CAR_Public/020403.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, April 3, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 65

                            Headlines


CALIFORNIA: Fairfield City Faces Suit Over Undeveloped Property Tax
LYNN UNIVERSITY: FL Resident Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Corpses
MARYLAND: $4 Million Settlement Reached in Juvenile Camp Beatings Suit
SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT: Sued By Car Owners Over Automobile Insurance

                           Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADVANCED SWITCHING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
ANDRX CORPORATION: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ANDRX CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. IL

ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Securities Suit in S.D. NY for $620,000
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses Reinstatement of State Securities Suit
CALPINE CORPORATION: Schoengold Sporn Launches Securities Suit in CA
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. NY
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

EAGLE BUILDING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire
FOAMEX INTERNATIONAL: DE Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
FUND ASSET: Third Circuit Yet To Decide on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
GILAT SATELLITE: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY

GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
HUB GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
IOS BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger With FTD.Com in DE Court
IPO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Rules NY Federal Judge Will Remain    

IRVINE SENSORS: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
JDS UNIPHASE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
JDS UNIPHASE: Robbins Umeda Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
JP MORGAN: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
KPMG PEAT: Fairness Hearing For $13.5M Settlement Set For May 2002

MCLEODUSA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Iowa
MORTON'S RESTAURANTS: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in DE
NATIONAL GOLF: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: KY Court Yet To Rule On Summary Judgment Motions

SAF T LOK: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
THQ INC.: Trial in Amended Securities Suit Set For November 2002 in CA
VIROPHARMA INC.: Sued For Securities Law Violations in Philadelphia
                             
                            *********

CALIFORNIA: Fairfield City Faces Suit Over Undeveloped Property Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Michael Smith allowed the filing of a class action against
Fairfield City, California over the city's "reimbursement agreement," a
fee it collected from land owners whose properties were located near
city-initiated infrastructure improvements like roads, sewers and storm
drainages.

For 27 years, the city has billed landowners millions of dollars in
taxes for the costs associated with public works projects near their
undeveloped land parcels.  The agreement is purportedly the landowner's
"fair share" of the benefits to their property, the Imperial Valley
Press reports.  

The suit alleges that the city has violated the law by trying to
collect the money before plans for the vacant parcels are approved.  
The suit called the agreement "an oppressive practice of forcing
numerous land owners to pay for the cost of projects through a
reimbursement agreement."  The suit said the tax was "immoral and
unscrupulous" and "fraudulent."

The lawsuit has crept through the court system for nearly three years.
It seeks a judge's ruling on whether the city has for decades illegally
passed on the cost of the improvements, the Imperial Valley Press
reports.  No future hearings have been set.


LYNN UNIVERSITY: FL Resident Sues Over Unauthorized Use of Corpses
------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's Lynn University faces a class action filed in Broward Circuit
Court charging it with colluding with a funeral home chain and
subcontractors in a scheme to direct corpses meant for cremation to the
university for use by students learning embalming, the Florida Sun-
Sentinel reports.

Broward resident Jeffrey Post filed the suit, alleging that Levitt-
Weinstein funeral services delivered his wife, Madeleine's body to the
university where it was embalmed.  Mrs. Post was Jewish and specified
in her burial contract with Levitt-Weinstein that she did not want to
be embalmed because it is forbidden by her religion.

Attorney for the plaintiffs David Charlip told the Sun-Sentinel that
there are indications that as many as 600 bodies were fraudulently
delivered to Lynn University beginning in the mid 1990s.  "We have
statements from drivers.that they would take bodies between three to
five times a week to Lynn University," Mr. Charlip said.

Dr. Donald E. Ross, president of Lynn University, declined to comment
on the lawsuit Monday. A phone message left with Levitt-Weinstein was
not immediately returned Monday, according to the Sun-Sentinel.


MARYLAND: $4 Million Settlement Reached in Juvenile Camp Beatings Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Maryland will settle for US$4 million the class action
filed in the US District Court in Baltimore on behalf of 900 former
participants in the state's juvenile justice program who were allegedly
beaten by the "boot camp's" guards.

The suit was commenced after a series of articles in the Baltimore Sun
revealed that since the time the Western Maryland camps opened in 1996
until they closed in December 1999, the guards routinely beat up teens.
Some while handcuffed and shackled.  

"It was pretty brutal, and we did not want to wrap this up and let it
go away with some Wizard of Oz settlement where you get a heart and a
diploma," John P. Coale, a Washington lawyer who helped a dozen
attorneys representing the juveniles negotiate with the state, told the
Sun. "We wanted real change, and we think we achieved that."

The settlement covers all 890 males, many of them now adults and in
prison, who passed through the three Allegany County boot camps; the
Savage Leadership Challenge, Meadow Mountain Leadership Challenge and
Backbone Leadership Challenge, the Sun reports.  

Ten former delinquents who were injured most severely during the
beatings, suffering broken bones and teeth and severe cuts, will share
$1 million, which will be paid in four annual installments.  Fifty who
were less severely beaten will get $15,000 each.

All 890 former boot camp inmates will also be eligible to draw from a
$2.1 million education fund. Ten former inmates can use money from the
fund to pay for four years of college, with those who were most
seriously injured given first opportunity at the full tuition. If
anyone from that group decides not to attend a four-year college, the
full tuition could then go to those individuals among the 50 who were
less seriously injured.


SASKATCHEWAN GOVERNMENT: Sued By Car Owners Over Automobile Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Saskatchewan Government Insurance faces a class action lawsuit filed by
car owners in Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver who held policies with the
Company, alleging the Company retained the salvage obtained from the
vehicles, but did not pay the car owners the actual cash value of the
vehicle, having withheld the deductible.

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling states that car owners must be paid
the actual cash value of their car, not the actual cash value less the
deductible.

