CAR_Public/020315.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Friday, March 15, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 53

                           Headlines

AUCTION HOUSES: NY Appeals Court Reinstates Reseller Fee Antitrust Suit
CANADA: Appeals Court Allows Disabled War Veterans' Suit To Proceed
COLORADO: ACLU Says Denver Police Illegally Tracking Protest Groups
FORD MOTOR: Indiana Court to Analyze Discrimination Suit Settlement
HERCULES INC.: Carbon Fiber Antitrust Suits To Be Consolidated in CA

INDONESIA: Jakarta, West Java Residents File Suit After February Floods
ISLE OF CAPRI: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against RICO Suit in Nevada
MIRANT CORPORATION: Sued For Manipulating Electricity Prices in CA
PAYPAL INC.: Sued For Restricting E-commerce Accounts in San Jose, CA
PHILADELPHIA: Bucks County Faces Suit For Treatment of Female Inmates

PIZZA HUT: Settles Overtime Wage Suit Filed by CA General Managers
SUNSET LIFE: CA Court Approves $18M Settlement for Sales Practice Suit
TACO BELL: Trial To Determine Damages in Wage Suit Proceeds in Oregon

                        Securities Fraud

BIOPURE CORPORATION: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Suits in MA
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in MA
CALPINE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
COCA-COLA INC.: Dismissal Ruling of Securities Fraud Suit Pending
CRITICAL PATH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York

ENRON CORPORATION: Faces First Ever Securities Fraud Suit in Arkansas
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NH
GILAT SATELLITE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
GLOBAL CROSSING: Former Employees Commence 401(k) Suit in CA Court
GLOBAL CROSSING: Reinhardt Anderson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in TX
JP MORGAN: Mounting Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY, DE
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
KMART CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Commences Securiteis Suit in E.D. MI
MEDI-HUT CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ

NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in CO
SYMYX TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit Over November 1999 IPO
TORCH OFFSHORE: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in OK
                             
                           *********

AUCTION HOUSES: NY Appeals Court Reinstates Reseller Fee Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reinstated class actions
against prominent auction houses Christie's and Sotheby's, charging the
two Companies with conspiring to manipulate reseller commissions by
eliminating discounts and charging identical, non-negotiable
commissions, costing sellers as much as $400 million in commissions
from 1993 to 1999, according to the Associated Press.

In a government investigation, Sotheby's pleaded guilty to price-fixing
charges and was sentenced to pay $45 million, while Christie's was
granted amnesty by the government for its cooperation.  Former
Sotheby's Chairman, A. Alfred Taubman, was also convicted of conspiring
with former Christie's Chairman Anthony Tennant to fix the prices.  The
auction houses had earlier agreed to share the cost of the $537 million
settlement of lawsuits brought by customers, and the foreign lawsuits
were thrown out by the US District Court in Manhattan in January 2001.

The Appeals Court ruled that lawbreakers have greater incentive to try
to break the law in foreign countries as well as in the United States
if they know that anyone harmed overseas cannot sue in the United
States.  The AP reported the ruling could force the auction houses to
pay out millions of dollars more than the $537 million settlement
reached with customers who lost money in U.S. auctions.

"This decision vindicates the right of people who engage in
transactions outside the United States to bring a case under United
States law," said J. Douglas Richards, a lawyer for an undetermined
number of plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, the AP reported.
Lawyers for Sotheby's and Christie's did not immediately return
messages seeking comment.


CANADA: Appeals Court Allows Disabled War Veterans' Suit To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeals allowed a potential billion-dollar class
action filed by disabled war veterans against Ottawa, alleging the
province failed to invest or pay interest on the estates of some 10,000
"mentally incompetent" veterans whose money was managed by the
Department of Veterans Affairs since 1919, thestar.com reported.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Pte. Joseph Authorson, a Second
World War veteran who spent most of his last years in a psychiatric
hospital because of shell shock.  During his stay, Mr. Authorson
received more than $200,000 in allowances and pension money, which the
Department of Veterans Affairs administered for him until 1991.  
However, his lawyers have said the interest on that money, if the
government had managed it wisely, would have totaled $500,000 or more.

The Ontario Superior Court earlier ruled that the Province breached its
fiduciary duty by failing to invest or pay interest on the money it
managed for the veterans.  The Appellate Court upheld this ruling,
saying "The Crown was a fiduciary to the class members while their
funds were being administered by the (Department of Veterans Affairs)
and the Crown breached its fiduciary duty by failing to invest or pay
interest on these funds."

The panel also agreed with the Court's decision to throw out a section
of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act which bars claims for
interest prior to 1990, saying that depriving veterans of property
without due process is a violation of the Charter of Rights.  The
government's argument, that Brockenshire over-stepped his authority and
relied on damning internal documents as evidence, was wholly rejected
by the Appeals Court, thestar.com reported.


COLORADO: ACLU Says Denver Police Illegally Tracking Protest Groups
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently accused the Denver
Police Department of keeping illegal files on peaceful protest groups,
the Associated Press recently reported.

