CAR_Public/020308.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Friday, March 8, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 48

                           Headlines

ANSETT AIRLINES: Australian Union Considers Suit V. Tesna Consortium
AUTOZONE INC.: Overtime Pay Suits in California Ongoing
AXA LIFE: Faces Insurance Suit For Victims of 1915 Armenian Genocide
CIGNA CORPORATION: Medical Group Pledges Support To Insurance Suit
CLARK COUNTY: Nursing Home Settles Wrongful Death Suit For $625,000

FOOD COMPANIES: Genetically Modified Corn Suit Settlement Pending in IL
ILLINOIS: Federal Judge Approves Settlement in Sexual Harassment Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles For $28 Million Suit Over Retirees Pension Plans
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Sued By ADA For Breach of Contract, Libel In N.D. IL

                        Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
ALLIED IRISH: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ALLIED IRISH: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
ALLIED IRISH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities suit in E.D. NY
CORNELL COMPANIES: Adkins Kelston Probes For Securities Violations
CORNING INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York
CORNING INC.: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York

CRITICAL PATH: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
CRITICAL PATH: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suits in N.D. CA
DIGITAL ISLAND: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
KMART CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Federal Court Dismisses Securities Suit
MCLEODUSA CORP.: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. Iowa

MEDI-HUT CO.: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
RITE AID: Non-Settling Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Appeal Dismissal
SHONEY'S INC.: Shareholders File Suit To Stop LSF4 Acquisition Merger
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Holzer Holzer Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. FL
                          
                           *********

ANSETT AIRLINES: Australian Union Considers Suit V. Tesna Consortium
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An Australian employee union is considering a class action against the
Tesna consortium, led by businessmen Lindsay Fox and Solomon Lew, due
to the union's belief the consortium botched the $453 million purchase
of fallen Ansett Airlines.

Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Secretary, Greg Combet, has
asked legal firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman to investigate a possible
group action on the employees' behalf.  Mr. Combet told news.com.au,
"We don't want to raise hopes (but) this has been a bitter
disappointment for these people."

ACTU advocate, Richard Watts, said many workers believed they had a
future with Ansett after a decision on January 29 to defer the sale for
four weeks.  Many workers had turned down other jobs and moved
interstate to work for the Tesna-run Ansett.  Mr. Watts tells
news.com.au, "It's becoming clear there were representations made by
(Mr) Fox and (Mr) Lew in the week before the sale collapsed, which
contradict what they now say. We're examining how that may have a
detrimental effect on staff."


AUTOZONE INC.: Overtime Pay Suits in California Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Autozone, Inc. is vigorously defending against two class actions filed
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, by the
Company's store managers seeking overtime pay required by California
law.

The first suit charges the Company with failing to pay overtime to
store managers as required by California law and failing to pay
terminated managers in a timely manner as required by California law.  
The case is in the early stages of pre-class certification discovery
and therefore the Company is unable to predict an outcome.

The second suit claims that the Company to pay their store managers
overtime pay from March 1997 to the present, and is seeking back
overtime pay, interest, an injunction against the defendants committing
such practices in the future.  In September 1999, the Court denied the
Company's motion to strike the suit's request for class certification
based on a prior case, which relied on similar facts, in which class
certification was denied. The Company has appealed the Court's
decision.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these suits at this
time, but believes that the potential damages recoverable by any single
plaintiff are minimal.  Although the amount of liability that may
result from these proceedings cannot be ascertained, the Company does
not currently believe that, in the aggregate, these other matters
will result in liabilities material to its financial condition or
results of operations.


AXA LIFE: Faces Insurance Suit For Victims of 1915 Armenian Genocide
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance company AXA's French subsidiary, L'Union-Vie, was named as a
defendant in a class action filed in Los Angeles Federal Court by
American descendants of the Armenian genocide in 1915, seeking almost
US$700,000 in insurance for the deaths of family members, the Financial
Times reports.

The suit is the latest in several class actions filed against the
insurers for genocide that killed a million people nearly 90 years ago.  
Last year, New York Life Insurance provided compensation to 10,000
heirs of Armenian victims.

The suit alleges that the Company did not pay the benefits for numerous
policies sold before the genocide.  According to the Financial Times,
L'Union-Vie admitted liability for the policies in a letter to the
French Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1922.  The Company's U.S.
subsidiary, Equitable Life Assurance Company, also acknowledged in 1916
it had 371 outstanding policies in Turkey.


CIGNA CORPORATION: Medical Group Pledges Support To Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The 15,000 strong Illinois State Medical Society has pledged its "full
and active support" to the nationwide class action against health
insurance company CIGNA Corporation for violating its contracts with
doctors by "downcoding" and "bundling" cases to pay less for the
services it provided, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit, which also names CIGNA HealthCare of St. Louis and CIGNA
HealthCare of Texas, as defendants, alleges the Company shortchanged
doctors in its payments, and engaged in "cryptic and confusing business
practices."  The suit was filed on behalf of more than 500,000 doctors
nationwide and is the first managed-care suit to be certified as a
national class action, according to the medical society.

The society said that its support would include assistance with fact-
finding and identifying new potential cases.  Dr. Ronald Ruecker,
Society President, told the Post-Dispatch, "We've filed amicus briefs
in the past, but nothing like this."

The Post-Dispatch reports that the Company has denied any wrongdoing.
"We believe we have fully honored our contracts with the physicians and
that the underlying legal claims in this suit are without merit."
Company spokesman Wendell Porter said. "We will oppose those claims
vigorously."


CLARK COUNTY: Nursing Home Settles Wrongful Death Suit For $625,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clark County Nursing Home agreed to settle for US$625,000 the class
action brought against them by two Brookfield, Tennessee residents,
their father and 11 other siblings, charging the nursing home with
negligence and inappropriate care that resulted in the death of their
mother.