Lawfirms McNally Cuming Allchurch of Calgary, Koskie Minsky of Toronto
and Klein Lyons, based in Vancouver and Toronto, jointly filed the
lawsuit against the government insurer. Bill McNally of McNally Cuming
Allchurch stated that "the Supreme Court of Canada has decided that
they do not want to tinker with an Ontario decision on the same issue.
It means that for all intents and purposes, it's the law of the land."

For more information, contact Bill McNally of McNally Cuming Allchurch
by Phone: 403-261-1555, Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky by Phone:
416-977-8353 or David Klein of Klein Lyons by Phone: 604-874-7171

                            Securities Fraud

ACTRADE FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Actrade Financial Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRT) and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock during the period March 11, 1999
through February 8, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of press
releases and public filings containing materially false or misleading
statements representing that the Company provided short-term loans to
businesses to finance commercial transactions.

The suit alleges that these statements were false and misleading
because defendants knew, or recklessly disregarded, that the Company
also:

     (1) loaned millions of dollars to individuals for non-commercial
         purposes;

     (2) defrauded its sureties into providing coverage for these
         loans; and

     (3) overstated its financial results based on these fraudulent    
lending practices.

The suit further alleges that defendants' actions artificially inflated
the price of the Company's common stock during the class period.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


ADVANCED SWITCHING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Advanced Switching
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: ASCX) between October 5, 2000 and
February 12, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Asghar D. Mostafa,

     (2) Harry J. D'Andrea,

     (3) Robert Ted Enloe, III,

     (4) Betsy S. Atkins,

     (5) Ronald S. Westernik, and

     (6) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading
prospectus and registration statement in connection with the Company's
initial public offering, and that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

On October 5, 2000, the Company completed its IPO pursuant to a
prospectus in which it represented that it had signed a $24 million
contract with Qwest Communications, Inc., that its A-4000 product was
being shipped and that its A-4500 product would be available in 2001.

In fact, as alleged in the complaint, at the time of the IPO, the
prospectus concealed that the Company's largest customer was having
significant problems with products, another significant customer had
informed the Company it was over-inventoried and that the agreement
with Qwest was contingent on the Company complying with terms it could
not complete.

Moreover, the Company had not even started on the A-4500 such that it
was impossible that this product would be available in 2001. Later,
subsequent to the IPO, defendants issued statements which asserted that
customers were deploying the A-4000, which, as alleged in the
complaint, did not occur, and that the Company offered DS-O to OC-192
capability which, in fact, it had not been able to offer.

On February 5, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing that
it would be liquidated, which as alleged in the suit, was essentially
an admission that it had been a complete failure as a public company
because the A-4500 had not been made available in 2001 and the Qwest
contract had failed due to its inability to meet the terms of the
contract.

Finally, on February 12, 2002, the Company announced that a major
customer had asked for a $17 million refund after receiving a defective
product.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


ANDRX CORPORATION: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Andrx Corporation
(Nasdaq:ADRX) between April 30, 2001 and February 21, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors issued a series of material misstatements concerning its
generic version of the drug Tiazac, including that the only thing
holding up the drug from reaching the market was continuing patent
litigation with Biovail Corporation in connection with Tiazac.

The defendants failed to disclose that in fact, the Company had
difficulty making a stable version of generic Tiazac, 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 Tiazac, its 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 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


ANDRX CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Andrx Corporation
(Nasdaq: ADRX) from April 30, 2001 through February 21, 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 charges that the Company and certain
of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Tiazac that the
only thing holding up the drug from reaching the market was continuing
patent litigation with Biovail Corporation in connection with Tiazac.  
The defendants failed to disclose that in fact, the Company had
difficulty making a stable version of generic Tiazac, 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 Tiazac, its 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 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


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers of Apropos
Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: APRS) common stock in its February 17, 2000
initial public offering or in the open market during the period between
February 17, 2000 through May 15, 2000, inclusive.

The suit charges that the Company, a technology driven customer
interaction management solution company, its top directors and the
underwriters who helped take the Company public, violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, the suit charges that the registration statement and
prospectus for the Company's IPO contained material misrepresentations
and omissions regarding the role that two of the Company's co-founders,
Patrick K. Brady and William W. Bach, played in the Company at that
time.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Company's prospectus
misrepresented that both Mr. Brady and Mr. Bach were active members of
its executive management team and the Company's most senior officers.
Mr. Brady was listed as "Chief Technology Officer" and Mr. Bach was
listed as "Vice President, Technology" when both had stopped playing
important roles within the Company months before the prospectus was
issued.

It is further alleged that Company President and Chief Executive
Officer Kevin G. Kerns had effectively pushed Mr. Brady out of the
Company after a power struggle that culminated in July 1999.  Mr. Brady
no longer maintained a company office, had no employees who reported to
him, and had no further ongoing involvement in the daily affairs of the
Company.


Similarly, Mr. Kerns demoted Mr. Bach and stripped him of his
managerial responsibilities and involvement in shaping the Company's
core technology.

At the time of the IPO, the Company's technology and development
departments were in disarray.  Mr. Kerns, who took on the CTO's
functions, attempted to hire a replacement for Mr. Brady before the
prospectus was issued, but was unsuccessful.  Thereafter, both Mr.
Brady and Mr. Bach were listed in the prospectus and falsely portrayed
as active participants in the executive management of the Company and
its senior technology officers.

The Company issued nearly 4 million shares of common stock, raising
more than $87 million, to thousands of investors based on offering
materials that falsely stated that its founders who designed its key
technological product were managing the Company.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Securities Suit in S.D. NY for $620,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ariad Pharmaceuticals has agreed to settle for $620,000 a class action
pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging federal securities violations relating to the Company's
initial public offering.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) the underwriter of its initial public offering,

     (2) D. Blech and Co., a market maker in the Company's stock,

     (3) David Blech, managing director and sole shareholder of D.
         Blech & Co. and one of the Company's former directors

     (4) certain of the Company's other directors, and

     (5) Shoenberg Hieber, Inc., the qualified independent underwriter
         for the initial public offering

The proposed settlement, in substance, contemplates a payment of
$620,000 as consideration for plaintiffs' consent to entry of a
judgment dismissing the action with prejudice and barring contribution-
type claims against the Company defendants by non-settling parties.

