CAR_Public/020220.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Wednesday, February 20, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 36

                            Headlines

CONTINENTAL AG: Cars Recalled For Part Causing Possible Brake Defect
DYN CORPORATION: Colombians Sue Over Effects of Round Up Herbicide
EMERY WORLDWIDE: Ex-Employees Sue After Losing Jobs in Airline Closure
FORD MOTOR: Orders Recall of Defective 2002 Ranger Pickup Trucks
GLOBAL CROSSING: Stull Stull Commences 401(k) Suit in C.D. California

HONDA MOTOR: Recalling 4,600 Minivans In Japan Due To Seat Belt Defects
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Still Pending Over Non-Y2K Compliant Products
TENNESSEE: Court Approves $5M Settlement of TN Sales Tax Suit

                         Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BANK OF AMERICA: Lawyers in Stalled CA Suit To Oppose $490M Settlement
ELAN CORPORATION: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ELAN CORPORATION: Chitwood Harley Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
ENRON CORPORATION: UC General Counsel Expects "Substantial Recovery"

ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Leo Desmond Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire
EVEREX SYSTEMS: California Jury Absolves Official of Securities Fraud
GLOBAL CROSSING: Brian Barry Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HOMESTORE.COM: Scott Scott Expands Class Period in California Suit

IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Scott Scott Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
INFONET SERVICES: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Contemplating Response To Suit in S.D. NY
JD EDWARDS: $15M Settlement Reached In Securities Act Violations Suit
JP MORGAN: Glancy Binkow Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

IRVINE SENSORS: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. California
IRVINE SENSORS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Suit's Possible Affects Uncertain  
MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations

NATIONAL GOLF: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
NETSOLVE INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit For $2.75M in Texas
NETSOLVE INC.: Sued For Securities Act Violations in IPO in S.D. NY
NETWORK ENGINES: NY Suit Could Harm Business Operations, Finances
SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CO

SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in CO
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                             
                            *********


CONTINENTAL AG: Cars Recalled For Part Causing Possible Brake Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------------
German auto-parts maker Continental AG instituted a recall that could
cover around 60,000 to 70,000 cars after discovering a defective part
that may affect vital brake efficiency. The cars may have been exported
to other Latin American countries though it was initially thought they
were distributed only to Brazil.

The recall affects 22 models assembled in Brazil by major automakers
General Motors, Ford, Volkswagen and Fiat.  General Motors said that
the recall would affect 23,800 of their cars, including the Corsa,
Vectra, Zafira and Astra models, a Company spokesman revealed.  He
added that at least 1,000 of these were exported to Argentina and
Mexico, according to a Reuters report.

On the other hand, Ford exported 1,000 Fiesta, Ka and Courier vehicles
to Argentina and Mexico.  "The Company is still assessing what was
actually sold to these countries," a Ford spokesman told Reuters. Some
of the 6,140 cars subject to recall are still in the Company's stocks.

A Volkswagen spokesman identified as part of the recall five of its car
models, namely the Gol, Parati, Saveiro and Kombi models, while Fiat
told Reuters that the recall affected 6,525 cars but they were all sold
in Brazil.


DYN CORPORATION: Colombians Sue Over Effects of Round Up Herbicide
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyn Corporation faces a class action filed by Ecuatorian Indians along
the Colombian border for harmful effects caused by the indiscriminate
spraying of a herbicide called Round Up, according to EFE.

The suit, filed by the Quichua San Francisco II community in
Washington, alleges that Round Up, used for killing coca leaf and poppy
crops on the Colombian border, is doing extensive harm to local
inhabitants and the environment.  

Lucia Gallardo of advocacy group Ecological Action organization of
Ecuador alleges the effects of the herbicide have impaired the health
of the areas inhabitants, caused extensive crop damage, and affected
domestic and wild animals in the area.  She added that the herbicide
Round Up is not accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and therefore should not be used in southern Colombia.  Ms. Gallardo
told EFE that Round Up "has caused continuous and severe pain and
suffering to the plaintiffs."

She further said that that the suit was accepted by the Court since US
legislation requires that any spraying done abroad under the auspices
or patronage of the United States meet standards set for spraying in
the United States.  The spraying is carried out under Plan Colombia,
the partially US-funded anti-narcotics program underway in Colombia.