Siblings Judith Sawyer and Richard Roller filed the suit after their
mother died in the nursing home.  The siblings claim that their mother
died as a result of her physician's and nursing home caretakers'
negligence.  Plaintiffs' attorney Tim Dollar told the Brookfield Town
News, the suit "alleged that employees of Clark County Nursing Home
(CCNH) violated physicians orders and state and federal regulations"
requiring the use of a device that would have prevented Vivian Roller
from falling out of her wheelchair.

Mr. Dollar also asserts that the settlement "is believed to be the
largest wrongful death settlement or verdict in Knox County history."


FOOD COMPANIES: Genetically Modified Corn Suit Settlement Pending in IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Federal Judge James Moran is expected to approve a $9 million
settlement of a class action against several major food companies,
relating to its products containing genetically modified Starlink corn,
the Wall Street Journal reports.

The genetically modified corn is used as ingredients for several food
products, including taco shells and corn dogs.  The suit alleges that
the corn was not approved for human consumption and would possibly
trigger allergic reactions.  Last year, a panel of experts reported to
the Environmental Protection Agency, that they could not determine what
levels of StarLink could trigger allergic reactions, if it could do so
at all.  

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Kraft Foods Inc.,

     (2) Kellogg Co.,

     (3) Azteca Foods Inc.,

     (4) Mission Foods Co.,

     (5) Aventis CropScience USA Holding Inc., which developed and
         marketed the corn, and

     (6) Garst Seed Co., which sold seed contaminated with StarLink
         corn

Under the settlement, $6 million in coupons will be placed on foods
made by these companies. Any money not redeemed through the coupons
will go to a yet-to-be-determined nonprofit or charitable group that
protects consumer interests. An additional $3 million would go toward
administering the program and lawyers' fees.   The defendants have
continued to deny any liability upon entering the settlement.

Judge Moran told the Wall Street Journal he had received the settlement
but hadn't yet read it. "I told them I would approve it," Judge Moran
said, recalling what he told lawyers at a recent hearing. Signing the
final order, he said, "is just a matter of form."


ILLINOIS: Federal Judge Approves Settlement in Sexual Harassment Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Federal Judge Joan B. Gottschall granted preliminary
approval to the settlement of a class action filed against Harvey,
Illinois car dealership Bob Watson Chevrolet by its African-American
female telemarketers, claiming widespread sexual harassment in the
workplace.

The female workers brought their suit to end the constant, on-the-job
harassment that, according to the federal complaint, the Company's
management had inflicted on them. Most of the class members were short-
term employees who worked for Watson between two weeks and six months.
Short-term workers belong to a segment of the labor force that has
rarely succeeded in accessing the federal courts for relief from
discrimination.

The women charged in the suit that several high-ranking managers
routinely demanded sexual favors and sexual gratification from them in
return for job security or greater compensation. According to the
plaintiffs' complaints, the Company's male managers:

     (1) described their sex organs as their weapons;

     (2) threatened to discharge women workers who complained about
         harassment; and

     (3) attempted to examine or touch their bodies

Furthermore, according to the court documents filed by the plaintiffs,
the managers also made regular and vulgar comments about their own
personal sexual practices and openly fantasized about the sexual organs
and sexual activity of the women.

The total settlement cost to the Company may exceed $300,000, including
payments to up to approximately 70 class members. Each class member is
guaranteed $3,000 as compensation for the sexual harassment, without
having to prove her case individually in court. Payments are likely to
be made after written notice is delivered to the class describing
settlement terms, and advising class members of their right to accept
or oppose the settlement.

In May 2002, Judge Gottschall will consider any objections to the
settlement and determine whether it should receive final approval.
Following final approval, all settlement terms will be instituted.

According to Latasha McDaniel, the first of three named plaintiffs,
"All we wanted was to do a good job and be able to support our
children. To have this happen was horribly unfair and extremely
degrading. I am grateful that this settlement was reached and that
other women workers won't have to deal with this kind of thing
anymore."

Commenting on the settlement, Ms. McDaniel's lawyer Michael Fridkin,
Director of the Employment Opportunity Project of the Chicago Lawyers'
Committee, said, "This is a long-needed vindication of the rights of
all female workers, even temporary and short-term workers, to dignity
and equal treatment in the workplace."

The suit is highly unusual in that it involves mainly short-term
workers. Researchers have found that in jobs that are predominantly
female, such as telemarketing by temporary workers, sexual harassment
can be so prevalent that women workers assume it is unchallengeable. As
a result, sexual harassment cases on behalf of temporary workers are
rarely even filed, let alone settled favorably.

Initially, Ms. McDaniel protested the culture of harassment afflicting
temporary workers at the Company by filing a charge of sexual
harassment with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
She was later joined by two additional named plaintiffs, April Galvin
and Darnetta Calhoun.

In today's settlement, which comes less than a year after the lawsuit
was filed, the parties agreed to treat the case as a class action on
behalf of all similarly-situated female workers at the Company.

In addition to the settlement's cash component of $3,000 per victim,
the Company must institute a company-wide anti-harassment program with
four components:

     (i) the EEOC will provide on-site training to all Company managers
         on their duty to halt sexual harassment and the right of
         workers to complain about harassment, in confidence, and
         without fear of retaliation;

    (ii) upon hire and again once every year, all Company employees
         must take an anti-harassment course, at company expense and on
         company time, informing them of their right to be free from
         harassment, the duty of managers not to harass, and the
         procedure for making complaints;

   (iii) the Company must distribute written manuals to each employee
         detailing the rights and remedies for workplace harassment;

    (iv) fourth, for the next three years, on a quarterly basis and in
         writing, the Company must certify to Judge Gottschall its
         compliance with these procedures. False representations could
         subject the Company to additional sanctions.