The settlement further is subject to the court's s approval of that
stipulation as fair, adequate and reasonable, and to entry of an
appropriate judgment of dismissal in the action and in a related action
entitled In re: Blech Securities Litigation, 94 Civ. 7696 (RWS), from
which the court previously ordered the Company dismissed as a
defendant.


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Refuses Reinstatement of State Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Supreme Court refused to reinstate a securities class action
against Bank of America Corporation in California State Court, after a
lower court ordered proceedings in the suit halted pending the approval
of a US$490 million settlement in a similar federal securities suit.

Shareholders sued the Company after it was compelled to write-off
US$372 million from its third quarter 1998 earnings due to a loan the
BankAmerica Corp., a corporate predecessor of the current company, made
to New York hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Co.  A week after the bank revealed
a 50% plunge in its earnings, its president David Coulter tendered his
resignation.  The suits further allege that the Company's top
executives hid the losses to avoid derailing NationsBank Corporation's
purchase of BankAmerica in 1998, according to a Bloomberg report.  

The Company agreed in February to settle the federal suit for $490
million and the settlement is awaiting approval from a St. Louis
federal court.  Pending the approval, the federal judged stayed similar
proceedings in California state court.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach
promptly filed an appeal with the US 8th Circuit Court, asking that the
state suit be allowed to proceed.  The appeal states, "California law
held the prospect of substantially greater damages for the class."  The
firm also pointed to a federal law called the Anti-Injunction Act,
which bars such orders except in limited circumstances.  The appeals
court later upheld the federal order, saying the state suit might have
undermined the aims of another law that requires appointment of a lead
plaintiff in federal securities suits, Bloomberg reports.  The lawfirm
then asked the Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision.

The Company urged the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal, saying the
issue is "unlikely to arise in future cases" because a 1998 law now
requires most securities suits to be filed in federal court.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Schoengold Sporn Launches Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
the Laborers International Union of North America Local 1298 Pension
Fund against Calpine Corporation (NYSE: CPN) and certain key officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The suit names as a class all purchasers of
Company securities during the period between January 5, 2001 and
December 31, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported earnings, net income and liabilities, and that the
Company failed to disclose material information necessary to make its
prior statements not misleading.

On December 13, 2001 when the New York Times ran a story explaining in
part why the Company's financial statements were misleading, the
Company stock price plummeted. At the same time, the Company's debt was
downgraded to junk status.  Before this disclosure, corporate insiders
sold more than $34 million worth of stock at artificially inflated
prices.

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


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Computer Associates, Inc. (NYSE: CA)
securities between May 28, 1999, and February 25, 2002.

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 materially false and misleading statements to
the market.

Specifically, beginning prior to May 1999, the Company falsely
indicated that it had penetrated the distributed systems market when,
in fact, it was giving away its distributed system software free, or at
nominal additional cost, to customers who were also extending mainframe
software licenses, and attributed large portions of the resulting
revenue to the non-mainframe products.

Also, beginning prior to May 1999, and ending in October 2000, when the
Company extended a license during its term, it recognized revenue for
the entire new license. Until June 2000, when the Company began using
new auditors, it did not "back out" the revenue from the unexpired
portion of the old license, double-counting this revenue. After June
2000, the Company began backing out this figure in an obscure line
item. It never disclosed that this caused revenue to be overstated by
more than one hundred million dollars each quarter prior June 2000.

The defendants, in order to hide a severe drop in revenue as measured
by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), announced a "new
business model," which they represented involved offering more flexible
licensing terms to customers.

In fact, the "new business model" was a cover to institute new, non-
GAAP compliant accounting (which the Company called "pro forma, pro
rata"), and to obscure the fact that the switch from long-term licenses
to flexible subscriptions was not a pro-active move, but a symptom of
the obsolescence of the Company's main product line.

While the stated goal of the "new business model" was to provide
customers more flexible terms, the real purpose was to cover up the
fact that the Company could no longer get many of their mainframe
customers to purchase the long-term licenses for mainframe software,
which were the Company's mainstay.

After the announcement of the "new business model" in October 2000, the
Company issued press releases heralding moderate growth, though the
GAAP figures showed a revenue decrease of nearly 60 percent.  The "pro
forma, pro rata" method counted revenue from old license sales in
current and future periods, using old revenues to buttress the current,
deteriorating sales.

Defendants have attempted to have their cake and eat it, too. In a
strong economy, the Company recognized all the revenue from its sales
immediately, even double-counting some revenue, showing impressive
numbers.  Now, in a sagging economy, they have obscured the real loss
of sales by changing to a method of accounting so back-loaded that it
does not conform to GAAP. The "pro forma, pro rata" method also did not
make the distinctions between product and service revenue required by
GAAP, obscuring the distinction and further hiding the deterioration in
sales.

The Company has continued to report its GAAP figures, as it is required
by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to do.  Incredibly, the
defendants have falsely stated that the GAAP figures are not reflective
of the Company's financial position, and that the "pro forma, pro rata"
figures do accurately reflect the Company's financial position.

The Company's true condition, however, is shown by the conduct of
defendants during the class period. After announcing the "new business
model" but before reporting under it for the first time, and contrary
to the Company's representations that the rosy picture created by the
"pro forma, pro rata" figures was an accurate portrayal of its
position, the defendants engineered a clandestine, firm-wide layoff,
hiding the terminations as individual performance-based firings. They
fired possibly as many as a thousand employees with no severance
package, and continue to deny that the firings were a layoff, even
though executives involved in the layoff have confirmed it to the New
York Times (as reported on March 20, 2001).

More recently, the Company was forced to withdraw a planned debt
offering after Moody's questioned the quality of the Company's credit.
As a result, the Company admits, it was forced to draw down $600
million on one credit line to pay another.

