CAR_Public/020327.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, March 27, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 61

                            Headlines

CANADA: Insurance Suits Could Cause Motorists To Pay Higher Legal Fees
CANADA: Appellate Court Upholds Paybacks to Mentally Disabled Veterans
DYCO OIL: Lessor Alleges Fraudulent Handling of Gas Purchase Contracts
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: States To Present Witnesses In Antitrust Suit
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Works Out Settlement For CA Carpet Antitrust Suits

ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Customers Sue For Breach of Contract In Alabama
PADGETT-THOMPSON INC.: Trainer Sues Over Employee/Consultant Status
PACKAGING CORPORATION: Trial in Linerboard Antitrust Suit Scheduled
PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $150M To Plaintiffs In Light Cigarettes Suit
SAFEWAY INC: CA High Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Subsidiary

SAFEWAY INC.: Subsidiary Faces Antitrust Suit Over Milk Prices in IL
SLAVE LABOR: Three Financial Firms Face Slave Labor Suit in New York

                           Securities Fraud

ANDRX CORPORATION: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Judge Orders Mediation Route For Enron Civil Cases
ADVANCED FIBER: Asks California Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
CORNELL COMPANIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
CORNING INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NY

GILAT SATELLITE: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
GILAT SATELLITE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Heartland, Investors Reach $14 M Partial Settlement
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Four Execs Dismissed From Securities Suit
HUB GROUP: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. Illinois

LUMENIS LTD.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in NJ
MEDI-HUT CO.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in New Jersey
MEDI-HUT CO.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey

METAWAVE CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in W.D. WA
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. New York
PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Fairness Hearing For Securities Suit Set May 2002
RARE MEDIUM: Moves To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit in Delaware
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
                              
                           *********

CANADA: Insurance Suits Could Cause Motorists To Pay Higher Legal Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Bureau warned Canadian motorists that the costs of
excessive legal bills may be passed on to them, if their class actions
asking automobile insurers to pay back drivers who wrecked their cars
as far back as 1975 succeed, the National Post Online reports.

Many class actions were commenced after the Ontario Court of Appeals
ruled that the insurer is liable for "actual cash value of the
automobile" not the value minus the deductible, which varies anywhere
from several hundred dollars to thousands per vehicle.  Most insurance
policies contain language that limits the insurer's liability to a
period of one year, but the appellate court rejected this.

The National Post reports that if the suits are successful, a million
Canadians from Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland, Prince Edward island are eligible for refunds.  This
could end up costing the industry, and, by extension, car owners across
Canada, "hundreds of millions of dollars," said Randall Bundus, the
bureau's general counsel.  "It could be very, very expensive," he
added.

The suits must still be certified as class actions, but it's unlikely
that a judge would refuse certification, given that the appeals court
in Ontario has already endorsed it.


CANADA: Appellate Court Upholds Paybacks to Mentally Disabled Veterans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian government has been ordered to pay back about $4 billion
denied over the years to thousands of mentally-disabled war veterans,
the St. Petersburg Times recently reported.  The Ontario Court of
Appeals ruling upheld an earlier court's decision, rendered in a class
action, finding the government liable to about 10,000 former soldiers
whose finances were managed by the Department of Veterans Affairs
between 1919 and 1990.

It was alleged in the lawsuit, filed in 1999, that the money held by
the government for the mentally disabled veterans was never properly
invested, billions in interest never paid and $50 million in pensions
and hospital allowances unjustly taken back.

Attorney Peter Sengbusch called it a "victory in a battle that we have
fought for several years and that veterans and their families have
fought for decades."  Roy Bailey of the Canadian Alliance Party said it
is an "historic wrong" and urged the Liberal government to pay up
immediately.  The government has 60 days to decide whether to appeal
the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.


DYCO OIL: Lessor Alleges Fraudulent Handling of Gas Purchase Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dyco Oil and Gas Program 1978-1 faces a class action pending in the
District Couft of Roger Mills County, Oklahoma filed by Walter K.
Spurlin, LLC, on behalf of all individuals who leased Oklahoma mineral
leases to the Company, which were subject to certain gas purchase
contracts.

The Company allegedly amended or terminated certain gas purchase
contracts and fraudulently concealed the settlement of these contracts.  
The plaintiff, a lessor of the Spurlin No. 1-23 well, alleged that the
Company's actions resulted in a breach of the express and implied  
obligations of the leases and reckless indifference and/or actual fraud
on behalf of the Company.  

