CAR_Public/020307.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Thursday, March 7, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 47

                            Headlines

ALLERGAN INC.: Antitrust Suit To Have No Adverse Effect on Financials
BANK OF BERMUDA: Victims of Illegal Ponzi Scheme File Suit in Florida
CONTRACEPTIVES LITIGATION: British Women Sue For Pills' Side Effects
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Exec Says No Way of Removing IE From Windows
MURRAY INC.: Voluntarily Recalls Lawn Mowers For Fire, Burn Hazard

OLYMPUS AMERICA: Hospital Probes Effectiveness of Bronchoscope Recall
TEAM HEALTH: Lawyer Mulls Suit Over Fraudulent ER Billing Practices
TRW VEHICLE: Settles Suit Over Air Bag Plant Operations in Arizona
VERIZON DIRECTORY: Directory Suit Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled

                           Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Federman Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in NY
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in VA
ALLIED IRISH: Sued For Failing To Disclose $691M Loss in S.D. NY
AT HOME: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. NY Securities Suits

CORNING INC.: NY Court Yet To Decide on Motion For Dismissal of Suit
CORNING INC.: To Vigorously Defend V. Multiple Securities Suits in NY
CORNING INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. NY
CSX CORPORATION: Tank Car Fire Suit Settlement Hearing Set For April
ENRON CORPORATION: Japanese Investment Firm To Join US Securities Suit

EUROWEB INTERNATIONAL: Offer Price, Disclosure Issues Spark Merger Suit
FUND ASSET: Federal Court Dismisses Fraud Suit, Plaintiffs Appeal
GLOBAL CROSSING: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
JP MORGAN: Faces Shareholder Suits Due To Relationship With Enron
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Federal Suit, Derivative Suit Still Pending

PINNACLE SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice
PREPAID LEGAL: OK Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in E.D. TX
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Believes Consolidated Securities Suit Likely
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in NY

TRANSITIONAL HOSPITALS: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal
                              
                            *********


ALLERGAN INC.: Antitrust Suit To Have No Adverse Effect on Financials
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan, Inc. was named as one of the defendants in a class action
commenced by advocacy group Citizens for Consumer Justice in December
2001, in the United States District Court in Massachusetts, against 29
pharmaceutical companies, for alleged antitrust violations.

The suit contends that the defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust
Act, as well as the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization
(RICO) Act, by manipulating the average wholesale price of
pharmaceuticals, selling drugs to healthcare providers at a price
substantially less than the price healthcare providers charged Medicare
beneficiaries and encouraging healthcare providers to claim Medicare
reimbursement for free samples.

The Company believes that the ultimate outcome of the litigation will
not have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position and results of operations. However, in view of the
unpredictable nature of such matters, it cannot give any assurances in
this regard.


BANK OF BERMUDA: Victims of Illegal Ponzi Scheme File Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Victims of a Ponzi scheme filed a million dollar class action in Miami
Federal Court against the Bank of Bermuda and other defendants who
opted out of a $67.5 million court settlement last year, the Royal
Gazette reports.

The 40 plaintiffs are victims of the Cash 4 Titles Ponzi scheme
engineered by businessman Michael Gause and partner Charles Horna, who
raised funds from investors in the mid 1990s to October 1999 by
offering returns of between two and five percent per month or 24 to 60
percent annually.  Cash 4 Titles was allowed to charge its US customers
loan interests of up to 25 percent a month. This fact made investors in
the scheme believe that the returns touted were achievable, however,
instead of using the money raised to fund the high interest short-term
loans, as they purported, Mr. Gause and Mr. Horna were charged with
using the money for themselves.

Mr. Gause was indicted in October 1999 on conspiracy, securities fraud
and international money laundering. He pled guilty to the offences in
April 2001, the Royal Gazette reports.

The suit alleges claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act in the US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and names as defendants:

     (1) the Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd.,

     (2) Richard Homa,

     (3) Michael Gause and

     (4) unidentified "fictitious parties" which includes any parties
         that handled monies in the case

According to Inside Bermuda, receiver Phillip Stenger that 2,200 people
had made claims totaling $165 million and he told the newsletter, which
is published out of Miami, that the total number of victims could be as
high as 3,000.


CONTRACEPTIVES LITIGATION: British Women Sue For Pills' Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Three pharmaceutical giants face a class action filed on behalf of 100
women in Britain's High Court, over the so-called "third-generation"
contraceptive pills Femodene, Minulet, Marvelon and Mercilon, claiming
the companies neglected to warn them of the pills' side effects, New
Zealand News reports. The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Wyeth, subsidiary of American Home Products,

     (2) Organon, of the Dutch group Akzo Nobel, and

     (3) Schering AG.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs Lord Brennan told the high court, that more
than seven had died and others suffered injuries ranging from blood
clots to strokes.  He said "Some are moderately injured, but several of
the victims have disastrous injuries which will permanently
incapacitate them throughout their lives."

