CAR_Public/020314.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Thursday, March 14, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 52

                           Headlines

ARMSTRONG WORLD: 350 Former Employees Commence ERISA Suit in E.D. PA
AXA FINANCIAL: Georgia Court Approves Settlement of Discrimination Suit
CHEVRONTEXACO CORP.: Ecuadorians Testify in $1 Billion Pollution Suit
DEPORTED MINORS: Suit For Free Legal Services Awaits Certification
ENRON CORPORATION: Gov. Bush Urges Discussion of State Pension Suit  

EQUITABLE LIFE: Former Agents File Suit For ERISA Violations in N.D. CA
EQUITABLE LIFE: Policyholders Sue For Alabama State Law Violations
EQUITABLE LIFE: Appeals Certification of Florida Life Insurance Suit
EQUITABLE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA, NY Sales Fraud Suits
EQUITABLE RETIREMENT: Sued For Changes In Cash Balance Formula in NY

ICON HEALTH: Recalls 7,500 Platform Treadmills Due to Fire, Burn Hazard
INDEPENDENT INSURANCE: Creditors To File Suit Over Million-Dollar Debt
IOWA SCHOOLS: Paying People Who Sued Over Petition For More Funds
LEINER HEALTH: Recalls 14 Thousand Vitamin Bottles For Packaging Defect
LOUISIANA: School Board Avoids Suit, Passes Motion on Drivers' Back Pay

NEW YORK: Judge Rejects Race Bias Suits For Women in Workfare Program
NICOR GAS: IL Court Approves $1.85M Suit Alleging Mercury Exposure
PAYPAL INC.: Sued For Electronic Fund Act, CA State Law Violations
SONY PICTURES: Settles Fake Critic Suit For $325T With Connecticut
SUPERMAX PRISON: Judge Approves Settlement, Orders Improved Conditions

UNITED AIRLINES: Base Commission Rate Suit Trial Set for September 2002
UNITED AIRLINES: Weight Program Suit To Proceed In CA Federal Court

                        Securities Fraud

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Settling Suit Over Alliance Holding Reorganization
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Faces Multiple Suits For Involvement With Enron Corp.
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Might Face AU$700M Claim Over HIH Insurance Collapse
AXA: To Settle Suits Over AXA Financial Stock Acquisition Proposal
AXA FINANCIAL: Donaldson Lufkin Sale Sparks Multiple Securities Suits

BIOPURE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in MA
GILAT SATELLITE: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suits
GILAT SATELLITE: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities Fraud Suit
IRVINE SENSORS: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Suits in C.D. CA
KNIGHT TRADING: Settles One Investors' Suit, Court Dismisses Another  

OTG SOFTWARE: Has Yet to Respond to Securities Suits in S.D. New York
OVERTURE SERVICES: Consolidated Securities Suits in S.D. NY On Hold
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in N.D. FL
SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Suit in Colorado
THQ INC.: Third Amended Securities Suit Pending in C.D. California

VAN WAGONER: Labels Multiple Securities Fraud Suits "Without Merit"
WESTERN MULTIPLEX: Shareholders File Suit To Block Walnut-Pine Merger
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
                           
                           *********

ARMSTRONG WORLD: 350 Former Employees Commence ERISA Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
About 350 former Armstrong World Industries, Inc. employees, separated
into two divestitures in 2000, have brought a purported class action
against the Company's retirement committee in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit, which also names several named and unnamed committee members
and the Retirement Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (RSSOP) as
defendants, Plaintiffs allege breach of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties and other violations of ERISA
pertaining to losses in their RSSOP accounts, which were invested in
Company's common stock. Losses are alleged to be in the range of
several million dollars.

The Company believes there are strong substantive defenses to the
allegations.


AXA FINANCIAL: Georgia Court Approves Settlement of Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia approved the
proposed settlement to a class action filed against the Southern Region
of AXA Financial, now known as the Equitable Life Assurance Society of
the US, for alleged discriminatory practices.

The suit was commenced in September 1997 in the US District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, on behalf of "all
African-Americans who applied but were not hired for, were discouraged
from applying for, or would have applied for the position of sales
agent in the absence of the discriminatory practices, and/or procedures
in the (former) Southern Region of AXA Financial from May 16, 1987 to
the present."

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company discriminated on
the basis of race against African-American applicants and potential
applicants in hiring individuals as sales agents, and seeks declaratory
judgment and affirmative and negative injunctive relief, including the
payment of back-pay, pension and other compensation.

The Court referred the case to mediation, pursuant to which the parties
reached a proposed settlement agreement.  In connection therewith, the
case was dismissed in the Alabama Federal Court and re-filed in the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

The final settlement required notice to be given to class members and
was subject to court approval. A January 2002 hearing was held and
thereafter, an order was entered approving the settlement.


CHEVRONTEXACO CORP.: Ecuadorians Testify in $1 Billion Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sitting among the lawyers in their pinstriped suits recently, at the
United States Court of Appeals in Manhattan, were two barefoot men in
palm skirts with blow-dart guns around their necks, and a third wearing
a blue-and-yellow crown and a necklace made of feathers, The New York
Times reported recently.  They were Ecuadorian Indians from a remote
region near the Amazon River, and they had come roughly 3,000 miles to
lend their support to a class action.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of some 30,000 Ecuadorians, seeks $1
billion in damages from ChevronTexaco Corporation for the Company's
role in oil-drilling operations that polluted the water and land in
Ecuador's remote Oriente region for over two decades.  First filed in
1993, the lawsuit has been dismissed twice by a federal judge here, and
it will be several months before the Appeals Court decides once and for
all whether the case should be heard in this country or in Ecuador.

The men's attorneys brought them to New York City, held a news
conference yesterday at a downtown law office, and were clearly not
blind to the publicity value of their colorfully dressed clients.  The
three short, wiry, bare-footed men appeared genuinely overcome by the
strangeness of their journey as they walked down Broadway and gazed up
at the skyscrapers.  None speak English, relating the tales of their
odyssey, in Spanish, through interpreters.

Two of those men served as further interpreters for the third, Tementa
Nenquihui, who speaks only a few words of Spanish and spoke in his
tribe's language, Huaotiriro, a unique tongue unrelated to any other
language.  His tribe, the Huaorani, numbers about 1,000 people and had
virtually no contact with anyone outside the rain forest until the
1960s.

The three men were glad to appear silently in court as their lawyers
presented their case.  The problems on the Indians' land
began in 1972, when a Texaco subsidiary started drilling oil in an
arrangement with Petroecuador, the State-owned oil company.  According
to the lawsuit, the oil companies dumped toxic byproducts into hundreds
of unlined pits instead of injecting them safely into the ground as oil
companies do in the United States.  From there, the lawsuit says, the
toxic waste spread into the soil and the rivers, and continues to do
so.  A team of Harvard University researchers found high concentrations
of petroleum-related toxins in the water in 1993.