The Company answered the suit on April 1998, denying all allegations,
and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, including failure to
state a claim and running of the statute of limitations.  The Company
also said that the plaintiff's claims were contrary to the Oklahoma
Supreme Court's decision in Roye Realty and Developing, Inc. v. Watson,
949 P.2d 1208 (Okla. 1996) and that the Company acted as a prudent
operator and in accordance with the lease terms.

The court certified the suit as a class action in February 2000.  The
Company has filed an interlocutory appeal of this order which is
currently pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: States To Present Witnesses In Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The nine states dissenting to Microsoft Corporation's settlement of an
antitrust class action with the US Department of Justice will present
three witnesses this week, attempting to convince Federal Judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly that the Company was using "anti-competitive" practices
to crush competition in technology markets, the Associated Press
reports.  The witnesses include:

     (1) Carl Ledbetter - Novell, Inc. vice president, who plans to say
         the Company abused industry standards for competitive gain and
         that the states' penalties would force the Company to disclose
         technical information that would help computers communicate
         with each other.

     (2) Steve McGeady - a former Intel Corporation executive, who will
         testify that the technical disclosure will not compromise
         security, as the Company claims; and

     (3) Michael Mace - a top Palm, Inc. executive who will allege that
         the Company has tried to block Palm's development by blocking
         access to its development tools.

Last year, the Company inked a settlement agreement with the Justice
Department and nine states to settle a federal class action charging
the Company with monopolistic behavior and charging customers more for
Windows software.  

Nine other states dissented to the settlement, saying it was not harsh
enough and it would even allow the Company to use the settlement to
further entrench their hold on the technology market.  The nine states
seek harsher penalties in order to restore competition and break the
Company's Windows monopoly.

According to Associated Press, the nine states want the Company to
create a stripped-down version of its flagship Windows software that
could incorporate competitors' features, and to divulge the blueprints
for its Internet Explorer browser.

As the nine remaining states pursue the next phase of the case, U.S.
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly refused in the first week of
testimony to rule on a central issue, whether the penalties should
cover issues outside the desktop computer operating system market on
which the first antitrust case was based.

Company spokesman Jim Desler told AP that Microsoft was pleased with
the first week of testimony and will work to convince the judge that
the proposed penalties go too far.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Works Out Settlement For CA Carpet Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is in the process of settling three class
actions suits pending in the Superior Court of the State of California,
City and County of San Francisco.

Two suits were brought on behalf of a purported class of indirect
purchasers of polypropylene carpet in the State of California and seek
damages for alleged violations of California antitrust and unfair
competition laws.  The third suit was filed on behalf of a purported
class based on indirect purchasers of nylon carpet in the State of
California and alleges violations of California antitrust and unfair
competition laws.

The Company has reached an agreement to settle the lawsuits and is in
the process of finalizing documentation to be presented to the court
for approval.  


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Customers Sue For Breach of Contract In Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. faces a class action pending in the
United States District Court of Houston County, Alabama, seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief for alleged breach of contract
arising out of alleged missed or inadequate re-inspections.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs contend that the case is suitable for
a class action and the court has ruled that the plaintiffs would be
permitted to pursue a class action against the Company.

The Company believes this case to be without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously at trial.  At this time, the final outcome of
the litigation cannot be determined.  The Company is confident that the
ultimate resolution of this action will not have a material adverse
effect on its financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.


PADGETT-THOMPSON INC.: Trainer Sues Over Employee/Consultant Status
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Padgett-Thompson, Inc. faces a class action suit, which could have far-
reaching effects on companies that classify trainers as contractors
rather than employees, the Associated Press reported recently.  The
trainers provide seminars for Leawood, Kansas-based Company.  Besides
the Company, the suit names American Management Association
International of New York as a defendant.  The Company is a division of
American Management.

The suit, if granted class-action status on behalf of current and
former trainers at the Company, could encompass a class of hundreds.  
The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Kansas City, by former
trainer Keith Stubblefield of Liberty, claims trainers are entitled to
the same benefits as the Company's employees, including savings and
investment plans, insurance, sick leave and vacation pay.  Supporting
this claim is the allegation in Mr. Stubblefield's complaint that the
Company "so tightly controlled" the trainers that they "are, in
reality, employees."

