CAR_Public/020219.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, February 19, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 35

                            Headlines

ALASKA: Puts Revised Sex Offender List Back Online, Asks For Review
AMERITRADE HOLDING: Sued For Fraudulent Business Practices in Nebraska
AUCTION HOUSES: Over A Thousand Collectors, Dealers Want To Join Suit
CALIFORNIA: San Diego Settles Retirement Suit Filed By Ex-Employees
ELI LILLY: Former Contract Workers To Sue Over Background Check Policy

LONDON LIFE: 900,000 Clients Waiting To Collect Settlement Payouts
MEXICAN BRACEROS: US, Mexico Ask Court To Dismiss "Braceros" Suit
MONTANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Inadequate Public Defender System
TOMMY HILFIGER: To Settle Suit Alleging Abuse of Saipan Factory Workers

                        Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Shapiro Haber Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADVANCED LIGHTING: Will Vigorously Defend V. Securities Suits in Ohio
DIGITAL ISLAND: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in Delaware Court
ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Chosen Lead Plaintiff in 401(k) Suits
GLOBAL CROSSING: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY

HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Holzer Holzer Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HOMESTORE.COM: Hoffman Edelson Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HOOVERS INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Hoffman Edelson Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMMERSION CORPORATION: Sued For Securities Violations in S.D. New York

IRVINE SENSORS: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
JP MORGAN: Shareholders Sue For Securities Violations in S.D. New York
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Proceedings Stayed in Securities Suit in NY  
NATIONAL GOLF: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY

PNC FINANCIAL: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in FL
SYNSORB BIOTECH: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
TALX CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in NY

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VAN WAGONER: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in N.D. OH
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
                            
                            *********

ALASKA: Puts Revised Sex Offender List Back Online, Asks For Review
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The State sex offender registry recently returned online with 3,000
fewer names listed, the Associated Press recently reported.   The State
had temporarily blocked public access from a Web site version of the
list in response to a January 18 federal court ruling.  Under the order
by US District Senior Judge Russel Holland, the State is prohibited
from posting names of offenders convicted of crimes committed before
August 10, 1994.

"Workers with the Department of Public Safety worked very hard to get
the list back up as quickly as possible," said Chief Assistant Attorney
General Dean Guaneli. "They know the public is very interested in the
registry and wanted to provide as much access as legally possible under
the court order."

The list of 4,300 names was trimmed by 70 percent. The revised version
contains slightly more than 1,300 names, according to Tim DeSpain, a
spokesman for the Alaska State Troopers.  Alaska's sex-offender law,
modeled after New Jersey's pioneering "Megan's Law," allows the public
to track known sex offenders. All states have some version of a sex
offenders law.

When it was passed in August 1994, Alaska's law was made retroactive 10
years. That prompted several class action suits in state and federal
courts, challenging the law as unconstitutional.  In April of 200l, a
three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco ruled in a case involving two convicted sex offenders who
sued Alaska.  The Appellate Court said the burden of registering
retroactively was too harsh.

The panel then sent the case back to the lower court.   Mr. Guaneli
said the January ruling was in response to a more recent class action
lawsuit that argues the same issue.

The State has asked the US Supreme Court to review the April ruling,
Mr.Guaneli said.  Sex offender files removed from the new list have
been retained, should the Court side with the State, he said.
State officials say the recent Court action doesn't change the way the
State now handles sex offense cases. Convicted offenders whose crimes
were committed on or after the August 1994 cutoff date still must
register with the State.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: Sued For Fraudulent Business Practices in Nebraska
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Nebraska state court has granted Ameritrade Holding Corporation's
motion for summary judgment in the class action filed against them in
September 1998, alleging the Company was not able to handle the volume
of subscribers to its internet brokerage services.

The suit, filed in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska,
alleges the Company engaged in fraudulent and misleading practices and
seeks injunctive and equitable relief compelling the Company to
increase capacity, and unspecified compensatory damages.

In May 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in the
matter, which the plaintiffs opposed. The court granted summary
judgment for the Company on January 2, 2002. The plaintiffs have filed
a notice of appeal.

The Company believes it has adequate legal defenses respecting the suit
and does not believe that any such matters, either individually or in
the aggregate, will materially affect its results of operations
or its financial position.


AUCTION HOUSES: Over A Thousand Collectors, Dealers Want To Join Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers preparing a class action suit over an alleged illegal price-
fixing cartel operated by Sotheby's and Christie's in Britain, claimed
recently that more than a thousand collectors and dealers have
contacted them so far, only a week after they officially took on the
case, The Times of London recently reported.