For more information, contact Michael Fridkin of the Chicago Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. by Phone:
312-630-9744, ext. 229 or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.clccrul.org


SEARS ROEBUCK: Settles For $28 Million Suit Over Retirees Pension Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago federal court granted final approval to a US$ 28 million
settlement in the class action filed against Sears, Roebuck & Co. by
more than 56,000 retirees disputing reduction in company-paid life
insurance benefits, projo.com reports.

The suit began with 38 of the Company's workers.  Lead plaintiff Marie
George, 77, worked at the Company's Personnel Department for fifteen
years before retiring in 1986.  Eleven years later, in 1997, the
Company sent her a letter saying her benefits would be cut.  The
Company had instituted a plan that would have cut all retiree policies
to $5,000 gradually over ten years, instead of the previous average
insurance plan value of $17,000.  The program was estimated to save the
Company about $600 million over a decade.  The retirees then filed a
suit seeking full restoration of the benefits.

Under the agreement, more than 56,000 retirees who filed claims are
entitled to one-year restoration of their benefits, which would have
been cut for some workers by more than $10,000.  The settlement will
also allow claimants to get reimbursement equal to one year of the life
insurance reductions, which could be as much as $1,000 depending on the
policy amount. Claimants may be entitled to more than one year's
reimbursement, depending on calculations that involve claimant
participation rate and other criteria.

Mrs. George, whose policy is now worth about $6,000, plus $5,000 she is
being awarded as one of 71 earliest plaintiffs, welcomed the
settlement, saying, "We're very satisfied about the approval."  Lawyer
for the plaintiffs Peter Wasylyk told projo.com, "We believe that this
result will send a message to other companies that they cannot just
willy-nilly retroactively change retiree benefits and hope that
retirees will go quietly into the sunset."

Company spokeswoman Peggy Palter told projo.com, "We do think that this
settlement is bringing the Sears family back together again and we're
very pleased to have it behind us."


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Sued By ADA For Breach of Contract, Libel In N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dental Association (ADA) has filed a class action suit
against one of the nation's largest health care companies, WellPoint
HealthNetworks Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Blue Cross of
California, charging the health care conglomerate with breach of
contract, unlawfully interfering with the dentist-patient relationship
and trade libel.

The suit is pending in the US District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois on behalf of the ADA and its members, seeks relief under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for breach of
contract, and under supporting state laws for tortious interference and
trade libel. Three practicing dentists joined the ADA in the suit.

"By regularly providing false information that casts doubt on dentists'
reputations and disparages the value of dental services, WellPoint has
seriously undermined the trust between dentists and their patients,"
said Dr. Gregory Chadwick, ADA president.  "We suspect there are
instances in which patients have even elected to forego treatment
altogether."

The plaintiffs charge Wellpoint, one of the largest providers of dental
coverage with more than 2.6 million dental-plan members, with regularly
breaching its contract with members by failing to pay non-plan
providers' actual charges for professional services rendered.

According to the complaint, the Company's contract states that the
insurer will pay out-of-network providers' actual charges unless it has
appropriate data to substantiate a lower payment. The suit claims that
the Company did not pay those charges and failed to substantiate the
lower payments, because it based them on flawed "usual, customary and
reasonable" (UCR) data for the lower amounts paid to out-of-network
dentists.  The suit further alleges that the company knew or had reason
to know the lower amounts it paid were below proper UCR amounts.

The lawsuit also charges that the language on the Company's Explanation
of Benefits form, telling the patients of out-of-network dental
providers that it would not pay the dentists' actual charges because
these dentists' charges are "not customary and reasonable" is
misleading, has caused dentists to lose patients and constitutes trade
libel.

For more information, contact Fred Peterson or Leslee Williams of the
American Dental Association by Phone: 312-440-2806 by E-mail:
petersonf@ada.org or williamsle@ada.org or visit the Web site:
http://www.ada.org.

                           Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Actrade Financial Technologies, Ltd.
(NYSE:ACRT) securities from March 11,1999 through February 11,2002.  
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Amos Aharoni,

     (2) Alexander Stonkus,

     (3) Joseph P. D'Alessandris and

     (4) David J. Askin

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 March 11, 1999 and February 11, 2002.

Throughout the class period, the Company issued press releases
announcing record quarterly results and describing its business as
providing trade financing and business-to-business financing solutions.  
In addition, the Company, in its fiscal year 2000 and 2001 Annual
Reports filed with the SEC on Form 10-K405, represented that its loans
were covered by insurance and surety bonds, which minimized the
Company's risk on the loans.

The representations in the press releases and annual reports were,
according to the allegations of the complaint, materially false and
misleading because the Company had loaned over $10 million to
individuals, not businesses, who used the proceeds personally.

In addition, according to the complaint, defendants are alleged to have
failed to disclose to their insurers and sureties the nature of the
personal-loans and, as a result, the Company was jeopardizing its
ability to collect under the policies and surety bonds in the case of
default.

On February 11, 2002, Barron's published an article detailing the
Company's questionable lending practices and its alleged
misrepresentations and omissions to insurers and sureties. The article
recounts a $6.3 million loan-default by an individual that the Company
was attempting to recruit as a broker, and which an insurer and surety
refused to cover on his default because they allegedly were led to
believe by the Company that the loan was for a business purpose when in
fact the individual pocketed the funds.

In reaction to the Barron's article, Company stock price plummeted by
45%, falling to $13.75 per share on February 11, 2002, from a $24.89
per share close on February 8, 2002 (a Friday).