Indicia of the tight control, according to the lawsuit, is the fact
that the Company:

     (1) provided the trainers all their materials and equipment;

     (2) restricted them from engaging their own assistants;

     (3) reimbursed them for airfare, rental car, seminar room and
         hotel expenses; and

     (4) required them to attend dress rehearsals at the Company before
         they were allowed to present seminars.

Mr. Stubblefield also contends that the IRS considered him an employee
for federal income tax purposes after the Company refused to withhold
his income taxes.  If Mr. Stubblefield prevails, not only could the
case cost the Company millions of dollars, but also it could have far-
reaching effects on other seminar companies, several of which are based
in the Kansas City area.  All of them classify their trainers as
independent contractors.

Whether a worker is classified as an independent contractor or an
employee is an increasingly critical - and often costly - workplace
issue.  "We shall have to see what benefits were provided to the
employees and determine their value, then determine what benefits were
denied to the trainers," said one of Mr. Stubblefield's lawyers, John
F. Edgar.  "But we are probably talking about an extensive amount."  
Microsoft Corporation, for example, settled a class action on behalf of
thousands of contingent workers for around $100 million.

"Potentially for employers, the misclassification of employees as
independent contractors is a huge monster hiding in the closet," said
Kansas City employment lawyer, Michael Blumenthal, who is not involved
in the case.  Many employers classify workers as independent
contractors to avoid the minimum-wage or overtime requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the IRS' requirements for employee benefits
and payroll taxes and the laws governing discrimination in the
workplace.

The IRS looks at 20 factors in order to determine whether a worker is
an independent contractor, while the Department of Labor has adopted a
seven-point test.  US Senator Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican, has
introduced legislation to allow consideration of fewer criteria.

Raelene Dietz, Padgett president, said she had not seen the lawsuit.
However, she said, the issue of employee versus independent contractor
always has been contentious in the industry, and "we work very hard at
keeping the trainers as independent contractors, because that is part
of the lifeblood of the seminar business."


PACKAGING CORPORATION: Trial in Linerboard Antitrust Suit Scheduled
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated antitrust class action against Packaging
Corporation of America, Inc. is set to commence in January 2003.  The
suit alleges civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.

The suit names the Company as a defendant based solely on the
allegation that it is successor to the interests of Tenneco Packaging,
Inc. and Tenneco, Inc., both of which were also named as defendants in
the suit, along with nine other linerboard manufacturers. The suit
alleges that the defendants, during the period starting October 1, 1993
through November 30, 1995, conspired to limit the supply of linerboard,
and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was
artificially to increase prices of corrugated containers.  The suit was
filed on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased
corrugated containers directly from any defendant during the above
period.

The court granted class certification on September 2001, but modified
the proposed class to exclude those purchasers whose prices were "not
tied to the price of linerboard."  Defendants have appealed the class
certification ruling, and that appeal is currently pending before the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations have no merit and
intends to defend against the suit vigorously.  The Company also
expressed confidence that the pending litigation will not have a
material effect on its financial position or operations.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $150M To Plaintiffs In Light Cigarettes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris Companies recently suffered its fifth consecutive
courtroom loss on the West Coast, when a jury in Portland, Oregon,
ordered the nation's largest tobacco company to pay nearly $150.2
million in damages in the case of a woman who died of lung cancer after
smoking low-tar cigarettes, The Wall Street Journal recently reported.  
The successful strategy of plaintiff's lawyers has its ramifications
for class actions, three class actions have been brought in three
states on behalf of light cigarette smokers.

After five days of deliberations, the 12-member state-court jury said
that the Company made false claims that "light" cigarettes were safer
than regular ones.  The jury also found that the Company's Merit
cigarettes, which the woman, Michelle Schwarz, smoked for decades
before her 1999 death, were "defective and unreasonably dangerous."

The jurors assessed damages of $168,514.22 as compensation for the harm
Mrs. Schwarz suffered from smoking.  They also levied a punitive award
of $150 million.  Under Oregon law, 60 percent of punitive damages are
paid to a state fund for crime victims.  The rest goes to plaintiffs
and their lawyers.

The verdict was the second straight loss for the Company in Oregon.  In
1999, a jury in the same Portland courthouse where the Schwarz case was
tried hit the Company with an $80.3 million verdict.  A judge later
reduced the award to $30.3 million.  The case is on appeal.

The Schwarz verdict also follows three defeats in California.  The
losses are a significant, and potentially costly, exception to
cigarette makers' generally winning litigation record elsewhere.