The ACLU's Colorado Legal Director, Mark Silverstein, said the ACLU
would consider a class action if the Mayor allows the monitoring to
continue, and showed reporters files he said came from the police
department.  "These are a small sampling of documents we have that show
Denver police are monitoring peaceful protest activities of individuals
and law-abiding individuals."  The groups included Amnesty
International and the American Friends Service Committee.

"The Mayor thinks their concerns are legitimate and has asked the
police for a full report to answer the questions posed to the City,"
said Andrew Hudson, spokesman for Mayor Wellington Webb.  Police Chief
Gerry Whitman was out of town.

Stephen B. Nash, who was identified in one of the files as an event
organizer for Amnesty International, said the police could not use the
excuse of a need for more security after September 11.  "My file goes
back to 2000, well before September 11.  9/11 has nothing to do with
it."

Barry Leaman-Miller was identified as a member of the "American Friends
Service Committee (criminal extremist G)."  He said the Philadelphia-
based Quaker group has won the Nobel Peace Prize and "acts in the best
tradition of nonviolence."

Mr. Silverstein said the ACLU sent a letter to the Mayor asking that
all monitoring be stopped, all files be made available to their
subjects, police disclose who has been given the information and that
all files be preserved in the event a lawsuit is filed.

Among the events mentioned in the files were a protest of an Italian-
led parade honoring Columbus, protests of the killing by a Denver SWAT
team that went to the wrong house, protests against the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington, D.C. and protests by the
Chiapas Coalition of alleged civil rights violations in Mexico's
poorest state.


FORD MOTOR: Indiana Court to Analyze Discrimination Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wayne County Circuit Court will hear plaintiffs objections to a
$10.5 million settlement of a class action filed against automobile
giant Ford Motor Company challenging its employee evaluation system.

The Company's employees filed the suit alleging that a management
evaluation system implemented by former Company president Jacques
Nasser discriminated against older, white men.  The Company eventually
agreed to settle the suit and implement changes in its evaluation
system.  

Under the settlement, each named plaintiff in the suits would receive
up to $100,000, minus attorney fees, depending on the employee's length
of service and other considerations, Associated Press reports.  436
current or former Ford employees have filed claims, according to
plaintiffs' attorney James Fett.  He added that thirteen members of the
class have opted out of the settlement so they can pursue their own
litigation.

Mr. Fett told AP that the objections relate to the disparity between
the payouts for a class member who took a buyout to leave the company
as part of the Company's cost-cutting moves and payouts for named
plaintiffs.  However, he said he did not expect the objections to
derail the settlement.

"We expect it to be approved, and we're certainly looking forward to
putting this behind us," Company spokeswoman Anne Marie Gattari said
Wednesday, according to AP reports.


HERCULES INC.: Carbon Fiber Antitrust Suits To Be Consolidated in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules, Inc. expects that several antitrust class actions brought
against it and other chemical corporations on behalf of indirect
purchasers of carbon fiber will be consolidated in the US District
Court for the Central District of California.

Six of these actions have been brought in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, and are captioned as:

     (1) Alden W. Badal, v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc.,

     (2) Sean Connolly, v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc.,

     (3) Perry Proiette, v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et
         al.,

     (4) Gary Regier, v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et
         al.,

     (5) Todd Simon, v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et al.,
         and

     (6) Jonathan Yolles, v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et
         al.

Two suits are also pending in the Superior Court of California, San
Francisco County, and are captioned as:

     (i) Jubal DeLong, v. Amoco Polymers, Inc., et al., and

    (ii) Elisa Langsam, v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc., et
         al.,

Another suit, Louis V. Ambrosio v. Amoco Polymers, Inc., et al., has
been brought in the Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County
Stockton Branch.

These actions all allege violations of the California Business and
Professions Code relating to alleged price fixing of carbon fiber and
unfair competition.

The Company denies any liability and will vigorously defend each of
these actions.


INDONESIA: Jakarta, West Java Residents File Suit After February Floods
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Indonesian Government and President Megawati Sukarnoputri faces a
IDR1.26 trillion class action filed by victims of last month's floods
in Jakarta and a neighboring province that left 147 people dead, and
more than 330,000 temporarily homeless, AFX-Asia reports.

The suit, which also names Jakarta Governor Sutiyoso and West Java
Governor Nuriana as defendants, alleges the officials failed to deal
with the disaster.

"The lawsuit is launched because the government has been indifferent to
the suffering of the residents and has failed to fulfill their
obligations as state officials," one of the lawyers, Azas Tigor
Nainggolan, told AFX-Asia.


ISLE OF CAPRI: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against RICO Suit in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. is vigorously defending against a
consolidated class action pending in the Las Vegas, Nevada Court
against one of its subsidiaries, along with numerous manufacturers,
distributors and gaming operators, alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The defendants allegedly engaged in a course of fraudulent and
misleading conduct intended to induce people to play their gaming
machines based upon a false belief concerning how those gaming machines
actually operate and the extent to which there is actually an
opportunity to win on any given play.  

A motion for certification of the class is currently pending before the
Court and no discovery as to the merits of the alleged claims has
begun.  The Company is unable at this time to determine what effect, if
any, the suit could have on its financial position or results of
operations.