The suit claims that the Companies failed to protect the plaintiffs,
women who ranged from their teens to their 30s, from the pills' side
effects, and that doctors and users were not warned about the increased
risks of the since they were introduced in the 1980s.

"Oral contraceptives have been in use since the early 1960s and
throughout their history they have been associated with a risk of
thrombosis (clotting)," Brennan said, according to New Zealand News.  
He said the third-generation products carried an increased risk over
the earlier pills, which the women should have been warned about.  
"There was no such warning and the claimants suffered," he added.

Wyeth earlier denied the charges, saying that using its latest oral
contraceptive carried a higher risk of developing potentially dangerous
blood clots, but the risk was small and well known.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Exec Says No Way of Removing IE From Windows
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation's Vice President and Windows Chief Jim Allchin
stated it was not possible for the Company to remove the Internet
Explorer Web browser out of Windows, in the ongoing hearings for the
settlement of the US Department of Justice's antitrust suit against the
software giant.

Last year, the Company reached an agreement with the Justice Department
and nine states to settle the suit charging it with anti-competitive
practices with regard to the distribution of its Windows software.  
However, nine other states have rejected the settlement, saying it was
not "harsh" enough to punish the Company and that the Company might
even use the package to its advantages.  

The dissenting states have proposed several changes in the settlement,
one of which seeks to force the Company to offer a version of Windows
without the browser and other added features.  That would allow
computer makers to install competitors' products, if they chose,
without taking on the added cost of supporting both products.

In a videotaped deposition, Mr. Allchin said the Company had "no way"
to remove the browser from its flagship operating system, Associated
Press reports.  Company CEO Steve Ballmer also said the Company would
be forced to offer an infinite number of Windows versions under the
states' demands, all with or without extra features.  He added that if
the states prevail with their demands, the decision would serve the
interests of neither computer manufacturers nor users.

Earlier, the Company had proposed a number of revisions to the
settlement to mollify the dissenting states, but the states were not
impressed, calling the revisions "cosmetic".  Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly will decide whether to endorse the settlement this month.


MURRAY INC.: Voluntarily Recalls Lawn Mowers For Fire, Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission, (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 89,500 rear-engine,
riding lawn mowers and about 6,200 mid-engine, riding mowers.  The fuel
tank can crack and leak fuel, posing a burn or fire hazard to
consumers.  The Company has received 950 reports of fuel tanks leaking.
These leaks resulted in six reports of fires including one report of
minor burns.

The recalled riding lawn mowers have 30" cutting decks, and were sold
under Murray, Murray Select, Craftsman and Wizard brand names.  The
brand name is printed on the front or side of the mowers. Model numbers
can be found under the seat or on a nameplate on the rear of the mower.
Models included in this recall include: 30560, 30560x5, 30560x60,
30560x99, 30565, 30575x7, 30575x8, 30575x31, 30577x7, 30577x8,
30577x31, 502.251250, 502.256210, 502.256220, 502.270210, 502.270211,
536.270212, MOM6115A59 and MOM6115A89

Department and hardware stores, including Sears, Western Auto and Home
Depot, sold the riding mowers nationwide from January 1995 through
January 2002 for between $700 and $1,200. The recalled mid-engine
riding mowers have 30" cutting decks and the brand names "Murray" and
"Yard King" printed on the front. A nameplate under the seat of the
mower displays the model number. Models involved in this recall are
309005X10, 309304X8 and 309306X89.

Department and hardware stores including Home Depot and Western Auto,
sold the mid-engine mowers nationwide from February 2001 through
January 2002 for between $800 and $950.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-246-5896
between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.murray.com.


OLYMPUS AMERICA: Hospital Probes Effectiveness of Bronchoscope Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Johns Hopkins Hospital questioned the effectiveness of a recall of a
defective bronchoscope manufactured by Olympus America, after two
critically ill patients died of pneumonia following the device's use in
their care.

The Company initiated a recall last November 30 on the bronchoscope,
which is a camera-equipped tube passed through the nose or mouth and
into the lungs to let doctors see inside the lungs and take biopsies
and samples of secretions.  The recall was instituted because a loose
valve-like part was trapping bacteria in a spot that the usual
disinfecting process could not reach, Reuters reports.

In a statement, the Company said it had "initiated an immediate and
vigorous investigation resulting in a prompt recall" and sent notices
to more than 2,000 healthcare institutions.  It further said more than
90% of the notices were confirmed as received, but less than 40% of the
bronchoscopes were returned to the Company.

