---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 13, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 51

                           Headlines

CANADIAN BANKS: Banks Face Suit Over Overcharges in Credit Card Fees
CHEVRONTEXACO CORP.: Ecuador Residents Ask For Suit Reinstatement
COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DELTA AIRLINES: Passengers Sue Alleging Plane Spewed Toxic Gas
IBP INC.: Court Allows Antitrust Suit Over Cattle Prices To Proceed

MCKESSON WATER: $1.245M Settlement Reached in Discrimination Suit
SULZER MEDICA: Progress Seen On Defective Implants Suit Settlement
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Class Members Sought Out in California Smokers Suit

* Health Insurers' Use of Surplus Funds Undermining Charitable Purpose
----------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Much Shelist Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Leo Desmond Commences Securities suit in E.D. VA
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
AT HOME: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

CORNELL COMPANIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
ELAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in NH
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NH
FOAMEX LP: Awaits DE Court Approval for Derivative Suit Settlement

GILAT SATELLITE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
GILAT SATELLITE: Glancy Binkow Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Finkelstein Krinsk Launches Securities Suit in IL
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Cauley Geller Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
LUMENIS LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MEDI-HUT CO.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Cauley Geller Expands Investigation in Suit in NY
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NY

NICE SYSTEMS: Israeli Court Approves $4M Settlement of Securities Suit
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in CA
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PNC FINANCIAL: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
PNC FINANCIAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania

SECURITIES LITIGATION: Tech Companies To Settle Securities Suit in NY
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in NJ
TRW INC.: Faces OH Suit For Ignoring Northrop Grumman Takeover Bid
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in OK
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Suit in N.D. OK


                           *********


CANADIAN BANKS: Banks Face Suit Over Overcharges in Credit Card Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Canadian banks face a class action filed in Canada state court,
alleging that the banks overcharged their credit card customers and
violated various Canadian consumer acts, thestar.com reports.

Canadians Cheryl Dahl and Donna Lewis filed the suit, charging
violations of the Consumer Protection Act, the Trade Practices Act and
the Interest Act by back-dating the interest on purchases, against the:

     (1) Royal Bank of Canada,

     (2) Bank of Montreal and

     (3) CIBC

In a statement, attorney for the plaintiffs David Rosenberg said, "If
you don't pay your credit card bill on time, interest is charged from
the time of each purchase even though the bank doesn't pay the merchant
until many days later.The effect is that the bank is receiving interest
on money it hasn't lent, and is misrepresenting the interest rate."

Mr. Rosenberg additionally said the action was brought on "behalf of
all persons who have incurred interest in the use of credit cards and
seeks reimbursement for the interest that the banks have collected,"
thestar.com reports.  If successful, the suit could force the banks to
repay millions of dollars to their credit card customers, said the
release.


CHEVRONTEXACO CORP.: Ecuador Residents Ask For Suit Reinstatement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rainforest Indians of Ecuador and Peru asked the US Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in New York to reinstate the nine-year-old class
action against Texaco Corporation (now ChevronTexaco Corporation). The
suit accused a Company subsidiary with dumping approximately 30 billion
gallons of toxic wastes in Ecuador's Oriente region during its oil
operations between 1964 and 1992.

The suit alleged that the Company, instead of pumping the substances
back into emptied wells, dumped the chemicals in local rivers, directly
into landfills or spread them on the local dirt roads.  The company-
constructed Ecuadorean Pipeline allegedly leaked large amounts of
petroleum into the environment, causing their families to suffer
injuries, poisoning and pre-cancerous growths, Reuters reports.

A New York federal court later dismissed the suits, saying that New
York was not the proper place for the litigation, and that Ecuador
would be a more convenient location.  In 1998, the Second Circuit
Appeals Court remanded it to the lower court for reconsideration.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs are asking the Court to review the
ruling, saying around 30,000 people could lose their right to seek
damages if litigation is not allowed to proceed on jurisdiction
grounds.  Reuters reports lawyer Cristobal Bonifaz saying that the case
belongs in the United States because Texaco, which was based in New
York state at the time, acted with "reckless disregard" by allowing a
subsidiary to allegedly spill millions of gallons of toxic wastewater
in the Amazon.  He added that a law passed in Ecuador in 1998 could bar
the litigation from being tried there because it was first filed in the
United States.

The Company has denied liability in the suit, successfully arguing that
the litigation should proceed in Ecuador.  The Company maintains that
the law would not bar litigation there.  George Branch, a lawyer
representing ChevronTexaco, argues that there is no evidence that the
parent company directed the operations in Ecuador. Instead, he says the
Texaco subsidiary was a minority partner in a consortium run by
Petroecuador, the state oil company that made all the decisions.  He
told Reuters, "When it comes down to the evidence, they (plaintiffs)
focus on the subsidiary."

The three-member Appeals Panel will issue a decision at a later time.


COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nine former and current employees of Coca-Cola Bottling Company of
Southern California have sued, alleging the Company bilked workers
out of at least $200 million in wages over the past four years,
Associated Press recently reported.

The three class actions claim the Company violated state labor laws by
failing to pay proper wages, violated the law against unfair business
practices, retaliated against those who tried to stop the practices and
illegally modified employee time records.  The lawsuits are pending in
Superior Court.

A spokesman for the Company, which owns the sales center in Rancho
Cucamonga, denied the claims.  "We provide our employees with an
excellent compensation package in the marketplace," spokesman Bob
Phillips told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.  "We are committed to
creating an environment in the workplace where everyone is respected
and valued and is compensated accordingly."

