CAR_Public/020320.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, March 20, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 56

                            Headlines

ARGOSY GAMING: Faces Suit For Violations of RICO Act in Las Vegas
BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Sued For Monopolizing Market on Hypertension Drug
CONNECTICUT:  Town Sues Law Firms For Advising CRRA To Invest in Enron
DYNEGY INC.: Faces Six Antitrust Suits Over California Power Prices
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Property Owners File Suit Over Easements in TX, LA

METRO-NORTH COMMUTER: High Court Refuses To Dismiss Race Bias Suit
ONEOK INC.: Residents Sue Over Damages Brought By 2001 Gas Explosions
PFIZER INC.: Labor Union Files Antitrust Suit Over Epilepsy Drug in NY
RELIANT ENERGY: Alleged Polluter Tells Residents Not To Attend Hearing
SOUTHERN COMPANY: GA Court Refuses Racial Bias Suit Certification

SULZER MEDICA: OH Court Extends Ban On Individual Lawsuits Until June
TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Cobb State Court Judge Takes Over Desecration Suit
UNITED STATES: INS Faces Suit Over "Unfair" Haitian Refugee Policy

                          Securities Fraud

AT&T CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in NY
BAKER HUGHES: Sued For Violations of Federal Securities Laws in S.D. TX
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in MA
CALPINE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in S.D. NY

DYNEGY INC.: Faces Two Securities Suits Over Failed Merger With Enron
GILAT SATELLITE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
GILAT SATELLITE: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities suit in E.D. NY
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Schoengold Sporn Launches Securities Suit in NY
IRVINE SENSORS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

JD EDWARDS: Dismissal Decision, Settlement Agreement Approval Pending
LEGATO SYSTEMS: Securities Suit in N.D. CA Still in Early Stages
LEGATO SYSTEMS: To Vigorously Defend Against Derivative Suits in CA
LUMENIS LTD.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

NVIDIA CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Could Face Securities Suit After Income Restatement
PLAINS ALL: Settles Securities Suits For $30 Million S.D. Texas
PLAINS ALL: Settles Derivative Shareholder Suits For $1.1M in DE, TX
QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense v. Securities Suits

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: LeBlanc Waddell Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
WACHOVIA CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
                             
                            *********

ARGOSY GAMING: Faces Suit For Violations of RICO Act in Las Vegas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Argosy Gaming Systems, Inc. was named as a defendant in a consolidated
class action pending in Las Vegas, Nevada Federal Court, charging
several gaming companies with violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The suit alleges that the companies 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, as well as to the extent to which there is actually
an opportunity to win on any given play.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, which was
fully briefed before the Court in November 2001. The parties are
awaiting the Court's decision, and discovery has been stayed
pending the Court's ruling.

The Company is unable to determine what effect, if any, the suit would
have on its business or operations.


BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Sued For Monopolizing Market on Hypertension Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biovail Corporation faces a class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed on behalf
of users and consumers of Tiazac, a hypertension and angina drug from
April 22, 2000 to the present.

The suit alleges that the Company's efforts to prevent generic
competition to the hypertension and angina drug impermissibly
monopolized the market.  Specifically, the suit alleges that the
unavailability of a generic equivalent caused the class to pay higher
prices for Tiazac than they would have if a generic version had been
available.

For more information, contact Krishna Narine, of Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


CONNECTICUT:  Town Sues Law Firms For Advising CRRA To Invest in Enron
----------------------------------------------------------------------
West Hartford officials have commenced a class action against two law
firms that advised Connecticut's Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) to
invest $220 million in fallen energy trader Enron Corporation in the
Hartford Superior Court, Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of 70 cities and towns that send their
garbage to the trash authority's plant in Hartford, alleges that the
CRRA's plan to increase its trash disposal fees by 31% was a way to
recoup its losses due to its relationship with Enron.  

The suit names as defendants law firms Murtha Cullina, LLP of
Connecticut and Hawkins Delafield and Wood of New York.  Both firms
were allegedly "negligent and careless" in providing the CRRA with
financial advice, which led it to the huge financial loss, which
spurred the rate increase.

State Attorney General has called the deal an illegal loan, but CRRA
officials say it was an energy transaction.  West Hartford Mayor
Jonathan Harris told the Hartford Courant, "The goal of this is to get
back money that was lost in the deal, to make up for the huge bill
that's been foisted on the towns."  

The law firms denied the allegations, according to an Associated Press
report.  "We understand the frustration which the towns feel, but we
believe the case has no merit, and beyond that we have no comment,"
said Howard I. Berkman, a New York-based partner of Hawkins Delafield &
Wood.  Murtha Cullina's managing partner, Paul R. McCary, said, "the
whole transaction is a complicated legal matter, a complicated
financial matter and, regrettably, it's a complicated political
matter."