The Company said it will appeal "very promptly" if the judge does not
overturn the verdict.  Judges need to tell juries to "try the case
before them and not make social policy," said William S. Ohlemeyer,
the Company's associate general counsel.

Mr. Ohlemeyer said Philip Morris did not get a fair trial, pointing to
the fact that documents that had been ruled inadmissible as evidence
were inadvertently given to the jurors during their deliberations.  
Other documents, he said, had been marked in a way designed to draw
jurors' attention to certain passages.

Mr. Ohlemeyer also said the Company would ask the judge to reduce the
size of the punitive award, which he said was "clearly excessive" and
"obviously unreasonable."  Under the law, punitive damages must bear a
reasonable relationship to compensatory damages.  Punitive-damage
awards in all of the Company's previous West Coast cases have been
reduced substantially by judges, and this one is likely to be as
well, according to analysts.

The jury sent a message that "low-tar cigarettes are a fraud and that
the cigarette companies have not conducted themselves the way a
reliable business should," said Lawrence Wobbrock, the lead plaintiff's
attorney.  Mr. Wobbrock focused on the way Philip Morris marketed the
low-tar cigarettes, the first time this issue has played such a
prominent role in an individual case.  Mr. Wobbrock, 53, trying his
first tobacco case, argued that Philip Morris tried to persuade smokers
that light cigarettes were less dangerous and, therefore, an
alternative to quitting.

Company lawyers countered that Mrs. Schwarz, who started smoking while
a nursing student and then married a doctor, was well aware of the
health risks of cigarettes.  Besides, said Mr. Ohlemeyer, the Company
never said Merits were any less dangerous than regular cigarettes.  
"The warning on Merit was the same as on Benson & Hedges and every
other pack of cigarettes," he said.

For a long time, the US Surgeon General and others encouraged smokers
to switch to lower tar cigarettes, but public-health experts now say
light cigarettes are just as dangerous as full-flavor ones.  The
National Cancer Institute last November published a report criticizing
the marketing of "light" and "ultralight" cigarettes as deceptive.

As a result, more cases are being brought on behalf of light-cigarette
smokers who allege they were misled.  The Company is a defendant in
three such cases that have been certified as class actions in
Massachusetts, Illinois and Florida.

The most troublesome legal problem for the industry, however, analysts
say, is its losing record on the West Coast, especially in California.
The largest of the industry's three straight losses in the Golden State
came last summer, when a Los Angeles jury awarded more than $3 billion
to a former smoker with lung cancer.  A judge later reduced the award
to $105.5 million.  All of the California verdicts are being appealed.

"Clearly, the strategic changes that Philip Morris has made to the
defense of these cases has to date amounted to naught," said Martin
Feldman, a tobacco analyst at Salomon Smith Barney in New York.


SAFEWAY INC: CA High Court Dismisses Antitrust Suit Against Subsidiary
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's decision
dismissing the class action charging Safeway, Inc. subsidiary Vons
Stores with violating the state's antitrust laws.

The suit was commenced in September 1996 in the Superior Court of San
Diego County, California against Vons and two other grocery store
chains operating in Southern California. The suit alleged that the
defendants conspired to fix the retail price of eggs in southern
California, in violation of the California Cartwright Act, and that
they engaged in unfair competition.

The court subsequently certified a class of retail purchasers of white
chicken eggs by the dozen in southern California from September 1992 to
October 1997. A jury trial commenced in July 1999, and plaintiffs asked
the jury to award damages against the Company (before trebling) of
$36.8 million.  However, in September 1999, the jury returned a verdict
in favor of the defendants.

The plaintiffs then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict or a new trial, which the court denied.  The court also denied
their motion for judgment on the unfair competition claim.  The
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the California Court of Appeals,
but in November 2001, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the
trial court.  On January 23, 2002, the California Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' petition for review, and the case is now terminated.


SAFEWAY INC.: Subsidiary Faces Antitrust Suit Over Milk Prices in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a class action against Safeway, Inc.
subsidiary Dominick's filed in Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
alleging, among other things, that Dominick's conspired with other
retailers to fix the retail price of milk in nine Illinois counties in
the Chicago area, in violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act.  The suit
was commenced on behalf of all persons residing in the nine-county area
who purchased milk from the defendants' retail stores in these
counties.

In December 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion for summary
judgment, which sought a dismissal of the entire action.  In January
2002, the defendants moved the court to certify that decision for
immediate interlocutory appeal. That motion is currently pending.

