody,
you are supposed to get out, but that is not happening," Mr. Jossen
said.

Officials with the L.A. County Department of Children and Family
Services
and the County Probation Department deferred comment to Principal
Deputy Counsel Roger Granbo, who said he had not seen the lawsuit.  He
also said he would not comment on pending litigation.

In one cited instance, a 16-year-old girl was allegedly held at a
juvenile hall for five days after she was supposed to be released.  She
was taken into custody for allegedly breaking into her foster mother's
home and taking a computer game.  In still another case, a 14-year-old
male teenager spent seven days at a juvenile hall despite a judge's
order that he be immediately released, according to the lawsuit.


CHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls 1.6M Jeeps Due to Transmission Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler Corporation initiated a recall of 1.6 million Jeep Grand
Cherokee, after hundreds of owners alleged the vehicle tended to roll
backward when in "park", USA Today reports.  

The recall, which covers 1993 through 1998 model Grand Cherokees in
North America, is the industry's largest vehicle recall since 1999,
when General Motors recalled 3.5 million trucks and vans to fix brake
problems. There have been a handful of recalls for mechanical problems
since then involving more than 1 million vehicles.

Chrysler denied responsibility for the problem, saying "driver's error"
caused the accidents.  Reportedly, the accidents resulted from owners
misplacing the gearshift or getting out of the vehicle while it was
still running.  The Company also asserts that it found no defect in the
transmission.

The Company said it conducted the recall to appease federal regulators
and angry customers.  Additionally, the Company volunteered to install
a device inside the floor shifter to help ensure the vehicle's
transmission is firmly placed in park.  Chrysler spokeswoman Angela
Spencer Ford told USA Today, "We're confident this recall will be
resolved based on our actions."

However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it
will proceed with its investigation into a wider range of Grand
Cherokees linked to 364 crashes, 159 injuries and five fatalities.  
Last November, NHTSA said one of its investigators was able to
replicate the problem on a Grand Cherokee three times. Chrysler said
the government had gone to unusual lengths to test the vehicle, and
said any vehicle might be susceptible to the problem under NHTSA's
conditions.

Sean Kane, head of Strategic Safety, welcomed the action, telling USA
today, "I'm glad to hear DaimlerChrysler is taking this action because
there's a whole host of people who have been injured."

A class action has already arisen over the transmission problem.  Some
attorneys and investigators have said the Grand Cherokee's transmission
was designed so that it indicates it is in "park" even though it is
actually halfway between "park" and "reverse."



COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Appeals Court Certification of Consumer RESPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Countrywide Home Loans appealed a Texas trial court's decision granting
class certification to a lawsuit filed against it by consumers,
alleging the Company violated the Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law
statute and the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by
illegally obtaining fees for the preparation of legal documents.

The suit was filed on behalf of all individuals in Texas who, as part
of a residential real estate loan agreement with the Company from
January 10, 1996, through the present, were charged a "Document
Preparation Fee" on their HUD-1 Settlement Statement.

The suit alleges that the Company, which originates and services
mortgage loans, illegally charged consumers for preparing legal
documents that affected titles to property. The class claims that the
Company engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing the
documents and then referring the loan documents to a law firm for final
review.

In this way, consumers maintain, Countrywide was able to charge for
clerical services, charges which were paid by the law firm to
Countrywide from the preparation fee that the law firm received from
consumers.

Discovery in the case is suspended while the appeal is pending.


COVERDELL COMPANY: Faces Suit For Consumer Law Violations in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Coverdell & Company, subsidiary of Memberworks, Inc. faces a class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, filed by Teresa McClain.  The
suit also names other defendants, most notably Monumental Life
Insurance Company.

The suit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges that
Coverdell and the other defendants violated the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act and other applicable Michigan laws in connection with
the marketing of Monumental Life Insurance Company insurance products.

The suit includes a claim that it should be certified as a class
action. The plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification to
which all of the defendants have filed opposing papers regarding the
same. The Court has not ruled on the motion.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the suit are unfounded
and will vigorously defend their interests against this suit.


FIRST UNION: Investors File Suit For Losses Due To Broker's Misconduct
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First Union Securities faces a purported class action suit filed in
Nashville, Tennessee on behalf of its clients, alleging they sustained
losses after doing business with broker Francis H. Phillips.