EMERY WORLDWIDE: Ex-Employees Sue After Losing Jobs in Airline Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emery Worldwide Airlines faces a class action filed in US District
Court in Dayton, Ohio by its former employees, saying the Company laid
off 800 pilots and ground crew in August without giving the required
60-day notice, the Dayton Daily News reports.

For years, employees have complained about the airline's safety,
writing letters to Emery executives and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) officials.  The Company's problems were compounded
when one of its aircraft crash-landed after takeoff in February 2000 in
Sacramento, California. The three crew-members on EW Flight 17 died.

The National Transportation Safety Board ordered an investigation into
the crash and scheduled a hearing in August 2001 in relation to the
Company's use of contract maintenance and its oversight.  The FAA also
claimed that the Company committed more than 100 safety violations in a
series of special inspections.

However, the August hearing did not push through as the Company decided
to ground its fleet, and the hearing has yet to be rescheduled.  The
airline also agreed to pay a $1 million fine and take steps to correct
their systems and in the end, to resume operations.  In December, the
Company's parent, CNF, Inc. decided to merge three of its companies,
Emery Worldwide, Menlo Logistics and Vector SCM, into a single
operation, Menlo Worldwide, and decided not to resume operations.

The suit alleges that the permanent suspension of its employees
constituted a "plant closing" requiring a 60-day notice.  According to
the Dayton Daily News, the suit charges that the "reason for the
layoffs was that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) unexpectedly
informed EWA it needed to cease flight operations or the FAA would
suspend its certificate."  At the time of the layoffs, the lawsuit
states, EWA said they "would be temporary and that if the issues with
the FAA were resolved, employees could expect to be recalled."

The suit also names CNF, Inc. as a defendant and seeks payment for 60
days' worth of wages and benefits to the permanently displaced Company
employees.

CNF Spokeswoman Nancy Colvert told the Daily News, "At this time we
have not been served with anything.I can't comment on anything I
haven't seen."


FORD MOTOR: Orders Recall of Defective 2002 Ranger Pickup Trucks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Embattled Ford Motor Company, which has been plagued by design problems
on various automobile products, has once more issued a "stop sale, stop
demonstrating and delivery" order for its 2002 Ranger pickup trucks,
ConsumerAffairs.com reports.

The order was issued after the Company discovered problems in the
truck's differential casing, which can be fixed only by replacing the
entire rear axle assembly.  

Some 800 trucks currently on dealer lots and another 374 that have been
sold are affected by the recall.  The affected trucks have manual
transmissions and the new FX4 design package, which is intended to give
the vehicles a rugged, off-road look.

Ford has been plagued with quality and safety problems, including
premature failure of its popular 3.8-liter V6 engine, disastrous
rollover problems affecting the Explorer and a number of flawed new-
product launches.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Stull Stull Commences 401(k) Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a class action in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division
on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the Global Crossing
Employees' Retirement Savings Plan, a 401(k) plan operated and
administered by Global Crossing, Ltd.

The suit, which names as defendants the administrators and directors of
the plan and the Company's directors, is filed on behalf of all current
and former employees and any beneficiaries who are or were participants
in the retirement plan at any time since September 28, 1999.

The suit charges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) disclosure requirements
by failing to disclose to plan participants that maintaining
concentrated investments in Company stock was imprudent and exposed
participants to unreasonable risks of loss and injury.

As alleged in the suit, defendants encouraged their employees to invest
their retirement monies in the Company's common stock, while defendants
proceeded to sell their own Company stock reaping profits over $140
million.

As further alleged, defendants failed to provide plaintiff and other
plan participants with adequate information about the Company's true
financial condition despite offering stock as a prudent plan
investment. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing declining demand for bandwidth;

     (2) its operating performance was artificially inflated through
         improper accounting for transactions with other telecom
         companies;

     (3) its efforts to provide managed network outsourcing services
         was failing; and

     (4) as the Company's liquidity position and revenues declined, so
         did its ability to service its large debt.

For more information, contact Michael Braun by Phone: 888-388-4605 or
by E-mail: info@secfraud.com


HONDA MOTOR: Recalling 4,600 Minivans In Japan Due To Seat Belt Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Automaker Honda Motors Co. is recalling more than 4,600 minivans
currently in use in Japan due to seat belt defects, says Bloomberg.