Discovery in the matter is continuing, and no trial date has been set.
The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without
merit, and plans to defend this action vigorously.


SLAVE LABOR: Three Financial Firms Face Slave Labor Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Three financial institutions face a possible class action to be filed
in the US District Court in New York on behalf of all African-Americans
who can claim slaves as forebears, Reuters reports.  The suit will name
as defendants:

     (1) Aetna Inc.,

     (2) CSX Corporation, and

     (3) FleetBoston Financial Corporation.

The suit alleges that the defendants unjustly profited from slavery.  
Aetna, the nation's largest health insurer, has acknowledged issuing
life insurance policies on slaves, naming their owners as
beneficiaries, while Fleet's earliest predecessor bank was founded by
John Brown, a notorious Rhode Island slave trader, and CSX owns early
rail lines built by slaves, according to a USA Today report.  The suit
seeks reparations for unpaid slave labor and a share of corporate
profits derived from slavery.  

CSX spokeswoman Kathy Burns told USA Today there was "no legal basis"
for the lawsuit.  "It is an unfortunate misuse of the legal system to
attempt to address issues well over a century old at the expense of
today's workers and stockholders," she said.  Aetna said in a company
statement that it had already expressed "deep regret" for issuing slave
policies, while Fleet declined comment.


                            Securities Fraud

ANDRX CORPORATION: Schoengold Sporn Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons or institutions who acquired common shares of Andrx
Corporation (NASDAQ: ADRX) between April 30, 2001 through and including
February 21, 2002 at artificially inflated prices due to the
defendants' materially false and misleading statements concerning its
net income and inventories.

The suit, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleges that the Company and certain of its directors and
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company issued a series of
statements concerning its generic version of the drug Tiazacr that the
only thing holding up the drug from reaching the market was continuing
patent litigation with Biovail Corp. in connection with Tiazacr.  The
defendants failed to disclose that in fact, the Company had difficulty
making a stable version of generic Tiazacr, including that it had
amended its original application to the FDA thirteen times.

When the Company announced on February 21, 2002 that the FDA had raised
"certain issues" concerning the generic Tiazacr, the Company's stock
price dropped from $42.61 per share on February 21, 2002 to $34.96 per
share on February 22, 2002, on volume of 15,767,100, over seven times
the prior day's volume.

For more details, contact Jay P. Saltzman by Phone: 866-348-7700 by
Fax: 212-267-8137 or by E-mail: Shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Judge Orders Mediation Route For Enron Civil Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Melinda Harmon, in Houston, ordered the parties
suing Arthur Andersen LLP over the Enron Corporation debacle, to join
with their attorneys in an attempt to resolve the civil lawsuits
against the auditing firm through non-binding mediation.

Judge Harmon, who also is presiding over the criminal case against
Andersen, appointed Eric D. Green, a Boston University law professor,
who helped craft a settlement of antitrust charges against Microsoft
Corporation, to oversee the talks.

The order covers two pending class actions and potential claims against
the firm, being considered by Enron and the Company's creditors.  The
judge's order does not require the SEC to be a part of the mediation.


ADVANCED FIBER: Asks California Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Fiber Communications, Inc. asked the US District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss a consolidated class action
charging the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors of violations of state and federal securities laws.

The amended consolidated suit arose from several class actions
commenced in July 1998 alleging various federal and state securities
law violations on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock for the
period March 25, 1997 through and including June 30, 1998.  These suits
were ordered consolidated in November 1998.

The consolidated suit was amended three times, but the court dismissed
the three amended suits, giving plaintiffs leave to file a fourth
amended suit, which they did in July 2001.  On February 15, 2002, the
defendants again moved to dismiss the fourth suit.  Limited discovery
has occurred.

Based on current information, the Company believes the lawsuits are
without merit and that it has meritorious defenses to the actions.
Accordingly, the Company is vigorously defending the litigation.


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Advanced Switching Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASCX) between October
4, 2000 and February 12, 2002, inclusive, against the Company, five of
its principal officers and/or directors and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the availability
of its A-4500 product.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY) between September 25, 2001 and March 19, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York against the Company and Peter R. Dolan.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between September 25, 2001 and March 19, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that the Company's clinical trial of VANLEV, a
new drug for the treatment of hypertension, that was completed in
September, demonstrated that VANLEV users experienced a higher risk of
a side effect known as angiodema and that it was not shown to be
superior to a cheaper generic drug already on the market.