The suit, filed on behalf of Tennessee residents who had accounts with
First Union Securities after Dec. 31, 1996 and who had dealt with
Phillips, alleges that he made excessive trades in the plaintiffs'
accounts and placed their money in risky investments such as certain
technology stocks that didn't fit their investment profiles,
Tennessean.com reports.  The plaintiffs further alleged that the
Company was aware of Mr. Phillips misconduct, but failed to take action
against him.

Lawyer H. Naill Falls filed the suit for the plaintiffs. He also
represented plaintiffs in a complaint that ended in 1998 with Morgan
Keegan & Co. agreeing to pay $525,000 to seven elderly investors who
had put money into failed nightclub, Cowboys LaCage.  Tennessean.com
reports that Mr. Phillips was a co-owner of the club, which featured
female impersonators doing country songs and comedy. He had been a
Morgan Keegan broker before joining First Union Securities.

Mr. Phillips denies the allegations in a statement, saying "I assure
you nothing was out of the ordinary and the clients' investments
objectives were well measured, discussed and selected by the client and
placed in firm-recommended investments at First Union Securities."

Hugh Sloan, Managing Director at the Nashville office of First Union
Securities, which will become Wachovia Securities this spring, declined
to comment on the suit.


INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Secretary Defends Self Against Contempt Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Secretary Gale Norton recently appeared in court before US
District Judge Royce Lamberth and asked him for more time to fix a
flawed system that handles $500 million annually in royalties from
Indian-owned land, the Associated Press reported recently.   

However, after five years of presiding over a class action brought on
behalf of some 300,000 Indians, alleging the mismanagement of $10
billion in Indian money, Judge Lamberth voiced his skepticism, noting
that he had heard similar reform promises from Secretary Norton's
predecessor.  After weeks of testimony about the Department's efforts
to set up an effective system, Judge Lamberth has scheduled closing
arguments for February 21.

During the course of Secretary Norton's testimony, Judge Lamberth said,
"Secretary (Bruce) Babbitt sat right in that chair where you are and
assured me of a great plan, and all this was going to happen, and none
of it happened.  How do I rely on what you.are telling me now, and
how is it different from what Secretary Babbitt told me?"

Ms. Norton said that her Department has hired outside consultants to
help speed reform efforts.  She said that she is seeking an $84 million
increase in spending on trust reform and that her top deputies are
devoted to fixing the system.  "We are very dedicated to doing this,"
the Secretary said.  "I would really like to see this change take
place.during my time as Secretary."

Ms. Norton was on the stand defending herself against a contempt of
court charge for allegedly concealing the failure of key Indian
accounting systems and not complying with Judge Lamberth's order to
account for how much the Indians are owed.  She said progress has been
made on both these fronts, but problems remain.

Dennis Gingold, the attorney for the 300,000 Indians in the class
action said the Secretary's promises do not change the fact that the
trust fund is in crisis despite the Interior Department spending $614
million to fix it.  Ms. Norton said her Department deserves a "passing
grade" in some reform areas, but needs improvement in others.

Elouise Cobell, an Indian from the Blackfeet Nation, who began the
showdown by suing the Interior Department in 1996, said that "passing"
should not be good enough when it comes to managing the Indians' money.  
She said that Secretary Norton should be jailed as punishment for
failing to fix the trust fund and that Judge Lamberth should assign
someone outside the Interior Department with the expertise to fix the
system.

Although much of the alleged wrongdoing occurred during Mr. Babbitt's
tenure, and according to reports the "mess" has been growing for
decades, Secretary Norton and Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs,
Neal A. McCaleb, are on trial as the current officials in charge of the
trust fund.

In 1999, Judge Lambert held Mr. Babbitt and then-Treasury Secretary
Robert Rubin in contempt and fined them $600,000 for failing to turn
over documents in the five-year-old class action brought by the Indian
landowners.  Any fines imposed against Secretary Norton will be paid by
the Department, as were those imposed against Mr. Babbitt and Mr.
Rubin.

The trust accounts were created in 1887 when Congress assigned plots of
land to individual Indians.  The federal government holds that land,
about 11 million acres, in trust for the Indians, meaning it cannot be
taxed or sold, and the government must approve any leases for use of
the land.

Mr. Gingold, said the government mismanagement cost the 300,000 Indian
account holders more than $10 billion in lost mining, grazing and
timber royalties.  The government has acknowledged that money intended
for the Indian beneficiaries was lost, misappropriated, stolen or never
collected.