According to Honda, a total of 5,082 of the minivan Mobilio, which it
introduced in December, will be covered by the recall.  Of the 10,000
the automaker produced between December and January, some 4,635
Mobilios are now with customers, while the rest are still part of
dealers' inventories.  So far, no accidents have been reported as a
result of the defect, the report says.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Still Pending Over Non-Y2K Compliant Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc. faces three separate class actions based on
claims that the Company sold products that were not Year 2000
compliant.  One suit is pending in State Court in West Virginia,
another in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
and another in the US District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The case in New York was filed in January 1999 and, after being
dismissed, was re-filed in September 2000. The case in West Virginia
was filed in April 1999 and the case in California was filed in June
1999, and amended in 2000 to include Avaya, Inc., which was spun-off
from the Company in September 2000, as a defendant.

The suits allege that the Company's products in question were designed
and developed without considering the possible impact of the change in
the calendar from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000. The complaints
allege that the sale of these products violated statutory consumer
protection laws and constituted breaches of implied warranties.

A class has not been certified in any of the three cases and, to the
extent a class is certified in any of the cases, the Company expects
that class to constitute those enterprises that purchased the products
in question.

Although the Company believes that the outcome of these actions will
not adversely affect its financial position, results of operations or
cash flows, if these cases are not resolved in a timely manner, they
will require expenditure of significant legal costs related to their
defense.


TENNESSEE: Court Approves $5M Settlement of TN Sales Tax Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Floyd Peete, Jr. of the Memphis Chancery Court granted
approval to a settlement of a class action filed against the Covington
Pike Toyota dealership which allegedly trained employees to cheat car
buyers of as much as $2,000 each.

The class action arose from a separate case charging the dealership
with discrimination, as black employees alleged they were trained by
management to tell customers they were receiving a free warranty, then
double-tax them to absorb the cost, GoMemphis reports.  The dealership
has denied the allegations.

However, the settlement terms have generated much criticism.  Under the
settlement, customers will get $1,200 coupons, not cash, good toward
the purchase of a new or used car, while the lawyers who brought the
suit, Richard Fields, Saul Belz and Earle Schwarz get $1.3 million in
legal fees, according to a GoMemphis report.  

Chancellor Peete said that he gave his final approval after he received
only token objections from consumers.  Lawyers on both sides argued it
was a reasonable resolution and Chancellor Peete agreed after a brief
hearing before a half-dozen car buyers who had questions but did not
oppose it.

Several customers belatedly voiced strong objections after the
settlement was announced, resenting the fact that they would need to
buy a new car to use the coupon.  Although the face value of the
settlement is $5 million, the dealership could end up paying much less
if the coupons are not used.

Former finance manager Tyrone King, who was among the three ex-
employees who testified for the plaintiffs, told GoMemphis, "Nothing
that I personally wanted to see happen, happened. I think the customers
should have been refunded some money. I don't think a coupon means
anything to them. Ninety percent of them can't even buy another car in
two years anyway."

Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn) declined comment on the suit, but said that
"Justice is there for the victim and the defendant and not just for the
lawyers to make money." GoMemphis reports federal lawmakers may use
outcomes such as this to provide fodder for reforms of the class-action
system.


                            Securities Fraud


ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Actrade Financial
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:ACRT) securities between March 11, 1999
through and including February 8, 2002, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.
For further details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Lawyers in Stalled CA Suit To Oppose $490M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers in a stalled class action pending against Bank of America in
California state courts plan to oppose the Company's proposed
settlement of more than a dozen class actions over the NationsBank
merger for $490 million, forged last week.

Steven Sidener, a partner of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, told the
Recorder "There are questions about whether or not our state law claims
were adequately represented."  Gold Bennett, along with Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes and Lerach, appealed the stay to the Eighth Circuit US
Court of Appeals but lost. Last month, they filed a writ with the US
Supreme Court asking the court to lift the stay of the suit.

Reed Kathrein, a Milberg partner, stated "We've been completely blocked
from pursuing the action.We may object to the settlement."  She told
the Recorder that the settlement amount accepted by the plaintiffs'
lawyers were "particularly troubling", saying it was a fraction of the
several billion dollars in damages originally alleged.

The planned opposition to the settlement could mean that the settling
lawyers headed by law firm Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy will have
to wait a while longer for a payday.  Cotchett partner Bruce Simon said
the firm is pleased with the settlement and doubts it can be held up.

"This was seriously litigated for years," Simon said, adding that BofA
was facing an April 8 trial date. "We would seriously doubt it would be
subject to any challenge."