The desperate cost-cutting by secret layoff, use of its new
unrecognized accounting just when its revenue has dropped sharply, and
the use of credit lines to service existing debt, demonstrate that
defendants are keenly aware of the precarious financial condition of
the Company, and have deliberately mislead the investing public.

The misleading picture the Company has presented has not gone
unquestioned. On February 22, 2002, the Company confirmed that it was
aware that both the Securities Exchange Commission and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation were investigating the Company's accounting for
civil, and in the case of the FBI, criminal violations. News of the
criminal and civil probes, which began to surface on February 20,
caused investors to flee the stock, which fell from a February 19
closing price of $25.31 to a February 22 close of $15.99, a drop of
36.8%.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of Dynacq International Inc. (Nasdaq: DYII)
publicly traded securities during the period between Nov. 29, 1999 and
Jan. 16, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company is
engaged in the ownership and management of an acute care hospital, the
operation of two outpatient surgical facilities, the operation of a
medical office complex, the management of physician practices (all
located in the Vista medical center campus in Pasadena, Texas) and the
business of providing home infusion healthcare services to patients in
their homes.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
represented that the Company's favorable financial results were due to
its commitment to quality and cost-effective care.  Throughout the
class period, defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's
financials were strong and that it was consistently achieving "record
results."

The defendants actually knew that the quality of the Company's balance
sheet was eroding, that it was violating federal law in the maintenance
of its facilities and that it improperly cared for patients.

On January 16, 2002, TheStreet.com ran an article on the Company
entitled, "Dynacq's Doubtful Accounts Send Distress Signals."  
Essentially, the article exposed many of the Company's problems, which
in the days that followed caused the Company's share price to crumble.
These disclosures shocked the market, causing the Company's stock to
decline to less than $15 per share before closing at $15.20 per share
on Jan. 17, 2002, on volume of more than 2.6 million shares, and later
plummeting to less than $12 per share.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


EAGLE BUILDING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman LLP initiated a securities class action against Eagle
Building Technologies, Inc., previously known as Eagle Capital
International, Ltd. (OTC:EGBT.PK) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, on behalf of purchasers of Company securities between April 18,
2001 and February 14, 2002.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Anthony D'Amato,

     (2) Paul-Emile Desrosiers and

     (3) Tanner & Co.

The suit asserts claims against the defendants for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The suit alleges that as a result of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
products, operations and financial results, Company securities traded
at artificially inflated prices during the class period.

The suit further alleges that the artificial inflation continued until
the time the Company acknowledged that its prior financial results,
from December 31, 2000 to September 30, 2001, were overstated and that
certain press releases issued by the Company concerning post-September
11th security measures marketed by the Company may have been false and
misleading.

For more details, contact David C. Katz and/or Mary A. Nastasi by Mail:
The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600 New York, NY 10176 by
Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, District of New Hampshire on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Enterasys Networks, Inc.
(NYSE: ETS) between September 26, 2001 and February 1, 2002, inclusive.
The suit is pending against the Company, Enrique P. Fiallo and Robert
J. Gagalis.

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 26, 2001 and February 1, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly financial
performance and filed reports confirming such performance with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The suit
alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, among other things:

     (1) the Company's Asia Pacific region operations, which
         represented a material portion of its revenues, was improperly
         recognizing revenues in violation of its accounting policies
         and generally accepted accounting principles. As a result, its
         operating results were materially misrepresented and
         overstated;

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition;
         and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On February 1, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company shocked
the market when it announced that it would be delaying the release of
its fourth quarter and fiscal year financial results because it was
reviewing the revenue recognition practices of its Asia Pacific
operations. The Company also announced that it was under investigation
by the SEC.

In response to these disclosures, on February 4, 2002, the first day of
trading following the Company's announcement, its shares closed at
$4.20 per share, a loss of more than 61% since its previous close of
$10.80 on February 1, 2002, on volume of more than 35 million shares
traded.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


FOAMEX INTERNATIONAL: DE Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court approved the proposed settlement to a
purported derivative and class action filed against Foamex
International on behalf of the Company and its stockholders for
violations of federal securities laws.  

The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, its principal stockholder Trace
International Holdings, Inc., and a Trace International affiliate.  

In early January 2002, two shareholders filed objections to the
settlement.  The settlement hearing was held on February 15, 2002 but
was not concluded.  On March 20, 2002, the Delaware court concluded the
hearing and approved the settlement.  The settlement involves no
admissions or findings of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or any
individuals. The terms of the settlement were confidential.


FUND ASSET: Third Circuit Yet To Decide on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide on
the plaintiff's motion appealing a federal court's dismissal of the
securities class action against Fund Asset Management, L.P. and seven
of the leveraged closed-end municipal bond funds for which it serves as
investment adviser.

The suit was initially commenced in June 1996 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  In addition to the
named defendants, the suit also asserts claims against a defendant
class consisting of all other publicly traded, closed-end investment
companies for which the Company serves as investment adviser and which,
among other things, have issued auction market preferred stock (AMPS).
The suit was brought on behalf of all holders of the common stock of
the subject funds.

The suit alleges that the registration statements, annual reports and
other documents filed by the funds with the SEC were misleading because
such documents allegedly failed to disclose that proceeds arising from
the issuance of AMPS would be included in a fund's net assets for the
purposes of calculating the investment advisory fee payable to the
Company.

In addition, plaintiffs allege that a conflict of interest existed
because it would always be in the defendants' interest to keep the
funds fully leveraged to maximize the advisory fees and collateral
compensation notwithstanding adverse market conditions.  

The suit further claims an additional conflict of interest arising from
the receipt by such affiliates of underwriting discounts, or other
revenues in connection with the sale of the AMPS by the funds. The suit
attempted to assert claims under Sections 8(e), 34(b), 36(a) and 36(b)
of the Investment Company Act and the common law.