Class Law Solicitors are planning to ask for hundreds of millions of
pounds in compensation for people who bought and sold objects at the
two auction houses between 1993 and 1999, the period in which they are
alleged to have colluded over commission charges paid by clients.   
This move in Britain follows a $512 million compensation payment by the
two auction houses last year to settle an American class-action
lawsuit.

Class Law, a British firm specializing in financial group actions, says
it is receiving about ten calls an hour from people wanting to become
involved in the case.  While the American courts dealt only with cases
within the United States, Class Law will apply to the High Court within
the next three weeks for a group litigation order on behalf of people
who traded through the British salesrooms.  Class Law is preparing its
case with Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, one of the American law firms
involved in the United States claim.

Stephen Alexander, a partner at Class Law, said that anyone who either
sold or bought items through Sotheby's and Christie's between 1993 and
1999 may have a claim for damages, but, he added, it is not the purpose
of the lawsuit to destroy the auction houses.  Compensation could
involve "some cash" and a credit arrangement.  "A lot will depend on
their attitude," he said.  Christie's declined to comment.


CALIFORNIA: San Diego Settles Retirement Suit Filed By Ex-Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court approved the agreement proposed by the San
Diego County to settle three class actions filed by its former county
employees, seeking new retirement benefits, SignOnSanDiego reports.
The suits alleged that the County should have considered factors such
as payment for unused vacation time in calculating the final pension of
an employee. In December, the County and its former employees reached a
settlement, which calls the county to make various improvements to its
pension plans, affecting 30,000 current and former employees.

With the settlement approved, the County Board of Supervisors will vote
on the improvements on February 26. If approved then, the pension plans
will take effect March 8, 2002.


ELI LILLY: Former Contract Workers To Sue Over Background Check Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract workers of pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly and Company are
contemplating a class action suit, after the Company instituted new
regulations for workplace security after the September 11 terrorist
attacks.

The Company has insisted on clean records for their employees, doing
background checks to discover prior law offenses.  Before the September
11 attacks, the Company allowed outside vendors to conduct their own
background checks.  Presently, the Company is using ChoicePoint, an
Georgia firm, to do the screenings.

Mike Crose of Lafayette, and 40 others who have been doing contract
work for the Company claim they have lost the opportunity for work, due
to the Company's strict background check.  Mr. Crose spent 2-1/2 years
of his 4-year union apprenticeship at the Company's facilities, but
prior to that, served 71/2 months in jail in Bellingham, Wash., after
pleading guilty to four misdemeanor crimes, including assault and
permitting a minor to consume alcohol.  

He told the Journal and Courier Online, "People who have worked there
for up to 30 years building the plants have been let go.Before that
time and since that time, I've never had any run-ins with the law.
(Lilly's) own employees haven't been subject to a new background check
since 9-11. They definitely separate the way they treat outside
contractors as they do employees."

Don Ireland, Business Manager of International Union of Painters and
Allied Trades Local 47 in Indianapolis, also told the Journal and
Courier that about 10 Local 47 members have been discharged from
working at Lilly for failing background checks, including one who had
several traffic violations and a check deception conviction.  

Mr. Crose and union leader, Jim Ogden, say they have heard of as many
as seven contract employees fired from Company subsidiary Tippecanoe
Labs, plus anywhere from 40 to 70 others who have lost access, and
their jobs, at Lilly sites in Indianapolis and Clinton. According to
Ogden, some allegedly lost their jobs for bouncing a check, child
support problems, even a speeding ticket, the Journal and Courier
reported.

Vince Kochert, Public Affairs Administrator at Tippecanoe Laboratories,
said the people who lost their contracted jobs following the screenings
have other employment opportunities.  He asserts "These individuals can
still work for the vendor, they just can't work at a Lilly site.All of
our employees go through background checks. There's no difference
between the requirements for our employees and contractors who work for
our vendors. We think it makes good standard business practice,"
according to the Journal and Courier.

Mr. Crose also asserted in a letter written to Company officials "I do
fully believe my debt for these crimes has been repaid.I'm kind,
generous and dedicated to my family and friends."  He said he is
willing to take his complaint against the Company to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the Indiana Civil Liberties
Union.


LONDON LIFE:  900,000 Clients Waiting To Collect Settlement Payouts
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 900,00 current and former policyholders of London Life Insurance
Company are waiting to collect their small share of a $240 million
class-action settlement, but their wait may have been shortened when an
application for appeal by a policyholder unhappy with the settlement's
terms was quashed before it could be heard, The Toronto Star recently
reported.