MALLINCKRODT INC.: Settles Pollution Suit Filed By Mapleton Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt, Inc. has reached a settlement in the class action filed
against it by Mapleton, Utah residents over personal injuries caused by
the Company's explosives manufacturing plant in the area.

The suit alleges that the plant leaked chemicals that caused them to
develop cancer.  As a result, the residents allegedly suffered personal
injuries from the ingestion of various chemicals that seeped into their
private well water from the plant. The class includes a number of
present or former residents of Mapleton who have been diagnosed with
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

According to the residents, in June 1986 the explosives manufacturing
plant, which is located at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon, one mile
south of Mapleton, released hundreds of thousands of gallons of nitric
acid into the ground when one of the plant's disposal pond liners
failed. The residents claim that three years after the nitric acid leak
Mapleton was forced to close one of its municipal water wells due to
high levels of nitrates. Prior to 1986, other contaminants allegedly
seeped into the Mapleton groundwater as a result of the defendants'
improper hazardous waste disposal practices.

The plant has been in operation since the 1940's. From 1967 through
1982, the IMC Group, which later became defendant Mallinckrodt, Inc.,
owned and operated the plant. In 1982, the Trojan Corporation (which is
not a defendant) purchased the plant and continued operating it.
Defendant Ensign-Bickford Industries, Inc. acquired the stock for the
plant from Trojan in 1987.

The Ohio State Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
On February 5, 2002, the parties told the Court that they had reached a
settlement, although details have not yet been released.


MEMBERWORKS INC.: Ohio State Court Denies Certification To Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio refused to grant
class certification to a class action filed against Memberworks, Inc.
by plaintiff Brandy L. Ritt on behalf of the Company's customers.

The suit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges that the
Company and the other defendants violated various provisions of Ohio's
consumer protection laws in connection with the marketing of certain
membership programs offered by the Company.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it are unfounded
and Memberworks will vigorously defend its interests against this suit.


MEMBERWORKS INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense Against Consumer Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Memberworks, Inc. labeled "without merit" several class actions pending
against it in Florida and California state courts, charging it with
violating the respective states' consumer protection laws with regard
to the marketing of its membership programs.

In June 2001, actions were instituted by plaintiffs Judith Jeselskis
and Marcia Walters against the Company and other defendants in the
Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Highlands County Civil
Division, Florida, and Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit,
Pinellas County Civil Division, Florida, respectively.

The suits allege that the Company and the other defendants violated the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, in connection with
the marketing of certain membership programs offered by the Company.
While the respective complaints include claims that the suits should be
certified as class actions, the plaintiffs have not filed motions for
class certification.

In July 2001, an action was instituted by Alan Stone against the
Company and other defendants in Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange.  The suit alleges that the Company and
the other defendants violated California business practices law.

While the complaint includes a claim that the suit should be certified
as a class action, the plaintiff has not filed a motion for class
certification.

The Company believes that the allegations made in these lawsuits are
unfounded and will vigorously defend its interests against the suits.


MERRILL LYNCH: FL Court Dismisses Fraud Suits Over Growth Fund Shares
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed the
consolidated class action filed against The Merrill Lynch Fundamental
Growth Fund, Inc. on behalf of all persons and entities who sold or
purchased the Growth Fund in Florida through Merrill Lynch or any
related entity at any time from November 1,1997 through April 30,1999,
inclusive.

The consolidated suit arose from two suits, the first of which was
commenced in November 2000 in the US District Court in the Middle
District of Florida against the Growth Fund and:

     (1) Merrill Lynch Investment Managers LP,

     (2) certain present and former individual board members of Growth
         Fund and

     (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The plaintiffs, trustees of and participants in two 401(k) profit
sharing plans, purport to assert claims against the defendants on their
own behalf and on behalf of the plans, the plans' participants and all
similarly situated shareholders who purchased Growth Fund shares in
Florida.

The suit alleges violations of the Florida Securities and Investor
Protection Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.  The defendants allegedly induced Florida investors to purchase
shares of Growth Fund through untrue statements and omissions of
material fact regarding the true nature of the Fund and its holdings.

A second, nearly identical action was filed in Florida State Court by
one of the named plaintiffs in the federal action. Defendants removed
this lawsuit to Federal Court pursuant to the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA).