"There are no more fish in the rivers, and you can't even bathe
yourself there," said one of the Ecuadorians, Mr. Ptyaguage.  "It is a
very big wound to us."

Lawyers filed the class action a year after the Company's involvement
in the Ecuador venture ended.  The lawyers say that because there are
no class actions in Ecuador, and because the country's legal system is
too corrupt and threadbare to handle such a large case, there was no
way to use the courts in Ecuador to compel the Companies to perform a
thorough cleanup.  "The court that would handle this case has one
courtroom and no computer," said Cristobal Bonifaz, the lead lawyer for
the lawsuit.

Also unfortunate is the fact that Ecuador has a law stating that
plaintiffs who have sought to bring an action in one jurisdiction and
failed cannot bring it in another, said Mr. Bonifaz.  "If we can't do
this case here, we're done," he added.

ChevronTexaco lawyers say the Company obeyed all laws during its time
in Ecuador and that the plaintiffs' environmental claims have not been
proven.  The Company signed a $40 million agreement with the Ecuadorian
government to clean the toxic sites in 1995, and has also argued that
the case should be filed in Ecuador.  "Our position is that this has
everything to do with Ecuador and nothing to do with the United
States," said Chris Gidez, a Company spokesman.

Mr. Ptyaguage said that if the case cannot be tried here, "we would
feel ridiculed," but he said he would not regret his trip to New York,
even if the lawsuit fails.  During his 1999 visit, he ate at Windows on
the World, in the World Trade Center.  This time he hoped to see the
World Trade Center site.  "For me, the towers were like two huge trees
in the jungle," he said.  "Because I had been there, I had a terrible
feeling when I heard that they fell."


DEPORTED MINORS: Suit For Free Legal Services Awaits Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Fred Van Sickle will decide on March 25 whether he will
grant class certification to a lawsuit filed on behalf of minors facing
deportation against the US Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS), Spokane-Review.com reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of 14-year-old Marcos Gonzales Machado,
who is currently being held at Martin Hall, a juvenile lock-up, while
awaiting a hearing to determine whether to deport him to Mexico.  The
suit asks the Court to require the INS to provide free legal
representation for minors detained in deportation cases.

A class certification would allow around 5,000 immigrant children
unaccompanied by parents or other adults the INS takes into custody
each year to free representation. Most of these children are 14 to 16
years old.


ENRON CORPORATION: Gov. Bush Urges Discussion of State Pension Suit  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Jeb Bush of Florida wants the state pension fund trustees to
extensively discuss suing a money management company that invested the
fund in Enron and lost more than $300 million, the Associated Press
recently reported.

In a recent letter to Tom Herndon, Executive Director of the State
Board of Administration, which invests the pension fund, Governor Bush
requested that a possible lawsuit against Alliance Capital Management
be discussed at the next trustee meeting.  Governor Bush, Comptroller
Robert Milligan and state Treasurer Thomas Gallagher are trustees of
the $94 billion fund.

The Board fired Alliance and its money manager, Alfred Harrison, in
December after Enron went bankrupt.  Alliance continued to invest
state money in the failing energy company almost right up to the
bankruptcy filing.  A spokesman for New York-based Alliance declined
comment.

Governor Bush has suggested in the past that suing Alliance for return
of the approximately $300 million the pension fund lost because of the
ill-timed investing in Enron by Alliance, was a good idea.

The pension fund is already a plaintiff in a class action pending in a
Texas Federal Court against Enron and its auditor Arthur Andersen.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Former Agents File Suit For ERISA Violations in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States faces a class
action pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the Company violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) by eliminating certain alternatives
pursuant to which agents of the Company could qualify for health care
coverage.

In March 1999, the Court certified a class consisting of "all current,
former and retired Equitable agents, who while associated with
Equitable satisfied (certain alternatives) to qualify for health
coverage or contributions thereto under applicable plans."

The suit alleged various causes of action under ERISA, including claims
for enforcement of alleged promises contained in plan documents and for
enforcement of agent bulletins, breach of a unilateral contract, breach
of fiduciary duty and promissory estoppel.

In June 2000, plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit contesting the district court's award of legal fees to the
plaintiffs' counsel in connection with a previously settled count of
the complaint unrelated to the health benefit claims. In that appeal,
plaintiffs have challenged the federal court's subject matter
jurisdiction over the health benefit claims. Oral argument on this
appeal was heard in November 2001.

In May 2001, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which, among
other things, alleges that the Company failed to comply with plan
amendment procedures and deletes the promissory estoppel claim.  The
Company later filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs'
claims, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on
all claims except their claim for breach of fiduciary duty.  The Court
has yet to issue judgment on the motions.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Policyholders Sue For Alabama State Law Violations
----------------------------------=-------------------------------
Discovery has proceeded in the class action presently pending in the US
District Court in the Southern District of Alabama, against The
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and one of its
agents for violations of state law.

The suit, originally filed in March 2000 in Circuit Court, Mobile
County, Alabama, names a class consisting of all persons who from
January 1, 1989:

     (i) purchased a variable annuity from Equitable Life to fund a
         qualified retirement plan;

    (ii) were charged allegedly unnecessary fees for tax deferral for
         variable annuities held in qualified retirement accounts; or

   (iii) were sold a variable annuity while owning a qualified
         retirement plan from the Company.

The suit alleges various improper sales practices, including
misrepresentations in connection with the use of variable annuities in
a qualified retirement plan or similar arrangement, charging inflated
or hidden fees, and failure to disclose unnecessary tax deferral fees.

In May 2000, the Company removed the case to the Alabama Federal Court
and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, while the plaintiffs filed
a motion to remand the case to state court. The Court has permitted
limited discovery on the issue of whether the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act applies.  The plaintiffs have additionally filed
a motion for leave to join additional plaintiffs.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Appeals Certification of Florida Life Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Equitable Life Assurance Society appealed a Florida federal court's
decision granting class certification to a lawsuit filed on behalf of a
nationwide class of persons who purchased variable life insurance
policy from the Company and Equitable Variable Life Insurance Company
(EVLICO) from September 30,1991 to January 3, 1996.

The suit was commenced in January 1996 in the US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, alleging that Company and EVLICO agents
were trained not to disclose fully that the product being sold was life
insurance.  The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws
and seeks rescission of the contracts or compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Both Companies answered the amended complaint, denying the material
allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. In May 1999,
the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation recommending
that the District Judge deny the defendant's motion for summary
judgment and grant plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The  
Companies promptly filed their objections to the recommendation.