The lawsuits also name as defendants Atlanta -based Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc., its California subsidiaries, and Coca-Cola Co., a
Coca-Cola Enterprises minority owner.

Peter Santelli, a former district sales manager at a Coca-Cola Bottling
Co. sales center in Rancho Cucamonga, said he was fired after
complaining that the Company shaved thousands of dollars in overtime
wages from the paychecks of hourly employees.  Mr. Santelli alleges
that he and other managers were expected to manipulate an electronic
timekeeping system and edit out overtime hours worked by merchandisers,
who typically earn $8 per hour restocking store shelves with Coca-Cola
products.  "I refused to do it," he told Associated Press.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim they worked 11-hour days, only
to be talked out of claiming overtime by company managers.
"Merchandisers are constantly exposed to hostility, threats and
commands from their supervisors who cause them to compensate for the
lack of a sufficient number of employees to complete the required work
without working overtime," one of the lawsuits claims.

Last year, the Company paid $20.2 million to settle a class action
filed on behalf of salaried account managers and merchandisers, who had
alleged the Company unlawfully failed to pay them overtime wages.


DELTA AIRLINES: Passengers Sue Alleging Plane Spewed Toxic Gas
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 100 passengers on a Delta flight out of Salt Lake City were
exposed to toxic gas that spewed from an air conditioner duct,
according to a proposed class action recently filed in US District
Court.  The Salt Lake Tribune reported that travelers also were exposed
to toxic heavy metals, such as mercury and copper, which, the lawsuit
claims, "compromised the health of each of them and caused injuries to
(their) airways and lungs."

Lead plaintiff Patrice Butler, of Darby, Montana, claims passengers of
Flight 1267 suffered severe burning and discomfort in their eyes,
noses, throats, skin and lungs.  Passengers coughed, choked and gasped
for air, she claims, before the pilot turned the Missoula, Montana-
bound flight around.  Ms. Butler's lawsuit also names Boeing
Corporation as a defendant for allegedly providing a defective airliner
to Delta.

As passengers boarded the plane at Salt Lake City International
Airport, Ms. Butler and others noticed an unusual odor, the lawsuit
asserts.  After the plane was airborne, the odor became stronger,
according to the lawsuit filed by Salt Lake City attorney Kathryn
Collard.  The pilot announced there were several electrical problems
and that the plane would be returning to Salt Lake City.  Moments
later, the intercom failed and the pilots opened the cockpit door to
communicate with the crew and passengers by yelling down the passage,
according to the lawsuit.

Flight attendants spoke with passengers seated next to escape hatches
to ensure they knew how to operate them and distributed wet paper
napkins to passengers, instructing them how to breathe through the
napkins as they were doing, according to Ms. Butler's description.
Because they had trouble breathing, some passengers yelled for oxygen
masks, but flight attendants said the circumstances did not warrant
their deployment, the lawsuit claims.  Many of the passengers "became
hysterical, cried and wailed," according to the suit.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for each plaintiff,
including compensation for injuries and future medical costs.


IBP INC.: Court Allows Antitrust Suit Over Cattle Prices To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has declined to hear an
appeal by packing giant IBP Inc., in a class action lawsuit challenging
the Company's methods of buying cattle, the Omaha World-Herald reported
recently.

The Company appealed a ruling by Senior US District Judge Lyle Strom of
Omaha allowing the cattlemen's class action. The Omaha law firm of
Domina Law represents the cattlemen.  The lawsuit, which was filed in
Montgomery, Alabama, alleges that the Company uses contracts and
special deals to depress the daily cash prices paid to cattle
producers.

The Appeals Court decision means that the case could go to trial in
Montgomery later this year.  It would be the first class action trial
in the history of the 81-year-old Packers and Stockyards Act, which was
adopted to ensure fairness in the livestock industry.


MCKESSON WATER: $1.245M Settlement Reached in Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Water Products Company and subsidiary Groupe Danone will
settle for $1.245 million the racial discrimination class action
pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of
California accusing them of assigning black drivers to routes that
restricted their pay and promotion opportunities.  The suit was filed
under Title VII OF the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by private counsel and
the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), according to an
HRnext report.

The EEOC probed the Company in 1998, after several of its African-
American employees filed charges of discrimination with the commission,
alleging that they had suffered racial discrimination at the drinking
water processing and delivery company.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
Company:

     (1) paid African-American drivers less and increased their
         compensation at a slower rate than white drivers; and

     (2) assigned African-American drivers to routes in low-income
         neighborhoods, which were often less profitable than routes in
         affluent communities.

The plaintiffs further added that because pay and promotion were tied
to the profitability of the routes, the African-American drivers
received lower compensation and fewer promotions than those assigned to
the affluent areas.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Antonio Lawson told HRnext, "Black drivers
understood that they would work the so-called `ghetto routes' while
Beverly Hills would be handled by white drivers.After many years of job
segregation, they decided enough was enough."

Aside from the monetary compensation, the Company also pledged to
implement:

     (1) Company anti-discrimination policies and procedures,

     (2) the provision of training on equal employment opportunity law,

     (3) the institution of a formal job bidding system,

     (4) the development and implementation of improved criteria for
         determining route assignments, compensation, promotions, and
         performance evaluations


SULZER MEDICA: Progress Seen On Defective Implants Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulzer Medica reached an agreement with patients' representatives on
the details of a proposed $1 billion settlement to several class
actions over defective hip and knee implants, taking it closer to
definitive court approval later this year, The Wall Street Journal
recently reported.

The suits commenced after the Company recalled 40,000 hip implants and
withdrew some knee implants last year.  The implants allegedly were not
bonding properly to their bones.  Later, the Company determined that
oil residue on the hip and knee implants caused the problem.