The Federal Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand, consolidated the
two actions and in September 2001, granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated action on the ground that plaintiffs claims
were preempted by SLUSA.  The plaintiffs have appealed the District
Court's decisions.

The defendants believe that the lawsuits are without merit and intend
to continue to defend vigorously against the claims.  


OXYCONTIN LITIGATION: Plaintiffs Decide Not To Pursue Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit against the makers of the
painkiller Oxycontin have decided not to represent others who may have
been harmed by the drug, saying the litigation could be "time
consuming" and expensive.

Four Virginia residents filed the suit, alleging patients who took
Oxycontin for legitimate medical reasons became addicted to it
afterwards.  The suit names as defendants Purdue Pharma, a group of
related companies and a doctor who "over-prescribed" the drug.  

According to the Associated Press, the pain killer was designed to be
released slowly over 12 hours to control the kind of severe pain
associated with cancer or back injuries. However, federal authorities
have said OxyContin abuse was the probable cause of 296 deaths in 31
states in the past two years.

However, the four plaintiffs filed a request before Federal Judge James
Jones, saying they no longer want to proceed as a class action, but
instead want to file individual lawsuits.  Attorney for the plaintiffs
Dawn Stewart told the Judge, "Their circumstances have changed.One
plaintiff has been incarcerated, and we are having extreme difficulty
getting in touch with her."

Judge Jones granted the plaintiffs' request.  Earlier, the defendants  
asked the Judge not to certify the case as a class action, but he had
not ruled on the motion.


                            Securities Fraud


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging that
Dynacq International, Inc. (Nasdaq:DYII) misled shareholders about its
business and financial condition.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all investors who
bought the Company's securities between November 29, 1999 and January
16, 2002.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants represented
that the Company's favorable financial results were due to its
commitment to quality and cost-effective care. Throughout the class
period, defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's financials were
strong and that it was consistently achieving "record results."

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

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

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or (610) 822-2221 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com  


GLOBAL CROSSING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman initiated a securities class action against Global
Crossing (NYSE:GX) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of all persons who acquired the
Company's common stock between January 2, 2001 and October 4, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges that certain officers and directors of Global Crossing
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10-b(5) by violating generally accepted accounting
principles to artificially inflate the Company's revenues and earnings
and issuing false and misleading statements regarding its past
financial performance, the global market for bandwidth on its fiber
optic network and its anticipated future revenues.

According to the suit, the full extent of the Company's cash flow
crisis, and its failure to compete in the market for customized
communications services, began to emerge on October 4, 2001 with a
string of stunning announcements. As a result of these announcements,
the price of Company stock plunged almost 50%.

Due to its recent bankruptcy filing, the Company is not named as a
defendant in the action.

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Phone: 888-593-4771
or 800-437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wyca.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action
against Global Crossing, Ltd. (NYSE:GX) (OTCBB:GBLXQ) and certain of
its officers and/or directors in the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period between 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 suit specifically
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 its
common 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 October 4, 2001, Global Crossing 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 price
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 Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.srk-law.com.


GLOBAL CROSSING: 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 securities of Global Crossing, Ltd.
(Nasdaq: GX) between August 13, 1998, and January 28, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, a worldwide telecommunications
provider, several members of its top management, and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, its auditor, misled the investing public during the Class Period
regarding its financial condition.

In particular, the Company engaged in barter transactions in which it
contracted to share capacity on its network with other
telecommunications providers in exchange for similar use of theirs. The
"sale" side of the barter transaction was booked as current revenue
while the "purchase" was booked as capital expense, thus enabling the
Company to report the transaction as revenue enhancing when in fact it
was revenue neutral.  The suit alleges such reporting violated the most
basic accounting principles. Nevertheless, Arthur Andersen, LLP
provided unqualified audit opinions throughout the class period.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman,
Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE: GX)
publicly traded securities during the period between February 14, 1999
and October 4, 2001.

The suit charges certain of the Company's officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Due to its recent
bankruptcy filing, the Company is not named as a defendant in the
action.

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

During the class period, before the disclosure of the true facts, the
individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
personally held Company stock generating more than $1.5 billion in
proceeds and the Company raised over $7 billion in debt and equity
offerings.

However, the full extent of the Company's cash flow crisis, and its
failure to compete in the market for customized communications
services, began to emerge on October 4, 2001. On that date, the Company
issued a string of stunning announcements, such as cash revenues in the
third quarter would be approximately $1.2 billion, $400 million less
than the $1.6 billion expected by a consensus of analysts surveyed by
Thomson Financial/First Call.