The suit does not name the CRRA as a defendant, despite criticisms from
town officials that the authority should have consulted with them
before risking a big investment.  The money essentially belonged to the
municipalities, they contend.  Mr. Harris said the lawsuit does not
include the CRRA because he and other West Hartford officials were
advised that suing the authority would be like suing themselves, since
towns are responsible for the net operating cost of CRRA, AP reports.


DYNEGY INC.: Faces Six Antitrust Suits Over California Power Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. and several of its entities faces six securities suits,
accusing them of manipulating California power prices in the summer of
2000.  The suits are:

     (1) Gordon v. Reliant Energy Inc., et al., in San Diego Superior
         Court;

     (2) Hendricks v. Dynegy Power Marketing Inc., et al., in San Diego
         Superior Court;

     (3) People of the State of California v. Dynegy Power Marketing
         Inc., et al., San Francisco Superior Court;

     (4) Pier 23 Restaurant v. PG&E Energy Trading, et al., in San
         Francisco Superior Court;

     (5) Sweetwater Authority et al. v. Dynegy Inc., et al., in San
         Diego Superior Court;

     (6) Bustamante v. Dynegy Inc., et al., in Los Angeles Superior
         Court, filed on behalf of California taxpayers by Lieutenant
         Governor Cruz Bustamante and Assembly Woman Barbara Matthews,
         both acting in their capacity as taxpayers and not in their
         capacity as elected officials

The suits are based on the events occurring in the California power
market during the summer of 2000, and allege violations of California's
Business and Professions Code, Unfair Trade Practices Act and various
other statutes.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including the
owners of in-state generation and various power marketers, conspired to
manipulate the California wholesale power market to the detriment of
California consumers. Included among the acts forming the basis of the
plaintiffs' claims are the alleged improper sharing of generation
outage data, improper withholding of generation capacity and the
manipulation of power market bid practices.

The Bustamante suit includes claims against various Dynegy entities,
including Dynegy Inc. and Dynegy Marketing and Trade, as well as
against three corporate officers individually. The allegations in this
suit are similar to those in the other five suits, with the exception
that the Bustamante suit includes a claim of unfair business practices
based on "price gouging" during an emergency declared by Governor Gray
Davis.

The suits are at preliminary stages. Defendants in the six lawsuits
have yet to file answers. The plaintiffs filed motions to remand five
of the cases to state court. In respect to the sixth case, the
Bustamante suit, the parties agreed that, based on a judge's decision
to remand the other five lawsuits, the case should go back to state
court. All six lawsuits will be consolidated before a single California
State Court judge.  After the actions were remanded, the parties agreed
that they should be coordinated.

On December 12, 2001, the California Judicial Council resolved a
dispute among the parties as to the county in which the actions should
be coordinated and assigned the Coordination Proceedings (Nos. 4204 &
4205) to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.

On December 20, 2001, the presiding Judge of the San Diego Superior
Court designated Judge Sammartino as the Coordination Trial Judge for
the Coordination Proceedings.  On January 17, 2002, Judge Sammartino
set a preliminary trial conference for March 4, 2002 to,
among other things, set schedules for:

     (i) determining legal issues that might expedite disposition of
         the Coordination Proceedings;

    (ii) establishing a discovery schedule; and

   (iii) resolving matters pertinent to the class action issue.

The defendants in the six lawsuits have formed various joint defense
groups in an effort to coordinate the defense of the claims and to
share certain costs of defense. The Company believes the allegations
are without merit and will vigorously defend these claims. In the
opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to
these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the financial
position or results of operations of the Company.


ENTERGY CORPORATION: Property Owners File Suit Over Easements in TX, LA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries faces several class actions in
Texas and Louisiana filed on behalf of all property owners in each of
the states throughout the Company's service areas who have conveyed
easements to the Company and other defendants, namely:

     (1) Entergy Gulf States,

     (2) Entergy Services and

     (3) Entergy Technology Holding Company (ETHC)

The first suit, originally commenced in 1998 by a group of property
owners in the Jefferson County State Court in Texas, alleges that the
Company installed fiber optic cable across their property without
obtaining appropriate easements.  The plaintiffs sought actual damages
for the use of the land and a share of the profits made through use of
the fiber optic cables and punitive damages.  

The State Court petition was voluntarily dismissed, and the plaintiffs
commenced a class action suit with the same claims in the Federal Court
in Beaumont, Texas. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment,
which were heard by the court in late 2001.  

The Magistrate's recommendation to the District Judge found that two of
the four types of easements did not allow the Company to place its
fiber on the property and the other two were ambiguous and required a
jury determination.  Subsequently, the District Judge held oral
arguments and has taken the motions under advisement.  

The Company believes the easements did provide it the right to place
the fiber optic cable.  If the Court or jury disagrees, the Company
believes that any damages suffered by the plaintiff landowners are
negligible and that there is no basis for the claim seeking a share of
profits.  At this time, management cannot determine the specific amount
of damages being sought.

In January 2002, a class action lawsuit asserting similar allegations
to those alleged in the Texas lawsuit was commenced in State Court in
Ascension Parish, Louisiana, against Entergy Louisiana, Entergy
Services, ETHC, and Entergy Technology Company, on behalf of all
similarly situated property owners in Louisiana.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  At this time,
management cannot determine the specific amount of damages being
sought.


METRO-NORTH COMMUTER: High Court Refuses To Dismiss Race Bias Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Supreme Court refused to block a discrimination class action
filed by former black employees of the Metro-North Commuter Railroad
Co., which provides rail transportation between New York City and the
suburbs, Syracuse.com reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of 1,200 black workers employed between
1985 and 1996 who said they were discriminated against because of their
race.  Initially, a federal court rejected the class action, but the
2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reinstated the suit.  The
plaintiffs then asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

The Supreme Court has not commented on the merits of the suit, but
allowed it to proceed as a class action.  A July 15 trial date has been
set in the case.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Alan Fuchsberg, told Syracuse.com he was
pleased that the Supreme Court appreciated "the 2nd Circuit's common-
sense approach" to the case.  He said it was important that the case be
heard as a class action because the plaintiffs seek to change the
policies and practices of the railroad to prevent future
discrimination.

A lawyer for Metro-North, Myron Rumeld, declined to comment,
Syracuse.com reports.


ONEOK INC.: Residents Sue Over Damages Brought By 2001 Gas Explosions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural gas company OneOK, Inc. faces two class actions pending in the
US District Court of Reno County, Kansas, charging it and several of
its affiliates relating to certain gas explosions in 2001 in or near
Hutchinson, Kansas.  The suits name two separate classes of claimants:

     (1) all owners of real estate in Reno County, Kansas whose
         property had allegedly declined in value; and

     (2) owners of businesses in Reno County whose income had allegedly
         suffered.

The suits also name as defendants:

     (i) Kansas Gas Service Company, Inc.

    (ii) Western Resources, Inc.,  

   (iii) Mid-Continent Market Center, Inc.,

    (iv) ONEOK Gas Storage, LLC,

     (v) ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., and

    (vi) ONEOK Gas Transportation, LLC

At this point in discovery, the Company is unable to evaluate the
merits of these cases or likelihood of success by the plaintiffs.


PFIZER INC.: Labor Union Files Antitrust Suit Over Epilepsy Drug in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. faces an antitrust class action filed by the Health and
Benefit Trust Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 94/94A/94B, AFL-CIO in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York, claiming illegal overcharges made for the
prescription drug Neurontinr.  The suit names the Company and the
Warner-Lambert Company, which was acquired by Pfizer in June 2000, as
defendant.

Warner-Lambert is presently a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. In
1993, prior to being acquired by Pfizer, Warner-Lambert received FDA
approval to market Neurontinr and had marketed Neurontinr in the United
States through its Parke-Davis division. Neurontinr is an anti-
convulsant that is approved by the FDA for the treatment of seizures in
adults with epilepsy.

The suit alleges that the two companies have maintained sham patent
infringement lawsuits against potential generic competitors for
Neurontinr for the purpose of delaying and preventing generic
competition.

Michael A. Carney, President of the Operating Engineers Local 94, said
in a statement, "The victims of the phony patent lawsuits that keep
generics off the market are not only health funds like ours, but also
the elderly, the working poor, the uninsured and everyone that is
forced to pay more for a brand name drug when a generic drug is
illegally kept off the market. Our Health Fund is filing this case, not
only because we have a fiduciary duty to our members and our Fund to do
so, but because our members and their families are tired of being
ripped off by big companies charging us these illegally inflated prices
and making obscene profits. We bring this lawsuit to fight back and
recover these overpayments for our Fund, for our members and for all
consumers hurt by these sharp practices."

Since the filing of the lawsuit "counsel for two consumers contacted us
and have filed lawsuits with allegations similar to that of our
client," Robert Schachter, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said.  He also
reported that counsel for a number of other union health and welfare
funds and private insurers have indicated that they may join Local 94's
lawsuit.

For more information, contact Robert S. Schachter or Joseph Lipofsky by
Phone: 212-223-3900 or 800-721-3900 by E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com or
jlipofsky@zsz.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.zsz.com.  


RELIANT ENERGY: Alleged Polluter Tells Residents Not To Attend Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing about groundwater contamination has been canceled because
people who have sued the alleged polluter have been told not to come,
says Louisiana State Senator James David Cain, D-Dry Creek, the
Associated Press recently reported.

Senator Cain had scheduled a State Senate Environmental Quality
Committee hearing in Haughton about the extent of an alleged benzene
leak from a former Arkla Gas Company plant in Haughton.  "We have had
to cancel the meeting because area residents who are involved in the
class action against Reliant Energy and its predecessor, Arkla Gas,
have been advised not to attend the meeting," said the Senator, who is
Committee Chairman, in a recently released statement.

State Representative Billy Montgomery, D-Bossier City, who worked with
Senator Cain to set up the meeting, said, "I am available and willing
to hold a public hearing on this issue if the people of Haughton feel
there is a need for one."


SOUTHERN COMPANY: GA Court Refuses Racial Bias Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld a lower court
ruling denying class certification to a racial discrimination class
action against electric firm Southern Company (NYSE: SO), saying the
evidence presented was insufficient in quality and quantity, iWon.com
reports.

The suit, filed by seven black Company workers, alleges that the
Company and three of its units discriminated against black workers in
pay and promotions and subjected them to a hostile working environment.  
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Georgia Power Company,

     (2) Southern Company Services, and

     (3) Southern Company Energy Solutions

The Companies have denied the charges against them.

The Appellate Court also denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal.  
Steven Rosenwasser, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told iWon the
individual lawsuits would proceed. "This decision is not a reflection
of the merits of our appeal. We just received the opinion and are
contemplating our options."  Lolita Browning, a spokeswoman for the
Company, said the ruling affirmed the Company's view that the
discrimination claims should be handled on an individual basis.


SULZER MEDICA: OH Court Extends Ban On Individual Lawsuits Until June
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court in Cleveland, Ohio has extended until June the
ban on individual lawsuits against medical equipment maker Sulzer
Medica and former parent Sulzer, Inc. over defective hip and knee
implants that the Company recalled last year, Reuters reports.

The Company is currently finalizing a $1 billion settlement to the
class action brought against it by thousands of American patients,
whose hip or knee implants loosened painfully after surgery and who had
to have follow-up operations to get replacements.  Final hearing on the
settlement is set for May 6, 2002.

Federal Judge Kathleen O'Malley has granted preliminary approval to the
settlement, whose value was increased from $783 million to $1 billion
amidst complaints that the compensation was not enough. The approval
brought the Company closer to resolving the debacle, which has dented
its reputation and hurt its stock.


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Cobb State Court Judge Takes Over Desecration Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge James G. Bodiford of the Cobb Judicial Circuit has
agreed to preside over the trial of Tri-State Crematory operator Brent
Marsh, charged with 204 counts of theft by deception after four judges
from the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit recused themselves due to
conflict of interest, the Walker County Messenger reports.

Mr. Marsh and the Tri-State Crematory faces a slew of private lawsuits
and class actions, after Georgia authorities discovered hundreds of
corpses dumped in the crematory premises, instead of being cremated.  
Outraged relatives of the deceased filed class actions against the
crematory, Mr. Marsh and the funeral homes that sent the bodies to the
crematory.

Judge Ralph Hill, the original judge overseeing the case, recused
himself because his son was one of the attorneys handling a class-
action lawsuit against the crematory.  Judge Kristina Cook Connelly was
the next to recuse herself last Thursday.  Her father, Summerville
attorney Bobby Lee Cook, is involved in litigation in the Tri-State
case.  Judge Ralph Van Pelt was next to recuse himself Saturday,
followed by Judge Bo Wood on Monday morning. Both Van Pelt and Wood
reportedly had relatives whose bodies were sent to Tri-State Crematory,
the Walker County Messenger reports.


UNITED STATES: INS Faces Suit Over "Unfair" Haitian Refugee Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) faces a
class action filed by Haitians, alleging that they were treated
differently from those of other nationalities who make it to US shores,
WPLG Click10.com reports.

Last year, the INS decided that any Haitian who made it to the US would
be detained.  The suit alleges that the practice has led to Haitians
being held at Krome Detention Center and other facilities around the
county even when some of those inmates have received political asylum.  

The suit further says that the policy is unfair, as it applies only to
Haitian refugees, and that parole proceedings involving Haitian
refugees are often rushed affairs where lawyers are given little time
to try the case, there are difficulties getting interpreters and some
hearings last only 30 minutes, Click10.com reports.

"Up until December, once they had convinced the asylum officer they had
a legitimate case, they were being released within days after that
interview," immigration lawyer Cheryl Little told WPLG Click10.com.
"Since December, virtually none of these Haitians have been released.
While detainees of all other nationalities are being quickly released
after they pass their.interviews."

The INS has not released any comment on the matter.


                            Securities Fraud


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

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

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

The suit further alleges that defendants affirmatively misrepresented
the amount of cash that At Home would need to finance its ongoing
operations for the calendar year 2001 by falsely stating in April 2001
that an additional $85 million in financing would be sufficient to meet
At Home's needs for cash during 2001.

Despite obtaining a total of $185 million in new financing, the
complaint alleges, on September 29, 2001, At Home announced that it
would seek bankruptcy protection, and on October 23, 2001, At Home
Corp.'s share price hit a 52-week low of four cents per share.

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

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

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


BAKER HUGHES: Sued For Violations of Federal Securities Laws in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action in the
US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed by
shareholders shortly after the Company's December 8, 1999 announcement
regarding the accounting issues it discovered at its INTEQ division.
The suit makes claims under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

The Company filed motions to dismiss both the shareholder derivative
suit and the class action. The Court granted the Company's motions on
both actions. No appeal was filed in the shareholder derivative suit,
but the class action is currently on appeal at the US Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

The Company believes the allegations in these suits are without merit,
and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Even so, an adverse
outcome in this class action litigation could have an adverse effect on
the Company's results of operations or financial condition.


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 complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition. 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 U.S. 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 had been 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.  The suit 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 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.classlawyer.com


CALPINE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Calpine Corporation
(NYSE:CPN) publicly traded securities during the period between January
5, 2001 and December 13, 2001.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company
owns, develops, acquires, and operates power-generation facilities and
sells electricity and steam, primarily in the US.  The Company's stock,
which went public in 1996, on a split adjusted basis, went from $2 at
the IPO stage to over $33 in January 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company's stock price was very important
because it was planning at this time to build or acquire $15 billion of
plants over the next four years. The financing for these plants was
based on the performance of its stock because many of its bond buyers
were looking to convert to common stock. If the stock did not perform,
financing would be difficult to fund the Company's expansion. However,
certain of the Company's manipulative transactions, including those
with Enron, such as inflated revenues, began to emerge on December 9,
2001.

On December 14, 2001, prior to the market opening, Moody's Investors
Service announced that it might cut the credit rating on the Company's
$11.6 billion of debt to junk. In response, Company shares plummeted to
$12.50, a more than 26% drop. Then, after the close of the market on
December 14, 2001, Moody's Investors Service announced that it had in
fact cut its rating of the Company's debt to junk.

As now revealed, at all times during the class period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and press releases concerning
its sale of and demand for power and its ability to generate sufficient
cash revenue to service its debt. During the class period, before the
disclosure of the true facts, the individual defendants sold their
personally held common stock generating more than $34 million in
proceeds and the Company raised billions of dollars in a series of debt
offerings.

For more information, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.milberg.com


COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: Denies Allegations in Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
CompuCom Systems, Inc. believes it has valid defenses to a class action
filed in the US District Court in New York, on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Opus360 Corporation, where the Company was named as
defendant.  The suit also names Opus, its officers and directors and
its underwriters as co-defendants.

The suits allege, among other things, that the prospectus and
registration statement for OPUS's initial public offering contained
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding:

     (1) OPUS's products, including Opus Xchange;

     (2) OPUS's cash flow and liquidity, including its "cash burn"
         rate; and

     (3) OPUS's relationships with its customers.


The suits assert claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, and seek damages in an amount in excess of $70 million.

The Company and the other defendants have moved to dismiss this
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain, the Company
intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously.


DYNEGY INC.: Faces Two Securities Suits Over Failed Merger With Enron
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. faces a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who owned common stock of Enron Corporation as of
November 28, 2001, relating to the failed merger between the two
companies.

The suits allege that they are intended third party beneficiaries of
the merger agreement dated November 9, 2001 between Enron, the Company
and related entities.  The suit claims that the Company materially
breached the merger agreement by wrongfully terminating it, and that
the Company breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

On February 4, 2002, the Company filed a notice of motion to dismiss or
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston Division). Discovery has not yet commenced.

The Company faces a similar class action in the 129th Judicial District
Court for Harris County, Texas, on behalf of all persons or entities
who owned common stock of Enron Corporation as of November 28, 2001.  
The suit makes substantially similar allegations as to the first
lawsuit.

The Company has filed an answer on February 4, 2002, denying all
allegations.  Discovery has not yet commenced.


The Company believes the allegations in Enron's adversary proceeding
and the other cases arising out of the terminated merger are without
merit and will vigorously defend against these claims. An adverse
result in these proceedings, however, could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position and results of operations.


GILAT SATELLITE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. (Nasdaq:
GILTF) common stock during the period between November 13, 2000 and
October 2, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition. Specifically, the suit alleges 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 Company claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements caused its
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting enormous
damages on investors.

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


GILAT SATELLITE: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The suit charges that the Company's stock was artificially inflated due
to the defendants' materially false and misleading statements
concerning its net income and inventories.  The action alleges
violations of the United States securities laws, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and officers Yoel Gat, Chairman of the
Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, and Yoav Leibovich,
Chief Financial Officer.

Among other things, the suit 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.

For more information, contact Joel P. Laitman by Phone: 866-348-7700 by
Fax: 212-267-8137 by E-mail: Shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.spornlaw.com


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: Schoengold Sporn Launches Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities class action against
Hanover Compressor Company (NYSE: HC) and certain of its key officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Company stock during
the period between November 8, 2000 and January 28, 2002.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out
of defendants' issuance of false financial statements and other false
and misleading statements about the Company's operating performance.
The facts, which were known by the defendants during the class period
but concealed from the public, were that certain revenue and net income
recognized in the 3rd and 4th quarter should not have been recognized.
Thus, the Company's financial statements for the 1st to the 3rd Quarter
2001 were false and misleading in that the revenue and EPS were
overstated and the impact of a particular project was not disclosed.

Further, in a secret "behind-the-scenes" type transaction, defendants
refused to refund money to an investor and instead forwarded the money
to a company related to the investor so that the transaction would go
uncovered.

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


IRVINE SENSORS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Irvine Sensors Corporation
(NASDAQ: IRSN) securities between January 6, 2000 and September 15,
2001, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations throughout the class
period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of the Company's securities.  The defendants reportedly reiterated
their commitment during the class period to the investing public that
the Electronic Film System or "EFS-1" device being made by its majority
owned subsidiary, Silicon Film Technologies, Inc. (SFI), was virtually
commercially viable. However, the EFS-1 suffered from serious and
insurmountable technical design flaws, among other grave problems.

Put on hold originally, the EFS-1 was to be ready by early summer of
2000. Yet even by September 2000, a pre-production model was still not
available for public consumption. Then, in May 2001, defendants
announced that certification had been completed on the initial
components of EFS-1 and that orders were now being accepted for the
product. In truth, however, EFS-1 had not passed the required national
or international certification testing and because of serious technical
design problems associated with constructing EFS-1, it could not be
publicly released.

During the summer of 2001, in an effort to rebuild the market's faith
in the credibility of the Company's management, the Company announced
that William Patton, a veteran businessman, had accepted the position
of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of SFI. However, he never
accepted the position.

The Company announced on September 15, 2001, that SFI had halted their
operations, and was contemplating bankruptcy. The EFS-1 was essentially
finished.

For further details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske, George
Peters, Gustavo Bruckner 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 Irvine Sensors.  


JD EDWARDS: Dismissal Decision, Settlement Agreement Approval Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to decide on
JD Edward and Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
between January 22, 1998, and December 3, 1998.

The suit charges the defendants with violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 through a series of false and misleading statements, and
seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the
class members.

The Company has reached a settlement in principle of the shareholder
class action, the terms of which are still being resolved.  The Company
believes the final terms will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. The final
settlement agreement is subject to court approval and class notice
provisions.


LEGATO SYSTEMS: Securities Suit in N.D. CA Still in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legato Systems, Inc. vehemently denies the allegations in a second
consolidated securities class action pending since January 2000 in the
US District Court, Northern District of California, against the Company
and certain of its directors and officers.

The suit generally alleges that, between April 22, 1999 and May 17,
2000, the defendants made false or misleading statements of material
fact about the Company's prospects and failed to follow generally
accepted accounting principles in violation of the federal securities
laws.

The Company vows to mount a vigorous defense against the suits, but
cannot give any assurance of a verdict in its favor.


LEGATO SYSTEMS: To Vigorously Defend Against Derivative Suits in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Legato Systems, Inc. faces three shareholder derivative suits in
California State and Federal Courts, charging it and certain of its
officers and directors with breaching its fiduciary duty to
shareholders between April 22, 1999 and May 17, 2000.

The first suit is pending in the US District Court, Northern District
of California, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by issuing false and misleading statements about the Company's
business prospects and engaged in improper insider trading.

The defendants moved to dismiss the derivative complaint, which the
court granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs then filed an
amended complaint, but later moved to voluntarily dismiss the amended
suit with the right to re-file the complaint at a later date if
they choose to do so.  The Court granted the motion in November 2001.

Another shareholder derivative action was filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, while another was lodged in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.  Both state
derivative complaints generally allege the same conduct as the
derivative action filed in federal court, claiming that the Company's
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties for the same
period.  The state derivative cases were later consolidated in San
Mateo County.

The Company intends to defend all of these actions vigorously. However,
there can be no assurance that any of the complaints discussed above
will be resolved without costly litigation, or in a manner that is not
materially adverse to its financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.


LUMENIS LTD.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Lumenis Ltd. (NASDAQ: LUME)
securities between January 7, 2002 and February 28, 2002, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements throughout the class period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
discounted and disputed marketplace rumors about its operations even as
it knew it was being investigated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) and that its distributors had been contacted by the
SEC.

Additionally, even after announcing in a press release that it was
subject to an SEC investigation, the Company continued to hide the fact
that it had been aware of the SEC investigation and had been providing
information to the SEC for several weeks.

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

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


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all individuals and institutional investors that purchased
the common stock of NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NPW) between October
5, 2000 and December 5, 2001, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges the Company and its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition, the
Company, its officers and directors, as well as underwriters of its
October 5, 2000 initial public offering, are also charged with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the Company, a nationwide provider of
electrical power and natural gas formed by Enron in 1999, engaged in a
pattern of misleadingly described policies and transactions throughout
the class period that served to mask the true nature of its business,
and its financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made numerous
false and misleading statements concerning its ability to succeed in a
volatile energy market through sophisticated risk management strategies
conceived and largely managed by its affiliate, Enron Energy Services,
Inc. (EES), an Enron subsidiary.  The suit asserts that neither EES nor
the Company had identified any hedging strategies that could enable the
Company to operate profitably under market conditions prevailing at the
time of the IPO or, indeed, at any time thereafter.

Moreover, as the complaint details, despite representations in the IPO
prospectus designed to portray Enron and its affiliates as long-term
investors in the Company and believers in its prospects for success,
Enron, through its CFO, Andrew Fastow, had set up a partnership known
as "Raptor III," whose purpose was to hedge Enron's position against
such an anticipated decline in the Company's stock.

Although the prospectus purported to describe fully the relationship
between Enron, its affiliates, and the Company, and all of their
related party transactions, it failed to fully disclose the extremely
troubling and material Raptor transactions.  As a result of these
various misrepresentations and omissions, the IPO garnered net proceeds
to the Company of $543 million.

In addition, certain defendants made numerous statements concerning the
Company's financial performance throughout the class period that
falsely attributed disappointing results to factors beyond its control.
As the complaint charges, they schemed to omit mention of the true
reasons the Company was drastically cutting costs, i.e., that it did
not have its claimed hedging system against high prices in place
(either independently or with the aid of Enron), and that collateral
obligations carried a material risk of loss, thereby sapping its
ability to tap enough resources to successfully carry out its business
plan.

Thereafter, in connection with the collapse of Enron amid scandal in
the fall of 2001, the Company and other defendants belatedly began to
disclose that they had no substantial hedges in place, and that,
contrary to their repeated representations, a substantial portion (and
perhaps all) of the enormous collateral they had posted was at risk of
loss.

The suit alleges that defendants have now admitted in filings made by
them with Securities and Exchange Commission that the registration
statements were false and misleading in that they failed to disclose
that, contrary to defendants' prior representations, the collateral
postings were not guaranteed to return to the Company completely or
even substantially (as had been previously represented), but were at
risk of being seized by the creditor, Enron.  

The Company misrepresented the true risk the Enron forward contracts
presented because the revelation of the truth would have led to
investor suspicions about the very viability of its business plan, its
ability to hedge against higher prices, the adequacy of its liquid
resources, and the fairness of its dealings with Enron.

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


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against NVIDIA Corporation (NASDAQ: NVDA) and certain of the Company's
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock of
NVIDIA between February 15, 2000 and February 14, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
alleges, among other things, that during the class period defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial condition.

In order to overstate revenues in its financial statements, the Company
violated generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules by
engaging in an improper scheme. As a result of defendants' misleading
statements and accounting improprieties during the class period, the
price of the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Hae Sung Nam by Mail: 805
Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 800-290-1952 or
212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Could Face Securities Suit After Income Restatement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, PC is investigating potential
shareholder claims against Performance Food Group Companies
(Nasdaq:PFGC), a Richmond, Virginia-based food wholesaler.  The Company
may have committed violations of federal securities laws.  

According to a March 11, 2002 press release, the Company has identified
"accounting errors" at an operating subsidiary that will reduce net
income by an estimated $4 million to $5 million.

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


PLAINS ALL: Settles Securities Suits For $30 Million S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, LP settled two consolidated securities
class actions charging it and certain of its former general partner
Plains Resources' officers and directors, for violations of federal
securities laws.

Twenty suits were originally filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, primarily in connection with unauthorized
trading by a former employee, and were later consolidated into two
actions. The first suit was filed by purchasers of Plains Resources'
common stock and options, while the second suit was filed by purchasers
of the Company's common units.

The suits alleged that the defendants were liable for securities fraud
violations under Rule l0b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and for making false registration statements under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company reached an agreement with representatives for the
plaintiffs for the settlement of both of the consolidated suits, and in
January 2001, the Company deposited approximately $30.0 million under
the terms of the settlement agreement.  The Court granted final
settlement approval in January 2002.


PLAINS ALL: Settles Derivative Shareholder Suits For $1.1M in DE, TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Resources, LP settled two derivative shareholder
suits pending in the Delaware Chancery Court, New Castle County and in
the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, relating to
unauthorized trading by a former Company employee.

Both derivative suits named Plains Resources, the Company's former
general partner, its directors and certain of its officers as
defendants, and allege that they breached the fiduciary duties that
they owed to the Company and its unit-holders by failing to monitor
properly the activities of its employees.

The suits also seek, among other things, to:

     (1) cause the defendants to account for all losses and damages
         allegedly sustained by the Company from the unauthorized
         trading losses;

     (2) establish and maintain effective internal controls ensuring
         that the Company's affiliates and persons responsible for our
         affairs do not engage in wrongful practices detrimental to the
         Company; and

     (3) to pay for the plaintiffs' costs and expenses in the
         litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants'
         fees and experts' fees.

The Company has agreed with the plaintiffs to settle the Delaware suit
for approximately $1.1 million. On March 6, 2002, the Delaware court
approved the settlement.

The Company has also reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs in the Texas litigation, subject to approval by the Texas
federal court, to settle the suit for approximately $112,500.

In a disclosure to the SEC, the Company expressed confidence that the
litigation will not have a materially adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense v. Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Quicklogic Corporation labeled "without merit" the securities class
action pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its officers and directors, and some
investment banks that underwrote its initial public offerings.

The suit generally alleges that the underwriters obtained excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock in the Company's initial public offering and maintained
artificially high prices through "tie-in" arrangements which required
customers to buy shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The suit alleges that the Company and its current officers and
directors violated sections of the Securities Act of 1933, and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because its registration statements did
not disclose the purported misconduct of the underwriters.

The Company intends to defend the case vigorously, and believes that it
is part of the trend of securities suits pending against more than 300
companies who attempted their initial public offerings during the last
two years.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: LeBlanc Waddell Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
LeBlanc & Waddell LLC initiated a securities class action, on behalf of
investors, against Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL) for securities
fraud, claiming that the company artificially inflated its stock price.  
The suit was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's stock from
October 20, 2000 through February 12, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and three top officers with engaging in
improper accounting practices to keep the Company's financial results
in line with analysts' expectations.  Specifically, the defendants are
accused of improperly booking a $10 million royalty payment in the
third quarter of 2000 and of improperly recording more than $40 million
in revenue in the first quarter of 2001.

When news of the suspicious accounting practices first emerged in a
February 13, 2002 newspaper article, the price of Company stock quickly
dropped 17%, or $2.50 a share, to $11.70 a share. The following day,
February 14, 2002, the Company announced the abrupt retirement of its
Chief Executive Officer and revealed poor quarterly and annual results.
The Company's stock price again fell sharply on the new reports,
closing at $8.40 per share on February 15, 2002.

For more information, contact Roger LeBlanc or Chad A. Dudley by Mail:
5353 Essen Lane, Suite 420, Baton Rouge LA 70809 by Phone: 800-988-3514
or by E-mail: rogerleblanc@lw-law.net
   

WACHOVIA CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corporation asked the US District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina to dismiss the consolidated securities suits
filed against it and certain of its executive officers on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from August 14, 1998 to May
24,1999.

The suit alleges various violations of federal securities law including
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.  The defendants
allegedly made materially misleading statements and/or material
omissions which artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock.

The suit further alleges that management failed to disclose integration
problems in the CoreStates Financial Corporation merger and misstated
the value of our interest in certain mortgage-backed securities of
The Money Store, Inc. (TMSI) acquired by Legacy First Union on June 30,
1998.

In January 2001, the US District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina granted the Company's motion to dismiss the litigation
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Although the plaintiffs did not appeal this ruling, they sought, and
received permission to file an amended complaint.

In August 2001, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that abandoned
their previous allegations concerning the CoreStates Financial Corp
merger and primarily raised new allegations of irregularities at TMSI
prior to its acquisition by Legacy First Union. In October 2001, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss this new complaint on several
grounds, including that the statute of limitations bars this complaint.
The court has yet to rule on this motion.

The Company believes the allegations contained in these actions are
without merit and will vigorously defend against them.  The Company is
also confident that the ultimate outcome of this litigation will not
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position.

                              *********


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  * * *