ELAN CORPORATION: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action against Elan
Corporation PLC (NYSE:ELN) for purchasers of the Company's stock during
the period of April 23, 2001 and January 30, 2002, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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

For more information, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua Lifshitz by
Phone: 212-213-6222 by Fax: 212-213-9405 by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com.


ELAN CORPORATION: Chitwood Harley Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood and Harley initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville
Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased Elan Corporation PLC
(NYSE: "ELN") American Depository Receipts (ADRs) between April 23,
2001 and January 29, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants misled their
investors by issuing false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material facts about the Company's business.

The defendants allegedly misrepresented the truth about Elan's improper
accounting practices that artificially inflated its reported revenues
(resulting in the artificial inflation of the asset side of its balance
sheet). As a result, class members paid more for Company ADRs than they
would have if the truth had been disclosed.

On January 30, 2002, The Wall Street Journal raised questions about how
the Company has been accounting for drug-development joint ventures
with other companies. According to the article, the Company would
invest in a partner company, which would then return the "investment"
to it in the form of a technology-licensing fee.  The Company then
would report the fee as revenue.  This revelation stunned the market,
causing the value of the Company's ADRs to plummet 16% from the prior
day's closing.

On February 4, 2002, Elan announced that its earnings for the fourth
quarter of 2001 would drop 84% and that its profits for fiscal year
2001 would fall well short of estimates. In the wake of this
announcement, Company ADRs plunged again, losing over 50% of their
value in a single day of trading.

For more information, contact Krissi Temple or Martin D. Chitwood by
Mail 2900 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree St., NE Atlanta, Georgia by
Phone: 888-873-3999 (toll-free) or by E-mail: mkt@classlaw.com or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.classlaw.com.


ENRON CORPORATION: UC General Counsel Expects "Substantial Recovery"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The general counsel of University of California, earlier awarded the
lead plaintiff position in the 401(k) class action against Enron
Corporation, is hopeful that the plaintiffs can make a "substantial
recovery" of assets from the fallen energy giant and accounting firm
Arthur Andersen LLP, the Washington Times reports.

James Holst, attorney for UC, told the Times, "We take up this
responsibility with the deepest sense of obligation not only to the UC
family of employees, retirees and students, but to the millions of
Americans who invested in good faith with Enron.We look forward to
working closely with all of the plaintiffs to vigorously pursue this
litigation with the shared goal of securing substantial recovery for
all shareholders."

Last week, Houston Federal Judge Melinda Harmon chose the University of
California as lead plaintiff in the suit, over the state employee
retirement plans of California, New York City, Ohio, Georgia, Florida
and Washington.  The plans lost an approximate total of $145 million,
when Enron Corporation stock price plunged and the Company filed the
nation's biggest bankruptcy.

UC officials told the Times Judge Harmon named the system as lead
plaintiff due to the size of its losses and its ability as a single
organization to efficiently coordinate litigation that could take years
to conclude.  Mr. Holst contends. "This lawsuit is a rare and
extraordinary legal step for the university, but it is warranted by the
extreme and unique circumstances surrounding Enron's collapse and the
damage that collapse has caused so many."

Mr. Holst will be working closely with high-profile law firm Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, which specializes in securities class
actions.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Leo Desmond Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond commenced a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Enterasys Networks, Inc.
(NYSE:ETS) securities between September 26, 2001 and February 1, 2002,
inclusive in the US District Court in New Hampshire.

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.


EVEREX SYSTEMS: California Jury Absolves Official of Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California acquitted a former official of defunct computer manufacturer
Everex Systems, Inc. of allegations that he issued fraudulent financial
statements before the Company went bankrupt.

The suit is one of the few securities class actions to go to trial and
is believed to be the first such class action to go to a jury in the
district since Apple Computer Inc. was hit in 1991 with a $100 million
verdict for misleading shareholders, according to the Recorder.

The decision was an upset for the plaintiffs.  Robert Varian, counsel
for the defendant, stated "We were concerned that jurors wouldn't be
able to focus on the evidence in a particular case and would be carried
away by everything else going on."  

He told the Recorder the publicity over "accounting irregularities and
companies going bankrupt and cooking their books along the way played
into the plaintiffs case."  He was glad, however, that the verdict
showed that "despite the current environment you can try a case to a
smart jury and count on them to render a verdict based on the law."

There has been no comment from the plaintiffs over the decision.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Brian Barry Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Brian Barry initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of California
on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of Global Crossing,
Ltd. (NYSE: GX) between January 2, 2001 and October 4, 2001 inclusive.