The cash revenue shortfall was purportedly the result of a sharp
falloff in wholesale IRU sales to carrier customers. The Company
further announced that it expected recurring adjusted EBITDA to be
"significantly less than $100 million" compared to forecasts of $400
million. Following these announcements, the Company's share price
plunged by 49% to $1.07 per share.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by
Phone:1-800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.milberg.com


HI/FN INC.: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi/fn, Inc. faces a consolidated class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's stock from July 26 through October
7,1999.

The suit arose from six class actions commenced in October and November
1999 against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.
These complaints were later consolidated.  The suits allege that the
defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with various
public statements made by the defendants during the class period.

In August 2000, the Court dismissed the complaint as to all defendants,
other than Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Raymond J. Farnham and
the Company.  Mr. Farnham and the Company answered the complaint in
September 2000. Discovery has commenced, and a trial date has been
tentatively scheduled for January 2003.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the complaint
are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.  
However, due to the nature of the allegations, management cannot
estimate the possible loss, if any, or range of loss that may
ultimately be incurred in connection with the allegations.  The Company
is confident, thought that the litigation will not have a material
adverse effect on its financial position.


HOMESTORE.COM: Neiman Garland Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Garland and Urbach initiated a securities class action against
Homestore.com, Inc. (Nasdaq:HOMS), and certain of its officers and
directors, claiming the Company misled the public about its financial
results.

The lawsuit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Homestore stock
from July 20, 2000 through December 21, 2001.

The suit accuses the Company, an online provider of home and real
estate information, products and services, of improperly recording
revenue and artificially inflating its financial results.  On July 19,
2000 (after the close of the market), the Company issued a release of
positive 2nd Quarter 2000 results, which caused its stock price to soar
by more than $7 (or 25%) the following trading day.

As part of their effort to boost the price of Company stock, the suit
alleges, defendants misrepresented the Company's true prospects,
concealing its improper acts until they were able to sell at least
$27.9 million worth of their own stock.

In overstating revenues and assets in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Quarters 2000
and 1st, 2nd and 3rd quarters 2001, the Company violated generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and SEC rules by engaging in
improper "roundtrip" transactions. These transactions had the effect of
dramatically overstating revenues and assets.  This came to an end
(though unbeknownst to the public) in the Company's 3rd Quarter 2001 as
its main roundtrip partner stopped doing these transactions with the
Company.

Following the release of the Company's 3rd Quarter 2001 results, the
Company also slashed its revenue projections for 2002 from $563 million
to $375-$425 million as a result of a material decline in its business
with its main "roundtrip" partner. On this news Company shares
plummeted by more than 50% the following trading day.

On December 21, 2001 (after the close of the market), the Company
partially admitted that its past accounting for its prior results was
inaccurate. On this news, trading in its shares was halted. When
trading resumed on January 7, Company stock fell to a low of $1.24
before closing at $2.46, down 32% from its last close and far below the
class period high of $54.62.

For more information, contact Jeffrey Neiman by Phone: 866/539-3788 or
by E-mail: jeffreyneiman@aol.com


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired ImClone Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq:IMCL) securities between May 12, 2001 and January 4, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Samuel D. Waksal,

     (2) Harlan W. Waksal and

     (3) Robert F. Goldhammer

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.


MCLEODUSA INC.: Abraham Paskowitz Files Securities Suit in N.D. Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham & Paskowitz initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa on
behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the common stock of
McLeodUSA Inc. (Nasdaq: MCLD) during the period from January 30, 2001
through and including December 3, 2001.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Laurence Paskowitz or Jeffrey Abraham by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY, 10119 by Phone:
(800) 938-0015 by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com or visit the Website:
http://www.classactionsonline.com  


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Openwave Systems, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the
US District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering and secondary offering.

The suit generally alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions in prospectuses, dated June 10 and
November 16, 1999, regarding certain alleged excessive and undisclosed
commissions received by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of common stock in the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering.

The suit also alleges that the underwriters entered into agreements
with customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate shares of the
Company's stock sold in the offerings to those customers in exchange
for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000. Those cases have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.
Defendants' time to respond to the complaints has been stayed pending a
plan for further coordination.

Based upon the Company's current understanding of the facts, the
Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and does not
believe resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition of the Company.