MIRANT CORPORATION: Sued For Manipulating Electricity Prices in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mirant Corporation faces six lawsuits, three of which seek class action
status, in the Superior Court for San Diego County alleging that
certain owners of electric generation facilities in California and
energy marketers conspired to manipulate California wholesale
electricity prices.  The suit names as defendants, the Company and:

     (1) Mirant Americas Energy Marketing,

     (2) Mirant Delta, LLC, and

     (3) Mirant Potrero, LLC

The defendants allegedly engaged in various unlawful and anti-
competitive acts that served to manipulate wholesale power markets and
inflate wholesale electricity prices in California. One lawsuit alleges
that, as a result of the defendants' conduct, customers paid
approximately $4 billion more for electricity than they otherwise would
have.  Another lawsuit also names certain of the Company's officers
individually as defendants and alleges that the state had to spend more
than $6 billion purchasing electricity and that if an injunction is not
issued, the State will be required to spend more than $150 million per
day purchasing electricity.

The Company is unable to determine the final outcome of these lawsuits,
it revealed in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


PAYPAL INC.: Sued For Restricting E-commerce Accounts in San Jose, CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
E-commerce broker PayPal Inc. faces a class action filed in San Jose
Federal Court, charging it with unnecessarily restricting, freezing or
closing accounts of its e-commerce customers, Associated Press reports.

The suit, which seeks nationwide class action status, was filed on
behalf of three persons who say the Company froze their accounts or
erroneously removed money from other accounts.  The suit further
alleges that the Company, which allows persons to buy goods and
services online, makes it too hard for its 14 million customers to
resolve complaints against it.

Associated Press reports that this suit is the second suit attacking
the Company's practices.  New York-based Certco alleges in a lawsuit
that the Company's service infringes on Certco's patent.  Company
spokeswoman Julie Anderson states, "Based on our reading of the
complaint, we believe this suit to be without merit and we'll contest
it vigorously."


PHILADELPHIA: Bucks County Faces Suit For Treatment of Female Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bucks County, Philadelphia faces a class action alleging the County
failed to give equal treatment to female prisoners and failed to
implement the changes it promised in settling a similar class action.

Gerald Lamina, Sr. initially filed a suit in 2000, alleging that his
daughter, a former inmate of the prison afflicted with bipolar
disorder, suffered "severe physical injuries requiring hospitalization
and intensive care" during her stay in the jail.  The County later
settled that suit, and promised to create new facilities at the women's
prison.  However, two years later, conditions allegedly have not
changed.

Mr. Lamina then filed another suit asking the court to provide separate
quarters for mentally or physically ill female inmates.  According to
the Intelligencer, the female prison has only one common cellblock,
while male prisoners have separate cellblocks to quarantine disruptive
or sick inmates.  Anyone who needs to be quarantined, therefore, is
placed in solitary confinement, the suit claims.  "Mr. Lamina's
daughter was incarcerated for minor nonviolent offenses, and should she
be incarcerated in future, she would face the same terrible conditions
of months in solitary confinement, potential physical injuries, and a
lack of a mental health unit, as before," the suit adds.

Mr. Lamina's attorneys, Anita Alberts and Martha Sperling allege the
lack of equal treatment for women has persisted at the jail because no
independent body oversees its operation. The suit asks the Court to
order the County to create an Oversight Board, as recommended by a
federally appointed task force.

County spokesman Ron Watson told the Intelligencer he was not aware of
the suit filed Tuesday and could not comment until the County's
attorney had reviewed it.  Commissioners have said they will not form
such a board because they cannot delegate their authority to run the
prison. However, the lawsuit notes that other similar counties,
including Montgomery County, have such oversight boards.


PIZZA HUT: Settles Overtime Wage Suit Filed by CA General Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut, Inc. settled, for an undisclosed amount, a class action
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California of the County
of San Francisco, against it and one of its franchisees.

Three former Pizza Hut restaurant general managers, purporting to
represent approximately 1,300 current and former California restaurant
general managers of the two companies, filed the suit alleging
violations of state wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime wages
and vacation pay.

In January 2000, the Court certified a class of approximately 1,300
current and former restaurant general managers. The Court later amended
the class in June 2000 to include approximately 150 additional current
and former restaurant general managers.

In May 2001, the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter and
entered into a stipulation of discontinuance of the case. The Court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement in September 2001, and
final approval in December 2001. As no objections to the settlement
were made, the Court's order approving the settlement and dismissing
with prejudice all claims is final and not eligible for appeal.


SUNSET LIFE: CA Court Approves $18M Settlement for Sales Practice Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
approved the US$18 million settlement of a nationwide class action
against Sunset Life Insurance Company, and certain of its officers,
over alleged fraudulent universal life sales practices by the Company.

The settlement will become final after 60 days if no appeal is taken
from the Court's order approving the settlement.  With certain limited
exceptions, the class that is bound by the terms of the settlement
includes persons and entities who at any time from January 1, 1982
through December 31, 2001 had an ownership interest in one or more of
the Company's universal life policies during the class period.  

