CAR_Public/020322.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Friday, March 22, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 58

                           Headlines

AG-BAG INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Conspiring to Fix Bag Prices in MN
AK STEEL: Employee Challenges "Improper" Retirement, Benefits Plans
AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Consumers Sue Over Harmful Telephone Radiation
BIG 5: Reaches Agreement to Settle California Managers' Wage Suit
COOPER TIRE: NJ Court Yet to Approve Settlement of Defective Tire Suit

DIAMOND OFFSHORE: Settling Offshore Workers Wage Suit for $625,000
DOLLAR TREE: Voluntarily Recalls 165T Paperweights for Fire Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Minority Workers File $10 Million Racial Bias Suit
JADE PRODUCTS: Voluntarily Recalls 7,200 Gas Ranges for Burn Hazard
PASCAL PRODUCTS: Recalls 600 Fireplace Screens for Serious Fire Hazard

PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Officers Still Face Backlog of Complaints   
STORAGE USA: Sued Over Disposition of Assets to Security Capital Group

*Supreme Court to Decide if Disparate Impact Means Age Discrimination

                            Securities Fraud

AK STEEL: OH Court Yet to Decide on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Cuts Settlement Offer to Enron Shareholders By Half
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Asks MA Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in MA
CMGI INC.: Shareholders Sue to Block Subsidiary's Reverse Stock Split

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: TX Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
GILAT SATELLITE: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
GLOBAL CROSSING: Johnson Perkinson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HARMONIC INC.: CA Court Yet to Decide on Securities Suit Dismissal

INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Sued for Securities Violations in S.D. NY
LUMENIS LTD.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MARKET AMERICA: Shareholders Sue to Block Atlantic Ventures Merger
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in NJ
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in NJ

MERCATOR SOFTWARE: CT Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in WA
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in WA
OPTICAL CABLE: Faces Suits for Securities Act Violations in W.D. VA
PARKER DRILLING: Subsidiaries Await Approval of Wage Suit Settlement

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Lieff Cabraser, Dunn Swan File Securities Suit in OK
SABRE HOLDINGS: $1.9M Travelocity Merger Suit Settlement Reached
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Umeda Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Denies Allegations in NY Securities Suits
VERSATA INC.: Asks CA Court to Dismiss Suit for Securities Violations

XOMA LTD.: CA Federal Court Dismisses Suits for Securities Violations

                              
                            *********


AG-BAG INTERNATIONAL: Sued for Conspiring to Fix Bag Prices in MN
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ag-Bag International, faces two class actions pending in the US
District Court for the District of Minnesota, along with other silage
bag manufacturers and vendors, charging them with conspiring to fix
prices and sales quotas.

Class certification was denied in one suit and no class has been
certified in the other.  The defendants have briefed and argued motions
for summary judgment in both cases.  The Court currently has the
motions under advisement.  

If the plaintiffs were to obtain a judgment against the defendants, the
Company could be held jointly and severally liable.  The Company
believes that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit, and the Company is
vigorously defending itself against these claims. The Company believes
that the outcome of the litigation will not have a material adverse
impact on its financial condition or results of operations.   


AK STEEL: Employee Challenges "Improper" Retirement, Benefits Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corporation faces a class action suit filed by former
employee, John D. West, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement
Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP) and the AK Steel Corporation
Benefit Plans Administrative Committee (AK BPAC).

The suit alleges that that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions is improper and that, as a result, the
benefits previously paid to plaintiff and putative class members from
the AK RAPP were understated in violation of the Employment Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

The AK RAPP is the cash balance plan component of the AK Steel
Noncontributory Pension Plan (AK NCPP).  The AK NCPP provides that the
Company will indemnify members of AK BPAC from any liability and
expense incurred by reason of serving as a member of AK BPAC.

The defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint and discovery
has yet to commence. The defendants intend to contest this matter
vigorously.


AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Consumers Sue Over Harmful Telephone Radiation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Audiovox Corporation faces a consolidated class action pending in the
US District Court for the District of Maryland charging the Company and
other suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of hand-held wireless
telephones with damages relating to exposure to radio frequency
radiation from hand-held wireless telephones.

There are various procedural motions pending in the suit and no
discovery has been conducted to date. The Company has asserted
indemnification claims against the manufacturers of the hand-held
wireless telephones, and is vigorously defending against the suit. The
Company does not expect the outcome of any pending litigation to have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position.


BIG 5: Reaches Agreement to Settle California Managers' Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation agreed to settle a class action suit
commenced in August 2001 on behalf of its California store managers and
first assistant store managers, alleging violations of the California
Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code.

The suit alleges that the Company improperly classified its store
managers and first assistant store managers as exempt employees not
entitled to overtime pay for work in excess of forty hours per week.
They seek, on behalf of the class members:

     (1) back pay for overtime allegedly not paid;

     (2) statutory penalties in the amount of an additional thirty
         days;

     (3) wages for each employee whose employment terminated in the
         four years preceding the complaint; and

     (4) injunctive relief to require the Company to treat its store
         management as non-exempt

On February 8, 2002, the Company filed a joint settlement with the
court for this complaint. The Company agreed to pay each class member
who submits a valid and timely claim form for the covered period of
August 8, 1997 through December 31, 2001, $32.46 per week of active
employment as store manager, and $25.50 per week of active employment
as first assistant store manager.  The Company also agreed to pay
attorneys' fees, plus costs and expenses, in the amount of $690, as
well as up to $40 for the cost of the settlement administrator.  In
addition, the Company agreed to pay the class representatives an
additional aggregate amount of $32.50 for their service as named
plaintiffs.