PNC FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: PNC) from July 19, 2001 through January 29,
2002, inclusive.

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

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

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

On January 29, 2002, the Company announced that the Federal Reserve
Board had contacted the Company about accounting inaccuracies and as a
result, its financial results for 2nd Quarter and 3rd Quarter 2001
would be restated and its financial results for 4th Quarter 2001 would
be revised.  The Company also stated that the updated financials would
result in year-end earnings being reduced $155 million to approximately
$412 million, or $1.38 a share. The Company also revealed that these
accounting adjustments would cause its non-performing assets to rise by
$125 million to $393 million.

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

For 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.


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Collins Truett Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Collins & Truett PA commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on behalf of
all purchasers of Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:RTIX) during
the period from May 2, 2001 and January 31, 2002.

The suit charges the Company as well as its chief financial officer and
its vice-president of sales and marketing, with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The violations,
as the complaint alleges, stem from the issuance of allegedly false and
misleading financial statements and financial projections during the
class period, which had the effect, during the class period, of
artificially inflating the price of Company shares.

On February 1, 2002, Regeneration issued a press release disclosing a
number of surprises, including:

     (1) that it would be delaying its planned announcement of its
         financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of
         2001;

     (2) that, rather than reporting a profit for the fourth quarter
         and year of 2001 (as defendants had led the market to expect),
         the Company expected to report a loss for both the fourth
         quarter and full year of 2001;

     (3) that the delay in releasing these surprising and worse-than-
         expected financial results was a result of "certain inventory
         issues that were identified in the process of completing the
         preparation of the Company's annual financial statements for
         the year ended December 31, 2001;"

     (4) that release of the Company's fourth quarter and full-year
         financial results could be delayed several weeks "while
         management completes its evaluation" of the inventory issues;

     (5) that the Company was also "evaluating whether these issues may
         affect its previously reported quarterly financial results;"
         and

     (6) that the Company's Chief Financial Officer and its Vice
         President for Sales and Marketing had left employment with the
         company, effective immediately.

After disclosure that the Company's current financial results would not
be as expected (i.e., a loss rather than a profit), and that
previously-reported financial results might not be what they seemed
(i.e., an accurate financial summary of the company's operations), its
shares swiftly lost more than 50% of their value before Nasdaq halted
trading in the stock several hours later, falling $5.19 per share (from
the previous day's closing price of $10.15 per share) to last trade at
$4.96 per share on February 1, 2002.

For more information, contact Don Rett or Ryan Garrett by Mail: 2804
Remington Green Circle, Suite 4, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 by Phone:
(850) 386-6060 by Fax: (850) 385-8220 or by E-Mail:
rgarrett@collinsfirm.com


RHYTHMS NETCONNECTIONS: Glancy Binkow Commences Securities Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all
persons who purchased securities of Rhythms Netconnections, Inc.
(Nasdaq:RTHMQ) between January 6, 2000 and April 2, 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 caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
enormous damages on investors.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg or Lionel Z. Glancy 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.


RICA FOODS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Rica Foods, Inc. (AMEX:RCF)
securities between January 16, 2001 and December 28, 2001, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and:

     (1) Calixto Chaves,

     (2) Jose Pablo Chaves,

     (3) Randall Piedra and

     (4) Monica Chaves

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 further details, 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
Website: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.


RICA FOODS: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who acquired Rica Foods, Inc. (Amex: RCF) common
stock between January 16, 2001 and December 28, 2001, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Named as
defendants in the suit are the Company and:

     (1) Calixto Chaves, Chairman and CEO,

     (2) Randall Piedra, CFO and

      93) Jose Pablo Chaves, COO.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that throughout
the class period defendants filed documents with the SEC, which failed
to disclose that the Company was not in compliance with the credit
agreement entered into with Pacific Life Insurance Company on January
16, 2001.

The suit alleges that defendants knew that the Company's SEC filings
were false and misleading, and further asserts that defendants'
misrepresentations caused the price of the Company's common stock to be
artificially inflated throughout the class period.

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.srk-law.com.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Harvey Greenfield Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Suprema Specialties, Inc.
(NASDAQ:CHEZ) between August 15, 2001 and December 21, 2001, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company, its senior management, and its underwriters.