Company spokesperson Marlene Klassen said recently that the Company
must wait another two months, however, before it begins the lengthy
process of contacting eligible policyholders.  "Clearly London Life
will move as quickly as possible to implement the settlement, but we
will have a better sense of the timing once the Court approval is
final," she said.

Nearly five years have passed since lawyers in three provinces first
sued on behalf of clients who bought participating, whole-life
insurance policies during the years 1980 to 1995.  Many of these
clients were shown company-produced illustrations that indicated their
policy dividends would be sufficient to offset the cost of premiums
within a few years.  However, these sales illustrations generally
proved to be invalid - dividend rates, which were not guaranteed, fell
as interest rates fell and the period to premium offset was extended by
many years.

The settlement reached by the parties will provide some minimal
enhancements to most policyholders, while some who can present evidence
that they were misled will receive exactly what they originally
expected.  The courts approved agreement terms in Quebec, British
Columbia and Ontario last September and October.

However, an attempt to appeal the settlement was instituted by Dianna
Holmes, daughter of the Chair of the Canadian Life Insurance
Policyholders Association, Anne Holmes of Uxbridge.  One of her
objections was that the cost of enhancements was being wrongly deducted
from an account reserved for participating policyholders.  Her argument
that policyholders in effect were paying for their compensation under
the deal had been rejected last fall by Ontario Superior Court Justice
Peter Cumming.

Ms. Holmes' lawyer Michael Deverett said the three judges on the
panel at Ontario's Court of Appeal merely found that his client did not
have standing to bring an appeal.  He said he has not been able to
confer with her about whether to take additional action.  Anne Holmes,
Chair of Canadian Life Insurance Policyholders Association, who is a
London Life policyholder, and has been challenging the insurer and
others for years, predicted that many policyholders will be
dissatisfied with the settlement.

Anne Holmes says that major life insurers have been conspiring to
silence her.  "Do you think it is a coincidence that 10 people from
Investors Group (a sister company of London Life) crashed on my
property in a hot air balloon last June?" she asked.

Anne Holmes has asked the Company to supply her with internal files on
her family's policies in order to gauge how well they would be treated
under the settlement.  She doubts that she will accept the settlement
and said she is contemplating further legal action.  She said that many
clients, like herself, were persuaded without adequate disclosure to
give up older policies that now would be worth more than the newer
premium-offset policies they were sold.

Information booklets regarding three levels of settlement, global,
enhanced and individually adjudicated, will be distributed over the
next several months.  Clients who originally indicated that they wanted
dividends to offset premiums within a few years will automatically
qualify for enhanced benefits.  The Company will add half a percentage
point to their dividend rate for three years instead of one year like
everyone else.

It is estimated that enhancements will be worth about $180 million in
addition to about $60 million in benefits that already have been
provided by the Company.  A further $20 million will go to
administration costs and legal fees.


MEXICAN BRACEROS: US, Mexico Ask Court To Dismiss "Braceros" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The US and Mexican governments have asked a San Francisco Federal Court
to dismiss the class action suit filed against them on behalf of
Mexican farm workers who worked in California fields more than fifty
years ago.

A treaty between the governments allowed around 300,000 workers, known
as "braceros," to fill in temporary jobs in the US from 1942 to 1949.  
Under the terms of the treaty, 10% of the workers' salaries will be
automatically deducted and sent to Mexican banks to serve as a savings
account.  The workers were to receive the money when they returned to
Mexico.  However, many of the ex-braceros say they never got their
money, according to a Fresnobee report.  The suit, which also names
Wells Fargo Bank and three Mexican banks as defendants, seeks an
accounting for all the sums withheld for the purported savings fund and
any interest.

Last week, about 100 supporters rallied in downtown Fresno, encouraging
US and Mexican officials to support the aging workers or their
descendants, the Fresnobee reports.

US District Judge Charles Breyer has scheduled the hearings on the
motions to dismiss for August 2,2002, to give both sides enough time to
prepare their arguments.


MONTANA: Prisoners File Suit Over Inadequate Public Defender System
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Montana faces a class action filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), in the US District Court in Montana on behalf
of seven criminal defendants, alleging that the State's public defender
system was deeply "flawed."