The Company stated that it is reasonably possible that the final cost
of the settlement could differ materially from the amounts presently
provided.  The Company also said it will continue to update the
estimate of the final cost of the settlement as the claims are
processed and more specific information is developed, particularly as
the actual cost of the claims subject to a claims resolution procedure
becomes available.  However, based on information available at the
time, and the uncertainties associated with the final claim processing
and claim resolution, the Company cannot estimate with precision the
range of any additional costs related to the settlement.


TACO BELL: Trial To Determine Damages in Wage Suit Proceeds in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial to determine damages for 93 plaintiffs in the class action
pending against Taco Bell Corporation has commenced since February
25,2002 in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon of the County of
Multnomah.  

The suit was launched in August 1997 against the Company by two former
Taco Bell shift managers, purporting to represent approximately 17,000
current and former hourly employees statewide. The lawsuit alleges
violations of state wage and hour laws, principally involving unpaid
wages including overtime, and rest and meal period violations, and
seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

Under Oregon class action procedures, the Company was allowed an
opportunity to "cure" the unpaid wage and hour allegations by opening a
claims process to all putative class members prior to certification of
the class. In this cure process, the Company has paid out less than $1
million.

On January 26, 1999, the Court certified a class of all current and
former shift managers and crew-members who claim one or more of the
alleged violations and set a trial date of November 2, 1999.  However,
on November 1, 1999, the Court issued a proposed order postponing the
trial and establishing a pre-trial claims process. The final order
regarding the claims process was entered on January 14, 2000.

The Company moved for certification of an immediate appeal of the
Court-ordered claims process and requested a stay of the proceedings.
This motion was denied on February 8, 2000.  The Company appealed
this decision to the Supreme Court of Oregon, but the motion was again
denied.

A court-approved notice and claim form was mailed to approximately
14,500 class members on January 31, 2000. The State Court ordered pre-
trial claims process went forward, and hearings to determine potential
damages were held for claimants employed or previously employed in four
selected Company units.

After the initial hearings relating to these four units, the damage
claims hearings were discontinued. Trial began on January 4, 2001. On
March 9, 2001, the jury reached verdicts on the substantive issues in
this matter. A number of these verdicts were in favor of the Company's
position, however, certain issues were decided in favor of the
plaintiffs. The Court reduced the number of potential claimants to
1,100.

The trial is expected to end in April 2002.

                           Securities Fraud

BIOPURE CORPORATION: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Suits in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Biopure Corporation asked the US District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to dismiss the securities class actions pending against
it and its Chairman on behalf of all those persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period between May 8,
2001 and December 6, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, a leading developer, manufacturer
and marketer of a new class of pharmaceuticals it calls "oxygen
therapeutics," and its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning the
likely timing of the Company's filing with the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of its Biologic License Application (BLA) to
market Hemopure, its experimental blood substitute for patients
undergoing elective surgery.  In particular, defendants led investors
to believe that the BLA was on track to be filed by year-end 2001.

The Company expects these motions to be fully briefed and argued before
the Court in April 2002.  The Company believes these lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.  The Company also
asserts that these lawsuits may become a drain on management's time and
attention if they do not prevail on the motions to dismiss.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of Biopure Corporation (Nasdaq: BPUR) common
stock during the period between May 8, 2001 and December 6, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition. The complaint alleges that the Company, a
leading developer, manufacturer and marketer of a new class of
pharmaceuticals it calls "oxygen therapeutics," and its Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning the likely timing of its filing with
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of its Biologic License
Application (BLA) to market Hemopure, its experimental blood substitute
for patients undergoing elective surgery. In particular, defendants led
investors to believe that the BLA was on track to be filed by year-end
2001.

As alleged in the suit, these statements were materially false and
misleading because, by commencement of the class period, defendants
knew or recklessly ignored the fact that the data collected from the
Hemopure trial (which was completed in August 2000) was significantly
deficient and failed to demonstrate that the trial had been conducted
in an "adequate and well-controlled" manner. As such, plaintiff asserts
that the data lacked reliability, thereby making any application
unlikely to be accepted for filing, much less approved, by the FDA.  It
is further alleged that defendants also knew that the FDA would not
allow a BLA to be filed where the data lacked "prima facie"
reliability.

On December 6, 2001, the Company announced that it would not file the
Hemopure application until mid-2002, contrary to repeated prior
assertions that the BLA would be filed in 2001.  The Company blamed the
delay on "additional facility and process validation requirements" for
its Cambridge, Massachusetts manufacturing plant. Plaintiff asserts
that this was merely a pretext for the delay, which in fact was
occasioned by the data deficiencies that had arisen during the clinical
trial. As a result of the postponement, the price of Company stock fell
to less than $15 per share, well below the $40 plateau above which the
stock traded throughout most of the class period.

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


CALPINE CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP launched a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Calpine Corporation (NYSE:
CPN) between March 15, 2001 and December 13, 2001, inclusive, in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California against
the Company and:

     (1) Peter Cartwright,

     (2) Ann Curtis, and

     (3) Charles Clark

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b). On March 15, 2001, the Company disseminated its Annual
Report on Form 10-K.  In the Form 10-K, defendants reported the
Company's EBITDA and, in a footnote, stated that its EBITDA was defined
as "net income less income from unconsolidated investments, plus cash
received from unconsolidated investments, plus provision for tax, plus
interest expense, plus one-third of operating lease expenses, plus
depreciation and amortization, plus distributions on trust preferred
securities."