The suit was later transferred on defendants' motion to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In September
1997, defendants moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that
plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.  The Court granted defendants' motion in substantial part and
dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Sections 8(e), 34(b) and 36(a) of
the Investment Company Act with prejudice, but declined to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims under Section 36(b) and state law.  

The defendants denied the allegations in the suit and moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and deceit on
the ground that they are preempted by Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act.  The court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the
plaintiffs' state law claims.  At the same time, the court granted
plaintiffs permission to immediately file an interlocutory appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On March 16,
2001, the Third Circuit reversed the federal court's decision and
reinstated plaintiffs' state law claims.

While plaintiffs' appeal before the Third Circuit was still pending,
defendants moved in the federal court for summary judgment as to
plaintiffs' remaining federal claim under Section 36(b).  The
plaintiffs countered by moving for partial summary judgment on
liability.  The federal court later granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment, and dismissed the case in its entirety. In doing so, the
court refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
remaining (and recently reinstated) state law claims.

The plaintiffs promptly filed an appeal with the Third Circuit, seeking
review of the federal court's decision.  Oral argument was heard
on March 4, 2002 and a decision is pending.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit
and intends to continue to defend the action vigorously.


GILAT SATELLITE: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.
(NASDAQ:GILTF) between November 13, 2000 and October 2, 2001, inclusive
against the Company and certain of its officers, including Yoel Gat and
Yoav Libovitch.

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.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, prior to and throughout the
class period, the Company issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements, which materially misrepresented its financial
condition and results. Among other things, the Company was improperly
delaying the write-down of tens of millions of dollars of inventory and
investments that were impaired and of diminishing value.

In addition, the Company failed to disclose that its StarBand division
was experiencing significant difficulties attracting customers and was
not generating the revenues for the Company that defendants had caused
the market to expect.

On October 2, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company
issued a press release announcing that its financial results for the
third quarter of 2001 would be below previously announced guidance and
that it was taking additional charges. The Company reported that
revenues for the third quarter were expected to be $80 million - as
compared to the $150 million announced on and that it expected to
report a loss of $267 million or approximately $11.40 per share.

Following this announcement, the price of Company shares dropped from
$5.38 per share to $3.32 per share, a decline of more than 38% on heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street New
York NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing Ltd. (NYSE: GX)
common stock during the period between Jan. 2, 2001 and Oct. 4, 2001.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
contends that during the class period, defendants issued false and
misleading statements and press releases concerning the Company's
financial statements, their ability to offset declining wholesale
demand for bandwidth capacity with higher-margin, customized data
services and its ability to generate sufficient cash revenue to service
its debt.

During the class period, before the disclosure of the true facts, the
individual defendants and certain Company insiders sold their
personally held common stock generating more than $149 million in
proceeds and the Company raised $1 billion in an offering of senior
notes.

However, the full extent of the Company's cash flow crisis, and its
failure to compete in the market for customized communications
services, began to emerge on October 4, 2001.  On that date, the
Company issued a string of stunning announcements: cash revenues in the
third quarter would be approximately $1.2 billion, $400 million less
than the $1.6 billion expected by a consensus of analysts surveyed by
Thomson Financial/First Call.  The cash revenue shortfall was
purportedly the result of a "sharp falloff" in wholesale IRU sales to
carrier customers.  The Company further announced that it expected
recurring adjusted EBITDA to be "significantly less than $100 million"
compared to forecasts of $400 million.

Following these announcements, the Company's share priced plunged by
49% to $1.07 per share

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


HA-LO INDUSTRIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities of HA-LO Industries
Inc., (NYSE: HMK) between February 18, 1999 and November 23, 2001
inclusive, against:

     (1) Lou Weisbach, President and CEO until November 1999, Chairman
         of the Board,

     (2) John R. Kelley Jr., President and CEO from November 1999 until
         February 15, 2001,

     (3) Marc S. Simon, CEO since February 15, 2001, and

     (4) Gregory J. Kilrea, CFO

The Company has filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the
United States Bankruptcy Code and is not a defendant in this lawsuit.

The suit charges 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between February 18, 1999 and November 23,
2001, concerning its financial performance for the Company's fiscal
year 1998, 1999 and 2000 and the first quarter of 2001.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued press releases reporting
the Company's quarterly and year-end financial performance, and filed
reports confirming such performance with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission. These reports positively portrayed the
Company's performance during the class period.

These statements, as alleged in the complaint, were materially false
and misleading because the Company had, throughout the class period,
improperly recognized revenues, thereby inflating its reported sales
and earnings.

On November 23, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing the
restatement of its previously filed financial statements for the period
1998 to 2000, and that the Company "may also restate its first quarter
2001 Form 10-Q."  According to the press release, the restatement will
have the effect of decreasing the Company's reported class period
pretax income by a total of $15 million, including $1.2 million if the
restatement includes the first quarter of 2001.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


HUB GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois by
an institutional investor plaintiff, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Hub Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HUBGE) between April 21, 1999
and February 12, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) William L. Crowder,

     (2) Philip C. Yeager,

     (3) Jay E. Parker,

     (4) David P. Yeager,

     (5) Thomas L. Hardin and

     (6) Arthur Andersen, LLP

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 April 21, 1999 and February 12, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The
suit alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, among other things:

     (i) the Company's 65% owned subsidiary, Hub Group Distribution
         Services, which represented a material portion of its
         revenues, was improperly recognizing revenues in violation of
         the Company's accounting policies and GAAP. As a result, the
         Company's operating results were materially misrepresented and
         overstated;

    (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company; and

   (iii) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On February 12, 2002, after the close of the market, the Company
shocked the market when it announced that it had discovered certain
accounting irregularities at its 65% owned subsidiary, Hub Group
Distribution Services. As a result of this discovery, the Company
estimates that it had overstated its earnings on an after-tax, post
minority interest basis by between approximately $3 million to $4
million since 1999.