Later, Sulzer Medica proposed a $783 million agreement to settle the
class actions.  Under the settlement, the Company will pay patients who
needed surgery after receiving the faulty hip or knee implants between
$57,500 and $97,500 in cash and stock. However, attorneys for the
plaintiffs contested the proposed settlement, calling it unfair.

Parties then engaged in intense negotiations to resolve the suit, which
resulted in the definitive proposal, which the Company described in its
statement as having "significant advantages to all."

A spokesman for Europe's top orthopedic-device maker also said the
final wording of the document on compensation for faulty implants was
due to be hammered out in the next few days, sparking a rally in
Company shares in Zurich.

Sulzer Medica, of Switzerland, faces as many as 4,000 lawsuits from
patients whose hip or knee implants loosened painfully post-surgery and
who required additional operations to have replacement implants
installed.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Class Members Sought Out in California Smokers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego, California Superior Court ordered the implementation of
a statewide notification plan for all former and current California
smokers, who are qualified to participate in a class action suit
against several tobacco companies.  The class includes all present and
former California residents who, during the period from June 10, 1993
through April 23, 2001, resided in California, smoked one or more
cigarettes while residing in California, and who were exposed to
tobacco company marketing and advertising activities in California.

The suit alleges that the defendants, by way of deceptive advertising
and marketing activities in California during the class period, misled
the smoking public of the health risks of smoking to seduce and induce
people to smoke.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) The American Tobacco Company, Inc.,

     (2) Philip Morris Incorporated,

     (3) RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company,

     (4) Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation,

     (5) British American Tobacco Co., Ltd.,

     (6) Ligget Group, Inc.,

     (7) Ligget & Myers, Inc.,

     (8) The Council for Tobacco Research - USA, Inc.,

     (9) The Tobacco Institute, Inc., and

    (10) Lorillard Tobacco Company

The defendants have denied all allegations and a trial is set for
October 11, 2002.

For more information, call 800-494-6975 or visit the Website:
http://www.calsmoker.com.


* Health Insurers' Use of Surplus Funds Undermining Charitable Purpose
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there any rules governing nonprofit health insurers' use of surplus
funds?  This question arises in the context of the controversy swirling
around three giant Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies that provide
health insurance to more than half the population of Pennsylvania,
according to a recent report by The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Collectively, the three Blues provide health insurance to 6.6 million
Pennsylvanians, or 54 percent of the State's 12.2 million residents.

These three nonprofit health insurers have stockpiled huge cash
surpluses of more than $3 billion in recent years. That amount is far
in excess of legal requirements, yet they continue to charge their
subscribers higher and higher premium rates.  Their surpluses could
have been reduced by $2.2 billion and they still would have met minimum
reserve levels set by the Pennsylvania Insurance Department.

The companies, Independence Blue Cross of Philadelphia, Highmark of
Camp Hill and Pittsburgh, and Capital Blue Cross of Harrisburg, have
been accused in a series of class actions of violating their nonprofit
charters by building up the surpluses.  The law, however, places no
limit on how large the surpluses may grow.  "They basically say, `We
are going to accumulate as much as we want' - how does that fit with
the word nonprofit?" said Gregg W. Mackuse, a lawyer suing Independence
Blue Cross.

The Blues answer, however, that building surpluses is a sound business
practice.  As medical costs rise, the Companies say, large surpluses
assure subscribers that their medical claims will be paid.

Beyond the question of whether or not nonprofits should be permitted to
accumulate  huge surpluses, is the companion issue of how the surpluses
should be used. Should the Blues be obligated to reduce subscriber
premiums and provide low-cost health coverage for the uninsured?  More
than 1.1 million Pennsylvanians have no health insurance at all.

The various class actions are basically contending that the three
nonprofits have abandoned their original mission.  For example,
lawsuits pending against the Blues in Bucks and York counties allege
that the Companies have amassed their surpluses at the expense of their
subscribers, instead of making their coverage more affordable.  The
three Companies have raised annual premium rates an average of 10 to 15
percent in recent years, said Geoff Dunaway,  Director of the Insurance
Department's Accident and Health Insurance Bureau.

However, Ann S. Torregrossa, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania
Health Law Project, which serves low-income clients, prefers to focus
exclusively on the Blues' original mission, carved out when the Blues
were first established in the 1930s to provide affordable health
insurance to people struggling through the Great Depression.  On paper,
that mission, to be "charitable and benevolent" institutions, remains
unchanged.   Therefore, says Ms. Torregrossa, "it is a very, very
legitimate question as to why these surpluses are not being used to
reduce the cost of health care."

The Companies insist that they remain health insurers of "last resort"
to people in need.  Additionally, the Companies point with pride to
their growing reserves as barometers of their financial stability,
which gives confidence to their members that the companies will be able
to pay for their medical bills in the event of an economic downturn.

However, critics say, the Blues have a different reason for building
surpluses--to engage in acquisitions, mergers and possible conversion
to for-profit status.  Independence and Highmark, especially, have
taken on the appearance of big businesses in recent years, expanding
onto new turf, buying for-profit subsidiaries, paying $1 million-plus
salaries to top executives and stockpiling cash.

Meanwhile, about a dozen lawyers in Philadelphia and other cities
around the state have filed suits in a quest to force them to disgorge
some of the excess surplus, and, at the same time, get the Blues to
acknowledge their stated mission.  One suit, pending before Bucks
County Common Pleas Court Judge Alan M. Rubenstein, seeks an order
forcing Independence Blue Cross to rebate money to subscribers and
provide subsidized health coverage for the uninsured.  The action was
filed on behalf of a Bensalem appliance store owner who buys insurance
for himself and his employees.  Similar subscriber suits are pending
against Highmark and Capital Blue Cross in York County.