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

For more information, contact Brian Barry or Jill Levine by Mail: 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 307, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone:
310-788-0831 or by E-mail: Bribarry1@yahoo.com or JillLevine1@yahoo.com  


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased stock of HA-LO
Industries Inc. (formerly NYSE: HMK) (now OTC Bulletin Board: HMLOQ)
between February 18, 1999 and November 23, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that four senior officers of the Company, a marketing
company that filed for bankruptcy protection on July 30, 2001, misled
the investing public during the class period by violating generally
accepted accounting principles and improperly recognizing revenue.

Specifically, the suit alleges that a HA-LO subsidiary was engaged in
improper accounting practices, and that the Company was employing
improper accounting practices in order to mask the deteriorating
condition of its business, all of which caused its reported revenue to
be overstated.

Ultimately, on November 23, 2001, the Company announced that it would
be restating its financial statements for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000, and possibly the first quarter of 2001. According to the Company,
the total amount of the restatement could be as high as $15 million.

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 Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


HOMESTORE.COM: Scott Scott Expands Class Period in California Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC expanded the class period in the securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Homestore.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: HOMS) of common stock during the period between July 20, 2000
and December 21, 2001, inclusive, to include purchasers from May 4,
2000 and December 21,2001.

The amended suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of l934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial results for 2000 and the first three quarters of 2001.

More specifically, on December 21, 2001, after the close of the market,
the Company admitted that its past accounting for its prior results was
inaccurate, and that it would have to restate certain of its financial
statements. On this news, the Company's shares were halted.

On January 2, 2002, defendants admitted that the Company's revenue for
2001 had been overstated by as much as $95 million. The Company stated
that an internal investigation revealed that between $54 million and
$95 million of barter transactions during the first three quarters of
2001 were booked incorrectly as advertising transactions. The
restatement could amount to as much as 27 percent of the Company's
revenue during the first three quarters of 2001.

Finally, on February 13, 2002, the Company announced that it will
restate its previously-reported financial results for the year 2000.
The amended suit alleges that, as a result of these false and
misleading statements, the price of the Company's common stock was
artificially inflated throughout the class period, causing plaintiff
and other members of the class to suffer damages.

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


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Scott Scott Expands Class Period in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC expanded the class period in the securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of ImClone Systems
(Nasdaq: IMCL) of common stock during the period between June 28, 2001
and December 28, 2001, inclusive, to include purchasers from May 14,
2001 and January 9, 2002.

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 more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein by Phone:
800-404-7770 by E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com or
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com


INFONET SERVICES: 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 Infonet Services Corporation
(NYSE:IN) securities during the period between December 16, 1999 and
July 31, 2001, including those who purchased their shares pursuant to
the December 16, 1999 Initial Public Offering (IPO).

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
suit further asserts that from December 16, 1999 through July 31, 2001,
the Company saw its stock price soar from its IPO price of $21 per
share to as high as $32.93 per share as it misrepresented the true
status of its AT&T-Unisource Communications Services N.V. (AUCS)
business, concealing the fact that:

     (1) the Company would be required to migrate the customer before
         offering new services, which required, among other things,
         reconnecting each customer to a new platform, a time-
         consuming, complicated and expensive process;

     (2) the complexity of migration (from company "X" to Infonet)
         caused massive disruption to the Company's ability to "upsell"
         its new products; and

     (3) the Company's AUCS business required massive upgrades, both in
         its financial data and billing systems, preventing the Company
         from billing its customers on a monthly basis and delaying the
         recognition of material revenue for 1-2 years until the
         upgrades could be completed.

The individual defendants knew that disclosure of these problems with
its AUCS business would devastate the Company's chances of going public
which allowed it to raise $1.1 billion in its December 16, 1999 IPO.
The Company's top executives were determined to conceal the news of the
problems associated with its AUCS business.

As a result of the defendants' false statements/omissions, Company
stock traded at inflated levels during the class period, increasing to
as high as $32.93 on March 3, 2000.  The Company's shares began to fall
as defendants partially revealed the status of its AUCS business,
tumbling to $3.55 on August 1, 2001.

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


INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Contemplating Response To Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Interwave Communications, Inc. vows to vigorously defend itself against
the securities class action pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain
investment bank underwriters for its initial public offering (IPO), and
three of its officers.