The Company further stated that its investigation is ongoing and once
it has been completed, the Company will restate its financial results
for the appropriate periods.

In response to these disclosures, the price of Company stock dropped
from $10.52 per share to $8.03 per share, a one-day loss of more than
31% on volume of more than 153,700 shares traded - more than ten times
the average trading volume.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


IOS BRANDS: Faces Suit Over Planned Merger With FTD.Com in DE Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ios Brands Corporation faces four securities class actions pending in
the Court of Chancery for New Castle County in Wilmington, Delaware
relating to its proposed merger with FTD.com.  The suit, filed on
behalf of all public stockholders of FTD.com, names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) FTD Corporation,

     (2) FTD.COM and

     (3) the directors of FTD

These lawsuits were filed beginning on March 5, 2002, shortly after the
press release announcing the merger was released. The complaints
generally make essentially the same allegations, namely that:

     (1) the Company's offer to exchange 0.26 shares of its Class A
         common stock for each share of FTD.COM common stock is
         inadequate;

     (2) the individual defendants breached the fiduciary duties they
         owed in their capacity as directors by, among other things,
         failing to conduct an auction or otherwise check the market
         value of FTD.COM before voting to accept the merger proposal;
         

     (3) its Board of Directors prevented the FTD.COM Board from
         conducting a meaningful review of the transaction, and

     (4) FTD.COM and certain of the individual defendants timed the
         merger to deny public stockholders the full potential increase
         in FTD.COM's stock price following the merger.

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


IPO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Rules NY Federal Judge Will Remain    
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals refused to prevent Federal Judge Shira
Scheindlin from presiding over hundreds of securities suits pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuits accuse several underwriters and companies that over the
last two years conducted their initial public offerings (IPOs) of
manipulating them.

The suits, presently consolidated for pre-trial purposes under Judge
Scheindlin, name more than 40 investment banks and 300 companies.  The
suits similarly allege that the banks secretly allocated IPO shares to
investors who agreed to pay higher prices later when the shares were
made available to the public. That practice created an artificial
demand for the stock, the suits contend, Bloomberg.com reports.

Thirty nine investment banks, including Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
Deutsche Banc Alex Brown, Inc. and Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, then asked the appeals court to force Judge Scheindlin to
remove herself from the suits.  Judge Scheindlin allegedly invested in
14 of the IPOs, losing money in several of them.

The appellate court ruled that the judge's investments were a minor
issue that didn't justify removal.  In its ruling, the court stated,
"Congress did not consider judges with minor interests in a class
action to be parties to a proceeding once they have divested themselves
of said financial interest."

Four other investment banks named as defendants in the suits, Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter and Co., Dain Rauscher, Legg Mason Wood Walker,
Inc. and William Blair & Co., refused to join the motion, however.  The
companies named in the suits also refrained from joining.  Lawyer Fred
Isquith of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP told Bloomberg,
"We never had any doubt about Judge Scheindlin's integrity."


IRVINE SENSORS: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in United States District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division on behalf of purchasers of Irvine Sensors Corporation
(NASDAQ: IRSN) common stock between January 6, 2000 and September 15,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company
purports to be a developer of proprietary technologies to produce
compact packages of solid state micro-circuitry.

Silicon Film Technologies, Inc. (SFI) was a majority owned subsidiary
of ISC whose primary purpose was to design and market the Electronic
Film System (EFS-1.)  EFS-1 purportedly interfaced with a conventional
camera to enable the camera to take digital pictures.

During the class period, defendants repeatedly promised the investing
community that the EFS-1 was near completion and would be ready for
release shortly.  These promises never materialized because defendants
knew, but did not disclose to the public, among other things, that EFS-
1 suffered from serious and insurmountable technical design flaws.

On September 15, 2001, after nearly two years of touting the EFS-1
technology, the Company announced that SFI had suspended operations and
was considering bankruptcy, sounding a death-knell for the EFS-1
project.  Due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct, plaintiff
and the other class members purchased their Company securities at
inflated prices. Had plaintiff and the other class members been aware
of the truthful condition of the Company and the adverse impact that
defendants' statements and omissions were having on the Company, they
would not have purchased their shares, or at least not at artificially
inflated prices.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


JDS UNIPHASE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of JDS Uniphase Corp.
(Nasdaq: JDSU) from July 27, 1999 through July 26, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  The suit further alleges that during the
class period, defendants were motivated to inflate the value of Company
stock so that the Company could make acquisitions using stock and so
the individual defendants, who are the Company's top officers and
directors, could sell their shares.

During the class period, defendants represented that demand was
accelerating and the Company's only problem was its ability to
manufacture enough product to meet demand. Defendants represented that
they had outstanding visibility, including demand for the Company's
products through the end of fiscal 2001 and that the Company had 80
engineers whose job it was to monitor customers and their inventory
levels and as a result, the Company would learn about any slowdown in
demand early.  The Company also misrepresented the success of its
largest acquisitions, including Optical Coating Labs, Cronos Integrated
Microsystems, E-Tek Dynamics and SDL Inc. As a result of these positive
statements, Company stock traded as high as $146.32.

The individual defendants, all of whom were top officers and directors
of the Company, and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the
inflation, selling or disposing of 25.2 million shares of their stock
for proceeds of $2.1 billion.

Then, on July 2001, the Company announced the restatement of its 3rd
Quarter 2001 results, the write-off of $44 billion in goodwill
associated with its acquisitions, inventory write-downs and that F01
EPS would be only $0.16 and that it would incur a loss of $0.15 in F02.
On this news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90, over 94% lower
than the class period high of $146.32.

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


JDS UNIPHASE: Robbins Umeda Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of JDS Uniphase Corp.
(Nasdaq:JDSU) between July 27, 1999 and July 26, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors and
its controlling shareholder with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants
were motivated to inflate the value of Company stock so that the
Company could make acquisitions using stock and so the individual
defendants, who are its top officers and directors, could sell their
shares.