The settlement is subject to court approval. Once approved, the
settlement will constitute a full and complete settlement and release
of all claims related to the lawsuit. In addition, the Company admits
no liability or other wrongdoing with respect to the claims set
forth in the lawsuit. The Company intends to defend the case vigorously
if the court does not approve the settlement agreement.  


COOPER TIRE: NJ Court Yet to Approve Settlement of Defective Tire Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County has not issued a
decision regarding the settlement proposed by Cooper Tire and Rubber
Company to settle several class actions charging it with manufacturing
unsafe radial tires.

The 32 separate class actions were initially filed in 30 separate state
courts, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with one purporting to
represent a nationwide class. The lawsuits, all of which were filed
under the auspices of the same group of plaintiffs and attorneys,
assert claims under the respective states' consumer protection and
deceptive trade practices statutes, and comparable commercial law and
other theories.

The suits allege that the Company used certain materials and procedures
in its process of manufacturing steel-belted radial tires, which could
have rendered a portion of the tires unsafe, and failed to disclose
those practices to purchasers of its tires.  The suits were brought on
behalf of all persons (excluding those who have sustained personal
injury and/or property damage as a result of the alleged unlawful
practices) in the respective states who purchased steel-belted radial
tires manufactured by the Company from 1985 to the present, and still
retain those tires.

The Company removed each of the actions to Federal Court. Certain of
the actions have been remanded to state courts, while others have been
transferred by the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial handling.

In October 2001, the Company entered into a settlement and release of
all of the class action lawsuits, without any admission of
liability, resulting in a charge of $54.6 million ($33.9 million net of
tax).   According to the terms of the settlement and release, the
Company will provide:

     (1) a five-year Enhanced Warranty Program offering a free
         replacement tire for an adjustable separation on an eligible
         Cooper Tire or an alternative dispute resolution system;

     (2) some modifications to final tire inspections; and

     (3) a consumer education program to promote tire safety.

In addition, the Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs legal expenses as
part of the settlement. Out of potentially millions of class members,
only 156 chose to opt out of the settlement.  Those who opted out can
pursue any legal rights they may have against the Company in separate
individual lawsuits, any one of which the Company believes is unlikely
to have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, cash flow or financial position.

Preliminary judicial approval of the Settlement has been received. If
final approval is received, the litigation will be fully resolved,
unless appealed.  There were 18 objectors to the Settlement. None
objected to the structure of the settlement, but only to the content,
coverage and amount of attorney's fees. A fairness hearing regarding
the settlement was held in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex
County on January 29 and 30, 2002.


DIAMOND OFFSHORE: Settling Offshore Workers Wage Suit for $625,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. will settle for $625,000 the class
action pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston, Division against it and other offshore drilling
contractors in the Gulf of Mexico over workers wages.

The suit was filed on behalf of offshore workers against all of the
major offshore drilling companies, including persons hired in the
United States by the companies to work in the Gulf of Mexico and around
the world.  The suit alleges that the companies, through trade groups,
shared information in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
various state laws.

In July 2001, the Company filed a stipulation of settlement with the
Court, in which it agreed to settle the plaintiffs' outstanding claims.  
In December 2001, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving
the proposed class action settlement, preliminarily certifying the
settlement class, and setting a fairness hearing for April 18, 2002 to
determine whether to give the settlement final approval.

The Company expressed confidence, in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that the settlement will not have a material
adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or
cash flows of the Company.


DOLLAR TREE: Voluntarily Recalls 165T Paperweights for Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 165,000
paperweights. The paperweights can leak petroleum distillates, which
can pose ingestion and flammability hazards to consumers.  The Company
has not received any reports of incidents.  This recall is being
conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recalled paperweights were sold in four varieties:

     (1) Pyramid shaped, 3 inches long, 3 inches wide and 3 inches
         high, interiors: Sailboats floating in blue and clear liquid
         or hearts floating in clear liquid;

     (2) Pyramid shaped with a heart, 2 1/2 inches long, 2 1/2 inches
         wide and 2 1/2 inches high, interiors: Sailboats floating in
         blue and clear liquid or multicolored hearts floating in clear
         liquid;

     (3) Heart shaped, 2 1/2 inches long, 2 1/2 inches wide and 1 1/2
         inches high, interior: Sailboats floating in blue and clear
         liquid or multicolored hearts floating in clear liquid;

     (4) Double Heart shaped, 3 1/2 inches long, 2 1/2 inches wide and
         1 1/2 inches high, interior: Sailboats floating in blue and
         clear liquid or multicolored hearts floating in clear liquid;

All four varieties of paperweights have a label on their bases that
reads, "817718*** OFSC3*** DOLLAR TREE DIST. *** MADE IN CHINA ***K's
Collection."

Dollar Tree, Only One Dollar, Only $1, Dollar Express, and Dollar
Bills retail stores nationwide sold the paperweights from August 2000
through September 2000 for about $1.  For more information, contact the
Company by Phone: 800-876-8077 between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through
Friday.


GENERAL MOTORS: Minority Workers File $10 Million Racial Bias Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation faces a $10 million racial discrimination
lawsuits filed by minority workers at two of their plants, alleging
that their co-workers made racial slurs and behaved in a hostile
manner, citing an incident where a white co-worker once dressed in Ku
Klux Klan garb and nooses were hung near workstations, the Associated
Press reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of 14 black, Hispanic and American Indian
workers at the Pontiac plants, and one person whose job application was
rejected, also alleged that the Company discriminated in hiring.