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on March
20, 2002, the price of Company shares dropped 15.6%, or $7.57, to close
at $41.08.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: BMYcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA lodged a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who acquired Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company (NYSE:BMY) securities between September 19, 2001 and January 4,
2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that a press release issued on December 28, 2001
disclosed that the FDA had refused to accept the application for
Erbitux. The action further alleges that the FDA repeatedly advised of
problems with the Erbitux clinical trials during the Class Period.
After this disclosure on January 4, 2002, the price of Bristol-Myers
shares dropped.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY) between September
25, 2001 and March 19, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and Peter R. Dolan, its Chairman of the
Board and Chief Executive Officer with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding its OCTAVE* study of VANLEV
(omapatrilat), a novel cardiovascular compound for the treatment of
hypertension. In April 2000, the Company voluntarily withdrew its New
Drug Application for VANLEV (omapatrilat) from the US Food & Drug
Administration (FDA).

As a result of the withdraw of the VANLEV NDA, the Company announced
that it would commence a 25,000 patient clinical trial of VANLEV for
the treatment of hypertension, known as OCTAVE*, to determine the
incidence and frequency of the deadly side effect known as angioedema.
The market eagerly awaited the results of the OCTAVE* study to learn
whether VANLEV for the treatment of hypertension would be a blockbuster
drug for BMY.

Finally, on September 25, 2001 defendants announced that the review and
analysis of the data from the OCTAVE* study of VANLEV had been
completed. On December 14, 2001, the Company submitted a New Drug
Application with the FDA for VANLEV.

On March 20, 2002, defendants revealed that they had known since
September 25, 2001 but refused to disclose, the negative data from the
OCTAVE* study of VANLEV for the treatment of hypertension. The data
from the OCTAVE* study showed that, "there was a higher risk of a side
effect known as angioedema observed in VANLEV-treated patients."  After
describing the details of the incidence of angioedema found in the
data, defendants disclosed that, "the overall incidence of angioedema
over 24 weeks was 2.17 with VANLEV and 0.68% with enalapril."

Defendants also disclosed at the same time that the results of the
study of VANLEV for treatment of heart failure had failed to show that
it was superior to a cheap generic drug already on the market. As a
result of these materially false and misleading statements, among
others, plaintiff alleges that the price of the Company's common stock
was artificially inflated during the class period.

For more details, contact Deborah R. Gross, Susan Gross or Tina
Moukoulis by Mail: 1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19102 by Phone: 215-561-3600 or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com  


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Computer Associates International, Inc. (NYSE:CA) between May 28, 1999
through February 25, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

The action alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the Company's
financial condition and revenue recognition.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CORNELL COMPANIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Cornell Companies, Inc. (NYSE:CRN) between March 6, 2001 and March 5,
2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The action alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the Company's
financial condition.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CORNING INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
New York, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Corning, Inc. (NYSE:GLW) between September 27, 2000 and July 10, 2001,
inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The action alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information. The suit alleges that the
Company misrepresented how robust the market was for its photonics
products. In addition, the action alleges that on July 10, 2001, the
Company announced a $5.1 billion charge attributable to its
acquisitions of Pirelli and NetOptix, that it would write-off $300
million in excess and obsolete inventory and that it would close three
plants and cut 1,000 jobs.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


GILAT SATELLITE: Leo Desmond Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.
(Nasdaq:GILTF) securities between November 13, 2000 and October 2,
2001, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against the Company, Yoel Gat and Yoav Libovitch.

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


For more information, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 800-892-4134,
561-712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


GILAT SATELLITE: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA launched a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. (NASDAQ: GILTF) between November 13,
2000 and October 2, 2001, inclusive against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the Company's
financial condition.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Heartland, Investors Reach $14 M Partial Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $14 million partial settlement has been reached in a lawsuit
filed by investors in two Heartland Advisors bond funds that were put
into receivership this past year following steep portfolio write-downs,
The Wall Street Journal reported recently.

If approved by a federal judge in Milwaukee, the proposed settlement
would resolve the investors' claims against the money-management firm
and various fund officers, directors and portfolio managers.  Money for
the proposed settlement would come from closely-held Heartland and $10
million in insurance coverage held by the Company.

The October 2000 write-downs of defaulted bonds owned by Heartland
High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund and Heartland Short Duration High-Yield
Municipal Fund caused one-day share-price drops of 70 percent and 44
percent respectively.  The two funds and a third Heartland bond fund
were put into receivership this past year at the request of the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The class action alleged that the defendants failed to price accurately
the funds' shares each day and failed to disclose fully the funds' high
risk to shareholders.