In October 2000, the District Judge affirmed the Magistrate's report
and recommendation and, accordingly, denied the defendant's motion for
summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In May 2001, with permission of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, both Companies appealed the
Federal Court's order. Oral argument is scheduled for March 2002.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA, NY Sales Fraud Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs opposed the dismissal of two similar suits against The
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States and two of its
business partners, charging them with engaging in fraudulent and
deceptive practices in connection with the marketing and sale of
deferred annuity products to fund tax-qualified contributory retirement
plans.

The suits, which also name AXA Advisors, LLC and Equitable
Distributors, Inc. as defendants, are currently pending in the US
District Court for the Southern District of California and the US
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The California suit was initially commenced in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, on behalf of the general public of the
State of California under California consumer protection statutes and
also asserts individual common-law claims.

On behalf of the named plaintiff and the general public, the suit
asserts claims for unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts and
practices and for false or misleading advertising. On behalf of the
named plaintiff alone, the suit alleges claims for fraud, fraudulent
concealment and deceit, negligent misrepresentation and negligence.

In July 2000, the defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California and filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Court later granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the action, a decision the plaintiffs
appealed.  The appeal has been fully briefed, but the Court has yet to
release its decision.

The New York suit was commenced in October 2000 originally in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons who purchased an individual deferred
annuity contract or who received a certificate to a group deferred
annuity contract, sold by one of the defendants, which was used to fund
a contributory retirement plan or arrangement qualified for favorable
income tax treatment.

The suit makes similar allegations to the California suit and asserts
claims for:

     (1) deceptive business acts and practices in violation of the New
         York General Business Law (GBL),

     (2) use of misrepresentations and misleading statements in
         violation of the New York Insurance Law,

     (3) false or misleading advertising in violation of the GBL,

     (4) fraud, fraudulent concealment and deceit,

     (5) negligent misrepresentation,

     (6) negligence,

     (7) unjust enrichment and imposition of a constructive trust,

     (8) declaratory and injunctive relief; and

     (9) reformation of the annuity contracts

In October 2000, the defendants removed the action to the New York
Federal Court, and thereafter filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case to state court. In September 2001,
the Court issued a decision, granting defendants' motion to dismiss and
denying the plaintiffs' motion to remand.

In October 2001, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to reopen the
case for the purpose of filing an amended complaint. In addition,
plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the District Court, alleging a
similar class and similar facts. The new complaint asserts causes of
action for violations of federal securities laws in addition to the
state law causes of action asserted in the previous complaint. In
January 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the new action.


EQUITABLE RETIREMENT: Sued For Changes In Cash Balance Formula in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees, Managers and Agents will
vigorously defend against a putative class action commenced in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York in August 2001 on
behalf of "all of the Plan's participants, whether active or retired,
their beneficiaries and estates, whose accrued benefits or pension
benefits are based on the Plan's Cash Balance Formula."

The suit, which also names as a defendant, the Officers Committee on
Benefit Plans of Equitable Life, due to its role as Plan Administrator,
challenges the change, effective January 1, 1989, in the pension
benefit formula from a final average pay formula to a cash balance
formula.

The suit alleges that the change to the cash balance formula violates
the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act (ERISA) by reducing the
rate of accruals based on age, failing to comply with ERISA's notice
requirements and improperly applying the formula to retroactively
reduce accrued benefits.

The Company answered the complaint, and expressed confidence that an
adverse result will not have a material effect on its financial
position or operations.


ICON HEALTH: Recalls 7,500 Platform Treadmills Due to Fire, Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Icon Health and Fitness is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 7,500 hikers -
shortened-platform treadmills that operate at a speed of up to 6 mph.
They can be set at an incline of up to 25 or 50 percent, depending on
model, to simulate hiking up steep grades. An electrical component in
the control system at the base of the unit can fail and cause
overheating. This poses a risk of fire and burns to consumers.  The
Company has received 14 reports of the machines smoking and plastic
pieces melting. There have been no reports of injuries.

The recall includes:

     (1) the NordicTrack Adventurer, model number NTHK9990,

     (2) the NordicTrack Adventurer, model number 831.29897,

     (3) NordicTrack Teton, model number NTHK2249, and

     (4) ProForm TrailRunner, model number PFHK9990

The brand name is written on the console on the front of the machines.
The brand name, model name and number are written on the front page of
the equipment's user manual. The model number also is written on the
hiker's serial number decal found on the left-front corner of the
NordicTrack Adventurer and Teton units, and on the right side of the
support base of the ProForm TrailRunner.

Sporting good and department stores sold these hikers nationwide from
April 2000 through December 2001 for up to $2,300, depending on model.
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-999-3756
between 6 am and 6 pm MT Monday through Friday.  


INDEPENDENT INSURANCE: Creditors To File Suit Over Million-Dollar Debt
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Creditors of beleaguered Independent Insurance are launching a class
action against the insurer that went into provisional liquidation in
June at the request of its directors who had concluded that it could
not continue to run on a solvent basis, Ananova.com reports.

The potential plaintiffs have formed the Creditors of Independent
Insurance Group (CIIG) that will organize the effort to recover
millions of investments owed to them.  The group met yesterday to
discuss a possible class action against the Company, its actuaries
Watson Wyat and its auditors, KPMG LLP and the Financial Services
Authority.  The group may also commence an action against the Company's
former chief executive Michael Bright, who resigned last year before
the Company collapsed.

The group allegedly realized something was wrong at the Company before
it collapsed.  They told Ananova.com that its members lost "hundreds of
millions of pounds" in outstanding claims from the Company, and the
cost of having to take out new insurance policies.  The group has
appointed prominent law firm, Class Law Solicitors, to coordinate the
action, and the firm has spent the past nine months gathering evidence.

CIIG is made up of corporate policyholders, insurance brokers and trade
creditors.  A week earlier the group had suspended its shares and
closed its doors to new business after failing to raise around o200
million to shore up its balance sheet, according to Ananova.com.


IOWA SCHOOLS: Paying People Who Sued Over Petition For More Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Davenport, Iowa Community Schools will make payments to 2,610 people
who signed a petition eight years ago asking for a public referendum on
additional funds for the school district, the Associated Press reported
recently.  Each of these signers will receive $1 from a class action
which was brought against the school district by a group of the
petitioners who contended their civil rights were violated when the
school Board declared the petition, signed by the plaintiffs and 3,300
others, to be invalid in April 1994.

Today, only one person named as defendant in the lawsuit remains with
the school district.  "I am glad this is behind us," said
Superintendent Jim Blanche, who was the principal at West High School
when the lawsuit was filed in 1994.

The suit alleged that voters' rights were violated when the Board
rejected a petition signed by plaintiffs and about 3,300 others.  The
petitioners had contested the school Board's approval of the
Instructional Support Levy.  Petitioners argued that the district did
not deserve the extra money because of irresponsible management.  The
petition requested the Board hold a special election so voters could
decide whether to implement the levy.