The Company suspended the worker who dressed in Klan garb for thirty
days, and said it went over its nondiscrimination and diversity
policies with all its plant workers.  Company spokesman Tom Wickham
told AP, "GM does not condone these acts which are not indicative of
the work environment of Pontiac or elsewhere at GM."  He added the
Company believes some incidents cited in the suit did not occur.


JADE PRODUCTS: Voluntarily Recalls 7,200 Gas Ranges for Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jade Products, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling, and offering to repair,
about 7,200 Dynasty gas ranges.  The ranges can tip-over if a heavy
weight is placed on an open oven door, posing a risk of burn injuries
from hot food or liquids in cooking containers.  The Company has not
received any reports of incidents.  This recall is being conducted to
prevent the possibility of injuries.

The Dynasty gas ranges included in this program are all 30, 36, and 48-
inch units with the model number DGRSC.  The model number is located on
the serial plate that is accessed by lifting the right hand cooking
module from the range top.  The brand name "Dynasty" appears on the
front of the range.

Appliance and retail stores nationwide sold these ranges from January
1996 through December 2001 for between $3,000 and $7,400.

For more information, contact Jade Product by Phone: 888-607-5694
between 8 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.dynastyrange.com


PASCAL PRODUCTS: Recalls 600 Fireplace Screens For Serious Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pascal Products Company, Ltd. is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 600
two-paneled fireplace screens.  The paint on the metal mesh can ignite
when exposed to a direct flame, posing a serious fire hazard to
consumers.  The Company has not received any reports of incidents.  
This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recalled screens are Wal-Mart Home Trends 2-Paneled Fireplace
Screens with model number 500RR.  The 500RR model screens have a light
rust color and use standard Phillips-head hinge pins.  Wal-Mart stores
nationwide sold the fireplace screens from September 2001 through
December 2001 for about $30.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 601-362-6813
between 10 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.


PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Officers Still Face Backlog of Complaints   
------------------------------------------------------------------
An office created to investigate cases of alleged abuse by police
officers continues to have a backlog of cases that could threaten
Pittsburgh's efforts to end federal oversight of its police department,
the Associated Press recently reported.

The City agreed to the consent decree establishing the federal
oversight in 1997, after the Justice Department found that Pittsburgh
had a "pattern and practice" of tolerating civil rights abuses by its
officers.  The Justice Department ruling was the result of a class
action filed on behalf of 66 people who claimed the city, its highest
officials and 75 officers condoned a pervasive pattern of abuse.  The
consent decree also required the Department to revamp police oversight,
training and supervision.  Among its reforms:

     (1) a computerized system to track officers' behavior;

     (2) a requirement that officers document all traffic stops and
         arrests; and

     (3) a requirement that officers take annual training in cultural
         diversity, integrity and ethics.

The backlog at the City's Office of Municipal Investigations, which
handles citizen complaints against police, continues to grow, according
to an audit by James Ginger, a San Antonio, Texas-based consultant.  
The office, created as part of a 1997 federal consent decree, had 409
pending cases as of November 2001.  At least 164 of the complaints are
four years or older, and 10 of these are more than eight years old,
according to the audit.

The backlog and office under-staffing could endanger the City's
efforts to lift the five-year-old agreement stemming from alleged
widespread civil rights abuses.  City and police officials are striving
to have the decree lifted by April.  Some persons say the backlog is
enough to lead to extension of the agreement.

"This report is the nail in the coffin, and given the additional
problems we have identified, there is now way federal supervision can
or should be ended at this point," said Witold Walczak, Executive
Director of the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union.  Mr. Walczak has alleged that some investigators have worked for
a year without being trained at the police academy and have quotas to
clear one case a week, which would undermine investigations.

Susan Malie, an attorney for the City's Law Department, disputed Mr.
Walczak's comments, saying all employees have been trained and the
office has no quotas.  "The quality and integrity of each investigation
are paramount and the only priorities," Ms. Malie said.


STORAGE USA: Sued Over Disposition of Assets to Security Capital Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Storage USA, Inc. faces a class action challenging the disposition of
the Company's assets, including its interests in their operating
partnership, SUSA Partnership, LP (SUSA), to Security Capital Group,
Inc.  The suit was filed by a group of limited partners in SUSA on
behalf of all limited partners of SUSA and on behalf of a subclass of
those limited partners who are parties to tax deferral agreements with
SUSA.

The suit, which also names Security Capital Group, Inc. as defendant,
purports to state causes of action against some or all of the
defendants for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) violation of the Tennessee Revised Uniform Limited Partnership
         Act,

     (3) breach of the existing partnership agreement and

     (4) breach of the tax deferral agreements, and

     (5) interference with contractual relations and interference with
         economic advantages, against Security Capital Group.

The relief sought in the complaint includes preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the transactions or, in the event that they are
completed, rescinding and setting aside the transactions.

The Company labeled the suit as "without merit."


*Supreme Court to Decide if Disparate Impact Means Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Can a corporation be sued for age discrimination on the grounds that a
corporate layoff has a disproportionate impact on older workers?  
Lawyers for 117 laid-off Florida Power Corporation workers, along
with the lawyers for the utility, will argue that question before the
Supreme Court tomorrow, The Wall Street Journal reported recently.  In
any sort of bias claim, proving that discrimination is intentional is
difficult.  Therefore, winning a lawsuit often depends on proving that
a company's action has had an unintended, or disparate, impact on one
group of workers.