Lawyers for the Blues have petitioned in both counties to have the
suits dismissed.  The Companies contend the litigation amounts to a
rate dispute and thus falls within the domain of the State's Insurance
Department.

While subscribers complain of soaring premiums, doctors complain that
the Blues skimp on reimbursements.  And, although the Insurers recently
have raised doctor-reimbursement rates, the Pennsylvania Medical
Society holds that the rates are still comparatively low.  Stephen
Foreman, an economist for the Society, says that the Blues have been
able to salt away huge surpluses because they have attained
monopolistic dominance in their markets.  "When did the antitrust laws
get repealed? Why do these companies need to be this big?" Mr. Foreman
questions.

Ms. Torregrossa says that her office regularly receives calls from
people in desperate health situations, like the one from a woman
recently diagnosed with a brain tumor at a Philadelphia health clinic.
The woman had no health insurance and cannot find a doctor or hospital
to treat her.  These are the people she believes the Blues should be
helping; these are the people whose health insurance they should be
subsidizing with their surpluses, in fulfillment of their stated
mission.

Mr. Mackuse, the lawyer suing Independence Blue Cross, asks, "When is
enough, enough?  Is there ever a point when there is too much?"  These
are the questions, amongst others, that the lawyers and their clients
hope will be answered by the courts in both the class action lawsuits
and the individual actions that have been filed.  Although the
decisions will apply in Pennsylvania, they will have precedent-setting
value, perhaps setting the guidelines that nonprofit insurers must
follow in the use of their surplus funds.


                           Securities Fraud


ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Much Shelist Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC commenced a
securities class action in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Actrade Financial
Technologies, Ltd. (NASDAQ: ACRT) from March 11,1999 to February
8,2002.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market between March 11, 1999
and February 11, 2002.

The statements, which were issued, among other places, in various press
releases that announced record quarterly results and in SEC filings
that represented that its loans were covered by insurance and surety
bonds, which minimized the Company's risk on the loans, were false and
misleading. Specifically, the statements failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company loaned over $10 million to individuals, not
         businesses, who used the proceeds personally; and

     (2) that the Company did not disclose to its insurers and sureties
         the nature of the personal loans and, as a result, it 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
recounted 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 45%,
falling to $13.75 per share on February 11, 2002, from a $24.89 per
share close on Friday, February 8, 2002.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com


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 the stock who purchased Actrade
(NASDAQ:ACRT) securities during the period from March 11, 1999 through
February 11, 2002 against 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 during the class period.

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 its
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.

For example, 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 Friday, February 8, 2002.

For more details, 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.srk-law.com.


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Leo Desmond Commences Securities suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Advanced Switching
Communications, Inc. (Nasdaq:ASCX) securities between October 5, 2000
and February 12, 2002, inclusive, in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Asghar D. Mostafa,

     (2) Harry J. D'Andrea,

     (3) Robert Ted Enloe III,

     (4) Betsy S. Atkins,

     (5) Ronald S. Westernik, and

     (6) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

It is alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the class period which statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond by Mail: 2161 Palm Beach Lakes
Blvd., Suite 204, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 by Phone: 888-337-6663
by E-mail: Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com.


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Berger Montague Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. 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 persons or entities who purchased 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 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 between October 4, 2000 and February 12, 2002, 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 DS-O to OC-192 capability which, in fact,
the Company 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 the
Company's 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 information, 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


AT HOME: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of persons who acquired At Home Corp., d/b/a Excite@Home
(NASDAQ: ATHM) common stock between April 17, 2001 and August 28, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit 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 and seeks to recover damages. The complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws by making misstatements regarding,
and by failing to disclose adverse material facts regarding, the
Company's business and financial condition during the class period and
also by virtue of their status as control persons of the Company.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
that the Company 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 it 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
its needs for cash during 2001. Despite obtaining a total of $185
million in new financing, the complaint alleges, on September 29, 2001,
At Home announced that it would seek bankruptcy protection, and on
October 23, 2001, the Company's share price hit a 52-week low of four
cents per share.

The complaint further alleges that defendant AT&T Corporation, which at
all relevant times held a 74% voting interest in the Company, 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 the Company.

According to the complaint, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal
conduct, the Company's stock price was artificially high throughout the
class period, causing plaintiff and the other class members to purchase
their Company securities at inflated prices.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414
by E-mail: ATHM@bernlieb.com.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of Cornell Companies, Inc. (NYSE:CRN) common
stock during the period between March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants issued favorable but
false financial statements and made false and misleading statements
about the Company's business.

As a result of these false statements, the Company's stock traded as
high as $18.40.  Defendants took advantage of this artificial
inflation, selling 3.4 million shares of Company stock for proceeds of
over $48 million in a November 2001 secondary offering.

On February 6, 2002, Bloomberg ran an article on the Company which
stated in part, "Cornell Cos., which operates 69 prisons in 13 states
and the District of Columbia, said it will review the accounting of an
August real estate transaction involving 11 properties. Its shares fell
as much as 63 percent. The company received a letter Thursday from
auditor Arthur Andersen LLP that raised concern about the transaction,
said Larry Stein of FRB Weber Shandwick, a firm that handles public
relations for Cornell. The Andersen review was part of a year-end
audit."  Upon these disclosures, Company stock dropped to as low as
$6.50 before closing at $9.96 on February 6, 2002, some 45% below the
class period high of $18.40.