The suit alleges that people accused of crimes in Montana can't count
on adequate legal representation unless they have enough money to hire
their own attorneys, according to a Montana Forum report.  The suit
names as defendants State Gov. Judy Martz, the Montana Supreme Court
and the commissioners of the counties of:

     (1) Butte-Silver Bow,

     (2) Flathead,

     (3) Glacier,

     (4) Missoula,

     (5) Lake,

     (6) Ravalli, and

     (7) Teton

The ACLU charged that the State failed to address concerns of people
who can't afford to have their own lawyers to defend them.  It also
asserted that the State had known about the inadequacies in their
public defender system since 1976, but failed to make the appropriate
changes.

Vincent Warren, an attorney with the ACLU's New York office, said
Montana is one of 18 states that funds its public defender system at a
level of less than half what the system requires, the Montana Forum
reports. He said that while many people associate poor public defender
programs with rural Southern states, Montana is a classic example of a
system that has created overworked public defenders with too few
resources to fairly represent their clients.  He adds, "Indigent
defense in Montana is fundamentally unfair.the State does not guarantee
full funding for indigent defenders."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say they want to see two changes in the
public defender system, an increase in funding at the state level and a
comprehensive policy telling the defendant counties how to run the
public defender system, the Montana Forum reports.  Scott Crichton,
Executive Director of the ACLU in Montana said "The State has failed to
provide the counties with the funding and guidance needed to administer
an indigent defense program adequately.Under these circumstances, even
the most diligent attorneys cannot provide competent representation."

Attorney General Mike McGrath, whose office probably would defend the
suit, told the Forum he hadn't seen the complaint and so had no
comment.


TOMMY HILFIGER: To Settle Suit Alleging Abuse of Saipan Factory Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Garment manufacturer, Tommy Hilfiger Corporation, has entered into  
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in two suits generally
alleging that the Company and other garment manufacturers and retailers
using the Saipan factories engaged in unlawful practices relating to
the recruitment and employment of foreign workers. The two suits also
name other garment manufacturers as defendants.

As part of these agreements, the Company specifically denies any
wrongdoing or any liability with regard to the claims made in the
suits. The settlement agreement provides for a monetary payment, in an
amount that is not material to the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows, to a class of plaintiffs in the
federal action, as well as the creation of a monitoring program for
factories in Saipan.

The suit brought in San Francisco Superior Court (the State action),
was filed by a union and three public interest groups. It alleges the
Company and others engaged in unfair competition and false advertising.  
The other suit, initially filed in the US District Court for the
Central District of California and subsequently transferred to the US
District Court in Hawaii (the federal action), was brought on behalf of
an alleged class consisting of the Saipanese factory workers.

The defendants include both companies selling goods purchased from
factories located on the island of Saipan and the factories themselves.
This complaint alleges claims under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act, federal anti-
peonage and indentured servitude statutes and state and international
law.

The Federal Court and a class of certified plaintiffs must approve the
settlement. The suit has been transferred to the Federal Judge in
Saipan. Plaintiffs are presently challenging the transfer order. The
Judge in Saipan scheduled the settlement approval hearing and
preliminary class certification for February 14, 2002.


                            Securities Fraud


ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Shapiro Haber Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber and Urmy LLP commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Actrade Financial Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRT) and certain
of its officers and directors.  The suit was filed on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
March 11, 1999 through February 8, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of press
releases and public filings containing materially false or misleading
statements representing that the Company provided short-term loans to
businesses to finance commercial transactions.

The suit alleges that these statements were false and misleading
because defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Company
had also loaned millions of dollars to individuals for non-commercial
purposes, defrauded its sureties into providing coverage for these
loans, and had overstated its financial results based on these
fraudulent lending practices.

The suit further alleges that defendants' actions artificially inflated
the price of the Company's common stock during the class period.

For more information, contact Ted Hess-Mahan or Liz Hutton by Mail: 75
State Street, Boston, MA 02109, (800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134,
or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.


ADVANCED LIGHTING: Will Vigorously Defend V. Securities Suits in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of Advanced Lighting Corporation charged certain of the
Company's officers and directors of breach of fiduciary duty in several
securities class actions pending in Ohio Federal and State Courts.

The first two of these suits were commenced in December 2001 by
separate shareholders of the Company allegedly on behalf of the
Company, derivatively, against officers and directors of the Company.
The allegations in the two cases are substantially similar, and the
State case has been removed to the United States District Court,
Northern District of Ohio, where the two cases are pending.