The school Board threw out the petition after finding some 300
signatures that members believed were questionable.  The petition
needed 3,058 signatures to call for a referendum.  A Scott County judge
agreed with the school district in July 1998, saying the wording of the
petition was incorrect and the signatures were not valid.

However, the Iowa Supreme Court said that while the wording of the
petition was not correct, the plaintiffs were not allowed due process
when the Board decided to throw out the petition.  The case was sent
back to Scott County in March 2001, where a judge ordered the $1-per-
person settlement.

Those who did not ask to be removed from the litigation can claim one
dollar at the Scott County Clerk's office within 90 days from the day
the notice was published.  Officials say 700 people asked to be removed
from the litigation.  Money not claimed will be returned to the
schools.


LEINER HEALTH: Recalls 14 Thousand Vitamin Bottles For Packaging Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leiner Health Products is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 14,000 bottles
of dietary supplements containing iron. The supplements being recalled
are not packaged in child-resistant packaging as required under the
Poison Prevention Packaging Act. If ingested by children, these iron-
containing supplements can cause serious injury or death.

The Company has not received any reports of injuries involving these
products. This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of
injuries.

The product included in the recall is "Nature's Valley, Women's
Formula Multivitamin."  The supplement was sold in a brown plastic
bottle with a light yellow label. The bottles have UPC code "41163
27006" located on the back of the bottle The recalled product is
packaged in containers of 60-tablets and have green screw-on caps. Only
bottles with lot numbers IFA2750 and IFA2751 are included in the
recall. The lot numbers are written vertically down the back of the
bottle.

Albertson's, Jewel, Osco, Sav-on and Acme sold these recalled
supplement bottles nationwide from July 2001 through February 2002 for
between $8 and $9.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-421-1168
between 9 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday.


LOUISIANA: School Board Avoids Suit, Passes Motion on Drivers' Back Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Concordia Parish School Board avoided a class action from bus
drivers demanding back pay allegedly owed to them since 1986, by
passing a motion to compensate the drives what they are "legally due"
when computations of mileage and payments have been made, the Natchez
Democrat reports.

An audit report early this year revealed that bus drivers had been
undercompensated for their base operational expenses, starting in 1986,
due to a change in state law that increased the compensation for
drivers in this area.  As a result, the bus drivers are demanding
compensation.

James Cockerham, representative of the School Bus Drivers Association,
welcomed the school Board motion, saying it was "an encouraging step in
the right direction."  He added, "We understand this process is going
to take some time. They are dealing with 45 bus drivers over 15 years.
So we weren't looking for any sort of payment tonight.What we were
looking for was a commitment on the Board's part that they were
dedicated to fixing this problem."  He told the Natchez Democrat that
papers for a possible class action had been drawn up and were ready to
be filed in court.

"That would have been our next step had they not adopted this
resolution.But that's not how we wanted to do it. We wanted them to do
what they did."

Initially, the school Board was reluctant to pass the motion, concerned
that they were unsure on what they could and could not pay.  However,
Herbert Dixon, a field representative with the Louisiana Federation of
Teachers (LFT), stepped in to negotiate the motion made by Board member
the Rev. Johnnie Brown, the Democrat reports.  Board members then
agreed to pass the motion after including language that said the school
district would compensate the bus drivers only what they were "legally
due."

Mr. Cockerham said the School Bus Drivers Association is hiring an
independent auditor to go over the records once the parish has compiled
them all.  School Board officials said they have three years' records
left to review. They expect the review to be complete in one week.


NEW YORK: Judge Rejects Race Bias Suits For Women in Workfare Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In a legal victory for New York City, a federal judge has thrown out a
lawsuit brought by the Federal Justice Department on behalf of women in
the City's Workfare Program, in an effort to give them more rigorous
protection against sexual and racial harassment, The New York Times
reported recently.

The ruling, by Judge Richard Conway Casey of Federal District Court for
the Southern District in Manhattan, found that federal lawyers had
failed to show that women in the City's Work Experience Program are
entitled to the same workplace protections as most City employees,
because they are not, in the eyes of the law, City employees.

Those persons participating in workfare are welfare recipients who are
assigned work at City agencies or with nonprofit organizations in
exchange for their welfare benefits, the City argued. Judge Casey
agreed, saying that Workfare participants are not legally employed by
the City because they do not conform to several definitions of
employment.  Among those cited in the judge's 14-page ruling were the
low level of financial compensation, and the absence of pensions or
other benefits provided to workfare participants.

The ruling, signed by Judge Casey on Friday of last week and
distributed among lawyers yesterday, came 10 months after Mary Jo
White, then United States attorney in Manhattan, sued the Giuliani
administration on behalf of four women who had complained of
harassment.  The lawsuit was filed with the approval of Attorney
General John Ashcroft.

That lawsuit was combined with another filed by the NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund on behalf of a woman who also complained of
being harassed while on a Workfare assignment.  Judge Casey's decision
also threw out that suit.

Reaction to the ruling was muted.  Marvin Smilon, a spokesman for the
United States Attorney's Office in Manhattan, declined to say whether
the ruling would be appealed.  "We are studying the opinion," he said.
Jerry Russo, a spokesman for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, said City
lawyers had not yet read the opinion, and declined comment.

However, Martha Davis, Legal Director for the NOW group, said it
planned to appeal on behalf of its client, who complained of sexual
harassment by her supervisor and left the workfare program in 1997.  
"We are really shocked by the City's position in this," Ms. Davis said,
adding that the ruling left workfare participants with little legal
recourse if they are harassed.

The four women represented by the Justice Department included one who
was assigned clerical duties at the Sanitation Department on Staten
Island, where she complained of sexual harassment.  Another in the
group, an African-American woman who was assigned to work as a painter
for the Parks Department on Staten Island, complained that someone had
put a noose and racist cartoons on her desk.


NICOR GAS: IL Court Approves $1.85M Suit Alleging Mercury Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted final approval to a
$1.85 million proposal by Nicor Gas to settle a consolidated class
action claiming a variety of unquantified damages, including bodily
injury, property and punitive damages, allegedly caused by its mercury-
containing regulators.

On October 2001, the Company entered into an agreement to settle the
class action litigation. Under the terms of that agreement, the
Company:

     (1) will pay a total of approximately $1.85 million;

     (2) will continue for a period of five years to provide medical
         screening to persons exposed to mercury from its equipment;
         and

     (3) will use its best efforts to replace any remaining inside
         residential mercury regulators within four years.

The class action settlement permits class members to "opt out" of the
settlement and pursue their claims individually. On February 7, 2002,
the Court entered a final order approving the settlement.