On March 6, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "Cornell
Companies Inc. to Restate Financials for Year Ended December 31, 2000
and Subsequent Quarters."  On this news, the Company's shares plummeted
once again by more than 10%.

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


ELAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Elan
Corporation, PLC (NYSE: ELN) from April 30, 1999 through February 4,
2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition.

The suit alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price of
Company securities, defendants materially overstated the Company's
revenues by creating entities that were essentially controlled by the
Company for research and development.  The Company immediately took
back its investment in the form of a license fee, which it recorded as
revenue. In some instances the joint ventures had no money left for the
development of drugs and the Company ended up lending money to the
entity.

After the market closed on January 29, 2002, The Wall Street Journal
described the Company's accounting as a "charade" and quoted a former
SEC accountant as stating that it is like "taking money out of one
pocket and putting it in another."  On February 4, 2002, the Company
announced that earnings for the fourth quarter 2001 would drop 84% and
that its profits for fiscal year 2001 would fall well short of
estimates.

On this news, the Company's ADRs fell $15.10 per share from $29.95 per
share to $14.85 per share, a loss of more than 50% of their value in a
single day.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the Firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in NH
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
certain of the officers and directors of Enterasys Networks, Inc.
(NYSE:ETS) in the United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from January 26, 2001 through
February 1, 2002.

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 September 26, 2001 and February 1, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly financial
performance and filed reports confirming such performance with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The suit alleges
that these statements were materially false and misleading because,
among other things:

     (1) the Company's Asia Pacific region operations, which
         represented a material portion of its revenues, was improperly
         recognizing revenues in violation of its accounting policies
         and generally accepted accounting principles. As a result, the
         Company's operating results were materially misrepresented and
         overstated;

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company; and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On February 1, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company shocked
the market when it announced that it would be delaying the release of
its fourth quarter and fiscal year financial results because it was
reviewing the revenue recognition practices of its Asia Pacific
operations.  The Company also announced it was being investigating by
the SEC.

In response to these disclosures, on February 4, 2002, the first day of
trading following the Company's announcement, its shares closed at
$4.20 per share, a loss of more than 61% since its previous close of
$10.80 on February 1, 2002, on volume of more than 35 million shares
traded.

For more information, 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 Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the US District Court in New Hampshire
against purchasers of Enterasys Networks, Inc. (NYSE:ETS) from
September 26,2001 to February 1, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between September 26, 2001
and February 1, 2002. Specifically, the suit alleges that the
statements failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company's Asia Pacific region operations, which
         represented a material portion of its revenues, was improperly
         recognizing revenues in violation of its accounting policies
         and generally accepted accounting principles; and therefore,
         the Company's operating results were materially misrepresented
         and overstated;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and,
         therefore, was unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (3) that, because of these improprieties, the Company's statements
         concerning its prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

The Company waited until the close of trading on February 1, 2002, to
announce that it would be delaying the release of its fourth quarter
and fiscal year financial results because it was reviewing the revenue
recognition practices of its Asia Pacific operations.  The Company also
announced that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) had initiated an investigation of it and certain affiliated
companies.

Following the February 1, 2002 announcement, Company shares fell $6.59
to $4.21 in trading of 35.1 million shares, or 22 times the 3-month
daily average, dropping the stock to its lowest closing price since May
1991.  Company stock suffered the second largest percentage decline in
U.S. markets, reducing its market value from $2.9 billion to $855.4
million.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or
by E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com


FOAMEX LP: Awaits DE Court Approval for Derivative Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court is set to approve the settlement of a
purported derivative and class action filed against Foamex
International on behalf of the Company and its stockholders for
violations of federal securities laws.

The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, its principal stockholder Trace
International Holdings, Inc., and a Trace International affiliate.

The Company later inked a proposed settlement to resolve all
outstanding shareholder litigation against the Company and its current
and former directors and officers.  In early January 2002, two
shareholders filed objections to the settlement.

The settlement hearing was held on February 15, 2002 but was not
concluded. On February 27, 2002, the Court informed the parties that it
would approve the settlement.  Approval of the settlement may be
appealed by the objectors.  The settlement involves no admissions or
findings of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or any individuals.


GILAT SATELLITE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Gilat Satellite
Networks, Ltd. (NASDAQ: GILTF) between November 13, 2000 and October 2,
2001, inclusive, in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of New York against the Company and officers Yoel Gat and Yoav
Libovitch.

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

Prior to and throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
the Company issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements which materially misrepresented its financial condition and
results because, among other things, the Company was improperly
delaying the writedown of tens of millions of dollars of inventory and
investments which were impaired and of diminishing value.

In addition, the Company failed to disclose that its StarBand division
was experiencing significant difficulties attracting customers and was
not generating the revenues for it that defendants had caused the
market to expect.

On October 2, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company
issued a press release announcing that its financial results for the
third quarter of 2001 would be below previously announced guidance and
that it was taking additional charges. The Company reported that
revenues for the third quarter were expected to be $80 million, as
compared to the $150 million announced on May 14, 2001, and that the
Company expected to report a loss of $267 million or approximately
$11.40 per share. Following this announcement, the price of Company
shares dropped from $5.38 per share to $3.32 per share, a decline of
more than 38% on heavy trading volume.