The Company has received repeated criticism for its incomprehensible
balance sheets. The SEC observed that its Form 10-K was misleading and
directed that, in the future, to forthrightly inform investors that its
EBITDA was not prepared in accordance with GAAP, to either:

     (i) re-title EBITDA as "EBITDA, as adjusted;" or

    (ii) remove all reconciling items.

In the Company's subsequent public filings and press releases
throughout the class period, defendants failed to comply with the SEC
directive, often burying the qualifying language about EBITDA in
footnotes pages away from the misleading EBITDA figures.

On December 13, 2001, The New York Times reported about the SEC
directive and the Company's intransigence and noncompliance with the
directive. The New York Times article also stated that the EBITDA
figures the Company had reported were artificially inflated on account
of the extraneous expenses that were wrongfully added in to EBITDA.

The day after The New York Times article, the price of Company stock
fell almost 17%, from $16.05 per share to $13.20 per share on extremely
heavy trading.

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 by E-mail: CPN@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com  


COCA-COLA INC.: Dismissal Ruling of Securities Fraud Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has yet to
decide whether to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
pending against beverage giant Coca-Cola, Inc. and officers:

     (1) M. Douglas Ivester,

     (2) Jack L. Stahl, and

     (3) James E. Chestnut


The suit arose from two lawsuits, commenced in October 2000, alleges
the defendants violated antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws by making misrepresentations or material omissions relating to the
Company's financial condition and prospects in late 1999 and early
2000.  The suits further alleged that the defendants:

     (1) forced certain Company system bottlers to accept "excessive,  
         unwanted and unneeded" sales of concentrate during the third
         and fourth quarters of 1999, thus creating a misleading  sense
         of improvement in the Company's performance in those quarters;  

     (2) failed to write down the value of impaired assets in Russia,
         Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again resulting in the  
         presentation of misleading interim financial results in the
         third and fourth  quarters of 1999; and

     (3) misrepresented  the reasons for Mr. Ivester's departure from
         the  Company  and  then  misleadingly  reassured the financial  
         community that there would be no changes in the Company's core
         business strategy or financial outlook following that
         departure.  

In January 2001, Judge Willis B. Hunt ordered the suits consolidated
for all purposes.  Judge Hunt also ordered the plaintiffs to file a
consolidated amended complaint.  In July 2001, the plaintiffs amended
their complaint, but largely repeated the allegations made in the
original suits and added Douglas N. Daft as an additional defendant.

In September 2001, the Company asked the Court to dismiss the suit. A
decision on the motion to dismiss is expected in 2002.  The Company
believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses and intends to
defend the consolidated action vigorously.


CRITICAL PATH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody lodged a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired Critical Path, Inc. (NASDAQ: CPTH) securities
between April 31, 2000 and October 19, 2000, inclusive in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit charges
that the Company and certain of its officers and directors, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company, founded in early 1997, is a worldwide communication
technology company, providing e-mail hosting services to various
organizations, including Internet service providers, wireless and
wireline carriers, enterprise corporations and postal authorities.
Beginning in the Spring of 2000, many of the Company's core customers
were have difficulties obtaining funding.

The complaint alleges that as a result of these funding problems, the
Company had problems collecting receivables. In addition, the complaint
alleges that defendants had known that the governing accounting
regulations would prevent the Company from continuing to recognize up-
front license fees in 4th Quarter 2000.

The suit also alleges defendants knew these new accounting regulations
would impair the Company's future revenue growth. In an effort to
falsely elevate the Company's stock and garner their own bonuses,
defendants continued to make positive but false statements about the
Company's business and projections for Q3/Q4 2000 and beyond.

For more information, contact Patrice L. Bishop by Phone: 888-388-4605
by E-mail: pbishop@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.secfraud.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Faces First Ever Securities Fraud Suit in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The first-ever Arkansas securities class action against fallen energy
trader Enron Corporation was commenced in the US District Court in
Little Rock against several current and former Enron executives,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) Kenneth Lay,

     (2) Jeffrey Skilling, former chief executive officer,

     (3) Andrew Fastow, former chief financial officer,

     (4) other executives,

     (5) Arthur Andersen, the Company's former auditor, and

     (6) several private partnerships that kept hundreds of millions of
         dollars in debt off the Company's balance sheet and helped
         lead to the nation's largest bankruptcy

Arkansas resident Steve McIntyre commenced the suit, after "losing a
bunch of money" due to the Company's collapse.  Mr. McIntyre purchased
Enron common stock and claims that Enron executives were aware that
Enron was making false or misleading public statements about the
Company's value and profiting from the information. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified remedies under provisions of the federal Securities
Exchange Act.

Mr. McIntyre told Associated Press, "I'm suing because of the absolute
misrepresentation of Company facts that were put out. A lot of
sophisticated investors got fooled also."


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in NH
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Enterasys Networks, Inc. (NYSE:ETS) claiming that the Company misled
investors about violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit
was filed in the US District Court for the District of New Hampshire on
behalf of all investors who bought Company securities between September
26, 2001 and February 1, 2002.

The suit alleges that the New Hampshire-based Company issued a series
of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of its 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 (SEC).

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 the Company's revenues, was
         improperly recognizing revenues in violation of the Company's
         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 that it was under investigation
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 Schiffrin & Barroway by Phone:
888-299-7706 toll free or 610-822-2221 by Fax: 610-822-0002 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.   


GILAT SATELLITE: Cohen Milstein Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of public investors who purchased Gilat Satellite
Network, Inc. securities between August 14, 2000 and March 9, 2001.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things,
plaintiff claims that the 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
Company stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
enormous damages on investors.

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


GLOBAL CROSSING: Former Employees Commence 401(k) Suit in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Global Crossing, Ltd. filed a 401(k) suit in the US
District Court in Los Angeles, after losing millions in their
retirement savings, when the Company filed the nation's fourth largest
bankruptcy, the Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.  

The suit alleges that the Company used false and misleading accounting
to artificially inflate Company stock and to encourage employees to
purchase the stock.  The officers allegedly ".misled the participants
and beneficiaries of the plan about the appropriateness of investing in
Company stock and about Global Crossing's earnings prospects and
business condition."

Additionally, the suit charges 17 Company directors, including its
Chairman Gary Winnick of breach of fiduciary duty.  The Company
allegedly blocked the employees from accessing their accounts a month
before it filed for Chapter 11 protection, violating the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The law firms O'Neill, Lysaght and Sun LLP and Keller Rohrback LLP.  
filed the suit. The Company could not be reached for comment, according
to the Florida Sun-Sentinel.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Reinhardt Anderson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt & Anderson filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of investors who acquired shares of Global Crossing Ltd. (Nasdaq:GX)
between August 13, 1998 and January 28, 2002 against individual
directors and officers of Global Crossing, as well as the Company's
auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  In particular, the individual defendants caused the
Company to book as revenue the future receipts from contracts to sell
rights to use its fiber optic cable network to other companies, known
as indefeasible rights of use (IRU), while entering into similar
agreements with those same companies to purchase capacity from them. In
essence, the transactions were improperly treated as if there were
separate sale and purchase transactions.

Moreover, the Company's purchase transactions were treated as a capital
expense, thus inflating its assets on its balance sheet.  The Company's
statement of its revenue and earnings, therefore, were inflated, and
its financial statements were thus materially misleading in violation
of the federal securities laws.  Defendant Arthur Andersen violated
federal securities laws by issuing unqualified opinions on the
Company's materially misleading financial statements and allowing those
opinions to be published.

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield or Amy M. Leonetti by
Phone: 888-253-5139 or 651-227-9990 by Fax: 651-297-6543 by E-mail:
g.blanchfield@ralawfirm.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.ralawfirm.com.   


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Goodkind Labaton Commences Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of Hanover Compressor Company
(NYSE: HC) common stock during the period November 8,2000 to January
28,2002.  The suit alleges violations of Section 21D(a)(3)(A)(i) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and:

     (1) William S. Goldberg,

     (2) Michael A. O'Connor and

     (3) Michael McGhan

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, alleging that during the class period, defendants issued a
series of material misrepresentations to the market in press releases
and SEC filings thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, the
Company falsely recorded revenue from a number of transactions
resulting in the Company overstating income, revenue and earnings per
share, which in turn caused the price of its shares to be artificially
inflated. The complaint further alleges that the defendants profited
from the artificially inflated stock price by issuing 10 million shares
of common stock, including 5 million shares held personally by Mr.
Goldberg and Mr. O'Connor or entities controlled by them.

On January 28, 2002, the Company surprised the class by announcing it
would be conducting an investigation into its accounting procedures
relating to an overseas joint venture. Following this announcement, the
price of Company stock fell 12.5% to close at $14.05. Subsequently, the
Company announced Mr. Goldberg was being replaced as its Chief
Financial Officer and that the Company would be significantly restating
its financial figures for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 and
the nine months ended September 30, 2001.

For more information, contact Emily Komlossy or Henry Young by Mail:
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10017-5563 by Phone:
212-907-0700 by E-mail: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com or hyoung@glrslaw.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com.  


JP MORGAN: Mounting Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY, DE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase labeled "without merit" several class actions arising
out of its banking relationships with fallen energy trader Enron
Corporation in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

The suits allege that the Company issued false and misleading press
releases and other public documents relating to Enron in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The Company also faces five shareholder derivative actions pending in
the Delaware Chancery Court against its directors and officers, seeking
to redress alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and alleged failures to
exercise due care and diligence by the Company directors and named
officers in the management of JP Morgan Chase.

The Company intends to defend these actions vigorously. However, the
Company cannot give any assurance as to the outcome of any of these
pending lawsuits.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Juniper
Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: JNPR) between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, which designs and sells Internet
Protocol routers, as well as network traffic management software, and
four top corporate officers misled the investing public during the
class period regarding its earnings and revenue.