PAYPAL INC.: Sued For Electronic Fund Act, CA State Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paypal, Inc. faces a class action filed on behalf of a nationwide class
comprised of all persons who opened an account with the Company or its
predecessors, or had money electronically transferred from or to an
account with another financial institution in connection with a PayPal
transaction.

The suit charges the Company with violations of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act and California statutory and common law. The complaint
alleges that:

     (1) the Company fails to provide customers with necessary
         information, such as an address and telephone number, so that
         customers can easily report erroneous financial transactions;

     (2) the Company unlawfully freezes its customers' accounts; and

     (3) the Company fails to fully compensate customers damaged by
         erroneous financial transactions.

For more information, contact Eric H. Gibbs, Ann Saponara, James AN
Smith or Rosemary M. Rivas of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP by
Phone: 415-981-4800 by Fax: 415-981-4846 by E-mail:
girardgibbs@girardgibbs.com, rmr@girardgibbs.com or csd@girargibbs.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com


SONY PICTURES: Settles Fake Critic Suit For $325T With Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Pictures Entertainment agreed to settle for $325,000 the class
action brought by the State of Connecticut due to its promotion of its
films using ecstatic reviews from a fake movie critic called David
Manning, Reuters reports.

The suit was commenced after a Newsweek report exposed that "David
Manning" didn't exist.  The Company used his reviews to promote several
movies like Heath Ledger's "A Knight's Tale."  The movie's
advertisement showed blurbs by Mr. Manning, calling Mr. Ledger "this
year's hottest new star."  Another ad for the movie "Hollow Man,"
showed Mr. Manning calling it "stupendous."

After the expose, Columbia Pictures formally rebuked and suspended ad
executives without pay for their roles in inventing Manning. A week
later, the studio admitted that two other of its employees had posed as
fans in a television testimonial for one of its movies, according to
Reuters.

A Company spokeswoman told Reuters, "We are pleased to have this matter
resolved.acted voluntarily to tighten its advertising policies last
June, shortly after management learned of the David Manning incident."  

The Company still has to contend with another related class action in
Los Angeles filed by two moviegoers who claimed they were duped into
seeing "A Knight's Tale" by glowing appraisals attributed to Mr.
Manning.


SUPERMAX PRISON: Judge Approves Settlement, Orders Improved Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Barbara Crabb recently approved a settlement that changes
the name of the prison, bars prison officials from describing inmates
as "the worst of the worst" and limits the prison's use of extreme
isolation and deprivation to influence inmates' behavior, The Capital
Times of Madison, Wisconsin recently reported.

"This agreement has achieved a great deal," Judge Crabb said.  "Life in
Supermax will continue to be difficult, tedious and unpleasant, but the
conditions will be ameliorated somewhat and the effects of sensory
deprivation lessened."  The settlement ends a class action by inmates
who alleged the prison violated their constitutional protection against
cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Crabb will continue to supervise conditions at the prison
indefinitely through a court-appointed special monitor, Madison
attorney Stephen Hurley said.

The $47 million, 500-bed prison opened in 1999 to house what then-
Governor Tommy Thompson described as the "worst of the worst" of State
inmates.  Admission to the prison wass supposed to be limited to those
who have assaulted guards or inmates at other prisons, posed special
security or escape risks, or who had a history of discipline problems
at other institutions.

Inmates entering the prison were confined to windowless cells for at
least 23 hours a day, given a limited chance to exercise, read or even
see guards or other inmates, and prohibited from having face-to-face
visits with friends or family members.  Prison officials expected
inmates to earn their way out of isolation through good behavior, but
critics charged the prison became a dumping ground for inmates who
challenged prison authority.

Other critics claim many mentally ill inmates wound up at Supermax for
violating the rules at other prisons, and then were punished even more
harshly for breaking the rules at Supermax.  The conditions of
isolation, they claimed, worsened their illnesses, which in turn led to
more bad behavior.  One mental health expert described Supermax as an
"incubator of psychosis."

Judge Crabb ordered the transfer of five seriously mentally ill inmates
from Supermax last year.  The settlement declares the prison off-limits
to all "seriously mentally ill" inmates.  The inmates' attorney Ed
Garvey said prison officials have not yet agreed how to define that
term. Another hearing before Judge Crabb is scheduled for later this
month.

Judge Crabb said many inmates told her in written comments on the
proposed settlement that they are still unsure how to progress out of
the highest-security levels.  The lack of understanding of those
criteria creates "an enormous amount of frustration" among prisoners,
she said.

The Wisconsin Legislature's Joint Finance Committee recently voted
overwhelmingly to study converting Supermax into a regular maximum-
security prison.  Committee members said the prison has never been more
than half full and could be better used for other purposes.

David Fathi, an attorney for the National Prisons Project of the
American Civil Liberties Union, said the settlement in Wisconsin, as
well as similar court decisions in Ohio and Arizona, indicates that "we
are starting to turn the corner" away from ultra-high-security
institutions.  "The courts are starting to recognize that Supermax
prisons are fundamentally different and can sink into
unconstitutionality," Mr. Fathi said.


UNITED AIRLINES: Base Commission Rate Suit Trial Set for September 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the antitrust class action filed against United Airlines and
other carriers following the reduction of base commission rates in
November 1999 will commence in September 2002, in the US District Court
in North Carolina.

A North Carolina travel agent commenced the suit after the airlines
reduced base commission rates payable to travel agents from 8% to 5%.  
The suit alleges that the Company and the other carrier-defendants
conspired to fix travel agent commissions in violation of the Sherman
Act.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss this suit, which the Court
denied.  On July 12, 2001, plaintiff moved to amend its complaint by
joining five new travel agency defendants, the Association of Retail
Travel Agents (ARTA), and eight new carrier defendants.  The plaintiff
also sought to add claims relating to the carriers' reduction of travel
agent base commissions from 10% to 8% in 1997 and the 1998 imposition
of caps on commissions payable on international air travel.

In November 2001, the Court granted the motion allowing the addition of
the new parties and claims.  A second amended complaint was filed on
January 30, 2002 adding a claim related to the 2001 reduction of
domestic air travel commission caps. Discovery is currently proceeding.


UNITED AIRLINES: Weight Program Suit To Proceed In CA Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action against United Airlines, Inc., filed in February 1992
filed by its travel attendants relating to its former flight attendant
weight program has been remanded to the California District Court.   
The suit alleges that the Company's weight program, in effect from 1989
to 1994, unlawfully discriminated against flight attendants on the
grounds of sex, age and other factors.

In April 1994, the class was certified as to the sex and age claims.
Following extensive motion practice, on March 10, 1998, the District
Court dismissed all the claims against the Company, a decision the
plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel overturned the ruling, in June 2000
saying that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law
on their claims for discrimination based on sex and that a trial was
required for determination on their claims for age discrimination.  In
addition, the Appeals Court reversed the dismissal of all individual
class representative claims of discrimination and the case was remanded
to the District Court for further proceedings.