The use of the "disparate-impact" theory in such cases is still in
question.  The Supreme Court has allowed minority groups protected
under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to bring such claims under Title VII,
which bars job discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and
national origin.  

Last year, the Court ruled that plaintiffs could not bring disparate-
impact claims under another part of the same law, Title VI, which bars
discrimination by recipients of federal funds.  Now, the Supreme Court
will decide whether the disparate-impact theory may be used in age-
discrimination cases.

The Florida Power workers are asking to be allowed to use that theory
under the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a federal law
designed to protect workers who are 40 and older from being treated
differently because of their age.  Those workers now make up nearly
half of the work force.

If the Court rules in the plaintiffs' favor, they could pursue a class
action against Florida Power, rather than their dozens of individual
lawsuits now pending in US District Court in Ocala, Florida.  Such a
ruling could make it easier for other groups of older workers to get
class action claims certified as well, "which typically puts added
pressure on the defendant to settle rather than run the risk of a class
action determination," said Eugene Ulterino, a partner at Nixon Peabody
LLP, in Rochester, New York, who represents employers.

If the Supreme Court rules against the plaintiffs, "it would become
almost impossible to prove age discrimination in this country, because
it would mean that in every case, an age-discrimination victim is going
to have to prove that an employer intended to discriminate against them
(her or him)," said Laurie McCann, a senior attorney with AARP
Foundation Litigation, part of the group formerly known as the American
Association of Retired Persons.  "If the employer itself is not aware
that a seemingly neutral policy is instigated by stereotypes against
older workers, which is what the academic literature shows, how can we
expect an older worker to prove what was going on in the employer's
head?"

The Supreme Court arguments come amid a surge of age-discrimination
complaints, as older workers desiring to stay on the job longer meet
employers' resistance.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) said last month that the number of age-bias claims against
private-sector employers jumped 8.7 percent to 17,405 in the fiscal
year that ended September 30, 2001, compared with the previous year.  
They accounted for 22 percent of all EEOC claims filed last year.

The Florida Power case was sparked by a Congressional move in the early
1990s to open up competition in the utilities business.  In response,
Florida Power reorganized its staff, slashing 1,200 jobs.  The cuts
prompted a series of lawsuits by former employees, who claimed that
more than 70 percent of the laid-off employees were 40 or older,
according to a brief filed to the Supreme Court on their behalf.

The US Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, in July,
affirmed a federal district court ruling that the 1967 age-
discrimination law does not allow the workers to sue using the
"disparate-impact" theory.  Other US appeals courts have disagreed,
however, leading to the Supreme Court's agreement to review the matter.

The plaintiffs plan to argue that the Title VII and age-discrimination
laws are "closely related statutes" in which "the prohibitions are
identical except for the word `age;' so, they should be read
identically," said John G. Crabtree, the Key Biscayne, Florida attorney
arguing the plaintiffs' case before the Supreme Court.

Congress, although it has amended the age-discrimination law several
times, never acted "to restrict or otherwise undermine disparate-impact
analysis" in age-discrimination cases, according to the plaintiffs'
pleadings.  The age-discrimination law "does not use the word
`discriminate,' but instead imposes liability for employment practices
that adversely affect an employee's status."

Florida Power contends that the age-discrimination law "does not allow
the disparate-impact theory to be used, because it does not set it out.
The bottom line on all this. is that Florida Power did not discriminate
against its employees based on their age," said Suzanne Ennis,
Associate General Counsel for the utility's parent company, Progress
Energy Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina.

                            Securities Fraud

AK STEEL: OH Court Yet to Decide on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to decide on the motion filed by AK Steel Holdings Corporation to
dismiss the securities class action charging the Company and certain of
its directors with federal securities violations.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1934, charging the
defendants with issuing material misstatements and omissions about the
Company's business and financial position, in its public disclosure
statements filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

The defendants are vigorously defending against this action, and have
filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which currently is pending.  
Discovery is stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. No
trial date has been scheduled.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Cuts Settlement Offer to Enron Shareholders by Half
---------------------------------------------------------------------
With Andersen Worldwide's future uncertain, and efforts to sell parts
of its business facing legal and regulatory problems, Arthur Andersen's
US arm recently reduced by half the amount of money it is offering to
reach a universal settlement with Enron Corporation's shareholders,
unsecured creditors and employees, The Wall Street Journal recently
reported.

The controversial firm made an offer in mid-February of $750 million
for a settlement of all civil claims related to Enron, which was
rejected by the lead plaintiffs' lawyer for shareholders.  The firm
recently slashed the offer to around $375 million, a reflection of the
firm's dimming long-term revenue prospects as more clients leave daily.  
It is unclear whether talks are continuing between Andersen and lawyers
for its adversaries, or whether the latest offer is still on the table.
Andersen officials could be reached for comment on the offers.

The original settlement offer comprised $250 million of insurance
money, plus $100 million a year from Andersen's revenue, for five
years.  More recently, Andersen's advisers have said the firm is unable
to offer more than one year's worth from its revenue.  "It simply
reflects their recognition that they can only deliver on the first
year's installment," said Trey Davis, a spokesman for the University of
California Board of Regents, the lead plaintiff in a class action
against Andersen by Enron shareholders.