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, and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, by improperly
issuing public statements containing materially false and misleading
statements and/or omissions concerning the Company's business and
financial performance. Such false and misleading statements and/or
omissions were contained in, among other things, Company press releases
and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
statements were false and misleading because the Company was using
questionable accounting practices in its financial reporting, which
distorted the reported financial statements.

On November 8, 2001, the Company commenced a secondary offering
pursuant to a prospectus and registration statements filed with the SEC
and containing allegedly misleading financial statements. The complaint
alleges that the underwriter defendants participated in the false and
misleading offering by purchasing the Company's stock for resale to the
public and by engaging in other acts constituting participation, giving
rise to liability.

Subsequently, the Company issued a press release on December 21, 2001
announcing the resignation of Steven Venechanos and stating that an
investigation into its financial reporting was underway. The NASDAQ
halted trading in Company stock in response to this report.

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


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Pomerantz Haudek Initiates Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP commenced a securities
class action against Suprema Specialties, Inc. (Nasdaq:CHEZ) on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock
during the period between August 8, 2001 and December 21, 2001,
inclusive.  The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, also names as defendants:

     (1) Mark Cocchiola, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive
         Officer and

     (2) Steve Venechanos, Chief Financial Officer

The suit alleges that the Company, a manufacturer and seller of gourmet
Italian cheese, and two of its senior officials, violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by their
manipulation of the Company's financial statements in which defendants
misrepresented its earnings and artificially inflated its stock price
by improper accounting practices.

In particular, it is alleged that during the class period, defendants
issued press releases, and filed reports with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), announcing quarter-to-quarter increases in
the Company's revenues and earnings that often exceeded analysts'
estimates and which favorably portrayed its business and financial
performance.

These representations were, according to the allegations in the
complaint, materially false and misleading because the Company was
engaged in improper accounting practices, which inflated its revenues
and earnings.

On December 21,2001, the Company shocked the market when it announced:

     (i) that defendant Venechanos had resigned from his position as
         the Company's CFO, and

    (ii) that the Company had initiated an internal investigation into
         its previously filed financial statements and accounting
         practices.

Immediately following this announcement, the Nasdaq Stock Market halted
trading on the Company's common stock and stated that trading would
remain halted until the Company fully complied with Nasdaq's request
for information.  The Company's stock has not resumed trading over the
Nasdaq.

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


TALX CORPORATION: Missouri Federal Court Consolidates Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division has consolidated various securities class action
lawsuits on behalf of purchasers of Talx Corporation (NASDAQ: TALX)
common stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001, inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

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

The suits allege that the registration statement/prospectus was false
and materially misleading for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

The complaints further allege that, throughout the class period, the
same factors that were not properly disclosed in its secondary offering
registration statement/prospectus were also hidden by defendants from
the Company's public shareholders. Defendants misled investors and
analysts by issuing a series of false and materially misleading public
statements, which were designed to and which did artificially inflate
the value of Company shares.  This inflation allowed Talx and its CEO
to reap almost $100 million from the sale of stock.

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

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

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


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Tyco
International Ltd. (NYSE:TYC), between February 1, 2000 through
February 1, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

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

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

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

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

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

The suit further alleges that external rule changes required the
Company to cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices
and recognize the revenues from its security contracts only as the
monies thereunder were received.

Throughout the class period, defendants were allegedly aware that the
adverse financial effect of the rule change by the Securities and
Exchange Commission would be approximately $1,000,000,000. However,
defendants allegedly failed to disclose this adverse financial effect
until partial disclosure was made in October 2001.  As defendants
belatedly announced portions of the foregoing material facts between
October 2001 and January 2002, the Company stock fell allegedly by more
than 40 plus percent.

For more information, contact David Leifer by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400, by E-mail:
dleifer@whhf.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whhf.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman & Kodroff PC initiated a securities class action
against Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE:WMB) (WMB) and/or Williams
Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE:WCG) (WCG) and certain of its officers
and/or directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of WMB
and/or WCG during the period between July 24, 2000 through January 29,
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 between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of WMB common stock and WCG common stock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862
or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Williams Companies, Inc.
(NYSE:WMB) (WMB) and/or Williams Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE:WCG)
(WCG) during the period between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges both Companies and executives Keith E. Bailey, Howard
E. Janzen and Scott E. Schubert with violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of WMB common stock and WCG common stock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Anne Bond by Phone: (501) 907-2555 or by
E-mail: jge@emersonfirm.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  * * *