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


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Advanced
Switching Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:ASCX) during the period of Oct.
4, 2000, through and including Feb. 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
prospectus and registration statement in connection with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO), and 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 securities

The Company represented that it designs and markets products that
enable its customers to transmit voice, data and multimedia
communications more rapidly and cost-effectively. As alleged in the
suit, the defendants represented in the prospectus dated October 4,
2000, that the Company 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 ready in 2001.

These representations were materially false and misleading because, at
the time of the IPO, the Company's largest customer was having problems
with Company products, another customer had informed it that it had
excess inventory and the agreement with Qwest was contingent on terms
with which it could not comply.

On February 5, 2002, the Company announced that its board had adopted a
proposed plan of liquidation and on February 12, 2002, it announced
that a major customers revoked acceptance of equipment previously
purchased and asserted entitlement to a refund of approximately $17
million due to the failure of the equipment to meet functionality
requirements.

For further details, contact Andrew N. Friedman or Mary Ann Fink by
Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail:
afriedman@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.cmht.com


ALLIED IRISH: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran commenced a securities fraud class
action against Allied Irish Banks, PLC (NYSE: AIB) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who acquired AIB American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between
January 1, 2001 and February 6, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company's financial reports since 1999
fraudulently failed to reflect at least $691 million of currency
trading losses associated with its AllFirst Financial, Inc. subsidiary.
On February 6, 2002, the Company shocked the investment markets by
disclosing for the first time that its AllFirst subsidiary had
concealed massive losses from foreign exchange trading, and that AIB
had halted all currency trading at AllFirst.

Following this announcement, the Company's ADR price fell to $19.77,
down 16% from the previous day's close of $23.55.  The Company has
since admitted that its 2001 financial reports alone overstated net
income by as much as $449 million.

For more information, contact Conor R. Crowley or Donald J. Enright by
Phone: 866-592-1960 or by E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com or dje@ftllaw.com.


ALLIED IRISH: Levy Levy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
Levy and Levy initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who acquired Allied Irish Banks (AIB) American Depositary
Receipts (ADRs) between January 1, 2001 and February 6, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company's financial reports since 1999
fraudulently failed to reflect at least $691 million of currency
trading losses associated with its AllFirst Financial, Inc. subsidiary.
On February 6, 2002, the Company shocked the investment markets by
disclosing for the first time that its AllFirst subsidiary had
concealed massive losses from foreign exchange trading, and that it had
halted all currency trading at AllFirst.

Following this announcement, the Company's ADR price fell to $19.77,
down 16% from the previous day's close of $23.55.  The Company has
since admitted that its 2001 financial reports alone overstated net
income by as much as $449 million.

For more information, contact Stephen G. Levy by Mail: One Stamford
Plaza, 263 Tresser Blvd., 9th Floor, Stamford, CT 06901 by Phone:
866-338-3674 (toll free) or 203-564-1920 by E-mail: LLNYCT@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.levylawfirm.com


ALLIED IRISH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against Allied Irish Banks, PLC (AIB) (NYSE:AIB) on behalf of persons
who acquired AIB American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between January 1,
2001 and February 6, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company's financial reports since 1999
fraudulently failed to reflect at least $691 million of currency
trading losses associated with its AllFirst Financial, Inc. subsidiary.  
On February 6, 2002, the Company shocked the investment markets by
disclosing for the first time that its AllFirst subsidiary had
concealed massive losses from foreign exchange trading, and that it had
halted all currency trading at AllFirst.

Following this announcement, the Company's ADR price fell to $19.77,
down 16% from the previous day's close of $23.55.  The Company has
since admitted that its 2001 financial reports alone overstated net
income by as much as $449 million.

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


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Computer Associates,
Inc. (NYSE: CA) from May 28, 1999 through February 25, 2002, inclusive.

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

Specifically, beginning prior to May 1999, the Company falsely
indicated that it had penetrated the distributed systems market when,
in fact, it was giving away its distributed system software free, or at
nominal additional cost, to customers who were also extending mainframe
software licenses, and attributed large portions of the resulting
revenue to the non-mainframe products.

Also, beginning prior to May 1999, and ending in October 2000, when the
Company extended a license during its term, it recognized revenue for
the entire new license. Until June 2000, when the Company began using
new auditors, it did not "back out" the revenue from the unexpired
portion of the old license, double-counting this revenue. After June
2000, the Company began backing out this figure in an obscure line
item, but never disclosed that this caused revenue to be overstated by
more than one hundred million dollars each quarter prior June 2000.

Defendants in order to hide a severe drop in revenue as measured by
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), announced a "new
business model," which they represented involved offering more flexible
licensing terms to customers.  In fact, the "new business model" was a
cover to institute new, non-GAAP compliant accounting (which the
Company called "pro forma, pro rata"), and to obscure the fact that the
switch from long-term licenses to flexible subscriptions was not a
proactive move, but a symptom of the obsolescence of its main product
line. While the stated goal of the "new business model" was to provide
customers more flexible terms, the real purpose was to cover up the
fact that it could no longer get many of their mainframe customers to
purchase the long-term licenses of mainframe software which have been
its mainstay.

After the announcement of the "new business model" in October 2000, the
Company issued press releases heralding moderate growth, though the
GAAP figures showed a revenue decrease of nearly sixty percent.

The "pro forma, pro rata" method counted revenue from old license sales
in current and future periods, using old revenues to buttress the
current, deteriorating sales. Defendants have attempted to have their
cake and eat it, too. In a strong economy, the Company recognized all
the revenue from its sales immediately, even double-counting some
revenue, showing impressive numbers. Now, in a sagging economy, they
have obscured the real loss of sales by changing to a method of
accounting so back-loaded that it does not conform to GAAP.