The Company petitioned for en banc review by an 11-judge panel, but the
Court denied the motion.  The Company again petitioned for a review of
the Ninth Circuit decision by the US Supreme Court, but that petition
was denied on March 5, 2001.

In accordance with the Appellate Court ruling, the case will go back to
the District Court for further proceedings with respect to the age
discrimination claims and for a determination of damages with respect
to the sex discrimination claims. Recently the District Court ruled out
punitive damages as a matter of law.

                            Securities Fraud

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Settling Suit Over Alliance Holding Reorganization
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management LP agreed to settle a class action filed in
the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware, on behalf of owners of
limited partnership units of Alliance Capital Management Holding LP
(Alliance Holding) challenging the then-proposed reorganization of
Alliance Holding.  The suit named as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holdings, LP,

     (2) four Alliance Holding executives, and

     (3) Alliance Holding's general partner

The suit alleges inadequate and misleading disclosures, breaches of
fiduciary duties, and the improper adoption of an amended partnership
agreement by Alliance Holding, and seeks payment of unspecified money
damages and an accounting of all benefits alleged to have been
improperly obtained by the defendants.

In August 2000, plaintiffs filed a first amended and supplemental class
action complaint. The amended complaint alleges in connection with the
reorganization that:

     (i) the partnership agreement of Alliance Holding was not validly
         amended;

    (ii) the reorganization of Alliance Holding was not validly
         effected;

   (iii) the information disseminated to holders of units of limited
         partnership interests in Alliance Holding was materially
         false and misleading; and

    (iv) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by structuring
         the reorganization in a manner that was grossly unfair to
         plaintiffs.

In September 2000, all except one of the defendants filed an answer to
the amended complaint denying the material allegations contained
therein. In lieu of joining in the answer to the amended complaint,
defendant Robert H. Joseph filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  In
November 2000, defendants, other than Mr. Joseph, filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

In December 2000, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the claim that the Alliance Holding partnership agreement
was not validly amended.  The court later issued a decision granting in
part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The claim
alleging that the partnership agreement of Alliance Holding was not
validly amended was one of the claims dismissed.

In October 2001, a memorandum of understanding was executed, setting
forth the terms of a settlement in principle, and in December 2001, a
stipulation of settlement was filed with the Delaware Court. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including preparation
of definitive documentation and approval, after a hearing, by the
Delaware Court of Chancery.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Faces Multiple Suits For Involvement With Enron Corp.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management LP labeled "without merit" the numerous
securities class actions pending in various courts, because one of the
directors of general partner, Alliance Premier Growth Fund, served as a
director of fallen energy trader Enron Corporation.

The first suit was commenced in December 2001 in the US District Court
in the District of New Jersey against the Company and the Alliance
Premier Growth alleging violations of the Insurance Contracts Act. The
suit alleges that the Company breached its duty of loyalty to Premier
Growth Fund because one of the fund's directors served as a director of
Enron Corporation when the Premier Growth Fund purchased shares of
Enron and as a consequence thereof, the investment advisory fees paid
to the Company by Premier Growth Fund should be returned as a means of
recovering for Premier Growth Fund the losses plaintiff alleges were
caused by the alleged breach of the duty of loyalty.

Later that month, another substantially similar suit was initiated in
the US District Court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Divisions, against the Company and the Premier Growth Fund.  Two other
similar suits were commenced in the US District Court in the District
of New Jersey.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations. At
the present time, the Company's management is unable to estimate the
impact, if any, that the outcome of these actions may have on the
Company's results of operations or financial condition.  The Company is
confident that the ultimate resolution of the suits should not have a
material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position of the
Company.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Might Face AU$700M Claim Over HIH Insurance Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP might find a new
claim against them over the collapse HIH Insurance, Ltd., one of
Australia's biggest insurers and possibly the nation's biggest
collapse.  The Company folded up one year ago, with a $2.5 billion
shortfall in claims reserves, prompting the highest level of government
inquiry, a Royal Commission, the Financial Express reports.

Australian law firm Dennis & Co. told the Express that the legal claim
against Andersen might amount up to AU$ 700 million, on behalf of more
than 1,000 of the insurers' shareholders.  The firm added that more
than 2,000 are expected to join the suit.  "It's in the vicinity of a
A$500 million to A$700 million case," principal solicitor Bruce Dennis
said.  He further said the claim would tap into indemnity insurance
written for Andersen by a Lloyd's of London syndicate, but declined to
identify the syndicate beyond saying it served the "big five"
accounting firms.

Arthur Andersen is still reeling from numerous lawsuits over its role
in the Enron collapse.  The firm declined to comment on insurance
arrangements and said it was not facing legal action in any
jurisdiction over HIH.  "If and when we get any actions, we'll evaluate
them," a spokesman for firm added.

The world's "Big Five" insure themselves to a certain extent through
mini insurance companies of their own, called captives, and also buy
liability insurance on the commercial market for settling and defending
lawsuits, the Financial Express reports.


AXA: To Settle Suits Over AXA Financial Stock Acquisition Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance company AXA agreed to settle a consolidated class action
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the August 30,
2000 announcement of the Company's proposal to purchase the outstanding
shares of AXA Financial, Inc. common stock that it did not already own.

The suits name the Company, AXA Financial and directors and/or officers
of AXA Financial as defendants, and purport to represent a class
consisting of owners of AXA Financial common stock and their successors
in interest, excluding the defendants and any person or entity related
to or affiliated with any of the defendants.

The suits challenge the adequacy of the offer announced by AXA and
allege that the defendants have engaged or will engage in unfair
dealing, overreaching and/or have breached or will breach fiduciary
duties owed to the minority shareholders of AXA Financial.

A similar lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, after the filing of the first Delaware
action.

In December 2000, the parties to the Delaware suits reached a proposed
agreement for settlement and executed a memorandum of understanding.  
Shortly thereafter, agreement was reached with the plaintiff in the New
York suit to stay proceedings in New York and to participate in and be
bound by the terms of the settlement of the Delaware suits.

In November 2001, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement with
the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement, which does not involve
any payment by AXA Financial, is subject to conditions, including
approval, after a hearing, by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The
hearing on the settlement is scheduled for March 2002.


AXA FINANCIAL: Donaldson Lufkin Sale Sparks Multiple Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Financial, Inc. faces several class actions relating to the
proposed sale of sister investment company, Donaldson Lufkin and
Jenrette, Inc. (DLJ) announced August 30,2000.  

Four suits were commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery, naming the
Company, DLJ and DLJ's directors, and challenging the sale of DLJ
because the transaction did not include the sale of DLJdirect tracking
stock.  