The Company is a nominal defendant in these actions. One of the suits
names as defendants:

     (1) Wayne R. Hellman, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
         the Board, who is also beneficial owner of more than 5% of the
         outstanding common stock of the Company,

     (2) Alan J. Ruud, former Chief Operating Officer and Vice Chairman
         of the Board, who is also beneficial owner of more than 5% of
         the outstanding common stock of the Company,

     (3) Francis H. Beam, director,

     (4) John E. Breen, director,

     (5) John R. Buerkle, director,

     (6) Theodore A. Filson, director,

     (7) Louis S. Fisi, director,

     (8) Thomas K. Lime, director, and

     (9) Gordon Tunstall, director

The second complaint names the same defendants, but also names Steven
C. Potts, who is Chief Financial Officer and is a director.

The suits allege breaches of duties by the defendants relating to the
matters which are the subject of the litigation, to alleged insider
trading by certain directors, to a loan made to Mr. Hellman and to the
sale of certain fixture facilities to an investment group led by Mr.
Ruud.

In January 2002, an additional lawsuit was filed in the Common Pleas
Court of the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio, by a shareholder of the Company
allegedly on behalf of the Company, derivatively, against officers and
directors of the Company.  The allegations in the case are
substantially similar to the above suits.  The suit names the same
defendants as the suits mentioned above, with the Company as a nominal
defendant.

The Company and the defendants believe that these claims lack merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action.


DIGITAL ISLAND: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in Delaware Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond lodged a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who acquired Digital Island, Inc. (Nasdaq:ISLD)
securities between May 14, 2001 and August 30, 2001, inclusive, in the
US District Court in Delaware.

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 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 Web site:
http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.


ENRON CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Chosen Lead Plaintiff in 401(k) Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial high-profile law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach was chosen to act as the lead plaintiff in the class action suit
filed against fallen energy trader Enron Corporation over losses in
several institutions 401(k) plans.

The firm represents the University of California (UC) retirement
system, which was also chosen as lead plaintiff.  The system lost $145
million in their 401(k) plans, due to investments in the Company's
stock, which plummeted shortly before its bankruptcy filing.  

The UC retirement bested several other State retirement systems, who
also lost due to their investment in the Company, most notably the
Florida state retirement system.  Florida lost more money than the UC
system, but Florida's state retirement system is locked in a dispute
with its investment management firm, Alliance Capital Management of New
York. Florida is asserting that Alliance had a conflict of interest
when it invested state funds in Enron, because one of Alliance's
managing directors was an Enron board member.

However, lead plaintiff status is basically ceremonial according to an
Associated Press report.  It is still unclear how and when the
plaintiffs can recover from the Company after its bankruptcy, as there
is a long line of creditors waiting for the settlement of claims.  

However, the appointment is a big vindication for Milberg Weiss, which
recently made headlines, when Los Angeles federal investigators
announced they were investigating the Company for alleged
irregularities in plaintiff solicitations for securities suit.  The
firm, and high profile partner William Lerach, are known to have filed
hundred of securities suits in the wake of the dot.com bust.  
Associated Press also reports the firm was also recently removed as
lead counsel in a shareholder case against Copper Mountain Networks
Inc. of Palo Alto after a judge found that other law firms would
litigate the case for lower fees.

"This civil litigation is essential to right the wrongs and recover the
losses suffered by millions of Americans," said Bill Lerach, a partner
at Milberg Weiss, in a prepared statement.

Other pension funds have filed suits against the Company's former
directors and executives, including ex-chief executive Kenneth Lay,
alleging that they issued misleading financial statements to
artificially inflate the Company's stock price and reap more than $1
billion for themselves.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing, LTD. (NYSE:GX)
(OTCBB:GBLXQ) common stock during the period between April 29, 1999 and
October 4, 2001, inclusive. The class period is being expanded to
include purchases of publicly traded securities between February 14,
1999 and October 4, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges certain of the Company's officers and directors
violated 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 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 insiders sold holdings of the Company's
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, the Company announced that cash revenues in the
third quarter would be approximately $1.2 billion, $400 million less
than the $1.6 billion expected by analysts and forecast several times
earlier in the year by defendants. In addition, the Company and the
defendants stated that they expected recurring adjusted EBITDA to be
"significantly less than $1000 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 more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
888-551-9944 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Holzer Holzer Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer lodged a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of HA-LO Industries Inc., (NYSE:HMK)
between February 18, 1999 and November 23, 2001 inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, against defendants:

     (1) Lou Weisbach,

     (2) John R. Kelley Jr.,

     (3) Marc S. Simon and

     (4) Gregory J. Kilrea.