The "pro forma, pro rata" method also did not make the distinctions
between product and service revenue required by GAAP, obscuring the
distinction and further hiding the deterioration in sales.

The Company has continued to report its GAAP figures, as it is required
by the Securities and Exchange Commission to do. Incredibly, defendants
have falsely stated that the GAAP figures are not reflective of the
Company's financial position, and that the "pro forma, pro rata"
figures do accurately reflect the Company's financial position.

The Company's true condition, however, is shown by the conduct of
defendants during the class period. After announcing the "new business
model" but before reporting under it for the first time, and contrary
to the Company's representation that the rosy picture created by the
"pro forma, pro rata" figures was an accurate portrayal of its
position, the defendants engineered a clandestine, firm-wide layoff,
hiding the terminations as individual, performance-based firings. They
fired possibly as many as a thousand employees with no severance
package, and continue to deny that the firings were a layoff, even
though executives involved in the layoff have confirmed it in a March
20, 2001 the New York Times report.

More recently, the Company was forced to withdraw a planned debt
offering after Moody's questioned the quality of the Company's credit.
As a result, the Company admits, it was forced to draw down $600
million on one credit line to pay another.

The desperate cost-cutting by secret layoff, use of its new
unrecognized accounting just when its revenue has dropped sharply, and
the use of credit lines to service existing debt, demonstrate that
defendants are keenly aware of the precarious financial condition of
the Company, and have deliberately mislead the investing public.

The misleading picture the Company has presented has not gone
unquestioned. On February 22, 2002, the Company confirmed that it was
aware that both the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation were investigating the Company's accounting for
civil, and in the case of the FBI, criminal violations.

News of the criminal and civil probes, which began to surface on
February 20, caused investors to flee the stock, which fell from a
February 19 closing price of $25.31 to a February 22 close of $15.99, a
drop of 36.8%.

For more information, 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


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Computer
Associates International, Inc. (NYSE: CA) between May 28, 1999 and
February 25, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, an e-business software company, and
three top corporate officers misled the investing public during the
class period by engaging in several schemes to obscure the erosion of
its core market in mainframe computer software.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Company falsely indicated that it
had penetrated the non-mainframe computer market when, in fact, it was
giving away its distributed system software for free, or at nominal
additional cost, to existing customers who were extending mainframe
software licenses. The Company allegedly then attributed large portions
of the resulting revenue to the non-mainframe products.

When the Company extended a license during its term, it recognized
revenue for the entire new license, and until June 2000, the Company
did not "back out" the revenue from the unexpired portion of the old
license, thus double-counting this revenue.

Yet another scheme was allegedly initiated to hide the Company's severe
drop in revenue as measured by generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP). The Company announced a "new business model," which was
represented as offering more flexible licensing terms to customers. In
fact, the "new business model" was allegedly a cover to institute new,
non-GAAP compliant accounting (which the Company called "pro forma, pro
rata"), and to obscure the fact that the switch from long-term licenses
to flexible subscriptions was a symptom of the obsolescence of the
Company's main product line.  The "pro forma, pro rata" method counted
revenue from old license sales in current and future periods, thus
using old revenues to buttress the current, deteriorating sales.

On February 22, 2002, the Company confirmed that it was aware that both
the Securities Exchange Commission and the US Attorney's Office were
investigating its accounting for civil and criminal violations. News of
these probes, which began to surface on February 20, caused the price
of its stock to fall from a February 19 closing price of $25.31 to a
February 22 close of $15.99, a drop of 36.8%.

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


CORNELL COMPANIES: Adkins Kelston Probes For Securities Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, PC is investigating Cornell Companies, Inc.
(NYSE:CRN), a Houston-based prison builder and operator, for potential
violations of federal securities laws.

In a statement, the firm asserted that shareholders may have claims
against the Company, when it announced that it was restating its
financial statements for year-end 2000 and the first three quarters of
2001 to reflect the liabilities of certain partnerships that were
treated as "off-book" liabilities.

For more information, contact John Peter Zavez by Mail: 90 Canal
Street, Boston, MA 02114 by Phone: 617-367-1040 by Fax: 617-742-8280 or
by E-mail: Jzavez@AKZLaw.com


CORNING INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Corning, Inc. (NYSE: GLW) common stock
during the period between September 27, 2000 through July 10, 2001,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Roger G. Ackerman,

     (2) Katherine A. Asbeck, and

     (3) James B. Flaws

The suit charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning its business and financial condition.
Specifically, the complaint asserts claims against defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.classlawyer.com


CORNING INC.: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York on behalf of
all persons who purchased publicly traded securities of Corning, Inc.
(NYSE: GLW) between September 27, 2000 and July 10, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, an international company engaged in,
among other things, the production of optical fiber cable for the
telecommunications industry, and three top corporate officers misled
the investing public during the class period regarding the Company's
growth prospects.

Specifically, in order to complete a multi-billion dollar Public
Offering on November 6, 2000, and finance its purchase of Optical
Technologies USA, the Company issued overly optimistic projections of
25% earnings growth for the year 2001. The suit alleges the defendants
knew these projections lacked a reasonable basis because:

     (1) demand for the Company's optical network products was
         weakening as its primary customers were experiencing severe
         and persistent business slowdowns;

     (2) the massive inventory buildup of the Company's customers -
         primarily Nortel Networks - and not market demand for its
         products, had been the reason for its "exceptionally robust"
         demand;

     (3) the Company was amassing hundreds of millions of dollars of
         obsolete inventory that would have to be written-off; and

     (4) the Optical acquisition was extremely risky, because its only
         customer was struggling with a substantial downturn in its
         business.

Only after the offering, in which the Company raised over $2 billion,
did it begin to partially disclose some of the truth. The price per
share then began to slide, as it revised its estimate for 2001 revenue
growth and initiated other cost-cutting measures.

Ultimately, on July 10, 2001, the Company announced that it was taking
a $5.1 billion charge in connection with the Optical acquisition, a
$300 million write-off for obsolete inventory, and would eliminate 1000
jobs and close three plants. By this time, the Company's share price
had fallen to $14.12, well below the public offering price of $71.25
per share.

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


CRITICAL PATH: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CPTH) common stock during the period between April 21, 2000 and
September 25, 2000.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company
provides e-mail hosting services to a variety of organizations,
including Internet service providers, Web hosting companies, Web
portals, and corporations. Many of these types of companies were new
and were suffering from a downturn in Internet-related funding which
began in the spring of 2000.

The suit alleges that the problems many of these companies were having
raising money had reached crisis levels and were impacting the
Company's ability to collect receivables. Defendants had also known for
months that new accounting regulations would negate the Company's
ability to continue to recognize up-front license fees in 4th Quarter
2000.

Defendants knew this would severely impair the Company's future revenue
growth and impair their ability to make future stock sales and extract
future bonuses, which were tied to its performance. Thus, defendants
continued to make positive but false statements about the Company's
business and projections for 3rd and 4th Quarter 2000 and beyond.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


CRITICAL PATH: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suits in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Northern District of California claims that
Critical Path, Inc. (Nasdaq:CPTH) misled shareholders about its
business and financial condition.  The suit violations of Sections
10(b), 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
investors who bought Critical Path, Inc. securities between April 21,
2000 and September 25, 2000.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  The Company provides e-mail hosting
services to a variety of organizations, including Internet service
providers, Web hosting companies, Web portals, and corporations. Many
of these types of companies were new and were suffering from a downturn
in Internet-related funding which began in the spring of 2000.

The suit alleges that the problems many of these companies were having
raising money had reached crisis levels and were impacting the
Company's ability to collect receivables. Defendants had also known for
months that new accounting regulations would negate the Company's
ability to continue to recognize up-front license fees in 4th Quarter
2000.

Defendants knew this would severely impair the Company's future revenue
growth and impair their ability to make future stock sales and extract
future bonuses, which were tied to its performance. Thus, defendants
continued to make positive but false statements about the Company's
business and projections for Q3/Q4 2000 and beyond.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 610-822-2221, 888-299-7706 (toll free) by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


DIGITAL ISLAND: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on
behalf of holders of Digital Island, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISLD) common stock
between May 14, 2001 and August 30, 2001, inclusive against corporate
the Company and:

     (1) Cable & Wireless PLC,

     (2) Dali Acquisition Corporation,

     (3) Ruan F. Ernst, CEO, and

     (4) the members of the Company's Board of Directors during the
         class period

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a), 14(e),
14(d)(7) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
14d-10 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose material
information to those Company shareholders who had received an offer to
purchase from defendant Cable & Wireless in May and June 2001, and to
those Company shareholders who received a proxy statement in connection
with the merger between the Company and Cable & Wireless, which was
consummated on August 30, 2001.

In particular, defendants failed to disclose important contracts
between the Company and Bloomberg, LLP, and the Company and Major
League Baseball's Internet media. Those contracts were not disclosed
either in the offer to purchase or the proxy statement. Defendants also
violated the all-holders provision of the Williams Act by giving
additional consideration to directors and officers of the Company, who
were also shareholders, in excess of that given to other shareholders
as an inducement to support Cable & Wireless' offer to purchase.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE: GX)
common stock during the period between Jan. 2, 2001 and Oct. 4, 2001.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants issued false and
misleading statements and press releases concerning the Company's
financial statements, their ability to offset declining wholesale
demand for bandwidth capacity with higher-margin, customized data
services and its ability to generate sufficient cash revenue to service
its debt.

During the class period, before the disclosure of the true facts, the
individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
personally held common stock generating more than $149 million in
proceeds and the Company raised $1 billion in an offering of senior
notes.

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

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

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
      

HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Hanover Compressor Company (NYSE: HC)
publicly traded securities during the period between November 8, 2000
and January 28, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges
violations arising out of defendants' issuance of false financial
statements and other false and misleading statements about the
Company's operating performance.

Defendants failed to disclose facts relating to a partnership in which
it had an equity interest, including that it used income from that
partnership to overstate revenue and income for the third and fourth
quarters of fiscal 2000. This allowed certain insiders to sell 7.5
million shares of stock in a secondary public offering in March 2001
and for the Company to issue 4.75% Convertible Senior Notes due 2008,
based on more favorable financial results.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or Lisa Polk by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500 - West Tower, Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail:  stoll@cmht.com or
lpolk@cmht.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.cmht.com


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Hanover Compressor Company (NYSE:HC) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 8, 2000 and January 28,
2002.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
defendants' issuance of false financial statements and other false and
misleading statements about the Company's operating performance.

Defendants failed to disclose facts relating to a partnership in which
it had an equity interest, including that it used income from that
partnership to overstate revenue and income for the third and fourth
quarters of fiscal 2000. This aided certain insiders to sell 7.5
million shares of stock in a secondary public offering in March, 2001
and for the Company to issue 4.75% Convertible Senior Notes due 2008,
based on more favorable financial results.

For more information, contact Todd S. Collins 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


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
behalf all persons who purchased Hanover Compressor Company (NYSE: HC)
securities between May 15, 2000 and January 28, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that certain officers and directors of the Company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by, among other things, materially misrepresenting the Company's
revenues and earnings during the class period in its press releases and
filings with the Securities Exchange Commission.

These misrepresentations resulted primarily from the overstatement of
revenue and net income recognized in connection with the Company's
Hampton Roads fabrication project. Revenue from this project should not
have been recognized, as the amount of revenue did not reflect the
percentage of the project's completion.  In addition, net income in
connection with the sale of certain compressors should not have been
have been recognized or should have been reversed or restated far
earlier than it had been.

The suit also points out that defendants concealed from the investing
public a variety of questionable transactions in connection with its
Hampton Roads fabrication project.

On February 26, 2002, the Company disclosed that it would restate its
revenues and earnings for its year ended December 31, 2000 and for the
first three quarters ending September 30, 2001. For the year ending
December 31, 2000, the Company stated it expected to restate $37.7
million in revenue and $7.5 million of net income of the $58.7 million
net income for the year, and for the nine months ended September 30,
2001, it expected to restate $25.1 million of revenue and approximately
$1.4 million of the $64.5 of its net income for that period.

The material misstatement of the Company's revenues and earnings prior
during the class period caused the price of Company common stock to
become artificially inflated.

For more details, contact Howard Longman by Mail: 6 East 45th St, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-
mail: TSVI@aol.com


KMART CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Kmart Corporation common stock
(NYSE:KM) between May 17, 2001 through January 22, 2002, both dates
inclusive.  The suit names Charles Conaway, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, as defendant.  The Company is not named in this
action because of its bankruptcy filing.

The suit alleges that defendant violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial results
announced during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities.

Prior to and throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, the
Company and Mr. Conaway represented that the Company was engaged in a
comprehensive restructuring of its operations which was revitalizing
the Company and its sales.

The suit alleges that these representations were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following adverse material facts:

     (1) that the Company's purported revitalization was a complete
         failure as it was continuing to lose market share to
         competitors and its purported efforts to reverse this trend
         were not meeting with success;

     (2) that the Company's supply chain management was extremely
         problematic as its distribution centers were outdated and
         inefficient and its supply chain software was plagued by bugs
         and glitches, which were causing the Company to experience
         inventory problems and as a result of these supply-chain
         management issues, the Company was experiencing difficulties
         routing inventory to stores, thereby negatively impacting its
         sales; and

     (3) that the Company was experiencing substantial liquidity
         problems which would necessitate a major restructuring of its
         operations and possibly a bankruptcy filing, which ultimately
         happened.

On January 22, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that
it had filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11
of the US Bankruptcy Code According to the press release, its decision
to seek "judicial reorganization" was based on a "combination of
factors, including a rapid decline in its liquidity resulting from
Kmart's below-plan sales and earnings performance in the fourth
quarter."  

Following this announcement, the price of Company common stock dropped
from $1.74 per share to $0.70 per share, a one day decline of 59%, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Maurice Pesso by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.  


LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Federal Court Dismisses Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
without prejudice the class action suit against Lionbridge
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: LIOX) and its officers and directors,
charging them with federal securities violations.

The class action asserted violations of the federal securities laws
relating to how the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering allegedly allocated its IPO shares to the underwriters'
customers.

Lionbridge is one of only eight companies whose claims were dismissed
by the Court's order. Approximately 1,000 similar class action lawsuits
remain pending before the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against approximately 300 companies.

"We are pleased that the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims
against Lionbridge and its officers and directors, as we have always
maintained that the claims should be dropped," said Rory Cowan, CEO of
Lionbridge. "Without this distraction, we can now redouble our efforts
to deliver value to our customers."

The Boston law firm of Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP represented
Lionbridge and its officers and directors in the lawsuit.


MCLEODUSA CORP.: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------------
McLeodUSA Corporation denies the allegations in several securities
class actions filed in the US District Court for the Northern District
of Iowa. The lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period from January 30, 2001 through
December 3, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Clark E. McLeod, Chairman and co-Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Stephen C. Gray, President and co-Chief Executive Officer,

     (3) Chris A. Davis, Chief Operating and Financial Officer

The suits allege that during the class period, the defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
registration statement and prospectus on April 27, 2001, in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Intelispan, Inc. that allegedly
misstated or omitted to state material information concerning its
financial condition, business prospects, and operations.

The suits also allege that all defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, by issuing false and misleading statements in the Company's
press releases and SEC filings during the class period.

In addition, the suits allege that each of the individual defendants
(other than Ms. Davis) is liable as a "controlling person" of the
Company under Section 15 of the Securities Act, and that each of the
individual defendants is liable as a "controlling person" under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The suits contend that as a consequence of the defendants' purported
misstatements and omissions of material fact, the market price of the
Company's common stock was "artificially inflated" during the class
period.

As this litigation is in an early stage, it is impossible to evaluate
the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount or
range of potential loss, if any, to the Company.  However, the Company
believes that the suits are without merit and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.


MEDI-HUT CO.: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all purchasers of Medi-Hut (Nasdaq:MHUT) common stock during the
period from April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002.

The action charges the Company, as well as six of its senior officers
including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. These violations, the complaint alleges, stem from defendants'
materially false and misleading statements during the class period
that, misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial
performance and caused its shares to trade at artificially-inflated
prices.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company misled the
investing public by failing to disclose that a Company Vice President,
Lawrence Marasco, had a controlling interest in Larval Corporation, the
Company's largest customer.  During fiscal year 2001, sales to Larval
accounted for 62% of Company revenues. Because Mr. Marasco had a
controlling interest in one of the Company's customers, generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) dictated that the Company
identify sales to that customer as related party transactions.

Defendants, however, failed to disclose the true nature of the
Company's sales to Larval. Indeed, each report the Company filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission during the class period,
including quarterly and annual reports, was devoid of any reference to
the fact that a Company employee controlled one of its largest
customers.

The suit alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by
defendants influenced the views of stock market analysts and the
investing public and brought about an unrealistic assessment of the
Company's performance and prospects and as a result, Company stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period.

On February 4, 2002, the nature of the relationship between the
Company, Mr. Marasco and Larval Corporation was revealed to the market.
The investing public, recognizing that a majority of the Company's
revenues in fiscal year 2001 were generated via sales to a related
party, reacted swiftly and severely.

By the close of business on February 4, shares of the Company had lost
51% of their value, falling $3.41 per share to $3.29 in unusually heavy
trading. Four days later, Grant Thornton LLP resigned its position as
Medi-Hut's independent auditor, only two weeks after having secured
that position.

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 212-317-2300 or
888-529-4787 by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ: NVDA)
securities between February 15, 2000 and February 14, 2002 against the
Company and:

     (1) Jen-Hsun Huang, at all relevant times, President and Chief
         Executive Officer, and

     (2) Christine B. Hoberg, at all relevant times, Chief Financial
         Officer

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 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that as part of their effort to
boost the price of Company stock, defendants misrepresented the
Company's true prospects in an effort to conceal its improper acts
until they were able to sell at least $66 million worth of their own
Company stock.

In order to overstate revenues and assets in its 4th Quarter 2000, 1st
to 3rd Quarter 2001, the Company violated generally accepted accounting
principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal accounting scheme.
This scheme had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and
assets.

On February 14, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company
partially admitted that its past accounting for its prior results may
be inaccurate in a press release entitled, "NVIDIA Corporation
Conducting Review of Certain Transactions at the Request of the SEC."
On this news the Company's shares plummeted the following day.

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. E-mail should refer to NVIDIA.  


RITE AID: Non-Settling Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Appeal Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who opted out of the $43.5 million settlement of the
consolidated securities class action against Rite Aid Corporation have
appealed the Federal Court's dismissal without prejudice of their
claims against the Company with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

The consolidated suit was filed in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between May 2,1997 and November 10,1999 against
the Company and:

     (1) certain Company directors,

     (2) Martin Grass, former chief executive officer,

     (3) Timothy Noonan, former president,

     (4) Frank Bergonzi, former chief financial officer, and

     (5) KPMG LLP, former auditor

The suit asserts under Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, based upon the allegation that the Company's financial
statements for fiscal 1997, fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999 fraudulently
misrepresented its financial position and results of operation for
those periods.

In November 2000, certain of the defendants in this suit, including the
Company and its outside director defendants, entered into a memorandum
of understanding (MOU) setting forth a global resolution of the claims
in the class actions pending in the District Court and in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.  The non-settling defendants are Mr. Bergonzi, Mr.
Grass, Mr. Noonan and KPMG.

In December 2000, the parties to the MOU entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement.  Under the settlement, the Company will pay
$43.5 million in cash, which will be fully funded by the Company's
officers' and directors' liability insurance. In addition, the Company
is required to issue to the plaintiffs 20,000,000 shares of its common
stock, valued over a 10-day trading period in January 2002.

The valuation determined was less than $7.75 per share. In accordance
with the terms of the settlement, if the value determined was less than
$7.75 per share, the Company has the option to deliver any combination
of common stock, cash and notes, with a total value of $149,500,000.  
As additional consideration for the settlement, the Company has
assigned to the plaintiffs all of its claims against the above named
executives and KPMG LLP.

In December 2000, the District Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  A fairness hearing for the settlement occurred in April
2001, and in June 2001, the District Court issued a memorandum and
order, declining to approve the settlement.

The Court found that the "economic aspects" of the settlements "have
great merit and manifestly benefit the class and Rite Aid," but that
the proposed bar orders were unacceptable. Leave was granted to the
settling parties to submit revised settlement stipulations by June 25,
2001.

Prior to June 25, 2001, the settling parties submitted revised
settlement stipulations in accordance with the District Court's order.
On August 17, 2001, the court issued a revised order of final judgment
and dismissal, overruling objections that were filed and approving the
revised settlement, including the revised bar order. Thereafter, also
on August 17, 2001, the case was dismissed with prejudice as to the
settling parties and without prejudice as to the non-settling parties.

The non-settling parties then appealed the District Court's orders.  
Oral argument is scheduled for April 2002.


SHONEY'S INC.: Shareholders File Suit To Stop LSF4 Acquisition Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee based restaurant chain, Shoney's, Inc., faces a class action
filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and its
individual directors, in the Circuit Court for Davidson County in
Nashville, Tennessee.

The suit alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the previously announced proposed merger of the Company
and LSF4 Acquisition, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company. The
suit seeks class certification and certain forms of equitable relief,
including enjoining the consummation of the merger.  

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously. There can, however, be no assurance
that the Company or the other defendants will be successful in their
defense of this action.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Holzer Holzer Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers of Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE:TYC) common stock during
the period between December 13, 1999 through February 1, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants issued false and
misleading statements, press releases, and SEC filings concerning the
Company's financial condition. The suit alleges that these statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the price per share of the
Company's common stock and other securities.

The suit alleges that the Company's representations were false and
misleading due to defendants' failure to disclose:

     (1) hundreds of cash acquisitions during the class period totaling
         expenditures of several billion dollars;

     (2) that the individual defendants sold in excess of $155,000,000
         of their individual stock holdings in the Company;

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

     (5) the Company fostered a corporate atmosphere which encouraged
         the individual defendants to work for their personal interests
         rather than those of the Company or its shareholders by
         offering bonuses to those who acquired companies with high,
         but short term, profitability

The suit further alleges that as the truth regarding the foregoing
alleged false and misleading statements began to be revealed on January
27, 2002, the Company's stock price began a rapid decline. As alleged
in the suit, the Company's shares, which closed at $45 on January 27,
2002, had plummeted to $35.63 by the end of the class period.

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

                              *********


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  * * *