These potential liabilities continue to cast a cloud over negotiations
by Andersen to sell its overseas business to rival KPMG LLP and to sell
its tax and consulting businesses in the US to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
or another rival, or to spin them off.  The firm is scrambling to
secure a deal before its overseas partners start breaking off and
striking more attractive deals on their own.  

Yet even a global deal may not yield additional new cash available for
a settlement with groups suing Andersen.  Under terms being discussed,
Andersen's non-US affiliates would transfer the partners, and the
partners' capital, to KPMG, according to people close to the talks.  An
Andersen partner in Germany, for instance, with $1 million in capital
in the firm, would transfer those funds to KPMG, and such moves would
leave Andersen's non-US operations with little working capital.

Such an agreement likely would result in objections by plaintiffs.  
"Any transaction or business combination or sale that seeks to shield
Andersen from its liabilities in this case is unacceptable to the
plaintiffs," said Mr. Davis, adding that the University had not yet
taken a positive position on whether Andersen's Enron-related liability
should be extended overseas.

Andersen partners said, however, that any deal would take months to
work through and may not be resolved until the third or fourth quarter.  
Even if all or many of Andersen's 83 units outside the US can agree on
final deals, each will then have to put it to the unit's partners for
approval.  Both sides have played down the possibility of job cuts.  
However, a person familiar with the talks said, "we would have to be
naive to think there won't be any."

It is unclear whether Andersen's Enron-related liabilities could extend
to partners in other countries.   The firm's executives play down that
threat.  "We are quite separate legally and organizationally from the
US firm," said John Omerod, managing partner of the British
partnership, at a recent news conference.  However, the threat remains
strongest in Britain, where Andersen has acknowledged that some
documents from Enron audits were shredded last year.  Mr. Omerod has
said that no "material" documents were destroyed and nothing improper
was done by the British firm.

Complicating matters, both for a settlement with plaintiffs and for a
possible sale, is the fact that Andersen continues to lose audit
clients on a daily basis as its troubles have deepened.  The pace of
client defections has picked up since its indictment last week on a
criminal obstruction-of-justice charge in the United States for
destroying Enron-related audit documents.  Andersen is scheduled to be
arraigned before a federal magistrate in Houston on this charge and
plans to enter a plea of not guilty.  A separate hearing is scheduled
before Federal Judge Melinda Harmon, who will preside over the trial
dealing with the obstruction-of-justice charge.

Dynegy Corporation, a Houston-based energy company, disclosed recently
in a regulatory filing, that it had dismissed Andersen as its auditor
and hired PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  Rayonier Inc., a Stamford,
Connecticut, wood-products company, also said it had "rescinded the
appointment of Andersen."  Nathan's Famous Inc., a fast-food restaurant
chain based in Westbury, New York, also disclosed that it has decided
to replace Andersen as its auditor, but did not say which accounting
firm it would hire.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Asks MA Court to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Biopure Corporation has asked the US District Court for the District of
Massachusetts to dismiss several class actions charging the Company and
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of violations of federal
securities laws.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from May
8,2001 through December 6,2001, alleges that the Company violated the
federal securities laws by publicly disseminating materially false and
misleading statements regarding the anticipated timing of a biologic
license application for it expected to make to the US Food and Drug
Administration, resulting in the artificial inflation of the Company's
common stock price during the class period.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to
defend them vigorously. At this time, the Company cannot estimate what
impact, if any, these cases may have on the financial statements


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Biopure Corporation (Nasdaq:BPUR) in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
between May 8, 2001 and December 6, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that during the class period, the Company issued
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 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. 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 $20 plateau above which the
stock traded throughout most of the class period.

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.pomerantzlaw.com


CMGI INC.: Shareholders Sue to Block Subsidiary's Reverse Stock Split
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CMGI, Inc. and subsidiary Engage, Inc. faces a class action in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, challenging a planned
Engage reverse stock split.  The suit names as defendants the Company,
Engage and the individual members of Engage's Board of Directors,
namely:

     (1) David S. Wetherell,

     (2) George A. McMillan,

     (3) Christopher M. Cuddy,

     (4) Edward M. Bennett and

     (5) Peter J. Rice

The suit alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties by
the Company and the individual defendants, and violations of Delaware
law, and requests, among other things, that the court:

     (i) enjoin Engage from effecting a proposed reverse stock split;

    (ii) enjoin the issuance of shares of Engage common stock to the
         Company upon conversion of promissory notes previously issued
         by Engage to the Company;

   (iii) award rescissory relief if the reverse stock split and stock
         issuances are consummated; and

    (iv) award the plaintiff compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
         expenses.

In February 28, 2002, the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a request
by the plaintiffs for the scheduling of a preliminary injunction
hearing, and denied a request to allow expedited discovery in the
lawsuit.

The Company and Engage each believe these claims are without merit and
plan to vigorously defend against these claims.


CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: TX Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Western District of Texas refused to
dismiss a consolidated securities class action pending against
Crossroads Systems, Inc. and several of its officers.  The suit, filed
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during various
periods ranging from January 25, 2000 through August 24, 2000, alleges
violations of federal securities laws.

The Company also faces a derivative shareholder class action pending in
the 261st District Court of Travis County, Texas on behalf of the
Company against several of its officers and directors.  

The derivative suit is based upon the same general set of facts and
circumstances outlined in connection with the purported securities
class action litigation.  The derivative suit alleges that certain of
the individual defendants sold shares while in possession of material
inside information in purported breach of their fiduciary duties to the
Company. The suit also alleges waste of corporate assets.