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices by the underwriters
concerning the allocation of the Company's IPO shares, in violation of
the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's stock during the period from
January 28, 2000 through December 6, 2000.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations regarding the
IPOs of more than 300 other companies. All of these lawsuits have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92. The case and
coordinated cases have been stayed pursuant to the Court's order.

On December 27, 2001, the Company accepted service of the summons and
complaint on behalf of the Company and the named officer defendants and
informed plaintiffs' counsel that it would answer or move for dismissal
when the Court so orders.

Interwave believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims. However,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation and does
not expect it to be resolved in the near future. The Company also
warned that an adverse outcome could have a material adverse effect on
its financial position, business and results of operations.


JD EDWARDS: $15M Settlement Reached In Securities Act Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JD Edwards and Company will settle for $15 million a securities class
action alleging the Company's executives issued false and misleading
statements that artificially inflated its stock price, the Rocky
Mountain News reports.

The suit alleges the Company's officers hid problems with their core
product line, while engaging in "massive insider trading", selling huge
portions of their personally held common stock in the market.  Some
executives received as much as $49 a share within weeks of the stock's
nose-dive late that year.

The fairness hearing for the settlement is scheduled for next month. If
approved, the average distribution per share to eligible class members
is estimated at 88 cents, before plaintiff attorney fees and expenses.


JP MORGAN: Glancy Binkow Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP 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 JP Morgan Chase and Co.,
Inc. between November 28, 2001 and January 28, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company with violations of federal securities
laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendant's 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.

More specifically, on the first day of the class period, the Company
recklessly issued a public statement, which did not fully disclose its
risk and loss exposure related to its transactions and dealings with
the Enron Corporation, the company notorious for its financial
collapse. At the time, JP Morgan listed its total exposure in this
regard at approximately $900 million.

The Company later announced that, in fact, its total Enron related
exposure was actually about $2.6 billion, or almost three times the
earlier figure. Shortly thereafter, JP Morgan wrote down $1.13 billion
in non-performing assets, specifically related to losses generated by
its dealings with Enron.

For more information, 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.


IRVINE SENSORS: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond commenced a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Irvine Sensors Corporation
(Nasdaq:IRSN) securities between January 6, 2000 and September 15,
2001, inclusive, in the US District Court for the Central District of
California.

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.


IRVINE SENSORS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Irvine Sensors
Corporation (Nasdaq:IRSN) securities between January 6, 2000 through
and including September 15, 2001, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division, against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
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 Irvine Sensors'
securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Juniper Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq:JNPR) securities between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001,
inclusive, in the US District Court for the Northern District of
California.

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.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Consolidated Suit's Possible Affects Uncertain  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc. still faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the US District Court for New Jersey alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The consolidated suit arose from several suits filed in January 2000,
alleging that shareholders were injured by reason of certain
alleged false and misleading statements made by Lucent in violation of
the federal securities laws.  These suits were filed on behalf of the
Company's stockholders who bought stock between October 26, 1999 and
January 6, 2000.

Another three suits were commenced in November 2000 as a result of the
facts disclosed in the Company's announcement on November 21, 2000 that
it had identified a revenue recognition issue affecting its financial
results for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000.  The three suits were
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from October 10, 2000 (the date Lucent originally reported these
financial results) through November 21, 2000.  

These suits were later consolidated with the first class actions, and
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to include purported class
members who purchased Company stock up to November 21, 2000.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action, but
a class has not yet been certified in the consolidated actions.  The
Company stated that as the suit is in its early stages, an outcome
cannot yet be predicted.  As a result, there can be no assurance that
these cases will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


MPOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York
dismissed the class action pending against Mpower Holding Corporation,
(Nasdaq: MPWR) since September 2000 for federal securities violations.

The Court ruled that the complaint failed to allege that Mpower made
any material misstatements or omissions.  In addition, the Court did
not grant the plaintiffs the right to re-plead or re-file the
complaint.

"We are extremely pleased that for the second time in three months, the
courts have granted our motion to dismiss, and that both baseless
lawsuits brought against our company have been thrown out," said Rolla
P. Huff, Mpower Communications Chief Executive Officer.

The Company is the parent of Mpower Communications, a provider of
broadband high-speed Internet access and telephone services to business
customers.