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


GILAT SATELLITE: Glancy Binkow Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
all persons who purchased securities of Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.
(NASDAQ:GILTF) between August 14, 2000 and March 9, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, yet
covered up the fact, that:

     (1) the demand for and acceptance of the Company's products and
         the products of its subsidiary, StarBand Communications, Inc.,
         were greatly overstated;

     (2) the Company was having difficulty manufacturing and selling
         its chief product, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT)
         profitably;

     (3) that the Company's purported gross profit margins were false;

     (4) that the Company was materially understating its costs and
         expenses; and

     (5) that the Company, accordingly, would have to take massive
         charge-offs, numbering in the hundreds of millions of dollars
         in the future.

The suit alleges that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
enormous damages on investors.

For further details, contact Michael Goldberg or Lionel Z. Glancy by
Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California
90067 by Phone: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com.


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Finkelstein Krinsk Launches Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk initiated a securities class action recoveries for
large against HA-LO Industries, Inc. in the US District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, for violating the federal securities
laws, on behalf of purchasers of the HALO securities from February 18,
1999 through November 23, 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that the management defendants participated in a
scheme to artificially inflate the price of Company stock through false
financial reports.  The financial reports were presented to investors
in conjunction with portrayals of the Company's business in positive
terms that were false or incomplete.

On November 23, 2001, the Company finally announced that it would
restate its financial statements for 1998-2000.  Company shares trade
at a fraction of their class period high.

For more information, contact Walter F. Spath, III by Mail: 501 West
Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 877-493-5366 by
Fax: 619-238-5425 or by E-mail: fk@class-action-law.com



HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
person who acquired common stock of Hanover Compressor Company
(NYSE:HC) during the period between November 8, 2000 and January 28,
2002, inclusive in the US District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

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

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


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Cauley Geller Expands Class Period in S.D. TX Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP expanded the class period in the
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, inclusive, to
include purchases between May 15, 2000 through January 28, 2002,
inclusive.

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

The Company's true state of fiscal affairs was in fact substantially
different than reported to the markets. On January 28, 2002, the
Company would reveal various investments and joint ventures for which
it never recorded the investment amount or purchase price, but for
which the Company recorded revenue from in order to bolster its claims
of growth. Specifically, the true facts, which as alleged in the
complaint were known by the defendants during the class period but
concealed from the public, were:

     (1) the $16 million in revenue and $2.6 million in net income
         recognized in Q3 and Q4 associated with the Hampton Roads
         fabrication project should not have been recognized;

     (2) the registration statement omits the Hampton Roads project and
         incorporated the Company's false and misleading Q3 and Q4 2000
         financial results; and

     (3) the Company's financial statements for Q101 through Q301 were
         false in that the revenue and EPS were overstated and they
         failed to disclose the impact of the questionable Hampton
         Roads joint venture.

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Phone: 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


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC launched a
securities class action in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks,
Inc. (NASDAQ: JNPR) common stock from April 12, 2001 to June 7,2001.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements regarding its financial condition. Specifically,
the suit alleges that during the class period, the Company:

     (1) stated that it was on track to have 2Q01 revenues of greater
         than $330 million and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and
         that deferred revenue (i.e., revenue not yet recognized
         because customers had not yet accepted products) had declined
         because customer acceptance cycles were shorter than in the
         past; and

     (2) represented that the Company was on track to report 2001 EPS
         of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma.

The Company's representations caused its stock to trade as high as
$69.50,which allowed certain officers and directors to take advantage
of the inflationary prices by selling 747,463 shares for proceeds of
approximately $42.9 million.

On June 8, 2001, the Company disclosed that its 2nd Quarter 2001
revenues would be much lower than previously represented and earnings
would be less than half of prior estimates.  The Company also admitted
that customer acceptance cycles were much longer than in the past,
stretching from days to months. On this news, Company shares dropped to
$38.02, or more than 46% lower than its period high of $69.50.
Ultimately, the Company reported a loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of
just $0.50, half of what it represented, causing its stock to trade as
low as $13.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com


LUMENIS LTD.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of purchasers of Lumenis Ltd. (NASDAQ: LUME)
between January 7, 2002 and February 28, 2002, inclusive against the
Company and:

     (1) Chairman Jacob Frenkel,

     (2) President/CEO Yacha Sutton, and

     (3) COO Sagi Genger

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. The complaint alleges that
throughout the class period, defendants discounted and disputed
marketplace rumors about its operations even as it knew it was being
investigated by the SEC and that its distributors had been contacted by
the SEC.  Additionally, even after announcing in a press release that
it was subject to an SEC investigation, the Company continued to hide
the fact that it had been aware of the SEC investigation and had been
providing information to the SEC for several weeks.

On February 28, 2002, the Company revealed the facts concerning the SEC
investigation in a conference call. These shocking revelations caused
the stock to plummet 30% in one day and more than 69% from its class
period high, resulting in damages to plaintiff and members of the
class.

For more information, contact Fred T. Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Michael Miske, George Peters, Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 or by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com.  Your e-mail should refer to LUMENIS.


MEDI-HUT CO.: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Medi-
Hut Co. (Nasdaq:MHUT) and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's common stock
during the period from April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and:

     (1) Joseph A. Sanpietro, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Laurence M. Simon, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Robert Russo, Treasurer,

     (4) Vincent Sanpietro, Secretary,

     (5) James G. Aaron, director, and

     (6) James S. Vacarro, director

The suit alleges that defendants knowingly and recklessly disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and omissions that
misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial
performance. As stated in the suit, 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.

Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that Mr. Marasco, its Vice
President for Sales and Marketing, had a controlling interest in
Larval. During fiscal year 2001, sales to Larval accounted for 62% of
the Company's 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. The Company, however, failed to disclose the true nature
of its 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. These
reports were disseminated to shareholders and/or were publicly
available to potential investors.

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 that, 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 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,
Company shares 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 the Company's independent auditor after only
two weeks. Grant Thornton served as the Company's auditors from January
24, 2002 through February 8, 2002.

For more information, contact Darin R. Morgan 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 Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Cauley Geller Expands Investigation in Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP expanded its investigation into the
allegations set forth in the class action filed last week on behalf of
investors in NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NPW) common stock. The
expanded investigation includes issues pertaining to certain energy
pricing contracts in the PJM Interconnection region, the Company's
relationships with certain strategic partners, and investment banker
and underwriter conflicts of interests.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities
who acquired the common stock of NewPower Holdings (NYSE: NPW) during
the period from October 5, 2000 through and including December 5, 2001.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's public offering on October 5, 2000 was false and misleading
in several ways, including misrepresentations and omissions concerning
the adequacy of risk management systems put in place in conjunction
with Company affiliate, Enron Energy Services, Inc. (EES), and the true
nature and purpose of certain related party transactions, including
transactions pursuant to which Enron attempted to hedge its investment
in the Company through use of a partnership known as "Raptor III,"
which was conceived and designed by Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

The firm, in conjunction with its co-counsel Abraham & Paskowitz, has
also formally communicated a request to NewPower Holdings, through its
counsel, that no documents be discarded or destroyed that will be
potentially important to this action, including e-mail files, and tape
and video recordings.

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
Website: http://www.classlawyer.com


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of persons who acquired NewPower Holdings (NYSE: NPW)
common stock between October 5, 2000 and December 5, 2001, inclusive.

The suit accuses the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statement concerning its business and
financial condition. Specifically, the suit alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's public offering
on October 5, 2000 was false and misleading in several ways, including
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the adequacy of risk
management systems put in place in conjunction with its affiliate,
Enron Energy Services, Inc. (EES), and the true nature and purpose of
certain related party transactions, including transactions pursuant to
which Enron attempted to hedge its investment in the company through
use of a partnership known as "Raptor III," which was conceived and
designed by Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

Claims regarding these misrepresentations and omissions have been
asserted under Section 11 of the Securities Act against the
underwriters of the October 5, 2000 initial public offering and against
those persons who were directors (or about to become directors) of the
Company at the time of that offering, including its top executives, CEO
H. Eugene Lockhart, Chairman Lou L. Pai and CFO William I. Jacobs.

The complaint alleges in this regard that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors misrepresented or failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company had not adopted effective and appropriate
         hedging strategies against volatility of commodity prices;

     (2) that the Company was on course to achieve its financial goals
         and had sufficient liquidity to do so; and

     (3) that certain forward contracts with EES posed little risk of
         loss when in truth and in fact they were driving the Company
         toward insolvency, and were largely structured to protect and
         enrich Enron, the Company's controlling shareholder.

According to the complaint, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal
conduct, the Company's stock price was artificially high throughout the
class period, causing plaintiff and the other class members to purchase
their securities at inflated prices.

For more information, 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 or by E-mail: NPW@bernlieb.com.


NICE SYSTEMS: Israeli Court Approves $4M Settlement of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice Systems reached a $4 million settlement of a securities class
action filed in Tel Aviv District Court, charging the Israeli
multimedia Company of violations of federal securities laws in its
restatement of its 1999 and 2000 financials, iWon reports.

The Court has approved the agreement, thus, dismissing all claims
against the Company or its current and former officers and directors.
The Company will not admit liability in the settlement, which will be
funded by its directors and officers liability insurance and will have
no effect on the company's financial position or results of operations.

"Although we were prepared to defend against the action vigorously, we
believe it is in the best interests of the company and its shareholders
to remove the expense and distraction of this litigation," said the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, Haim Shani.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA Corporation 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
stock.

In order to overstate revenues and assets in its 4th Quarter 2000 and
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.

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. Your e-mail should refer to NVIDIA.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Nvidia Corporation
(NASDAQ: NVDA) from February 15, 2000 to February 14, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws.  As part of its effort
to boost the price of its stock, the Company misrepresented its true
prospects in an effort to conceal its improper acts until certain
officers and directors were able to sell at least $66 million worth of
their own stock. In order to overstate revenues and assets in its 4th
Quarter 2000 and 1st to 3rd Quarter 2001, the Company violated
generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules by engaging in
an illegal accounting scheme that 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."
In reaction to the news, Company shares fell from $62.16 on February
14, 2002 to $53.55 per share two trading days later.

For further details, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or
by E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities Suit in W.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities class action against PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: PNC) and certain of its key
officers and directors of the Company in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
purchasers of Company securities during the period between July 19,
2001 and January 29, 2002.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported earnings, net income and liabilities, and that the
Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make its
prior statements not misleading.

On January 29, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing that
the Federal Reserve Board had raised concerns about accounting
inaccuracies in the Company's financial statements for the second,
third, and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2001. Specifically, the
Company had failed to consolidate preferred interests in three
subsidiaries.

As a result, the Company announced that it would restate its earnings
for the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2001 and revise its
fourth quarter earnings for the same year, resulting in year-end
earnings being reduced $155 million to approximately $412 million, or
$1.38 a share. The Company also revealed that these accounting
adjustments would cause its non-performing assets to rise by $125
million to $393 million.

Additionally, the Company stated that the Federal Reserve Board and SEC
were making inquiries about its transactions and that the Company would
cooperate with the investigations. In response to these disclosures,
Company shares fell $5.79, or nearly 10% to close at $56.08 on
extremely heavy trading volume of 6,305,100 shares.