The Company believes that the state and federal suits are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously.  Because the suits are at an
early stage, it is not possible at this time to predict whether the
Company will incur any liability or to estimate the damages, or the
range of damages, if any, that it might incur in connection with the
suits.


GILAT SATELLITE: Cohen Milstein Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC commenced a securities class
action against Gilat Satellite Networks, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the
Company's US headquarters are located, on behalf of investors who
purchased Company securities between August 14, 2000 and March 9, 2001.

Other class action suits were thereafter filed in New York on behalf of
purchasers of the Company between November 13, 2000 and October 2,
2001, so there is an overlap of the two cases. The cases will
eventually be coordinated and/or consolidated in one federal court,
most likely in Virginia.

The complaint 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact 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: Johnson Perkinson Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson launched a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
acquirers of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE: GX) common stock during the
period from February 1, 1999 through October 4, 2001, including a
subclass of those who acquired the Company's stock in the September 28,
1999 merger between Frontier Corporation and the Company.

The suit asserts claims against the Company's officers and directors
and Arthur Andersen LLP for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and
Sections 11 and 15(a) of the Securities Act.  The defendants allegedly
failed to disclose material adverse information, therefore artificially
inflating the Company's reported results on its financial statements
published during the class period.  This caused the plaintiff and other
members of the class to purchase or acquire Company stock at
artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Dennis J. Johnson or Jacob B. Perkinson by
Mail: 1690 Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 by Phone:
866-276-5446 or by E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Schoengold Sporn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities class action in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or institutions who acquired common shares of Global Crossing,
Ltd. (NASDAQ: GBLXQ) between September 28, 1999 through and including
October 4, 2001 at artificially inflated prices due to the defendants'
materially false and misleading statements concerning its net income
and inventories.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued a series of
statements concerning their businesses, financial results and
operations, which failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing declining demand for
         bandwidth;

     (2) its operating performance was artificially inflated through
         erroneous accounting with other telecom companies;

     (3) its managed network outsourcing services were declining;

     (4) the company was operating at levels well below company-
         sponsored expectations, such that revenue projections were
         overstated and costs and expenses were understated;

     (5) individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
         personally held stock generating more than $1.5 billion in
         proceeds; and

     (6) the Company raised over $7 billion in debt and equity
         offerings.

The Company issued announcements on October 4, 2001 overstating cash
revenues and expected recurring adjusted EBITDA to be "less than $100
million," compared to forecasts of $400 million. As a result, Company
shares plummeted to $1.07 per share, a decline of 49%.

For more information, contact Jay P. Saltzman or Ashley Kim by Mail: 19
Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038 or by Phone:
212-964-0046


HARMONIC INC.: CA Court Yet to Decide on Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Harmonic, Inc. asked the US District Court for the Northern District of
California to dismiss an amended consolidated class action alleging
federal securities violations, on behalf of persons who purchased its
publicly traded securities between January 19, 2000 and June 26, 2000,
and on behalf of a subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube
Microsystems, Inc. securities between January 19 and May 3, 2000.  

The suit alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding the Company's prospects and customers and its acquisition of
C-Cube Microsystems, Inc., certain defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit also
alleged that certain defendants violated section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
by filing a false or misleading registration statement, prospectus, and
joint proxy in connection with the C-Cube acquisition.  The suit names
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, C-Cube Microsystems
Inc. and several of C-Cubes' officers and directors as defendants.

In July 2001, the consolidated suit was dismissed, with leave to amend.
An amended complaint alleging the same claims against the same
defendants was filed in August 2001, but the defendants again moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.  A hearing on the motions has not been
set yet.

The Company also faces a derivative shareholder suit purporting to be
on behalf of the Company, against its then-current directors.  The suit
named the Company as a nominal defendant, and is based on allegations
similar to those found in the federal securities suits. The suit
alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, causing the Company to violate federal securities laws.  

The derivative suit, which was originally filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Santa Clara, was removed to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California in September
2000.  All deadlines in this action have been stayed pending resolution
of the motions to dismiss the securities actions. A case management
conference is scheduled for April 5, 2002.

Based on its review of the complaints filed in the securities class
action, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously.  There can be no assurance,
however, that the Company will prevail.  An unfavorable outcome of this
litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, operating results, financial position and liquidity.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Sued For Securities Violations in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation faces a securities class action filed in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
certain of its officers and directors and six underwriters of its
initial public offering of common stock on April 28, 1999 and its
follow-on offering of common stock on September 27, 2000.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between April 28,1999 and December 2000, alleges violations of Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against all defendants, a violation of
Section 15 of the Securities Act against the individual defendants, and
violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder)
against the underwriters.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the prospectuses incorporated in
the registration statements for one or both offerings failed to
disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriters allocated to those investors material
         portions of the shares of the common stock the Company sold in
         the offerings, and

     (2) the underwriters agreed to allocate shares of the common stock
         the Company sold in the offerings to those customers in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         shares of the Company's common stock in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

The Company said that they are aware that similar allegations have been
made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, which have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
against it, and intends to defend against the suit vigorously.


LUMENIS LTD.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who acquired Lumenis Ltd. 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 suit alleges that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements throughout the class period that had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

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


MARKET AMERICA: Shareholders Sue to Block Atlantic Ventures Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Market America, Inc. and its directors face a securities class actions
filed in Superior Court in Guilford County, State of North Carolina,
challenging the planned merger between the Company and Atlantic
Ventures, Inc.  The suit was filed on behalf of all of the Company's
public shareholders whose shares would be converted into the right to
receive $8.00 in cash per share in connection with the merger.