NATIONAL GOLF: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired
National Golf Properties, Inc. (NYSE:TEE) securities between April 1,
1999 and November 14, 2001 (including all purchases in or pursuant to
the Company's May 17, 2001 secondary offering.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against National Golf and certain of its
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For further details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pivenlaw.com


NETSOLVE INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Suit For $2.75M in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Netsolve, Inc. reached a $ 2.75 million settlement for a consolidated
securities class action commenced in February 2001 against the Company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between April 18, 2000 and August 18, 2000, alleges that the defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme by issuing false and materially
misleading statements regarding the Company's business during the
class period.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint in March 2001 for failing to
state a claim under which relief could be granted and for failing to
comply with the pleading requirements of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 USC ss 78u-4 et seq.  On August 15,
2001, the court granted this motion in part and denied it in part.

The Court dismissed claims against one Netsolve officer and dismissed
certain of the theories under which plaintiffs alleged liability
against the Company. However, the court let stand certain of the stated
claims against the Company and certain of its officers.

In December 2001, the Company and individual defendants reached an
agreement, under which the plaintiff class will receive $2,750,000 in
connection with the settlement, all of which will be funded by the
Netsolve's insurance carrier.  The settlement is subject to the Court's
approval.  A hearing on the settlement has not yet been scheduled.


NETSOLVE INC.: Sued For Securities Act Violations in IPO in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Netsolve, Inc. faces a securities class action commenced in December
2001 against the Company, certain of its officers and underwriters of
its initial public offering in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, filed on behalf of the Company's common stock between
September 29, 1999 and December 6, 2000, alleges that the defendants
failed to properly disclose certain commissions, discounts and
purported tie-in arrangements related to Netsolve's initial public
offering. Plaintiff alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act against the Company, and plaintiff alleges claims
under Section 11 and 12 of Securities Act, and Section 10 (b) of the
Exchange Act, against the Company's underwriters.

This case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300
other cases alleging similar claims against other underwriters and
companies. In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC
92 (SAS). It is not feasible to predict or determine the final outcome
of this proceeding, and if the outcome were to be unfavorable, the
Company's business, finances, condition, cash flow and results of
operations could be materially adversely affected.


NETWORK ENGINES: NY Suit Could Harm Business Operations, Finances
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc. revealed that the securities class action pending
against it in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, might have a negative impact on its financial
position and operations.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between July 13, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Lawrence A. Genovesi, CEO, President, Chairman and Chief
          Technology Officer,

     (2) Douglas G. Bryant, CFO and director,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (5) Goldman, Sachs & Co.,

     (6) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney 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 a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
stated that it was unable to predict the effects of the suit on its
financial condition and business and cannot assure that the claim will
not result in substantial monetary damages in excess of its insurance
coverage.


SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP lodged a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Spectralink
Corporation (NASDAQ: SLNK) between July 19, 2001 and January 11, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company, and certain of its officers.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
the defendants made highly positive statements regarding the Company's
financial results. It represented that its growth was strong and that
it was increasing its market share and would continue to do so in the
future.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Company was suffering from
declining sales as its business began to be affected by negative market
forces. In addition, the Company was becoming increasingly reliant on
end-of-the-quarter sales to meet its sales forecasts.

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

At the time that the Company was being adversely affected by the
aforementioned factors, but prior to any disclosure to the market,
certain officers and senior executives sold more than $13.7 million
worth of their personally-held common stock to the unsuspecting public.

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


SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired SpectraLink Corporation
(Nasdaq:SLNK) securities between July 19, 2001 and January 11, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court in Colorado.

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 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.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Rabin Peckel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Tyco International, Ltd.
common stock (NYSE:TYC) between December 13, 1999 and February 4, 2002,
both dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company, Dennis
Kozlowski and Mark Swartz.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false
and misleading statements, and omissions of material fact during the
class period concerning the Company's financial statements as a result
of improper accounting.

In particular, it is alleged that the Company failed to disclose that
it had acquired over 700 companies since 1999, totaling approximately
$8 billion. It is also alleged that the Company failed to disclose the
impact of new accounting rules, and classifying nearly all of its
acquisition costs as goodwill.

Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz returned over $100 million in stock to the
Company to cover up their stock activity. The Company also paid another
director $20 million for his part in its recent acquisition of CIT
Group, Inc.

Further, as a result of these false and misleading statements the price
of the Company's common stock was artificially inflated throughout the
class period causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to
suffer damages.

For further details, contact Eric Belfi or Maurice Pesso by Phone:
800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.rabinlaw.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  * * *