The Company has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code and is not a defendant in this lawsuit.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
materially false statements to the market between February 18, 1999 and
November 23, 2001, concerning its financial performance for the
Company's fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000 and the first quarter of
2001.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants
issued press releases positively portraying the Company's quarterly and
year-end financial performance, and filed reports confirming such
performance with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  
The suit further alleges that these statements were materially false
and misleading because the Company had, throughout the class period,
improperly recognized revenues, thereby inflating its reported sales
and earnings.

On November 23, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing the
restatement of its previously filed financial statements for the period
1998 to 2000, and that the Company "may also restate its first quarter
2001 Form 10-Q." According to the press release, the restatement will
have the effect of decreasing its reported class period pretax income
by a total of $15 million, including $1.2 million if the restatement
includes the first quarter of 2001.

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


HOMESTORE.COM: Hoffman Edelson Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson LLC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Homestore.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: HOMS) common stock during
the period between July 20, 2000 and December 21, 2001.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On July 19,
2000 (after the close of the market), the Company issued a release of
its positive 2Q 00 results, causing its stock price to soar by more
than $7 (or 25%) the following trading day.

The suit alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price of
Company stock, defendants misrepresented the Company's true prospects
in an effort to conceal its improper acts until they were able to sell
at least $16 million of their own stock.

In order to overstate revenues and assets in 2nd to 4th Quarter 2000
and 1st to 3rd quarter 2001, the Company violated generally accepted
accounting principles 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 it.

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 the Company's shares
plummeted by more than 50% the following trading day.

Then, 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 the Company's shares were halted and have not
traded since.

For more information, contact Jerold B. Hoffman by Mail: 45 W. Court
Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 by Phone: 877-537-6532 (toll free) by Fax:
215-230-8735 or by E-mail: jhoffman@hofedlaw.com.


HOOVERS INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoovers, Inc. denies the allegations in a securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, against the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and one of the investment banks that was
an underwriter of the Company's July 1999 initial public offering.

The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock
during the period from July 20, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The
suit alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock
in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices. The suit further alleges that the
Prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and
misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not
disclose these arrangements.

The Company and its current and former officers and directors intend to
vigorously defend the actions. The action is being coordinated with
over 300 other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.
No date has been set for any response to the complaints.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Hoffman Edelson Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoffman & Edelson LLC filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of ImClone Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq:IMCL) between June 28, 2001 and December 28, 2001, inclusive,
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.  
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Samuel D. Waksal,

     (2) Harlan W. Waksal,

     (3) Robert F. Goldhammer,

     (4) John Mendelsohn,

     (5) William R. Miller,

     (6) Paul B. Kopperl,

     (7) David M. Kies and

     (8) Richard Barth

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing materially false and misleading statements to
the market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immediately following this shocking revelation, however, Company shares
dropped precipitously, falling $5.25 per share in after hours trading,
or 9.5%, to close that session at $50 per share. The price of its stock
has since continued to fall sharply.

For further details, contact Jerold B. Hoffman by Mail: 45 W. Court
Street, Doylestown, PA 18901 by Phone: 877-537-6532 by Fax:
215-230-8735 or by E-mail: jhoffman@hofedlaw.com.


IMMERSION CORPORATION: Sued For Securities Violations in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in In re: Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Immersion Corp.
(NASDAQ: IMMR) between November 12, 1999 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, against the Company and:

     (1) Louis Rosenberg, CEO, President and Chairman,

     (2) Victor Viegas, CFO,

     (3) Bruce Schena, Chief Technology Officer, and Director and

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc. and

     (5) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In November 1999, the
Company commenced an initial public offering of 4,250,000 of its shares
of common stock at an offering price of $12 per share.  In connection
therewith, the Company filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the SEC.

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

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

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

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


IRVINE SENSORS: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody commenced a securities class action in in United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern
Division on behalf of purchasers of Irvine Sensors Corporation
(NASDAQ:IRSN), common stock between January 6, 2000 and September 15,
2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company
purports to be a developer of proprietary technologies to produce
compact packages of solid state micro-circuitry.

Silicon Film Technologies, Inc. (SFI) was a majority owned subsidiary
of the Company whose primary purpose was to design and market the
Electronic Film System or "EFS-1." EFS-1 purportedly interfaced with a
conventional camera to enable the camera to take digital pictures.

During the class period, defendants repeatedly promised the investing
community that the EFS-1 was near completion and would be ready for
release shortly. These promises never materialized because defendants,
knew but did not disclose to the public, among other things, that EFS-1
suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design flaws.

On September 15, 2001, after nearly two years of touting the EFS-1
technology, the Company announced that SFI had suspended operations and
was considering bankruptcy, sounding the death-knell of the EFS-1
project.