The Delaware suits were filed on behalf of the holders of DLJdirect
tracking stock and their successors in interest, and assert claims for
breaches of fiduciary duties, for violation of class members' voting
rights under 8 Del. C. ss.242, and for breach of implied contractual
promise.

Another class action was filed in the United States District Court,
Southern, making similar allegations as the Delaware suits, and also
alleging federal securities law claims relating to the initial public
offering of the DLJdirect tracking stock.  The New York suit alleges
claims for:

     (1) violations of the securities laws,

     (2) breaches of the fiduciary duties of loyalty,

     (3) good faith and due care,

     (4) aiding and abetting such breaches, and

      (5) breach of contract.

The suit purports to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of
DLJdirect tracking stock in the initial public offering and thereafter,
with respect to the securities law claims, and all owners of DLJdirect
tracking stock who allegedly have been or will be injured by the sale
of DLJ, with respect to all other claims.  The suit names as defendants
are the Company and:

     (i) Equitable Life,

    (ii) AXA,

   (iii) Donaldson Lufkin and Jenrette,

    (iv) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation,

     (v) Credit Suisse Group,

    (vi) Diamond Acquisition Corporation, and

   (vii) DLJ's directors.

In February 2001, defendants moved to dismiss the New York suit and in
October 2001, the New York Court granted defendants' motion, dismissing
all claims based on federal law with prejudice and dismissing all
claims based on state law on jurisdictional grounds, and entered
judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of
appeal, and their time to appeal has expired.

Another class action was commenced in April 2001 in the Delaware Court
of Chancery on behalf of the holders of CSFBdirect tracking stock
(formerly known as DLJdirect tracking stock), against the Company,
Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc., the former directors of DLJ and
the directors of Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc.

The suit challenges the sale of DLJ common stock as well as the March
2001 offer by Credit Suisse to purchase the publicly owned CSFBdirect
tracking stock for $4 per share and asserts claims for breaches of
fiduciary duties and breach of contract.

The suits were later consolidated under the caption In re CSFBdirect
Tracking Stock Shareholders Litigation, and in May 2001, the Delaware
Court decided that the last mentioned suit should be the operative
complaint in the consolidated actions.

A memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a proposed
settlement was executed in July 2001. It is anticipated that a
stipulation of settlement will be filed with the Delaware Court
of Chancery in or before March 2002. The proposed settlement, which
does not involve any payment by AXA Financial, is subject to a number
of conditions, including confirmatory discovery and approval, after a
hearing, by the Delaware Court of Chancery.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Biopure Corporation
(NASDAQ:BPUR) between May 8, 2001 and December 6, 2001, inclusive,
against the Company and Carl W. Rausch, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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.

During the class period, defendants issued to the investing public
false and misleading statements concerning the collection and analysis
of data from the Company's pivotal Phase III clinical trial of its
experimental blood substitute Hemopure, and the likely timing of the
Company's submission to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of
its Biological License Application (BLA) for Hemopure. In particular,
defendants led investors to believe that the BLA was on track to be
filed by year-end 2001.

The complaint alleges these statements lacked any reasonable basis.  
The Company had completed the clinical trial for Hemopure in August
2000. At least by the commencement of the class period, defendants knew
or recklessly ignored the fact that the data collected from the trial
was significantly deficient and failed to demonstrate that the trial
had been conducted in an "adequate and well-controlled" manner.
Defendants also knew that the FDA would not even allow a BLA to be
filed where the data lacked prima facie reliability.

The complaint further alleges on December 6, 2001, contrary to repeated
prior assertions that the BLA would be filed in 2001, the Company
announced that it would not file the Hemopure application until mid-
2002. The Company blamed the delay on "additional facility and process
validation requirements" for its Cambridge, Massachusetts manufacturing
plant. This was merely a pretext for the delay, which was in fact
occasioned by the numerous violations of protocols that had occurred
throughout the clinical trial, which had undermined the reliability of
the data, thereby making any application unlikely to be accepted for
filing, much less approved, the FDA.

Following these revelations, the price of Company stock slid to less
than $15 a share, well below the $20 plateau above which the stock
traded throughout most of the class period.

For more information, contact Fred T. Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Gregory M. Nespole, 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 Biopure.  


GILAT SATELLITE: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. (Nasdaq: GILTF) labels "without merit"
several securities class actions pending against it in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

These suits, brought on behalf of purchasers of securities of the
Company between August 14, 2000 and October 2, 2001 inclusive, name the
Company and officers Yoel Gat and Yoav Libovitch as defendants.  The
suits 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.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this
litigation, it said in a press statement.


GILAT SATELLITE: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities fraud class action on
behalf of all persons or institutions who acquired common shares of
Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. (NASDAQ: GILTF) between November 13,
2000 and October 2, 2001 at artificially inflated prices due to the
defendants' materially false and misleading statements concerning its
net income and inventories.

The action alleges violations of the securities laws of the United
States (Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) by the Company, Yoel Gat,
Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, and
Yoav Leibovich, Chief Financial Officer.  The suit asserts claims
against the Company and its controlling officers and directors and
seeks damages as well as an accounting.

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

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

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

The suit claims 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 more information, contact Jay P. Saltzman or 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


IRVINE SENSORS: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Suits in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Irvine Sensors Corporation (Nasdaq: IRSN, Boston Stock Exchange: IRSN)
labeled "without merit" the securities class actions pending against it
and five of its present or former directors and officers in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit alleges that the defendants made false optimistic statements
about the Company's investment in Silicon Film Technologies, Inc. (SFI)
and the prospects for SFI's EFS-1 product, which was designed to
interface with a conventional camera to allow it to take digital
pictures.   The suit charges the defendants with violations of
Securities Act of 1934, on behalf of a class of stockholders who
purchased shares of Company stock during the period January 6, 2000
through September 15, 2001.

The Company vows to vigorously defend against the suits.


KNIGHT TRADING: Settles One Investors' Suit, Court Dismisses Another  
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Trading Group Inc. settled a securities class action pending in
the US District Court in New Jersey, charging the stock market dealer
and its employers of manipulating stock prices, by buying shares in
advance of customer orders, Bloomberg.com reports.  The suit was
commenced in November 2000 and was later dismissed in July 2001, a
decision the plaintiffs appealed.

The Company settled the lawsuit by investor Yakov Prager "to avoid the
time and expense involved with the appeal," the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company also
maintained that the amount of the settlement was not "material" to the
firm.

Bloomberg.com reports that another securities suit against it over
alleged earnings forecasts made by a Company executive in the third
quarter of 2000 has been dismissed.


OTG SOFTWARE: Has Yet to Respond to Securities Suits in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OTG Software, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending since
July 2001 in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its officers who signed the registration
statement in connection with its initial public offering and the
managing underwriters of the initial public.