During the class period, defendants represented that demand was
accelerating and the Company's only problem was its ability to
manufacture enough product to meet demand.  The defendants represented
that they had outstanding visibility, including demand for the
Company's products through the end of fiscal 2001 (FY01, ended on June
30,2001), and that the Company had 80 engineers whose job it was to
monitor customers and their inventory levels and as a result, the
Company would learn about any slowdown in demand early.

The Company also misrepresented the success of its largest
acquisitions, including Optical Coating Labs, Cronos Integrated
Microsystems, E-Tek Dynamics and SDL Inc. As a result of these positive
statements, Company stock traded as high as $146.32.

The individual defendants, all of whom were top Company officers and
directors, and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the
inflation, selling or disposing of 25.2 million shares of their stock
for proceeds of $2.1 billion. Then, on July 26,2001, the Company
announced the restatement of its 3rd Quarter F01 results, the write-off
of $44 billion in goodwill associated with its acquisitions, inventory
write-downs and that F01 EPS would be only $0.16 and that it would
incur a loss of $0.15 in F02.

On this news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90 or more than
94% lower than the class period high of $146.32.

For more 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


JP MORGAN: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co., Inc. (NYSE: JPM) between November 28, 2001 and January 28,
2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company with violations of federal securities
laws. Among other things, the suit claims that defendant's material
omissions and the dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements caused Company stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting enormous damages on investors.

More specifically, on the first day of the class period, the Company
recklessly issued a public statement, which did not fully disclose its
risk and loss exposure related to its transactions and dealings with
the Enron Corporation, the company notorious for its financial
collapse.

At the time, the Company listed its total exposure in this regard at
approximately $900 million.  The Company later announced that, in fact,
its total Enron related exposure was actually about $2.6 billion, or
almost three times the earlier figure.  Shortly thereafter, the Company
wrote down $1.13 billion in non-performing assets, specifically related
to losses generated by its dealings with Enron.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


KPMG PEAT: Fairness Hearing For $13.5M Settlement Set For May 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon will hold a
fairness hearing in the settlement of a class action filed against KPMG
Peat Marwick LLP on behalf of purchasers of:

     (1) common stock of Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. from March
         27,1997 through January 29,1999, inclusive,

     (2) Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.'s convertible subordinated
         debentures due November 2002 (6% Debentures) from October
         21,1997 through January 29,1999, inclusive, and

     (3) Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.'s 5-5/8% convertible
         subordinated debentures due May 2003 (5-5/8% debentures) from
         July 22,1998 through January 29,1999, inclusive

The $13.5 million settlement has been reached by the suit's plaintiffs
with the defendant KPMG Peat Marwick LLP, in addition to a $30 million
partial settlement previously reached with former defendants:

     (i) Assisted Living Concepts, Inc.,

    (ii) William McBride III,

   (iii) Keren Brown Wilson,

    (iv) Stephen J. Gordon,

     (v) Rhonda S. Marsh (nka, Rhonda S. McBride),

    (vi) Bradley G. Razook,

   (vii) Richard C. Ladd,

  (viii) Gloria Cavanaugh,

    (ix) Schroder & Co., Inc.,

     (x) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, and

    (xi) SmithBarney, Inc.

The proposed settlement resolves all claims, rights, causes of action,
suits, matters and issues, whether known or unknown arising out of or
related to the subject matter of the suit or claims asserted by or on
behalf of plaintiffs or any member of the Class, whether individual,
class, derivative, representative, legal, equitable or any other type
or in any other capacity, against KPMG.

A hearing will be held by the court on May 23, 2002 to determine
whether:

     (a) the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and
         should be approved and, therefore, whether this class action
         should be dismissed on the merits and with prejudice and
         without costs;

     (b) the plan of distribution of the net settlement fund is fair,
         reasonable and adequate and should be approved; and

     (c) to consider the reasonableness of an application of
         plaintiffs' counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
         reimbursement of expenses incurred in prosecuting the class
         action.

For more information, contact David Kessler or Stuart L. Berman of
Schiffrin Barroway LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 or the The Garden City Group, Claims Administrator by
Mail: P.O. Box 9414, Garden City, NY 11530-9414 by Phone: 800-222-4095
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.alcsecuritieslit.com


MCLEODUSA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of McLeodUSA Inc. (NASDAQ:
MCLD) between January 30, 2001 and December 3, 2001 inclusive, against
the Company and:

     (1) Clark McLeod, Chairman and Co-CEO,

     (2) Steve Gray, President and Co-CEO, and

     (3) Chris Davis, Chief Operating and Financial Officer since
         August 1, 2001

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market between January 30, 2001 and December 3, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company issued a series of materially false
and misleading statements regarding its business, operations and
financial statements that failed to disclose:

     (i) that the Company was failing to timely and properly recognize
         hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in
         connection with certain acquisitions, such as Splitrock
         Services, Inc. and Caprock Communications Corp.;

    (ii) that the Company did not have the funds necessary to complete
         its National network and that it would soon have to abandon
         its plans to finish the network; and

   (iii) that the Company was unable to service its substantial debt
         and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to avoid a
         restructuring.

During the class period, prior to the disclosure of the true facts
about the Company, the Company purchased Intelispan for $40 million in
Company stock

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


MORTON'S RESTAURANTS: Bull Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Rule 23 of the Rules
of the Court of the Chancery, on behalf of all common stockholders of
Morton's Restaurant Group, Inc. (NYSE:MRG), or their successors in
interest, who are being and will be harmed by defendants' fraudulent
actions.

The suit charges that the individual defendants have breached and/or
aided abetted breaches of fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its
stockholders by entering into a definitive merger agreement, on March
26, 2002, providing for the acquisition of the Company by an affiliate
of Castle Harlan, Inc.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Company's stockholders will
receive $12.60 in cash for each share of common stock. Indeed, as
recently as May 1, 2001, the Company received a proposal by BFMA
Holding Corp., a large shareholder in the Company, to acquire all of
its common stock for $28.25 per share in cash in a fully financed
offer.