Due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct, plaintiff and the
other class members purchased Company securities at inflated prices.
Had plaintiff and the other class members been aware of the truthful
condition of the Company and the adverse impact that defendants'
statements and omissions were having on the Company, they would not
have purchased their shares, or at least not at artificially inflated
prices.

For more information, contact Marc L. Godino by Phone: 888-388-4605 or
by E-mail: at info@secfraud.com or on the firm's Web site:
http://www.secfraud.com.


JP MORGAN: Shareholders Sue For Securities Violations in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase and Co, Inc. faces a securities class action filed by
law firm Glancy and Binkow LLP in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the Company's shareholders
for allegedly violating federal securities laws.

The suit alleges that the Company made "material omissions" and
disseminated "materially false and misleading statements" between Nov
28, 2001 and Jan 28, 2002, which caused its stock price to become
artificially inflated.  The suit noted a public statement issued by JP
Morgan in which did not fully disclose its risk and loss exposure
related to its transactions and dealings with Enron Corporation.

At the time, JP Morgan listed its total Enron exposure at approximately
$900 million. The company later announced that its total Enron related
exposure was actually about $2.6 billion, or almost three times the
earlier figure, the law firm said.  Shortly thereafter, JP Morgan wrote
down $1.13 billion in non-performing assets, specifically related to
losses generated by its dealings with Enron, according to an Ananova
report.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Proceedings Stayed in Securities Suit in NY  
------------------------------------------------------------
Keynote System, Inc. labels "without merit" several securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain of its officers and
the underwriters of its initial public offering.

The suit came from identical "laddering" lawsuits, which were filed on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities
between September 24, 1999 and August 19, 2001.  The suits alleged that
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering allocated
shares in exchange for agreements by investors to buy additional shares
in the aftermarket at a higher price or to buy shares in other
companies with higher than normal commissions.

The suits also allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws because it did not disclose these alleged arrangements.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action with cases
brought against over three hundred other issuers and their underwriters
that make similar allegations regarding the initial public offerings of
those issuers. The proceedings against the issuers, including the
Company, have been stayed pending an outcome in the proceedings against
the underwriters.

The Company intends to defend the actions vigorously. However, these
claims, even if not meritorious, could be expensive and divert
management's attention from operating the Company.


NATIONAL GOLF: Cauley Geller Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of National Golf Properties, Inc.
(NYSE: TEE) common stock during the period between April 1, 1999 and
November 14, 2001, inclusive (including all purchases in or pursuant to
the Company's May 17, 2001 secondary offering).

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the suit alleges that David G.
Price misappropriated funds from a publicly traded company and funneled
them to himself via a scheme of complicated financial dealings
involving National Golf and a variety of Price-controlled entities.
Price-controlled entities conduct substantial business with National
Golf, to the detriment of National Golf's shareholders.  Mr. Price's
plan culminated in a May 2001 secondary offering that generated over
$31 million from plaintiff and other Class members which went to a
Price-controlled entity, Oaks Christian High School.

Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, which
became effective May 17, 2001, and included materially false and
misleading financial statements, and other false and misleading
statements, pursuant to which 1.175 million shares of the Company were
sold to plaintiff and other members of the class.

Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the business and financial operations of the Company with
the intent and having the effect of substantially inflating the trading
price of its common stock.

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


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oplink Communications, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
of its IPO underwriters, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

The suit alleges that the Company's IPO registration statement and
prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The Company made note that similar complaints have been filed in the
same court against numerous public companies that conducted IPOs of
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  The Company also stated that
the suit will likely divert the efforts and attention of management
and, if determined adversely to the Company, could have a material
impact on its business.



PNC FINANCIAL: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the
common stock of The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE:PNC)
during the period of July 19, 2001 to January 29, 2002, inclusive.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against the Company, and officers Robert L.
Haunschild and James E. Rohr.

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 by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The suit
alleges that during the period of July 19, 2001 to January 29, 2002
inclusive, defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market in press releases and SEC filings thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities. Specifically, the complaint
charges that defendants issued quarterly press releases and filed
reports with the SEC, which contained false and misleads results.

On January 29, 2002, PNC announced that it would be restating certain
2001 quarterly results, which would reduce its net income by $155
million for the year ended December 31, 2001.

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


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville
Division, on behalf of all person who acquired common stock of
Regeneration Technologies, Inc (RTI) (Nasdaq:RTIX) during the period
between July 25, 2001 and January 31, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated
the federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the suit
alleges that 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 against earnings to recognize
worthless inventory.