The suit asserts that the $8.00 per share price to be paid to public
shareholders in connection with the merger is inadequate, and alleges
that the director defendants are engaged in self-dealing and are not
acting in good faith toward the class members.  The suit further
asserts that the directors have breached their fiduciary duties to
class members, and seeks an order certifying the class and remedies
including injunctive relief that would, if granted, prevent the
completion of the merger.

The Company denies the allegations of the suit, and believes the
pending litigation will not have a material effect on its financial
position or results of operations.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer initiated a securities class action against
Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX: MSS) and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's common stock between August 1, 2001 and February 14, 2002,
including all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock pursuant, or traceable to, a public
offering, which became effective on or about August 1, 2001.

The suit charges the Company's and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that during the class period defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition. In addition, the registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the offering misrepresented
and omitted material facts concerning the Company's financial results.

Furthermore, during the class period, and in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles, defendants caused the Company to
falsely report favorable financial results by, among other things,
improperly recognizing revenues and improperly overstating inventories.  
As a result, Company stock traded at artificially inflated levels
during the class period.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine 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 by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Felgoise, PC commenced a securities class action on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX:MSS)
securities between August 1, 2001 and February 14, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
against the Company and certain of its key officers and directors.

The suit charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
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 further details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad
Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 or by E-mail: BrianFLaw@yahoo.com


MERCATOR SOFTWARE: CT Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
refused to dismiss a consolidated securities class action pending
against Mercator Software, Inc., alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The suit names as defendants the Company and
officers:

     (1) Constance Galley,

     (2) Kevin McKay, and

     (3) Ira Gerard

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from April 20, 2000 through and including August 21, 2000,
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, through alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions.

In January 2001, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
consolidated matter with substantially the same allegations.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in March 2001.
The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss in July 2001,
and later denied the motion.

The Company believes that the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and intends to contest them vigorously.   However, the
Company cannot give any guarantee as to the ultimate outcome of this
proceeding or whether the ultimate outcome may have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position or consolidated results
of operations.


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in WA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of purchasers of Metawave Communications
Corporation (Nasdaq: MTWV) common stock during the period between April
25, 2001 and March 14, 2002, 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 suit alleges that during the class
period, defendants caused the Company's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, the Company was able to
complete private placement offerings, raising net proceeds of $30
million during the class period.

On March 14, 2002, just months after the last offering was completed,
the Company revealed that its FY 2001 results were false when issued.
The stock dropped below $1 per share on this news.

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


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Metawave Communications
Corporation (Nasdaq:MTWV) from April 25, 2001 and March 14, 2002,
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 suit alleges that during the class
period, defendants caused the Company's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  As a result of this inflation, the Company was able to
complete private placement offerings, raising net proceeds of $30
million during the class period.

On March 14, 2002, just months after the last offering was completed,
the Company revealed that its FY 2001 results were false when issued.
The stock dropped below $1 per share on this news.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


OPTICAL CABLE: Faces Suits for Securities Act Violations in W.D. VA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Optical Cable Corporation expects that the US District Court for the
Western District of Virginia will consolidate four securities class
actions pending against it, former Chairman and President Robert
Kopstein and unidentified Company officers and/or directors, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock
from July 31, 2000, through October 8, 2001, allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of the federal Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and were negligent in making certain alleged misrepresentations
and/or omitting to disclose material facts.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the suits.  The
Company may, however, incur substantial costs in defending the suits,
regardless of their merit or outcome.  At this early stage, management
cannot make a reasonable estimate of the monetary amount of their
resolution, or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any.
If the Company is unsuccessful, it could be subject to damages that may
be substantial and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position, results of operations and liquidity.


PARKER DRILLING: Subsidiaries Await Approval of Wage Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two subsidiaries of Parker Drilling Company agreed to settle for
$625,000 a class action suit pending in the US District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, charging the subsidiaries
of conspiring with other offshore drilling operators in the Gulf of
Mexico to fix their employees wages.

The suit, which also names other drilling contractors who conduct
operations in the Gulf of Mexico, alleges that the defendants have
violated federal and state antitrust laws by agreeing with each other
to depress wages and benefits paid to employees working for defendants.  
Originally, the case was pending in US District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Galveston Division, but was subsequently transferred
to the Houston Division.

The subsidiaries and certain of the other defendants recently entered
into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff, pursuant to which
the subsidiaries will pay $625,000 for a full and complete release of
all claims brought in the case. The settlement received preliminary
Court approval on November 8, 2001, and the Court will conduct a
fairness hearing on April 18, 2002 to determine whether the proposed
settlements should receive final approval.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Lieff Cabraser, Dunn Swan File Securities Suit in OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Dunn, Swan & Cunningham,
PC initiate a securities class action in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of all purchasers
who at any time, purchased an "opportunity" from Pre-Paid Legal
Services, Inc. to sell memberships for "legal insurance plans".  The
suit name as defendants:  

     (1) Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc.,

     (2) Harland C. Stonecipher, Chairman and CEO, and

     (3) Randy Harp, Chief Operating Officer

The focus of the complaint is the Company's sale of the ability to join
an allegedly unlawful pyramid scheme, the members of which sell "legal
insurance plans" and the chance to sell the memberships throughout the
United States.  The suit alleges that the purchase of the "opportunity"
is an investment contract security, and that this security is
fraudulently marketed to the purchasers.