Specifically, defendants stated during the class period that the
Company was "still on track" for second quarter 2001 revenues over $330
million and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and represented that
Deferred Revenue (revenue not yet recognized because customers had not
yet accepted products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles
were shorter than in the past.  In light of the poor results reported
by other companies in their industry, the Company's projections caused
its stock to trade as high as $69.50. The Company's insiders are
alleged to have taken advantage of this inflation by selling their own
shares for proceeds of more than $42 million.

On June 8, 2001, the Company disclosed that its 2Q01 revenues would be
much lower than previously represented, and that earnings would be less
than half prior estimates. Defendants also admitted that customer
acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than they had been
previously, stretching from days to months.

On this news, Company shares dropped to $38.02, or more than 46% lower
than the class period high of $69.50. Ultimately, the Company reported
a loss for 2001 and pro forma EPS of just $0.50, half what defendants
represented, and its stock has declined to $13.

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


KMART CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Commences Securiteis Suit in E.D. MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP launched a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of all purchasers of Kmart Corporation (NYSE:KM) securities
during the period from May 17, 2001 through January 22, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Company and its former Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial results and operational
condition during the class period.  The suit alleges that these
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
Company securities during the class period. Charles Conaway, the
Company's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, is the named
defendant in the action, while the Company is not named in this action
due to its bankruptcy filing.

Prior to and throughout the class period, as alleged in the Complaint,
the Company and Mr. Conaway represented that the Company was engaged in
a comprehensive restructuring of its operations which was revitalizing
the Company and its sales. The suit alleges that these representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the adverse material facts:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ira M. Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 212-317-2300 or
888-529-4787 or by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.com


MEDI-HUT CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP launched a securities class
action lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
claiming that Medi-Hut Co., Inc. (Nasdaq:MHUT) misled shareholders
about its business and financial condition.  The suit alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on behalf of all investors who bought Company securities
between April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002, and names as defendants
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 the 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 had a controlling
interest in Larval Corporation, its largest customer. Specifically, the
Company failed to disclose that Lawrence 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 Company's
revenues.

Because Mr. Marasco had a controlling interest in one of the Company's
customers, generally accepted accounting principles 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 one of
its largest customers was controlled by a Company employee.  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 Corp. was revealed. The market,
recognizing that a majority of the Company's revenues in fiscal year
2001 were generated via sales to a related party, reacted swiftly and
severely. By the close of business on February 4, shares of the Company
had lost 51% of their value, falling $3.41 to $3.29 in unusually heavy
trading. Four days later, Grant Thorton LLP resigned its position as
its independent auditor after only two weeks. Grant Thorton served as
the Company's auditors from January 24, 2002 through February 8, 2002.

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


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired NewPower Holdings, Inc.
(NYSE:NPW) securities between October 5, 2000 and December 5, 2001,
inclusive, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York, against the Company and:

     (1) H. Eugene Lockhart,

     (2) Kenneth L. Lay,

     (3) Lou L. Pai,

     (4) James V. Derrick, Jr.,

     (5) Richard A. Causey,

     (6) William I. Jacobs,

     (7) Peter Grauer,

     (8) Linda G. Alvarado,

     (9) Ray J. Groves,

    (10) Credit Suisse First Boston, Inc.,

    (11) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corp.,

    (12) Chase Securities, Inc.,

    (13) CIBC World Markets Corp.,

    (14) Paine Webber, Inc.,

    (15) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., and

    (16) DLJDirect, Inc.

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

For more information, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663,
561-712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP lodged a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Qwest
Communications International, Inc. (NYSE:Q) during the period from
April 19, 2000 through February 13, 2002, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. Named as defendants
are the Company and certain of its senior officers.

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 revenue and earnings results for the Company during the
class period. These results were inflated through accounting
manipulations in violation of generally accepted accounting principles.

The suit alleges that as a result, the price of Company stock was
artificially inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and
the other members of the class to suffer damages. Before the disclosure
of the true facts, Company officials allegedly profited by over $240
million in insider stock sales with knowledge of the Company's actual
financial condition.

As alleged in the suit, the Company, a broadband Internet
telecommunications company, essentially entered into swap contracts and
improperly recognized revenues up front in one lump sum. For example,
it entered into contracts to "sell" equipment, while simultaneously
agreeing to buy from the same purchasers Internet services using the
equipment it had just "sold."  As alleged, adding to the suspect nature
of these transactions was the fact that the Company was a specialist in
the very Internet services that it was agreeing to purchase.  The suit
alleges that the Company's booking of revenues up front, in one lump
sum, violated GAAP and was contrary to industry practice.

The public began to have some inkling about the inflation of the
Company's reported revenues when on February 13, 2002, The Wall Street
Journal reported that during 2000 and 2001 the Company may have
improperly recognized revenues from these types of transactions. On
March 11, 2002, the Company disclosed that the SEC had requested it to
produce documents in connection with its accounting policies and
procedures, as well as its revenue recognition.