Hopkins officials said they were not aware that the device had been
recalled, and as a result, said that more than 400 patients may have
been exposed to bacteria that can cause a dangerous lung infection, the
New York Times reports.  However, they said they did not know whether
the device was the cause of the two patients' deaths.

The officials told the Times that the Company's recall procedures were
inadequate and had left other hospitals unaware of the danger to
patients.  The US Food and Drug Administration is currently
investigating whether the recall was properly carried out.


TEAM HEALTH: Lawyer Mulls Suit Over Fraudulent ER Billing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Team Health and parent company, ACS Primary Care Physicians Southwest,
faces a potential class action over its allegedly fraudulent emergency
billing procedures, Odessa American Online reports.

Lawyer Kent Buckingham, of Midland Buckingham Law, is commencing the
suit against the Company, which bills Medical Center Hospital (MCH)
emergency room patients for ER doctors' services, after reading a
Sunday Odessa American article, which detailed the claims of Dr.
Edgardo Valle, a 14-year veteran of MCH's emergency room.

In the article, Dr. Valle revealed that some emergency room doctors
engaged in a complex process of over-billing for a variety of
procedures including some that were never actually performed.  These
practice of "over-billing" or "upcoding" amounts to fraud, Dr. Valle
told Odessa American.  Mr. Buckingham said, "When I read the article I
realized how widespread this alleged fraudulent billing really is."  He
said he believes the Company created financial incentives for doctors
to over-bill patients.

The spokeswoman for MCH, Renee Earls, told OA Online that hospital
administrators are not aware of any possible lawsuit.  Because no
lawsuit has been filed, she cannot comment.


TRW VEHICLE: Settles Suit Over Air Bag Plant Operations in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. settled a class action initially filed
in Maricopa County Superior Court in the State of Arizona, on behalf of
everyone living within a five-mile radius of the Company's air bag
manufacturing plant in Mesa, Arizona.

The suit alleged that emissions from the plant injured residents,
plants and animals near the plant and that the Company concealed
information about the potential health risks of its emissions.  The
suit seeks to to require the Company to:

     (1) institute medical monitoring for the claimants;

     (2) conduct various studies;

     (3) cease operations that release toxic substances into the air;
         and

     (4) create a supervised fund to pay for medical screening and
         monitoring

The Company believed there was no valid scientific basis for these
claims.  The Company later removed the case to federal court and the
plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

On September 24, 2001, the Company and the individual plaintiffs
entered into an agreement to settle and dismiss the action. Following
public notice and an opportunity for class members to object, the court
approved the agreement, and the case was dismissed on January 2, 2002.

Pursuant to the agreement, the individual plaintiffs' claims were
dismissed with prejudice, the claims brought on behalf of the putative
class were dismissed without prejudice, and the Company paid each of
the six named plaintiffs $7,500 and reimbursed plaintiffs' counsel for
approximately $104,000 in expenses.


VERIZON DIRECTORY: Directory Suit Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lancaster County State Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement in the class action against Verizon Directory Services Inc.
(formerly Bell Atlantic Directory Services Inc.) filed by Certified
Carpet Service, Inc. in 1998. The suit was filed on behalf of itself
and all other advertisers in Bell Atlantic's 1998-99 Lancaster County
telephone directory, because of a change that the Company made in that
directory.

Up until the 1998-99 directory was produced, Bell Atlantic had
traditionally included all Lancaster County listings in the white pages
of its directory, even for communities served by "local" (non-Bell)
telephone companies.  In the 1998-99 directory, however, the Company
eliminated the white page listings of certain communities served by
"local" telephone companies, without telling those who purchased
advertising in the directory that this change was going to happen. The
reduction cut the white page listings by approximately 30%.  The change
lasted for only one year.  The Company, now Verizon, voluntarily
returned to including the listings of all local telephone companies in
its 1999-2000 directory and all directories since.

The proposed settlement would cover all persons and entities
(consisting of current advertisers and former advertisers) who
purchased advertising in the 1998-99 Bell Atlantic Lancaster Yellow
Pages or the 1998-99 Bell Atlantic Lancaster White Pages, and who have
paid all invoices for advertising in any Verizon directory.  The
settlement calls for a credit to be given to class members who
advertise in the next Verizon directory published after final approval
of the settlement, and a cash payment to those class members who do not
advertise in the next directory.

The credit for those who advertise will be 15% of the price of the
advertisement purchased in the next directory. The cash payment will be
12% of the amount that the class member paid for advertising in the
1998-99 directory.