On February 2, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it was delaying its fourth quarter and year-end results for fiscal year
2001 while "management completes its evaluation of certain inventory
issues."  The Company also announced that its Chief Financial Officer,
Richard Allen, and Vice President of Marketing and Sales, James
Abraham, are leaving the Company effective immediately. The Company
further announced that it is "evaluating whether these issues may
affect RTI's previously reported financial results" and although "RTI's
annual results have not been finalized, company officials expect to
report a loss for both the quarter and the year."

In response to the news the price of Company stock plunged more than
50% from $10.15 on January 31, 2002 to $5.19 on February 1, 2002.

For more information, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by
Phone: 800-889-3701 or by E-mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.com or
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com


SYNSORB BIOTECH: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond commenced a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Synsorb Biotech Inc.
(NASDAQ:SYBB) securities between April 4, 2001 and December 10, 2001,
inclusive, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit alleges that the 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.


TALX CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired TALX Corporation (Nasdaq:TALX)
securities between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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
Web site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP lodged a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased 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, 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 or by E-mail:
dleifer@whhf.com.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: 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 the common stock of Tyco International,
Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) between February 1, 2000 and February 1, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and two of its top corporate officers
misled the investing public during the Class Period regarding Tyco's
financial condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
defendants' failed to disclose that:

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

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

     (3) 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 a rule change by the SEC required the
Company to cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices
and recognize the revenues from its security contracts only when the
money due under the contracts was actually received.

Throughout the class period, it is alleged that the defendants were
aware that the adverse effect of this rule change would be
approximately $1,000,000,000. Nevertheless, the defendants only
partially disclosed this information in October, 2001, and thereafter
belatedly announced portions of the adverse information through
January, 2002, while the price per share of Company stock fell by more
than 40 plus percent.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman,
Wayne T. Boultonm 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


VAN WAGONER: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on behalf of investors who, between April 28,
2000 and June 30, 2001, purchased shares of any of the following Van
Wagoner funds:

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

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

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

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

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

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants filed a
registration statement and annual report with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that purported to report the Funds' net asset value
(NAV) and performance. These representations, however, were materially
false and misleading because defendants had materially overvalued
certain private companies held by the Funds, thereby inflating their
NAV and causing the price of their shares to be artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period.

The suit further alleges that Ernst & Young, LLP failed to follow
generally accepted accounting practices and generally accepted auditing
standards by specifically approving the valuations of net assets
utilized by Van Wagoner 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 Van Wagoner Funds, Inc. filed
its Semi-Annual Report for the year 2001. The Semi-Annual Report
revealed that defendants revalued nine such private placement
investments that they originally valued at $28.6 million on December
31, 2000 to a total of $9.00 and marked down an additional 2 holdings
by precisely 50% or 75%.

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

For further details, contact Carol V. Gilden, Michael J. Freed or
Michael E. Moskovitz by Phone: (800) 470-6824 by E-mail:
cgilden@muchlaw.com, mfreed@muchlaw.com or mmoskovitz@muchlaw.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.muchlaw.com. E-mail should refer  
to Van Wagoner Funds.


WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in N.D. OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Westell Westell Technologies, Inc. faces a consolidated securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The suit, which also names as defendants certain
of the Company's officers and directors, alleges violations of federal
securities laws.

The defendants allegedly violated the antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws by allegedly issuing material false and
misleading statements and/or allegedly omitting material facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading thereby inflating
the price of the Company's stock in the second quarter of fiscal 2001.

The suit further alleges that the defendants reassured analysts that
the Company's sales were on track to meet forecasts for the second
quarter of fiscal 2001, when they knew that the Company was
experiencing a substantial shortfall in second quarter modem sales
due to decreased orders from a major customer.

Starting April 2001, four derivative actions were also commenced in the
same Court.  The Court later consolidated the suits, which made the
same allegations as the consolidated suit mentioned above.  In January
2002, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated derivative
action. There has been no ruling yet on the motion to dismiss. The
case is set for trial on November 3, 2003.

In the opinion of the Company, although the outcome of any legal
proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, the liability of the
Company in connection with its legal proceedings could have a material
effect on its financial position.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action  
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma on behalf of investors who purchased Williams Companies, Inc.
(NYSE: WMB) and Williams Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE: WCG)
securities between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material information to their shareholders 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.

For further information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: Marc S.
Henzel, 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 Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


                              *********


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  * * *