For more information, contact Ashley Kim by Mail: 19 Fulton Street,
Suite 406, New York, New York 10038 by Phone: 212-964-0046 or 866-348-
7700 by Fax: 212-267-8137 or by E-Mail:
shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com


PNC FINANCIAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE:PNC)
common stock between July 19, 2001 to January 29, 2002 inclusive, in
the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

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

The suit alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants issued
multiple press releases reporting the Company's quarterly financial
performance, and filed reports confirming such performance with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These reports
positively portrayed the Company's performance during the class period.

As alleged in the complaint, however, these statements were materially
false and misleading because the Company was engaged in improper and/or
suspect accounting practices which affected the accuracy of its
financial results and that, contrary to the statements in documents
filed with the SEC during the class period, its financial statements
issued during the class period were not prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.

Defendants failed to properly consolidate liabilities associated with
three subsidiaries the Company had established with American Insurance
Group (AIG). Throughout the class period, defendants misrepresented the
Company's earnings as well as its ability to reduce its liabilities
related to non-performing assets. In fact, defendants' failure to
conform to proper accounting standards produced inflated earnings and
misled investors as to the Company's true financial condition.

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

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


SECURITIES LITIGATION: Tech Companies To Settle Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer for technology companies accused of federal securities
violations in the consolidated litigation in New York Federal Court
will commence settlement talks with the plaintiffs in the suits,
Bloomberg.com reports.

Hundreds of securities class actions were commenced against more than
300 technology companies and their underwriters, after the Internet
market collapsed.  These suits, which contained similar allegations,
were consolidated for pretrial purposes under Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suits
generally allege that the Companies issued false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose secret agreements between their
underwriters and selected shareholders that were designed to
artificially inflate their stock prices.

In a hearing in New York, the lawyers for the Companies revealed that
they will enter mediation for a 90-day period before an unnamed former
federal judge. The three-dozen underwriters for the technology
companies weren't mentioned as parties to the negotiations.  "We think
there is a possibility of making progress in a resolution," plaintiff's
attorney Melvyn Weiss told Judge Scheindlin.  "We think it will take
about 90 days to explore the approach."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have previously said that damages might
exceed $1 billion in the case, but did not mention possible settlement
amounts in the hearing, Bloomberg.com reports. Attorney Jack Auspitz,
who represents the technology companies, said after the hearing that he
learned of the mediation proposal on Friday.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Suprema Specialties, Inc. (Nasdaq:CHZEQ) and its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased company
securities from August 15, 2001 through and including December 21,
2001, inclusive.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Additionally, the suit alleges a violation of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of those investors who
purchased Company stock pursuant to its Secondary Offering of November
8, 2001.

The suit alleges, among other things that throughout the class period
defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition. On
December 21, 2001, the Company announced the resignation of defendant
Venechanos, its CFO and disclosed that it had launched an investigation
into the Company's prior reported financial results. In response to
this report the NASDAQ halted trading of Company stock.

These statements, among others, are alleged to have been materially
deceptive:

     (1) August 15, 2001, press release announcing the Company's 2001
         year end financial results,

     (2) 2001 Form 10-K filed with the SEC on September 28, 2001,

     (3) the Company's registration statement filed with the SEC on
         November 6, 2001 for the public offering of over 4 million
         shares of stock at $12.75 of which 500,000 shares were sold
         by, among others, Mr. Cocchiola and Mr. Venechanos,

     (4) the Company's Form 10-Q for its first quarter ended September
         30, 2001

In each of its SEC filing, the Company assured the public that its
financials were in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP).  The suit alleges that the Company's financial
statements were not in conformity with GAAP and that defendants'
misrepresentations caused the price of Company common stock to be
artificially inflated throughout the class period.

For more information, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas M. Risen 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.bm.net


TRW INC.: Faces OH Suit For Ignoring Northrop Grumman Takeover Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRW, Inc. faces a class action filed in the US District Court of
Northern Ohio, Eastern Division by its shareholders over the failed
attempt by Northrop Grumman to acquire the Company, Bloomberg.com
reports.

Northrop Grumman, an auto parts and defense equipment manufacturer,
attempted last month to acquire the Company after CEO David Cote
resigned to head Honeywell International, Inc.  Northrop Grumman said
it would spin off, or sell the Company's automotive businesses.   The
suit seeks to force the board to "adequately consider" the bid, saying
the Company is ignoring its duty to increase shareholder value.

The Company has not decided on the offer, asking its shareholders to
sit on the $47 share bid until it explores all of its options,
Bloomberg.com reports.  The Company Board said it will make a decision
on March 15.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities class action
against Williams Companies (NYSE: WMB) in the US District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's stock from July 24, 2000 to January 29,2002

The suit alleges the Company, its subsidiary Williams Communications
Group (NYSE: WCG) and certain of its officers 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 WMB common stock and WCG common
stock.

For more details, contact Shannon Keniry or Andrew Morganti by Phone:
866-592-1960 or 202-337-1960 or by E-mail: spk@ftllaw.com or
ajm@ftllaw.com.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Suit in N.D. OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired common stock of Williams Companies, Inc.
(NYSE:WMB) and/or Williams Communication Group, Inc. (NYSE:WCG) during
the period between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, inclusive, in
the US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The suit
names as defendants:

     (1) Williams Companies, Inc.,

     (2) Williams Communication Group, Inc.,

     (3) Keith E. Bailey,

     (4) Howard E. Janzen and

     (5) Scott E. Schubert

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of WMB common stock and WCG common stock.

For further details, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by Phone:
800-889-3701 or by E-mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.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  * * *