A final hearing on whether to approve the proposed settlement will be
held by Judge Perezous on July 10, 2002.  The settlement will end all
claims against Bell or Verizon related to the 1998-99 directory for all
class members who participate in the settlement.

For more details, contact Joseph F. Roda by Phone:
717-892-3000, ext. 222 or by E-mail:  jroda@rodanast.com

                            Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Federman Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman and Sherwood initiated 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 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 and Exchange Act of 1934 the "Exchange Act"), 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 William B. Federman by Mail: 120 North
Robinson Avenue, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102 by Phone:
405-235-1560 by Fax: 405-239-2112 or by E-mail: wfederman@aol.com.


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Advanced Switching Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq: ASCX) and five of its
principal officers and/or directors and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from October 4, 2000 through February 12, 2002.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading
registration statement and prospectus in connection with the Company's
October 4, 2000 initial public offering (IPO), of 6,250,000 shares of
common stock at $15 per share.

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

On October 4, 2000, the Company completed its IPO pursuant to a
prospectus in which it represented that it had signed a $24 million
contract with Qwest Communications, Inc., that its A-4000 product was
being shipped and that its A-4500 product would be available in 2001.

As alleged in the complaint, at the time of the IPO, the prospectus
concealed the material facts that the Company's largest customer was
having significant problems with its products, another significant
customer had informed the Company it had an excess of inventory and the
agreement with Qwest was contingent on the Company complying with terms
it could not complete. Moreover, since the Company had not even started
on the A-4500, it was impossible that the A-4500 would be available in
2001.

Following the IPO, defendants misrepresented that customers were
deploying the A-4000, which, as alleged in the complaint, did not
occur, and that the Company offered DS-O to OC-192 capability which, in
fact, it had not been able to offer.

On February 5, 2002, the Company announced that its board had adopted a
plan of liquidation. As alleged in the complaint, this plan of
allocation amounted to an admission that the Company had been a
complete failure as a public company because the A-4500 had not been
made available in 2001 and the Qwest contract had failed due to its
inability to meet the terms.

Finally, on February 12, 2002, the Company announced that a major
customer had asked revoked acceptance of equipment previously purchased
and had asked for a $17 million refund due to a failure of the
equipment to meet functionality requirements.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Barbara A. Podell or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.com


ALLIED IRISH: Sued For Failing To Disclose $691M Loss in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Irish Banks PLC (ALBK) faces a securities class action filed in
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York by
Washington law firm Finkelstein, Thompson and Loughran, alleging that
the Company failed to disclose at least $691 million in currency
trading losses associated with its subsidiary All First Financial, Inc.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's American
Depositary Receipts between January 1,2001 and February 6,2002, was
commenced when the Company's shares plunged to US$12.95.  The stock
plunged after the Company announced that John Rusnak, a trader at the
AllFirst unit in Baltimore, had concealed massive losses from foreign
exchange trading and that it had halted all currency trading at the
subsidiary, according to a iWon report.

ALBK has since admitted that its 2001 financial reports alone
overstated net income by as much as $449 million, according to the law
firm.


AT HOME: Lovell Stewart Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP filed a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of At Home Corp., d/b/a Excite@Home (formerly
NasdaqNM:ATHM) between April 17, 2001 and August 28, 2001, inclusive,
in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder.  The suit alleges that AT&T Corp.(NYSE:T) and certain
current and former officers and directors of Excite@Home violated the
federal securities laws by making misstatements regarding, and by
failing to disclose adverse material facts regarding, Excite@Home's
business and financial condition during the class period and also by
virtue of their status as control persons of Excite@Home.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
that Excite@Home was burning through its cash at a substantially higher
rate than indicated in its filings with the SEC and in other public
statements and that the Company had obtained $100 million worth of
convertible note financing in June 2001 based on alleged
misrepresentations that subjected the company to the threat of
immediate claims that could put it into bankruptcy.

The suit further alleges that defendants affirmatively misrepresented
the amount of cash that the Company would need to finance its ongoing
operations for the calendar year 2001 by falsely stating in April 2001
that an additional $85 million in financing would be sufficient to meet
Excite@Home's needs for cash during 2001. Despite obtaining a total of
$185 million in new financing, the complaint alleges, on September 29,
2001, the Company announced that it would seek bankruptcy protection,
and on October 23, 2001, its share price hit a 52-week low of four
cents per share.

Also, the complaint alleges that defendant AT&T Corporation, which at
all relevant times held a 74% voting interest in Excite@Home, is liable
for the foregoing under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on its status as a control person of Excite@Home.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher J. Gray
by Phone: 212-608-1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.lovellstewart.com


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. NY Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Associates International, Inc. labels "without merit" several
securities class actions pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and three of
its executive officers, two of whom are directors.  

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company made untrue
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.  

The named individual plaintiff stockholder seeks to represent a class
consisting of holders of CA's common stock, call options or put
options, although class action status has not yet been certified in
this litigation.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this suit.


CORNING INC.: NY Court Yet To Decide on Motion For Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on Corning, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, asking
the court to dismiss a securities class action filed against it and
certain individual defendants by purchasers of the Company's stock who
allege misrepresentations and omissions of material facts relative to
the silicone gel breast implant business conducted by Dow Corning.

The class consists of those purchasers of Corning stock in the period
from June 14, 1989, to January 13, 1992, who allegedly purchased at
inflated prices due to the non-disclosure or concealment of material
information and were damaged when the Company's stock price declined in
January 1992 after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested a
moratorium on Dow Corning's sale of silicone gel implants.

In 1997, the Court dismissed the individual defendants from the case.
In December 1998, the Company filed the motion for summary judgment,
but the plaintiffs in the suit requested the opportunity to take
depositions before responding to the motion for summary judgment.  

The discovery process is continuing and the Court has set no schedule
to address the still pending summary judgment motion.  The Company
intends to continue to defend this action vigorously.  

Based upon the information developed to date and recognizing that the
outcome of litigation is uncertain, management believes that the
likelihood of a materially adverse verdict is remote.


CORNING INC.: To Vigorously Defend V. Multiple Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Corning, Inc. believes it has strong defenses to several class actions
commenced since December 2001 in the US District Court for the Western
District of New York, alleging violations of the US securities laws in
connection with its November 2000 offering of $2.7 billion zero coupon
convertible debentures, due November 2015 and 30 million shares of
common stock.  

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Company is prepared to defend these lawsuits vigorously.


CORNING INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Corning, Inc.
(NYSE:GLW) from September 27, 2000 through July 10, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint asserts claims
against the Company and officers Roger G. Ackerman, Katherine A. Asbeck
and James B. Flaws for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


CSX CORPORATION: Tank Car Fire Suit Settlement Hearing Set For April
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A Louisiana trial court has set for April 2, 2002 the fairness hearing
for the proposed $220 million settlement of the class action filed by
8,000 Louisiana residents against CSX Corporation, and eight other
Companies after a 36-hour fire broke out following a chemical tank car
explosion in 1987.  The fire, which started when the chemical butadiene
leaked from a rail car, allegedly affected their health and property.

In November 2001, the Company announced that it had reached a proposed
settlement of the litigation, subject to a fairness hearing and court
approval. The amount to be paid by CSXT under the proposed settlement
is $220 million to resolve all claims arising out of the 1987 fire and
evacuation.

A preliminary settlement agreement between the Company and the
plaintiffs' Management Committee, on behalf of the plaintiff case, was
preliminarily approved by the trial court and publicly filed.  The
Company incurred a charge of $60 million before tax, $37 million after
tax, 17 cents a share in the fourth quarter of 2001 to account for the
expense of the settlement, net of insurance recoveries.

The Company expects the settlement will be approved shortly after that
hearing. The Louisiana Supreme Court has ordered that proceedings
before it be deferred in light of the proposed settlement.

If the proposed settlement is not approved and the litigation
continues, the Company intends to maintain an aggressive legal
strategy, including the pursuit of the proceedings in the Louisiana
Supreme Court and, if necessary, proceedings before the United States
Supreme Court.


ENRON CORPORATION: Japanese Investment Firm To Join US Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikko Asset Management of Japan is joining a US class action against
Enron Corporation and auditing firm Arthur Andersen, after the value of
its shares plunged 49% to 587 yen from its May 2001 high.

The unexpected collapse of the giant energy trader, regarded as the
nation's biggest Chapter 11 bankruptcy, greatly affected the Japanese
stock market by triggering massive cancellations in domestic money
management funds, or MMFs, which have long been considered a safe
alternative to bank deposits.  Associated Press reports that the value
of Japan's total outstanding MMFs was slashed to to 6.8 trillion yen
($51.48 billion) at end-February, under seven trillion yen for the
first time since March 1993.

Additionally, clients have lost confidence in NAM due to the rush of
pullouts from the MMF.  This has affected the firm's brokerage's
strategy of broadening its client base to ensure stable earnings from
its retail operations.

Enron and Arthur Andersen faces multiple securities suits in Texas
federal court, alleging federal securities act violations due to
misleading financial statements and alleged accounting irregularities.  

The Nihon Keizai Shimbun also reported that three other asset
management firms would also join the suit.  It said it would be the
first time Japanese investment trust companies have sought damages from
an issuer of debt securities in their debt portfolios after it had
defaulted on its obligations.