Unless enjoined by the court, defendants will breach their fiduciary
duties owed to plaintiff and the other members of the class and may
benefit themselves, all to the irreparable harm of the class.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by Phone:
212-213-6222 by Fax: 212-213-9405 or by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com


NATIONAL GOLF: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of National Golf Properties, Inc.
(NYSE: TEE) common stock during the period between April 1, 1999 and
November 14, 2001 (including all purchases in or pursuant to the
Company's May 17, 2001 secondary offering).

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that David G. Price misappropriated
funds from a publicly traded company and funneled them to himself via a
scheme of complicated financial dealings involving the Company and a
variety of Price-controlled entities. Price-controlled entities conduct
substantial business with the Company, to the detriment of the
Company's shareholders.

Mr. Price's plan culminated in a May 2001 secondary offering that
generated over $31 million from plaintiff and other Class members,
which went to a Price-controlled entity, Oaks Christian High School.

Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
false and misleading registration statement and prospectus, which
became effective May 17, 2001, and included materially false and
misleading financial statements, and other false and misleading
statements, pursuant to which 1.175 million shares of the Company's
common stock were sold to plaintiff and other members of the Class.

Defendants allegedly violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the business and financial operations of the Company with
the intent and having the effect of substantially inflating the trading
price of its common stock.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182         


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA)
common stock during the period between Feb. 15, 2000 and Feb. 14, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that as part of their effort to boost the price of Company
stock, defendants misrepresented the Company's true prospects in an
effort to conceal its improper acts until they were able to sell at
least $66 million worth of their own stock.

In order to overstate revenues and assets in its 4th Quarter 2000 and
1st to 3rd Quarter, 2001, the Company violated generally accepted
accounting principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal
accounting scheme. This scheme had the effect of dramatically
overstating revenues and assets.

Then, on February 14, 2002 after the close of the market, the Company
partially admitted that its past accounting for its prior results may
be inaccurate in a press release entitled, "NVIDIA Corporation
Conducting Review of Certain Transactions at the Request of the SEC."

On this news the Company's shares plummeted the following day.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182        


RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: KY Court Yet To Rule On Summary Judgment Motions
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky,
Louisville has yet to decide on the motion for summary judgment filed
by the parties in the securities class action against Rally's
Hamburgers, Inc.  The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock from July 20, 1992 to September 29,1993, also names as
defendants:

     (1) Burt Sugarman, company director,

     (2) Giant Group, Ltd.,

     (3) certain of the Company's former officers and directors, and

     (4) its auditors

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, among other claims, by issuing inaccurate public
statements about the Company in order to arbitrarily inflate the price
of its common stock.

In April 1994, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to
strike.  The court later struck certain provisions of the suit but
otherwise denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  In addition, the
court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
plaintiffs renewed this motion, and despite opposition from the
defendants, the court granted such motion for class certification in
April 1996.  In September 2000, both parties in the suit filed motions
for summary judgment.

The defendants deny all wrongdoing and intend to defend themselves
vigorously in this matter. Management is unable to predict the outcome
of this matter at the present time.


SAF T LOK: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Saf T Lok
Corporation (OTC BB: LOCK.OB) between April 14, 2000 and April 16,
2001, inclusive, in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida against the Company and:

     (1) Franklin W. Brooks,

     (2) Jeffrey W. Brooks,

     (3) William Schmidt,

     (4) James E. Winner, Jr.,

     (5) John Hornbostel, Jr. and

     (6) Goldberg Wagner Stump and Jacobs LLP

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 April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
filed materially false and misleading financial statements with the US
Securities & Exchange Commission, which, among other things, did not
comply with generally accepted accounting principles.

Specifically, at the start of the class period, defendants disclosed
that the Company had terminated its exclusive consumer market
distribution agreement with United Safety Action, Inc. (USA) and that
the Company itself would now be permitted to market its products to
retail customers.  The suit alleges that the financial statements filed
by defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) a catalog retailer had previously obtained Company products
         from USA at a sharply reduced price and was now selling these
         products at extremely low prices, thereby limiting the market
         opportunity for the Company;

    (ii) the Company's earnings, assets and shareholder equity were
         overstated by at least $3.2 million; and

   (iii) the Company's inventories were not stated at the lower of cost
         or market, as represented

When this information was finally disclosed on April 16, 2001, the last
day of the class period, the Company's stock price fell to under $0.30
per share. Subsequently, on May 15, 2001, the Company's securities were
delisted from the NASDAQ Small Cap Market and are currently traded on
the OTC (Over The Counter) Bulletin Board.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 or Kenneth J. Vianale or Tara Isaacson by Mail:
5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
561-361-5000 by E-mail: SafTLokcase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.milberg.com


THQ INC.: Trial in Amended Securities Suit Set For November 2002 in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the amended securities class action pending against THQ, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California will commence on November
12, 2002.

The third amended suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock from October 26,1999 through May 24,2000.  The suit
alleges that defendants violated Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including allegations that the
defendants:

     (1) manipulated the Company's stock price;

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

     (3) selectively disclosed material information; and

     (4) engaged in insider trading.

The suit is currently in discovery.  The defendants have denied all of
the material allegations of the suit and asserted legal and factual
defenses.  The Company and all of the individual defendants believe the
lawsuit is without merit.  However, they cannot, at this early stage,
predict the likely outcome of this litigation.


VIROPHARMA INC.: Sued For Securities Law Violations in Philadelphia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology company Viropharma, Inc. vowed to mount a vigorous
defense against several securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court in Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's shares between July 13,1999 and March 19,2002.

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 throughout
the class period, the defendants made highly positive statements
regarding the Company's drug Picovir.

On March 19, the Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and
Drug Administration voted to not recommend Picovir for approval at this
time for the treatment of the common cold in adults.


                              *********


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  * * *