The suits uniformly allege that the Company's initial public offering
registration statement and final prospectus contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions, related in part to additional,
excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly received by the
Company's underwriters from investors to whom the underwriters
allegedly improperly allocated shares of the public offering.

The Company has not formally responded to these suits, which are at an
early stage.  However, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously
against them.  Management believes that it is not possible at the
current time to estimate the amount of a probable loss, if any, that
might result from these matters.


OVERTURE SERVICES: Consolidated Securities Suits in S.D. NY On Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Overture Services, Inc. denies the allegations in several securities
class actions pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain underwriters involved
in the Company's initial public offering and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors.

The suits allege, among other things, violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving undisclosed
compensation to the underwriters, and improper practices by the
underwriters and seek unspecified damages.

The suits have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before Judge
Shira Scheindlin in New York, along with other complaints filed against  
numerous public companies that conducted initial public offerings of
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  Judge Scheindlin has ordered
that the time for all defendants to respond to any complaint be
postponed until further order of the Court. Thus, the Company has not
been required to answer the complaint, and no discovery has been
served.   The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
complaint and intends to contest the allegations vigorously.


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Files Suit in N.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP commenced a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville
Division charging Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:RTIX) with
misleading shareholders about its business and financial condition.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between
July 25,2001 and January 31,2002, alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges
that the Company and certain of its officers and directors issued false
and misleading statements concerning its business and financial
condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
highly positive statements regarding the Company's financial results.

The Company reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial
results and strong revenue growth, which caused the price of Company
securities to trade as high as $12.82 per share during the class
period. These statements were allegedly false and misleading because
the Company failed to take a charge to earnings to recognize worthless
inventory.

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

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

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888-299-7706 or 610-822-2221 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the District of Colorado against Spectralink
Corporation (Nasdaq:SLNK) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock between July 19,2001 and January 11,2002.

The suit alleges the Company misled shareholders about its business and
financial condition, therefore violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that the
Company issued statements which represented that the Company was
experiencing continued growth and increasing its market share and would
continue to do so in the future.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Company was suffering from a
host of undisclosed adverse factors which were negatively impacting its
business and which would cause it to report declining financial
results, materially less than the market expectations defendants had
caused and cultivated. Specifically, defendants misrepresented or
failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing declining sales as its business
         began to be affected by general market forces. Throughout the
         class period, defendants repeatedly emphasized that the
         Company was not being affected by the slowdown in the US
         economy, when, in fact, that was not true;

     (2) the Company was becoming increasingly reliant on end-of-the-
         quarter sales to meet its sales forecasts. This sales pattern
         necessarily subjected the Company to the increased risk that
         it would not meet its sales expectations should it not
         successfully complete certain anticipated sales; and

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

On January 14, 2002, before the open of the Nasdaq stock market, the
Company issued a press release announcing preliminary financial results
for its fourth quarter of 2001, and disclosed, for the first time, that
its revenue and earnings would in fact be affected by the slowdown in
the overall economy.

In response to this announcement, the price of Company common stock
dropped precipitously, falling from $16.02 per share to $10.16 per
share, a decline of more than 36%. While the Company was being
adversely affected by the aforementioned factors, but prior to any
disclosure to the market, the individual defendants and other senior
executives sold more than $13.7 million worth of their personally-held
common stock to the unsuspecting public.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 888-299-7706 or 610-822-2221 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


THQ INC.: Third Amended Securities Suit Pending in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
THQ, Inc. faces an amended class action in the US District Court for
the Central District of California charging the Company and certain of
its officers and directors of violations of federal securities laws, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from October 26, 1999
through May 24, 2000.
  
The Court dismissed the suit with prejudice in December 2000 but later
modified its order in April 2001, permitting the plaintiffs to file a
third amended complaint on that date. The third amended complaint
alleges that defendants violated Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including allegations that the
defendants:

     (1) manipulated the company's stock price,

     (2) distributed false and misleading information concerning
         revenue recognition, forecasts and earnings estimates,

     (3) selectively disclosed material information, and

     (4) engaged in insider trading

The defendants have filed an answer denying all of the material
allegations of the third amended complaint and asserting legal and
factual defenses.  The lawsuit is in the discovery phase and a trial
date of November 12, 2002 has been set.


VAN WAGONER: Labels Multiple Securities Fraud Suits "Without Merit"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ:VWEGX) labeled "without
merit" the securities class actions pending on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: VWEGX)
from April 28, 2000 through June 30, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names
as defendants:

     (1) Van Wagoner Funds, Inc.,

     (2) Van Wagoner Capital Management, Inc.,

     (3) Sunstone Financial Group, Inc.,

     (4) Van Wagoner Emerging Growth Fund,

     (5) Garrett R. Van Wagoner,

     (6) Larry P. Arnold,

     (7) Robert S. Colman and

     (8) Ernst and Young, LLP

The suit alleges the defendants issued false and misleading statements
concerning the Fund's net asset value (NAV) and performance.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Ernst & Young, LLP failed to
follow generally accepted accounting practices and generally accepted
auditing standards by specifically approving the changes in net assets
utilized by the Fund between the end of 1999 and the end of 2000.

The Company intends to defend the actions vigorously, and believes that
the outcome of such legal actions will not have a material adverse
effect on the results of the Funds' operations or its net asset values.


WESTERN MULTIPLEX: Shareholders File Suit To Block Walnut-Pine Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Communications equipment company, Western Multiplex Corporation, faces
three class actions, challenging its planned merger with wholly owned
subsidiary, Walnut-Pine Merger Corporation, in Delaware and California
courts.

Two of suits were commenced in February 2002 in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company, its Board of Directors and Walnut-Pine,
alleging, among other things, that the Company Board breached its
fiduciary duties to its stockholders.  The suits seek to enjoin the
merger or, alternatively, to recover damages in the event the merger is
consummated.

On March 4, 2002, another suit was commenced in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, against the members of
the Company's Board of Directors, challenging the termination fee
contained in the merger agreement and alleging that the Company's Board  
breached its fiduciary duties to its stockholders.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit and intends
to defend against them vigorously.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber and Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
against Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE: WMB), certain of its officers
and directors, and the underwriters of its January 7, 2002 offering of
FELINE PACS.  The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
FELINE PACS in or traceable to the Offering.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(2), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements and omitting material facts concerning WMB's $2.15 billion
in obligations related to the spin-off of its subsidiary Williams
Communication Group (WCG) in its registration statement, prospectus,
and prospectus supplement in connection with the offering.

The prospectus supplement classified these obligations as a "risk"
when, at the time of the Offering, these liabilities were all but
certain, given WCG's dire financial condition. The registration
statement, prospectus, and prospectus supplement also failed to
disclose that the Company was obligated for an additional $250 million
in WCG costs.

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