EUROWEB INTERNATIONAL: Offer Price, Disclosure Issues Spark Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Euroweb International Corporation faces a class action filed by Suan
Investments, Inc. in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to its
acquisition by Everest Acquisition Corporation, on behalf of its
shareholders.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Everest Acquisition Corporation,

     (2) Pansource B.V., parent company of Everest, and

     (3) Kroninklijke KPN N.V., of which Everest is an indirect wholly-
         owned subsidiary

The suit generally alleges that the offer price is inadequate and that
the defendants did not make full and candid disclosure in the tender
offer statement.  As a result, the offer was made in breach of
fiduciary duties. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover
unspecified damages and costs and to enjoin or rescind the transactions
contemplated by the offer to Purchase.

The Company vows to vigorously defend against the suit, as it believes
it is entirely without merit.


FUND ASSET: Federal Court Dismisses Fraud Suit, Plaintiffs Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the
class action charging Fund Asset Management, LP (FAM) with issuing
misleading financial reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, relating to several bond funds where it serves as
investment adviser.

The suit was originally commenced in June 1996, in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming among the
defendants seven of the leveraged closed-end municipal bond funds which
FAM serves as the investment adviser - including MuniEnhanced Fund
Inc., MuniYield Fund, MuniYield Quality Fund, Inc. and MuniYield
Quality Fund II.  In addition to the named defendants, the suit also
asserted a defendant class consisting of all other publicly traded,
closed-end investment companies for which FAM serves as investment
adviser and which, among other things, have issued auction market
preferred shares (AMPS). The suit was filed on behalf of a class
consisting of all holders of the common stock of the subject funds.

The suit alleged that the registration statements, annual reports and
other documents filed by the funds with the SEC were misleading because
they allegedly failed to disclose that proceeds arising from the
issuance of AMPS would be included in a fund's net assets for the
purposes of calculating the investment advisory fee payable to FAM.

In addition, plaintiffs alleged that a conflict of interest existed
because it would always be in the defendants' interest to keep the
funds fully leveraged to maximize the advisory fees and collateral
compensation notwithstanding adverse market conditions. Plaintiffs also
alleged an additional conflict of interest arising from the receipt by
such affiliates of underwriting discounts, or other revenues in
connection with the sale of the AMPS by the funds. The suit asserted
claims under Sections 8(e), 34(b), 36(a) and 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act and the common law.

The case was transferred on defendants' motion to New Jersey Federal
Court.  In September 1997, defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the
ground that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. In February 1998, the Court granted defendants'
motion in substantial part and dismissed the claims under Sections
8(e), 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment Company Act with prejudice, but
declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 36(b) and state
law.

In February 1999, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' state law
claims for breach of fiduciary duty and deceit on the ground that they
are preempted by Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act.  The
Court granted the motion in June, 1999, and dismissed plaintiffs' state
law claims. At the same time, the Court granted plaintiffs permission
to immediately file an interlocutory appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In March 2001, the Appeals Court
reversed the lower Court's decision and reinstated plaintiffs' state
law claims.

On February 5, 2001, while plaintiffs' appeal was still pending,
defendants moved in the District Court for summary judgment as to
plaintiffs' remaining federal claim under Section 36(b). On March 16,
2001, plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability.
In June 2001, the district court granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and
dismissed the case in its entirety. In doing so, the Court refused to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining (and
recently reinstated) state law claims.

The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the
District Court's decision before the US Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal is scheduled for March 5, 2002.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are still without
merit and intend to continue to defend the action vigorously.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Global Crossing Ltd. (OTC Bulletin
Board: GBLXQ) between February 14, 1999 and October 4, 2001 in the US
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 between February 14, 1999 and October 4, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company common stock.

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

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

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

     (3) its managed network outsourcing services were declining;

     (4) the company was operating at levels well below company-
         sponsored expectations, such that revenue projections were
         overstated and costs and expenses were understated;

     (5) individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
         personally held common stock generating more than $1.5 billion
         in proceeds; and

     (6) the Company raised over $7 billion in debt and equity
         offerings.

The Company issued announcements on October 4, 2001 overstating cash
revenues and expected recurring adjusted EBITDA to be "less than $100
million," compared to forecasts of $400 million.

As a result, Company shares plummeted to $1.07 per share, a decline of
49%.