The suit further alleges that defendants marketed the opportunity
through a uniform scripted oral presentation in which sales agents (who
were not registered as broker-dealers under applicable federal or
Oklahoma law) represented to potential purchasers that they would earn
more money and make more sales than they actually could or did.  
Specifically, defendants represented that the sale of a membership was
an easy sale to a desirous audience and that the retention rate by
consumers was higher than it was.

The suit further contends that the Company operates an unlawful pyramid
sales scheme, in that the participants pay money and receive the right
to sell products and the right to earn rewards for recruiting and
training other participants.  The Company did not register the
investment contract securities at issue with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, certain Oklahoma statutes, and various common-law claims.

For more information, contact Wendy R. Fleishman by Phone: 212-355-9500
by E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.lieffcabraser.com


SABRE HOLDINGS: $1.9M Travelocity Merger Suit Settlement Reached
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Holdings Corporation reached an agreement to settle for $1.9
million all securities class actions over its offer to purchase all
outstanding shares of Travelocity.com, Inc.  An amended consolidated
suit was commenced in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle
County, while two suits were commenced in the US District Court of
Tarrant County, Texas.

The suits names as defendants the Company, Travelocity and the
directors of Travelocity, and generally alleges that:

     (1) the consideration offered by the Company in the original offer
         undervalues the Travelocity common stock; and

     (2) the Company failed to disclose all material information needed
         by the class of plaintiffs to make informed decisions
         regarding the fairness of the original offer.


On March 8, 2002, the plaintiffs in the Delaware suit filed a motion
seeking expedited discovery and the scheduling of a hearing for a
preliminary injunction to enjoin the consummation of the original
offer.  The court will hear the motion on March 20, 2002.  On March 14,
2002, plaintiffs in the Texas suit filed a similar motion, which will
be heard on March 22, 2002.

On March 17, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle all pending stockholder litigation with respect to
all parties in Delaware and Texas.  Under the proposed settlement, the
Company would commit to an offer price of no less than $28.00 per share
and to pay attorneys' fees and costs to the putative plaintiff class in
an aggregate amount not to exceed $1.9 million. The agreement is
contingent on the execution of definitive documentation and subject
to the approval of both the Delaware and Texas courts.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Umeda Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Tyco International, Ltd.
(NYSE:TYC) between December 13, 1999 and February 5, 2002, inclusive,
against the Company and:

     (1) L. Dennis Kozlowski,

     (2) Mark H. Swartz,

     (3) Michael A. Ashcroft and

     (4) Mark A. Belnick

The suit charges the defendants with issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market. Specifically, the complaint asserts
claims against defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

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.

For further details, contact Marc M. Umeda by Mail: 1010 Second Ave.,
Suite 2360, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 800-350-6003 or by E-mail:  
info@ruflaw.com


USINTERNETWORKING INC.: Denies Allegations in NY Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
USInternetworking has labeled "baseless" and "without merit" the
securities class action pending in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities (NASDAQ:USIX) between April 9,1999 and December 6,2000,
inclusive.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, for allegedly misleading investors.  The
Company's prospectus allegedly failed to disclose or misrepresented the
agreements between the Company's underwriters and customers, relating
to IPO stock allocations, which artificially inflated the Company's
stock price.


VERSATA INC.: Asks CA Court to Dismiss Suit for Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Versata, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action charging the Company, certain of its former officers and a
current director with violations of federal securities laws.

The suit alleges claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims under section 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company said that it was premature to come to any conclusions as to
the allegations and potential damages, and that it intends to defend
against these suits vigorously.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
the suit, which will be heard by the Court on May 10, 2002.

The Company also faces two shareholder derivative actions filed in June
2001 on its behalf against certain current and former officers and
directors in Superior Court of Alameda County, California. The suits
also name the Company as a nominal defendant.  The suits allege that
the defendants:

     (1) breached their fiduciary duties;

     (2) abused their control of the corporation; and

     (3) engaged in gross  mismanagement of the corporation, by
         allegedly making or permitting the Company to make false
         financial statements

In November 2001, the State Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion to stay proceedings in the consolidated derivative
action until the filing of an answer by the Company in the federal suit
or dismissal of that suit.

The Company said there can be no assurance that the pending actions
will be resolved without costly litigation, or in a manner that is not
materially adverse to our financial position, results of operations or
cash flow.


XOMA LTD.: CA Federal Court Dismisses Suits for Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed several securities class actions against XOMA Ltd.
(Nasdaq:XOMA), Genentech, Inc. and certain of the Company's officers.

The suits were commenced in November 2001, alleging that material
misrepresentations and omissions were made concerning the anticipated
timetable for the filing of a Biologics License Application with the
Food and Drug Administration in connection with the development of
Xanelim(TM).

On March 11, 2002, after further investigating the issues, plaintiffs'
counsel filed a stipulation and proposed order of voluntary dismissal
in all three actions.  On March 13, 2002, the Court entered an order
dismissing each of the lawsuits without prejudice. No consideration has
been exchanged, and neither plaintiffs nor their counsel will receive
any compensation or reimbursement of expenses.

"We are pleased by the plaintiffs' decision to voluntarily dismiss
these lawsuits," said Jack Castello, the Company's Chairman, President
and CEO, in a statement.


                               *********


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  * * *