The Heartland defendants, also the subject of a continuing
investigation by the SEC, "deny each and every allegation of the
Complaint and do not admit any fault, wrongdoing or liability,"
according to a legal filing detailing the proposed settlement.

At Heartland Advisors, which continues to run three stock funds and a
bond fund, Chief Operating Officer Paul Beste said that the firm is
"fully cooperating," with the SEC investigation.

It is not clear how far the proposed $14 million settlement, which
would be reduced by legal fees and expenses, would go to make up losses
suffered by the Heartland fund investors.  The lead plaintiffs in the
suit estimated the damages caused to fund holders by the alleged
misconduct at $87 million.  However, the Heartland defendants rejected
that figure, and instead estimated that even if all the allegations
against them were found to be true, they could be held liable for no
more than $29 million in damages.

One defendant in the investor lawsuit that is not a party to the
proposed settlement is PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, which served as
auditor of the Heartland funds.  PricewaterhouseCoopers was not
involved in the settlement talks and filed a motion to dismiss the
legal action, said PricewaterhouseCoopers spokesman David Nestor.  "We
feel that the complaint is totally without merit.and we intend to
defend it vigorously," he said.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Four Execs Dismissed From Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed four of Honeywell International, Inc.'s current and former
officers from the consolidated securities suit against the Company,
filed on behalf of purchasers of its common stock from December 20,1999
to June 19,2000.

The suit initially charged the Company and seven of its current and
former officers with violating federal securities laws by purportedly
making false and misleading statements and by failing to disclose
material information concerning the Company's financial performance.  
These practices allegedly caused the value of the Company's stock to be
artificially inflated.

However, the Company, along with seven of its current and former
officers and its board, has been named as defendants in a purported
shareowner derivative action filed in the same court.  The derivative
suit alleges a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on
nearly identical allegations to those set forth in the federal suit.

The Company believes that there is no factual or legal basis for the
allegations in the two suits.  Although it is not possible at this time
to predict the result of these cases, the Company expects to prevail.
However, an adverse outcome could be material to the Company's
consolidated financial position or results of operations.


HUB GROUP: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the
common stock of Hub Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:HUBG; HUBGE) between April 21,
1999 and February 12, 2002, inclusive against the Company, certain of
its officers and directors and Arthur Andersen, LLP.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the Company's
financial condition. The action alleges that on February 12, 2002, the
Company announced accounting irregularities that it estimated caused it
to overstate its earnings.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


LUMENIS LTD.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who acquired
the common stock of Lumenis, Ltd. (Nasdaq:LUME) between January 7, 2002
and February 28, 2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its
officers.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the status of an
SEC investigation.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of all persons who purchased the securities of Measurement Specialties,
Inc. (AMEX:MSS) in the period from July 31, 2001 to February 14, 2002,
against the Company and:

     (1) Joseph Mallon,

     (2) Damon Germanton and

     (3) Kirk Dischino

The suit, filed in the US District Court in New Jersey, alleges that
the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of
material facts concerning the Company's accounting, inventories, assets
and business performance during the relevant time.  According to the
complaint, throughout the relevant time period, defendants overstated
the Company's financial condition and stated that the company was
enjoying strong growth and performing well.

At the same time, however, the suit alleges that the defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that the company was overstating inventories and
assets, among other things. On February 15, 2002, the Company disclosed
that it expected to restate previously reported financial statements
because of problems associated with its accounting.  In addition, the
Company disclosed that it had fired its then-Chief Financial Officer,
Kirk Dischinoo.

The Company's stock was halted from trading that day, and has remained
halted for over a month, leaving investors with an illiquid and
possibly worthless investment. Investors have been left with
substantial damages as a result of the financial misstatements and
apparent accounting scandal at the Company. The company has delayed the
filing of its Report on Form 10-Q for the most recent fiscal quarter
with the SEC.

For more information, contact Ralph M. Stone by Mail: 485 Seventh
Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, New York 10018 by Phone: 212-239-4340 by
E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.lawssb.com


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX:MSS) between August 1, 2001 and
February 14, 2002, inclusive 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 alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition and that the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the offering misrepresented and
omitted material facts concerning its financial results.