For more information, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: 405-235-1560 by
Fax: 405-239-2112 or by E-mail: wfederman@aol.com


JP MORGAN: Faces Shareholder Suits Due To Relationship With Enron
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase, Inc. labeled "without merit" several class action
suits pending against them in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging federal securities violations due to the
Company's relationship with fallen energy trader Enron Corporation.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between November 28, 2001 and January 28, 2002, inclusive, and alleges
that the Company's material omissions and the dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements caused its 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
Enron Corporation, the company notorious for its financial collapse.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that it intends to defend these actions vigorously. However,
the Company is unable to give any assurance as to the outcome of any of
these suits.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Settles Federal Suit, Derivative Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. agreed to settle for $3 million a class action
pending in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
charging it, its predecessor Vencor, Inc., and certain of their
officers and directors of federal securities laws violations.

The suit was commenced by a stockholder of Vencor, Inc., alleging that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, by issuing to the investing public a series of
false and misleading statements concerning Vencor's then current
operations and the inherent value of its common stock.

The suit further alleges that as a result of these purported false and
misleading statements concerning Vencor's revenues and successful
acquisitions, the price of the common stock was artificially inflated.
In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued false
and misleading financial statements during the first, second and third
calendar quarters of 1997 which misrepresented and understated the
impact that changes in Medicare reimbursement policies would have on
Vencor's core services and profitability.

The suit further alleges that the defendants issued a series of
materially false statements concerning the purportedly successful
integration of Vencor's acquisitions and prospective earnings per share
for 1997 and 1998 which the defendants knew lacked any reasonable basis
and were not being achieved.

In December 1998, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.
The Court converted the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment and granted summary judgment as to all defendants. The
plaintiff appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit. On April 24, 2000, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the action on the grounds that the
plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On July 14, 2000, the Sixth Circuit granted the plaintiff's petition
for a rehearing en banc. On May 31, 2001, the Sixth Circuit issued its
en banc decision reversing the trial Court's dismissal of the
complaint. The defendants filed a petition for certiorari seeking
review of the appeals court's decision in the United States Supreme
Court on September 27, 2001.

In December 2001, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement
of settlement, which is subject to approval by the Federal District
Court.

However, a shareholder derivative suit is still pending in the
Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court, on behalf of the Company and
Vencor, Inc. against certain current and former executive officers and
directors of both Companies.  The suit alleges that the defendants
damaged the two Companies by engaging in:

     (1) violations of the securities laws,

     (2) insider trading,

     (3) securities fraud and

     (4) damaging both companies' reputation

The suit asserts that such actions were taken deliberately, in bad
faith and constitute breaches of the defendants' duties of loyalty and
due care. The complaint is based on substantially similar assertions to
those made in the federal suit.

The Company intends to defend against this suit vigorously, as it
believes that the complaint's allegations are without merit.


PINNACLE SYSTEMS: CA Court Dismisses Securities Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed
without prejudice a consolidated securities class action against
Pinnacle Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock during April 18,2000 to
July 10,2000.

The suit arose from several class actions commenced in July 2000,
alleging that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements concerning our business during
the class period, and seeks unspecified damages.

In October 2000, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit, which the
Court granted in May 2001.  The Court, however, permitted the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, which the plaintiffs did in
June 2001. Defendants thereafter moved to dismiss that complaint. In a
written order dated January 25, 2002, the Court dismissed the second
amended complaint and granted plaintiffs 45 days within which to file a
third amended complaint.

The Company is defending the case vigorously.  The Company does not
discount the possibility that additional similar litigation could be
brought against them in the future, which could result in substantial
costs and would likely divert management's attention and resources. Any
adverse determination in such litigation could also subject the Company
to significant liabilities.


PREPAID LEGAL: OK Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed
without prejudice a consolidated securities class action against Pre-
Paid Legal Services Inc. (NYSE:PPD) and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit arose from multiple securities suits commenced in December
2000, seeking unspecified damages on the basis of allegations that the
Company issued false and misleading financial information, primarily
related to the method the Company used to account for commission
advance receivables from sales associates.  

"While the case is not over due to the plaintiff's right to potentially
file an appeal, this is nevertheless a significant victory for Pre-Paid
Legal Services," Company Chairman and Chief Executive Harland
Stonecipher told Reuters.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in E.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired Rent-A-Center, Inc. (NASDAQ:
RCII) securities between April 25, 2001 and October 8, 2001, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division against the Company and:

     (1) J. Ernest Talley, Chairman and CEO until October 8, 2001,

     (2) Mitchell E. Fadel, (President and Director,

     (3) Robert D. Davis, CFO and Treasurer and

     (4) Mark E. Speese, Director until October 8, 2001, thereafter
         Chairman and CEO

The suit charges 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between April 25, 2001 and October 8, 2001.

On April 25, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing record
results for the first quarter of 2001 and highlighting its resilience
in a weakening economy. The representations in the press release were,
according to the allegations of the complaint, materially false and
misleading because the Company did not disclose that its expenses were
rising dramatically as it attempted to combat weakening demand with
deep discounts and promotions.

While in possession of this adverse non-public information, the Company
completed a secondary offering of 3,200,000 shares of its common stock
at $42.50 per share, on May 25, 2001.

Mr. Talley sold 1,700,000 shares in the secondary offering, grossing
over $72 million, and Mr. Speese sold 500,000 shares, grossing over $21
million. Then, on May 31, 2001, Mr. Talley sold an additional 1,955,000
shares of stock at $40.38 per share, grossing over $78 million.

Subsequently, on October 8, 2001, only five months after the secondary
offering, the Company issued a press release announcing that earnings
for the third and fourth quarter of 2001 would be significantly less
than its previous guidance to the market, due to rising expenses.

In response to this announcement, the Company's stock price dropped by
19% in one day on heavy trading volume.

For further details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: at RCII@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com  


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Believes Consolidated Securities Suit Likely
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Networks, Inc. faces several class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and several of its officers and directors and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering on October 21,
1999. Some of the complaints also include the underwriters for the
Company's follow-on offering on March 14, 2000.

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during specified periods, all beginning on October 21 or October
22, 1999 and ending on various dates, the latest of which is August 10,
2001.

The complaints are similar and allege violations of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, primarily based on the assertion that the defendants made
material false and misleading statements in the Company's prospectus
incorporated in its registration statements on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC in October 1999 and March 2000 because
of the failure to disclose:

     (1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
         undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with
         the allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors
         in the Company's public offerings and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered into
         agreements with investors whereby underwriters agreed to
         allocate the public offering shares in exchange for which the
         investors agreed to make additional purchases of stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The suits allege claims against the Company, several of the Company's
officers and directors and the underwriters under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act. The complaints also allege claims solely against
the underwriter defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
and some of the complaints allege claims against the Company and the
individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

The complaints against the Company have been consolidated into a single
action. Because the action against the Company is being coordinated
with over three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against
other companies, it is not yet clear when or whether a consolidated
complaint will be filed against the Company.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
intends to defend against the complaints vigorously. The Company is not
currently able to estimate the possibility of loss or range of loss, if
any, relating to these claims.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL) between October 19, 2000 and February 13,
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 defendants engaged in the
following conduct, which had the effect of increasing the Company's
reported revenue and profits:

     (1) the Company booked as profit in the third quarter 2000 a one-
         time royalty payment in excess of $10 million, enabling the
         Company to make its third quarter projections;

     (2) the Company used expenses associated with its acquisition of
         Telxon to mask the fact that its sales were declining; and

     (3) the Company booked as having shipped in the first quarter of
         2001 more than $40 million in inventory that included side
         provisions allowing customers to delay payments or return
         merchandise, or included products that "never left the
         warehouse."

The Company subsequently had a second-quarter 2001 inventory write-down
of $67.1 million after tax.

On February 13, 2002, Newsday, Inc. reported that the Company had
engaged in these accounting practices, received an inquiry letter from
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and had hired accounting and
consulting firm KPMG to review its sales process. The next day, the
Company announced it was lowering its outlook for 2002 earnings and
that its Chief Executive Officer would retire in May 2002.

In response to the Newsday article and the Company's announcements, the
price of SBL stock plunged more than 53% from an opening price of
$14.15 on February 14, 2002 to a low of $6.60 on February 15, 2002 on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, 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 SBL.


TRANSITIONAL HOSPITALS: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower
court's decision dismissing the class action against Transitional
Hospitals Corporation, on behalf of all persons who sold the Company's
common stock from February 26, 1997 through May 4, 1997, inclusive

The suit, which was commenced in June 1997 in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, alleged that the Company
purchased shares of its common stock from members of the investing
public after it had received a written offer to acquire all of its
common stock and without making the required disclosure that such an
offer had been made.

The suit further alleged that defendants disclosed that there were
"expressions of interest" in acquiring the Company when, in fact, at
that time, the negotiations had reached an advanced stage with actual
firm offers, at substantial premiums to the trading price of its stock
having been made, which were actively being considered by its Board of
Directors.

The complaint asserted claims pursuant to Sections 10(b), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law principles
of negligent misrepresentation, and named as defendants the Company as
well as certain of its former senior executives and directors.

In June 1998, the Court dismissed with leave to amend the Section 10(b)
claim and the state law claims for misrepresentation, but refused to
dismiss the Section 14(e) and Section 20(a) claims, after which the
Company filed a motion for reconsideration.

In March 1999, the Court granted the motion to dismiss all remaining
claims, dismissing the case entirely.  The plaintiff appealed this
ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On
February 7, 2002, the Appeals Court affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the case.

                               *********


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  * * *