Following news reports of possible GAAP violations, Company stock price
fell 6.7% to close at $8.59 on February 13, 2002, down $0.62 from its
close of $9.21 on the previous day. During the class period, Company
stock traded as high as $64.50 on March 3, 2000.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529,
888-4-POMLAW by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.pomlaw.com


SYMYX TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Withdraw Suit Over November 1999 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against Symyx Technologies
relating to how Credit Suisse First Boston's (CSFB) allocation of
shares in the Company's November 1999 initial public offering have
filed a voluntary dismissal in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit asserted violations of federal
securities laws relating to the Company's IPO.  

In January, CSFB, a unit of Swiss financial services giant, Credit
Suisse Group Inc. (CSGZn), agreed to pay $100 million to settle the
federal investigation. CSFB, which neither admitted nor denied guilt in
the settlement, had been accused of charging customers high trading
commissions in exchange for shares of hot IPO prospects, iWon reports.


TORCH OFFSHORE: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Torch Offshore, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TORC) from June 7, 2001 through August 1, 2001, inclusive.  
The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its officers
and/or directors and underwriters:

     (1) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (2) CIBC World Markets Corp., and

     (3) Howard Weil, a division of Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading representations
in the June 7, 2001 registration statement and prospectus prepared and
disseminated by defendants in connection with the IPO.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the prospectus contained
material misrepresentations concerning the prices of natural gas and
oil in the period preceding the IPO, as well as the effect of those
prices upon the Company's business and the demand for the Company's
services.

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


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Tyco International,
Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) between December 13, 1999 and February 5, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, against the Company and:

     (1) L. Dennis Kozlowski,

     (2) Mark H. Swartz,

     (3) Michael A. Ashcroft and

     (4) Mark A. Belnick

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

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
failed to disclose hundreds of acquisitions by the Company and falsely
stated that the Company had acquired and would continue to acquire
other companies which would immediately be accretive to its earnings
and free cash flow.

Specifically, during the class period, defendants concealed that the
Company paid nearly $8 billion for more than 700 acquisitions that were
never disclosed to the public or in its public filings.  Defendants
further concealed that the Undisclosed Acquisitions cost over 100% more
than the transactions that had been disclosed, based on a price
calculated as a multiple of the acquired company's revenues.

Then, contrary to defendants' misrepresentations that the Company had
ample free cash flow and that its emergency backup credit lines would
remain un-drawn, on February 5, 2002, the last day of the class period,
the Company announced that it was forced to exit the commercial paper
market and draw down the full $5.9 billion from emergency backup credit
lines in order to pay for $4.5 billion in outstanding commercial paper
debt.

The defendants later admitted that increased borrowing costs and fees
respecting the Emergency Debt "could cut 45 cents (per share), or $900
million, from the Company's previous estimate of its fiscal 2002
earnings of $7.4 billion or $3.70 a share."

The defendants also misrepresented throughout the class period that the
Company's increasing earnings were the product of its ability to
identify troubled but promising companies, acquire them, and turn the
acquired companies into profitable enterprises whose success was
reflected in the Company's ever-improving earnings performance.

In reality, as alleged in the complaint and as defendants later
admitted by way of their restatements of their financial statements,
defendants knowingly or recklessly manipulated the Company's accounting
for mergers to falsely and misleadingly represent that the earnings
performance of the companies that the Company acquired improved after
the acquisitions and continued to improve thereafter, in violation of
GAAP.

For more information, contact Paul D. Young or Michael E. Berman by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: Tycocase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Williams Companies, Inc. (NYSE:WMB), claiming its
top officers and its underwriters failed to disclose $2.4 billion in
liabilities during the company's offering of FELINE PACS.

The suits are pending in the US District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma on behalf of investors who bought the Company's
notes in or traceable to its January 7, 2002 offering. These notes were
convertible into common stock and known as FELINE PACS (OTC BB: WMB
PrI). Unlike other recent class actions filed against the Company, this
lawsuit focuses narrowly on the January 7 offering.

The suit alleges that documents filed by the Company in connection with
its offering failed to adequately disclose more than $2.4 billion in
credit, support and lease obligations that the Company had at the time
of the offering. The complaint also says that those documents
incorporated by reference previous financial filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that had not properly accounted for
these obligations.

Specifically, the complaint said that the Company had provided credit
support and lease guarantees for certain debt and obligations of
Williams Communications Group, Inc. (WCG), a former subsidiary spun off
in March 2001. Although the offering documents including the prospectus
and prospectus supplement, disclosed those contingent obligations, they
misleadingly described them as a "risk," when it was clear by the time
of the offering that WCG:

     (1) could not meet its obligations;

     (2) would default on its debt and

     (3) that the Company would be responsible for $2.15 billion, plus
         $250 million in other expenses omitted from the prospectus.

The Company also failed to account for these obligations in its earlier
financial reports, which were incorporated by reference into the
offering documents, the complaint says.

On January 29, 2002, just three weeks after the offering, the complaint
says, the Company stunned investors by announcing that it was delaying
the release of its fiscal 2001 financial results to account for the
$2.4 billion obligation, which included $250 million in costs that were
not even mentioned in the offering documents. The disclosure devastated
Company stock prices and hence the value of its FELINE PACS, which were
tied to the price of that stock.

For more information, contact Steven Morris by Mail: One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.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  * * *