The case filed also alleges that the Company violated generally
accepted accounting principles by improperly recognizing revenues and
improperly overstating inventories and that its stock traded at
artificially inflated levels during the proposed class period.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


MEDI-HUT CO.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Medi-Hut Co., Inc. securities
between April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Named as defendants in
the complaint are the Company and:

     (1) Joseph A. Sanpietro,

     (2) Laurence M. Simon,

     (3) Robert Russo,

     (4) Vincent Sanpietro,

     (5) James G. Aaron, and

     (6) James S. Vacarro.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiff has alleged that defendants knowingly and
recklessly disseminated materially false and misleading statements and
omissions that misrepresented the Company's business, operations and
financial performance.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company misled the
investing public by failing to disclose that a Company vice president,
Lawrence Marasco had a controlling interest in Larval Corporation, the
Company's largest customer. During fiscal year 2001, sales to Larval
accounted for 62% of Company revenues.

Because Mr. Marasco had a controlling interest in one of the Company's
customers, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) dictated
that the Company identify sales to that customer as related party
transactions. The Company, however, failed to disclose the true nature
of its sales to Larval.

The suit further alleges that as a result of the misrepresentations and
omissions by the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period. On February 4, 2002, the nature of the
relationship between the Company, Lawrence Marasco and Larval Corp. was
revealed to the market. The investing public, recognizing that a
majority of the Company's revenues in fiscal year 2001 were generated
via sales to a related party, reacted swiftly and severely. By the
close of business on February 4, 2002 Company shares had lost 51% of
their value, falling $3.41 per share to $3.29 in unusually heavy
trading. Four days later, Grant Thornton LLP resigned its position as
the Company's independent auditor.

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: MHUT@bernlieb.com.  


MEDI-HUT CO.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Medi-Hut Co., Inc. (NASDAQ: MHUT) between April 4, 2000 and February 4,
2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by withholding information regarding its sales to a customer in which a
company officer owned a controlling interest.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com  


METAWAVE CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in W.D. WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Metawave Corporation (Nasdaq:MTWV) between April 25, 2001 and March 14,
2002, inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the Company's
financial condition. The action alleges that the Company caused its
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels and that its fiscal
year 2001 results were false when originally reported.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newpower Holdings, Inc. faces five securities class actions pending in
the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 5, 2000 and
December 5, 2001.

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws as a result
of alleged misrepresentations and omissions made in connection with the
Company's October 5, 2001 initial public offering and allegedly false
and misleading statements and omissions occurring during the class
period.

Only one suit has been served, and the Company has not yet prepared any
pleadings or other documents in response to these lawsuits. The Company
believes that the allegations made in the above-described lawsuits are
without merit and intends to vigorously contest these claims.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Fairness Hearing For Securities Suit Set May 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The fairness hearing for the settlement of a securities class action
against Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. is set for May 3,2002 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock or
call options, or sellers of the Company's put options between March 31,
1997 and April 2, 1999, inclusive.

Judge Jose A. Gonzalez will conduct the hearing to determine:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement for the principal amount of
         twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) cash, plus accrued
         interest, should be approved by the court as fair, reasonable
         and adequate;

     (2) whether an order and final judgment approving the settlement
         and dismissing this action on the merits and with prejudice
         should be entered; and

     (3) whether the application of plaintiffs' counsel for the payment
         of attorneys' fees and expenses are reasonable and should be
         approved.

For more information, contact Michael J. Pucillo or Wendy H. Zoberman,
of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo by Mail: 515 N.
Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com


RARE MEDIUM: Moves To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rare Medium Group, Inc. asked the Delaware Chancery Court to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed by holders of the Company's
common stock, challenging the planned merger with Motient Corporation
that was terminated on October 1, 2001.

The suit names the Company, members of its Board of Directors, holders
of the Company's preferred stock, certain of their affiliates, and
Motient as defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants
breached duties allegedly owed to the holders of the Company's common
stock in connection with the merger agreement and sought to stop the
merger and/or obtain monetary damages.

The court has not yet certified the suit as a class action. On October
19, 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on a variety
of grounds, including that the suit is "moot." Settlement negotiations
are underway.

Another suit was filed in the New York State Supreme Court, making
similar allegations to the Delaware suit.  The complaint was dismissed
on February 21, 2002.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock of
Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL) between October 20, 2000 and
February 12, 2002, inclusive against the Company and three of its top
officers.

The action alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information regarding the Company's
financial condition. The action alleges that the Company improperly
booked a $10 million payment and improperly recorded over $40 million
in revenue.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


                              *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *