CAR_Public/020404.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, April 4, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 66

                           Headlines

AES CORPORATION: New Master Claim Filed in CA Power Antitrust Suit
BLUE CROSS: PA Orthopaedic Society To Join Medical Health Care Suit
CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Sued For Failing To Pay US$80M in Tax Refunds
CERTEGY INC.: Consumers File Suit Over Service Charges in California
FEDERATED MERCHANDISING: Recalls 1T Pant Sets Due To Choking Hazard

FLORIDA POWER: Supreme Court Refuses Certification To Age Bias Suit
GMO LITIGATION: Indonesian Farmers Urged To Stay Calm Over GM Crops
INDIANA: Ordered To Compensate Residents Wrongfully Denied Medicaid
INTERCON MERCHANDISING: Recalls Folding Beach Chairs Over Injury Hazard
MARYLAND: Housing Agency To Pay US$ 1.1M Over ACLU Housing Bias Suit

MENORAH GARDENS: Employees Testify on Grave Desecrations in Cemetery
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: FL State Judge Certifies Breach of Contract Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Light" Suits To Point To Ads, Studies As Evidence
WASHINGTON: Settles For $4.5M Environmental Suit Over Ferry Operations
WENZEL CORPORATION: Recalls Propane Camping Lanterns Due To Fire Hazard

                         Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Suit in E.D. PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in PA
CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Prime Retailer's Insolvency in MI

EAGLE BUILDING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV
EAGLE BUILDING: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV
GLOBAL CROSSING: Prongay Borderud Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
INTERWOVEN INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. NY
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

LONE STAR: Officers Move For Dismissal of CalPERS Securities Suit
MCAFEE.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY
NEWMARK HOMES: Sued Over Planned Merger With Engle Holdings in NV, TX
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in E.D. LA
PAN PACIFIC: Trial In Suit Over Western Merger Set For October 2002
PNC FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA
RADIO ONE: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in FL

REGISTER.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SYNSORB BIOTECH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VANTIVE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
                             
                           *********

AES CORPORATION: New Master Claim Filed in CA Power Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action suit filed against AES
Corporation in San Diego, California have filed a new master complaint
in the suit, which alleges antitrust violations due to anti-competitive
behavior in California's wholesale power market.

The new master complaint asserts similar complaints against a new set
of defendants, which include the Company and:

     (1) AES Redondo Beach LLC,

     (2) AES Alamitos LLC,

     (3) AES Huntington Beach LLC

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this action and
will defend itself vigorously against the allegations.


BLUE CROSS: PA Orthopaedic Society To Join Medical Health Care Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society (POS) will join a class action
filed by two Philadelphia-area orthopaedic surgeons against
Independence Blue Cross (IBC), alleging that that the Company maintains
a pattern of denying and reducing payments to orthopedists.  
Representing more than 800 orthopaedic surgeons in Pennsylvania, POS
has instructed its attorneys to file papers asking Philadelphia Common
Pleas Court Judge Albert W. Sheppard, Jr. to permit it to intervene on
behalf of its members in the suit.

Two Philadelphia-area orthopaedic surgeons, Drs. John R. Gregg and
Vincent J. DiStefano commenced the suit.  The suit alleges that the
Company has "engaged in a pattern and/or practice of improperly denying
reimbursement or improperly reducing the amount of reimbursement" owed
to them and other orthopaedic surgeons for medical care they have
rendered.

Specifically, the doctors allege that the Company improperly and
unilaterally changed the billing codes submitted with the doctors'
requests for reimbursement to codes that provide for a lower
reimbursement rate, a practice known as "downcoding."  The doctors
further allege that the Company engages in a practice known as
"bundling" which involves the failure to fully reimburse the doctors
when two or more distinct procedures are performed.

"The Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society's entry into the case signifies
our determination to end IBC's practice of denying our members
reimbursement for the medical care they provide to IBC's insureds,"
said POS President Jeffrey A. Baum, MD in a press statement.

POS will join with Drs. Gregg and DiStefano in asking the court to
permanently bar the Company from continuing these practices in the
future and to order the Company to open up its records for inspection
so that the extent of its violations of the orthopaedic surgeons'
contractual rights can be fully ascertained.

For more details, contact Kathy DeWittie of the Pennsylvania
Orthopaedic Society by Phone: 1-717-909-8901 or by E-mail:
pos@paorthosociety.org or contact Jerome M. Marcus or Jonathan Auerbach
of both of Berger & Montague, PC by Phone: 1-215-875-3000 or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles Sued For Failing To Pay US$80M in Tax Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The county of Los Angeles faces a class action suit, charging it with
shortchanging its residents with about US$80 million in interest from
property tax refunds, DailyNews.com reports.  The suit, filed by
Attorney Rob Pool, alleges that the county gave property tax refunds to
people who had filed claims but did not pay nearly the required amount
of interest, and charges the county with not notifying people who were
owed refunds.  

Atty. Pool told DailyNews.com, "My client said he was interested in
acting on behalf of all tax refund recipients in the county who have
been shortchanged.The county tax collector has to inform the public by
mail that they have the right to file a claim, like people who were
maybe shortchanged in 1996 but don't realize it. The county knows who
they are, but they aren't going to say."

Tyler McCauley, director of the county's Auditor-Controller's office,
declined to comment on the suit because it was still being litigated.  
However, he emphasized that when the county refunds overpaid property
taxes, it routinely pays whatever interest the county treasury is
getting paid on its investments.

John Redmond, principal analyst for the chief administrator's office,
told DailyNews.com the issue had not formally been sent to the Board of
Supervisors.  "It's new, so until we can look at it and until the board
actually takes a position, we don't have a position," he said.

The county has until April 15 to file papers showing why a judge should
not allow the case to be filed as a class-action suit. A trial is
expected sometime in the summer, officials said.


CERTEGY INC.: Consumers File Suit Over Service Charges in California
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications firm Certegy, Inc. faces a class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, charging the Company of violating several state consumer
laws.

The suit alleges that the Company's practice of assessing a service
charge on unpaid checks allegedly violated provisions of the Federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Unfair Business
Practices Act during the period from August 1992 through December 1996.
The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies:

     (1) a refund of all service charges collected from California
         consumers during this period,

     (2) prejudgment interest,

     (3) statutory damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
         Act, and

     (4) attorneys' fees, which amounts in the aggregate could
         exceed $15 million

The Company vowed to defend this action vigorously, but cannot give any
assurance that it may prevail due to the inherent uncertainty of
litigation.  The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these
matters will not have a materially adverse effect on its financial
position, liquidity, or results of operations.


FEDERATED MERCHANDISING: Recalls 1T Pant Sets Due To Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Merchandising Group is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,000
Greendog girl's capri pant and shirt sets.  The buttons in the center
of the embroidered flowers on the shirt can detach, posing a choking
hazard to young children.  No injuries or incidents have been reported.
This recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injury.

The recalled two-piece set includes a yellow or white, ruffled top with
flowers embroidered along the bottom and denim capri pants with buttons
on the bottom. The capri sets were sold in sizes 12, 18 and 24 months.
The Greendog capri sets have the style number 8088.  The style numbers
are printed on the hangtag.

Macy's, Burdines, The Bon Marche, Rich's, Lazarus and Goldsmith's sold
the capri sets nationwide between January 2002 and February 2002
for about $26.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 874-2812
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.fds.com/cpsc


FLORIDA POWER: Supreme Court Refuses Certification To Age Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Supreme Court refused to grant class action status to a lawsuit
filed by Florida Power Corporation workers who were fired from the
Company in the mid-1990s, accusing the Company of age discrimination,
the Tampa Tribune reports.  

The suit asserts claims under the 1967 Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, alleging that the Company fired workers as part of an effort to
change its image and reduce salary and pension costs. More than 70
percent of those laid off during reorganizations in the 1990s were
older than 40.

The court did not explain the ruling and did not rule on the merits of
the case.  They also dismissed a separate case from 117 former utility
workers who said they were fired because they were older than 40. The
ruling means that the workers must file their cases individually or in
small groups.

The plaintiffs said the ruling will not harm their case.  Plaintiff
Bill Hoover told the Tribune, "Yes, we're disappointed because I think
it would have made the case easier.We still think we've got a very
strong case and (are) anxious to get this done."

Company spokesman Aaron Perlut said, "We're still going to trial, (but)
the scope of the trial is different.What it allows us to do is deal
with each individual plaintiff on a case-by-case basis."

Trial in the suit is scheduled for July.


GMO LITIGATION: Indonesian Farmers Urged To Stay Calm Over GM Crops
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A spokesman for a company supplying genetically modified crops is
urging farmers to remain calm and rational in responding to the
increasing use of these crops, saying that extensive laboratory tests
have shown them to be safe, the Jakarta Post reported recently.

Farmers in South Sulawesi, aided by environmental groups, such as the
National Consortium for Nature and Forest Conservation (Konphalindo)
and the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), are reportedly
on the verge of filing a class action against South Sulawesi
Gubernatorial Decree No. 89/2001.  The decree is considered flawed by
its critics since it allows the planting of transgenic cotton beyond
the seven regencies in the province in which such use is permitted
under Minister of Agriculture Decree No. 107/2001.

Tri Soekirman, spokesperson for PT Monagro Kimia, played down the harsh
reaction by the farmers and environmentalists to genetically modified
seeds.  "They (the seeds) have been through scientific tests that are
reliable," she told the Jakarta Post.  Her comments come amid growing
reaction to the growing presence and use of genetically modified crops
and seeds in the country.  Transgenic cotton and corn are supplied by
PT Monsanto from South Africa through Jakarta-based PT Monagro Kimia.

Transgenic, or genetically modified, organisms are touted to create
higher quality crops and stocks by the insertion of genes from other
species.  The continuing controversy, however, shows that in an age of
biotechnology, Indonesia is ill-prepared to face challenges in the
field of genetically modified food products.  Scientists, activists,
farmers and business people continue the debate while the government
remains ambiguous in its position.

Further, a lack of legal guidelines on genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), inadequate verification mechanisms and an uninformed public due
to a meager information campaign, continue to shroud GMO products in
ambiguity.

There have been calls from the Indonesian Consumers Foundation for the
labeling of such products. This does not appear to be method with
optimistic prospects at this time, since the government has yet to
effectively implement the 1999 regulation on food labeling and
advertising.  The Ministry of Health, along with the ministries of
agriculture and forestry, has yet to decide on the level of GMOs that
must be declared on product labeling.

The Jakarta Post also presents the general principle that once adequate
testing guidelines are established and a genetically modified product
is found to be safe, then it should be exploited to help farmers and
consumers produce the best yield.  However, if testing finds a product
to be hazardous, then it should not be allowed to furtively enter the
market as such products have done.

Antonius Suwanto, a researcher at the Southeast Asian Regional Center
for Tropical Biology in Bogor, maintains that labeling is unnecessary
once the product has been judged as safe.  Nevertheless, Mr. Suwanto
conceded that there could be possible implications involved when
transgenic crops are exposed to the ecosystem.  "We need about five to
six years to evaluate all possible risks," he said.


INDIANA: Ordered To Compensate Residents Wrongfully Denied Medicaid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
After losing an eight-year court battle, the financially-strapped state
of Indiana has been ordered to search for thousands of residents who
were wrongfully denied millions of dollars in Medicaid coverage, the
Associated Press reported recently.

The suit that created a budget threat for Indiana helped expand
Medicaid from a program that covered just permanent, untreatable
disabilities into a program that also covers disabilities expected to
last at least four years if left untreated.  Lawyers for the Indiana
Civil Liberties Union (ICLU), who fought state Medicaid officials in
court, say the ruling could actually save taxpayers money in the
future, because it requires Medicaid to pay for care that could help
thousands of people to return to work.

The ICLU battled the state for several years before winning the class
action on behalf of thousands of residents.  As a result of losing the
case, state officials estimate they may have to pay the disabled
residents of Indiana as much as $850 million for medical care they
received after the state turned them down for Medicaid coverage.

Of this amount, nearly $323 million would come from the state treasury
at a time when Governor Frank O'Bannon has ordered Medicaid cuts
because Indiana is running out of money.  The rest of the $850 million
would come from federal funds. Medicaid is a nearly $4 billion state-
federal program that provides health care in Indiana to more than
700,000 low income people.  That is more than one of every nine
Hoosiers, including pregnant women, children living in poverty and
people with disabilities.

The state sent out about 17,600 letters last month to Hoosiers who were
denied coverage simply because they had disabilities that could have
been corrected.  About 2,343 were returned with no forwarding
addresses.  If those people fail to come forward by July 12, 2002,
taxpayers would save as much as $100 million of the $850 million, the
state's own estimations indicate.  According to the state's estimates,
more than 5,000 of 22,678 people wrongly denied care can no longer be
found.


INTERCON MERCHANDISING: Recalls Folding Beach Chairs Over Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intercon Merchandising Source, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 100,000
Time Out folding mini beach chairs, which can be used by both children
and adults.

The chairs can collapse, posing crushing and amputation hazards to
consumer's fingers and toes.  The Company is aware of one incident in
which the tip of a 3-year old girl's finger was amputated when the
chair collapsed.

The recalled mini beach chair was a free gift with the purchase of a
Time Out cosmetic product at Sears stores. The mini beach chairs are
white aluminum with a blue canvas seat and back.  The name "Time Out"
is printed on the canvas backrest.

Sears stores nationwide distributed the mini beach chairs with the
purchase of $20 worth Time Out cosmetics from June 2000 through August
2000.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 634-0469
between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm PST Monday through Friday.


MARYLAND: Housing Agency To Pay US$ 1.1M Over ACLU Housing Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore's Board of Estimates has approved payment of $1.1 million in
legal fees, related to the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU),
public housing discrimination lawsuit, filed in 1995 on behalf of
public housing residents, The Baltimore Sun reported recently.  The
Board of Estimates' action was taken in response to a ruling by the
federal judge presiding over the class action that legal fees be paid
the ACLU.

Susan Goering, the Maryland ACLU executive director, said the ACLU and
two law firms are to receive an interim payment of $542,000 from the
city of Baltimore, $542,000 from the Housing Authority of Baltimore
City and $400,000 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.

Until now, Ms. Goering said, the ACLU has not received "one copper
penny" from the city since it began looking into public housing
conditions in the 1980s.  Money paid by the city will go into the
Group's litigation fund.

The two sides reached a partial settlement in 1996 but have been at
odds over implementation of the settlement's terms.  The remainder of
the case remains unresolved and, despite settlement talks, both sides
say a trial is a possibility over how to rectify decades of segregation
in housing for the city's poorest residents.

Under the settlement, nearly 2,200 special rent-subsidy certificates
were to have been provided by now to help disperse the poor throughout
the region.  Progress in giving public housing residents a chance to
live in largely white, middle class neighborhoods has been "sluggish,"
US Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm wrote in December.  Many public
housing residents continue to live amidst the poverty that spurred the
lawsuit.   

Where the blame lies is disputed.  The ACLU says the city is not moving
fast enough, while the city says its foes have blocked or delayed
projects that would have helped disperse the public housing residents.

Housing Commissioner Paul T. Graziano recently told the mayor that the
ACLU turned down a final settlement offer "hands down" and walked away
from the table.  However, Andrew D. Freeman, a lawyer working with the
ACLU, says the city's idea of a settlement is to say "trust us."  

City Solicitor Thurman W. Zollicoffer Jr. said the city has not
fulfilled some promises made in the partial consent decree.  "Our hands
are not clean," he said.   City Council President Sheila Dixon said,
"All of us to some degree are at fault."

The city's lack of firm resolve on the public housing issue was
displayed, when, in 2000, plans to relocate 15 families to Northeast
Baltimore, a move that would have helped to satisfy the settlement
terms, sparked a loud protest from residents there.  A few months
later, city officials said they no longer were interested in buying the
properties.

Mr. Freeman said, "Neither the city nor HUD has been willing to take
seriously their obligations to fix the results of decades of
discrimination."


MENORAH GARDENS: Employees Testify on Grave Desecrations in Cemetery
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Five current or former employees of the Menorah Gardens Cemetery in
Palm Beach County, which is accused of grave desecration, said that
their managers pressured them to make room for more bodies, the
Associated Press reported.  The videotaped depositions, released
recently, were part of the civil lawsuit against the Palm Beach County
cemetery, Menorah Gardens, owned by funeral giant Service Corporation
International (SCI).

Jerome Hyppolite, 64, a former gravedigger at the cemetery, described
what one manager told him when they needed to break open a burial vault
containing one body in order to make room for others.  "My boss asked
me to break it, (saying), `Take everything that was there and throw it
away and put a brand new box in the spot.  Throw them (bones) in the
back where the trees are,'" he said in his deposition.

Another former gravedigger, Claude Etienne, said he regularly broke up
underground vaults, shuffled name plates of the dead and once excavated
a full grave to make way for another.  He said he acted at the
direction of a supervisor who, he said, drank liberally and lived in a
trailer on the site.

SCI, fighting a two-pronged legal battle, also issued a legal response
denying allegations made in a separate civil lawsuit, filed by the
state attorney's office.  Company spokesman Don Mathis emphasized that
the depositions released favor the plaintiffs, who will ask a judge in
May to grant them class action status.  He added, however that "if you
had to rank the credibility of the witnesses you are dealing with in
this case, you are dealing at the least credible end."

Fort Lauderdale attorney Neal Hirschfeld that that three of the five
witnesses were not fired and two still work for SCI.  "They were good
enough for SCI to hire.  It is unfortunate that now they are trying to
tear them (SCI) down," he said.


ORKIN EXTERMINATING: FL State Judge Certifies Breach of Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida State judge granted class action status to a lawsuit against
Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. filed on behalf of Florida customers
who paid for the Company's standard termite extermination contract but
were allegedly unable to avail of the Company's services, the Florida
Sun-Sentinel reports.

The suit alleges the Company charged customers for the termite program
but never provided re-inspection or re-treatment services.  Company
employees allegedly forged customers' signatures saying the services
had been provided.  The suit further states that customers were lured
by false advertising and company promises, only to suffer damages when
their homes became infested.

The ruling by Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge Robert Simms could allow
as many as 100,000 customers to commence claims against the Company.  
Company estimates place the class number at 65,000 customers, but the
attorneys for the plaintiffs say the number could be 100,000, the Sun-
Sentinel reports.

The Company plans to appeal the certification.  In a statement, the
Company said, "We strongly believe Judge Simms' opinion is mistaken and
conflicts with the law in a long line of Florida cases.It is important
to note that Judge Simms did not find any fault with Orkin whatsoever,
he simply allowed the plaintiffs' claims, all of which Orkin
strenuously denies - to go forward procedurally as a class action. We
are very confident our appeal will be upheld."

"This has been a huge battle getting the case certified," Attorney for
the plaintiffs Dan Clark told the Sun-Sentinel. He anticipates the
lawsuit will go to trial in early next year.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: "Light" Suits To Point To Ads, Studies As Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The assertion that cigarette companies have used words such as "light,"
and "low tar" to deceive smokers into believing they are safer than
regular brands, is the major component of the strategy of lawyers who
who filed several class actions against three of the nation's biggest
tobacco companies:

     (1) Philip Morris Companies, Inc.,

     (2) RJ Reynolds Tobacco Corporation, and

     (3) Brown & Williamson Corporation

Class action suits were filed on behalf of smokers in 11 states,
seeking billions of dollars in damages for alleged violations of
consumer protection laws after an Oregon jury ruled that Philip Morris
must pay US$15 million to survivors of a woman who died of lung cancer,
the Associated Press reports.  The jury said Philip Morris falsely
represented low-tar cigarettes as more helpful.  The suits pending
across the country against tobacco companies that sell "light"
cigarettes are:

     (1) California- Case filed against Philip Morris,

     (2) Florida - Cases filed against Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds.  
         A judge has approved the class-action status of the Philip
         Morris case,

     (3) Illinois - Cases filed and class-action status granted against
         Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and Brown & Williamson,

     (4) Massachusetts:  Case filed and class-action status certified
         against Philip Morris,

     (5) Minnesota - Case filed against Philip Morris,

     (6) Missouri - Cases filed against Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and
         Brown & Williamson,

     (7) New Jersey - Cases filed against Philip Morris and RJ
         Reynolds,

     (8) Ohio - Cases filed against Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, and
         Brown & Williamson,

     (9) Pennsylvania - Case filed against Philip Morris, but a judge
         refused to certify case as a class action,

    (10) Tennessee - Case filed against Philip Morris, and  

    (11) West Virginia - Case filed against Philip Morris

Lawyers for the plaintiffs plan to utilize examples of Company
advertising and several studies by the American Cancer Society to prove
their point.  Stephen Sheller, a Philadelphia attorney who leads the
class action effort nationally, characterized the tobacco companies'
advertising campaign around the words "light" and "low tar" as a
"scam."

Mr. Sheller points to a 1999 Brown & Williamson ad for Carlton
cigarettes that read, "Isn't it time you started thinking about number
one?"  A 1974 R.J. Reynolds ad carried the headline, "To smoke or not
to smoke" and suggested if smokers did not want to quit, they should
try Vantage.

John Hines, a plaintiff in the class action filed against Philip Morris
in Florida, explained why he switched to lights in the 1980s, "The word
`light' itself meant to me that it would probably be better for you,"
said Mr. Hines, 48, of Palm City.  "Why should a company make a profit
on something they lied to the people about?"

The concept of "light cigarettes" being healthier gained momentum in
the 1960s after some health advocates said they could reduce health
risks.  Former US Surgeon General Julius Richmond recommended in 1981
that smokers switch to lights if they couldn't quit.  That position has
been dropped, but sales of light cigarettes have boomed.  They now
account for the majority of the US cigarette market.

However, studies from the American Cancer Society showed that there was
not enough support for this impression.  In two studies, the first in
the 1960s and the second in the 1980s, they discovered that lung cancer
death rates among smokers rose even though tar levels had dropped.  
Another study by the National Cancer Institute last fall stated that
cigarettes that yielded low tar and nicotine when tested on government-
approved machines gave off higher levels when smoked by people.  That
is because people who smoke lights tend to inhale more deeply and take
more puffs to get the nicotine they need.

This study, cited as evidence in the nationwide class-action lawsuits,
said manufacturers designed cigarettes to register low tar readings in
machine tests.  One way to do this is to put ventilation holes in the
filter.  The holes lower tar levels in machine tests but offer little
benefit to real smokers, whose finger and lips often cover such holes.  
The cancer institute study found that people who smoke lights typically
believe they are reducing their health risk.

Attorney Van Bunch, who filed a class-action lawsuit in Tennessee, said
tobacco companies should include labels telling smokers "you have to
use the cigarette in an unusual way to get the benefits of lights."

The tobacco companies, on the other hand, say the lawsuits have no
Merit, and have said that they never attempted to deceive anyone.  
William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris' vice president and associate general
counsel, said the company never attempted to deceive anyone said,
"There is no such thing as a safe cigarette.  No one has ever
advertised these cigarettes as being safe."


WASHINGTON: Settles For $4.5M Environmental Suit Over Ferry Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Washington and property owners along Rich Passage reached
a settlement in a class action claiming waves from high-speed Seattle-
to-Bremerton ferries caused environmental and property damage to
beaches and bulkheads in Rich Passage and Port Orchard Bay.

The State agreed to pay property owners nearly $4.5 million for damage
caused by the ferries' wake, as well as to continue monitoring
shorelines for any additional impact. In exchange, property owners will
allow the Washington State Ferry System (WSF) to operate the ferries at
16 knots through the passage and the bay.  The agreement does not limit
the property owners' ability to file suit in the future if damages
continue.

"It has been a long struggle for the property owners," said Sean Matt,
the attorney representing Rich Passage property owners.  "Almost
immediately after the fast ferries began running, the property owners
alerted the Washington State Ferries to the problems, but no one would
listen, and there were some who ridiculed their claims. Now, after over
three years of hard-fought litigation, the state is listening, and
agreeing with them."

Mr. Matt noted that while the settlement should cover the repairs of
most of the physical damages caused by the ferries, perhaps the most
enduring benefit will be awareness of the issue and the protection of
sensitive shorelines. "Thanks to the property owners, the state is now
keenly aware of the ecological impact the ferries caused, literally
scouring the beaches of sand and gravel, plant and sea life," he noted.  
"Moving forward, the state will need to pay much closer attention to
the effects on the environment, and we hope it will."

Soon after the Chinook began high-speed service, residents along the
route began reporting large swells and waves scouring beaches and
crashing over bulkheads, in some cases sending seawater encroaching
well beyond bulkheads built to stop it.

The original lawsuit, filed on March 9, 1999 by several Rich Passage
residents, claimed that powerful waves generated by the Chinook ferry
were removing or destroying beach aggregate, kelp beds, shellfish,
topsoil, bulkheads and other structures and vegetation along the
Seattle-to-Bremerton ferry run.

On July 26, 1999, Judge Glenna Hall issued a ruling that WSF must
immediately slow the high-speed ferry Chinook to 12 knots in Rich
Passage and Port Orchard Bay pending full compliance with the State
Environmental Protection Act (SEPA). In March 2000, the Washington
Supreme Court overturned the preliminary injunction and allowed WSF to
resume high-speed service along the entire Seattle - Bremerton run, but
did not interfere with the ongoing SEPA review.

The SEPA study released in August of 2001 concluded that wave action
from ferries traveling at 34 knots caused probable environmental and
property damage along the narrow passage, and recommended the ferries
slow to 12 knots through the passage.

The SEPA study noted, in part, that waves from high-speed ferries
caused "substantial changes to several beach profiles" and
"statistically significant decreases in biological abundances" in
several regions of Rich Passage.

The case was settled after mediation sessions led by retired King
County Superior Court Judge Terrance Carroll. The trial was scheduled
to begin May 20.

The Chinook was introduced to the public on May 15, 1998, and was in
full-time service two weeks later. Its sister ship, the Snohomish, went
into service in late 1999. Rich Passage, which lies mid-way through the
Seattle-to-Bremerton commute, and Port Orchard Bay, took the brunt of
the ferries' 24 daily passes at a speed of 34 knots.

For more information, contact Sean Matt by Phone: 206/623-7292 or by E-
mail: sean@hagens-berman.com or contact Mark Firmani of Firmani &
Associates by Phone: 206/443-9357 or by E-mail: mark@firmani.com


WENZEL CORPORATION: Recalls Propane Camping Lanterns Due To Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wenzel Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 290,000 propane-fueled
camping lanterns with model names "Ozark Trail" or "Wenzel."  An
insufficient connection between the lantern and the propane cylinder
can allow gas to escape and ignite unexpectedly, posing a potential
fire and injury hazard to consumers. This hazard can occur during the
lighting or normal use of the lantern.

The Company has received 12 reports of propane gas escaping from these
lanterns and igniting unexpectedly. Two consumers sustained burns to
the arm and hand. One of the consumers also suffered burns to the eye.

The recalled lanterns are green and silver with brass fittings, have a
Glass globe, and stand about 9 inches high (without the propane
cylinder attached).  The lanterns, when attached to the propane
cylinder, sit on a green plastic base on which the model names "Ozark
Trail" or "Wenzel" appear.  The Ozark Trail model has a double cloth
mantle for lighting and the Wenzel model has either a double or single
cloth mantle. The models involved are Ozark Trail 824927 and 824928,
and Wenzel 824208, 824226, 824227 and 824401, which appear on the box
in which the lantern came.

Wal-Mart sold the lanterns nationwide under the "Ozark Trail" label
from March 1999 through August 2001 for about $18. Sporting goods,
camping equipment, and other retail stores nationwide sold these
lanterns under the "Wenzel" brand from January 1999 through August 2001
for between $18 and $28.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 325-8368
between 8:30 am and 4:30 pm CDT Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.wenzelco.com.  

                           Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of shareholders who acquired the common stock
of Adelphia Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLAC) between April 2,
2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive against the Company and:

     (1) Timothy Rigas, CFO and

     (2) John J. Rigas, President, CEO and Chairman

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading information, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.  The complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose billions of dollars of off-
balance sheet debt until March 27, 2002.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: at 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


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Suit in E.D. PA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Adelphia
Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLAC) from April 2, 2001 through
April 1, 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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that,
throughout the class period, the Company failed to disclose billions of
dollars of off-balance sheet debt.

As alleged in the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, the Company
guaranteed credit facilities for certain closely held partnerships,
which are controlled by the Rigas Family (the Company's controlling
shareholder), and which used the money, in substantial part, to
purchase securities from the Company.

Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt
during an earnings conference call on March 27, 2002.  On April 1,
2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an extension to file
its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC. The Company reported that
the extension was being sought to allow it and its outside auditors
additional time to review certain accounting matters relating to co-
borrowing credit facilities which the Company is a party.

In response to these negative announcements, the price of the Company's
common stock dropped from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12
per share on April 1, 2002.  The price of other Company debt securities
also materially declined.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Adelphia
Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and
April 1, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company,
Timothy Rigas (CFO) and John J. Rigas (President, CEO and Chairman).

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 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The suit further alleges that, throughout the class period, the Company
failed to disclose billions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt. As
alleged in the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, the Company
guaranteed credit facilities for certain closely-held partnerships,
which are controlled by the Rigas Family (the Company's controlling
shareholder), and which used the money, in substantial part, to
purchase Company securities.

Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt
during an earnings conference call on March 27, 2002. Then, on April 1,
2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an extension to file
its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC.  The Company reported that
the extension was being sought to allow it and its outside auditors
additional time to review certain accounting matters relating to co-
borrowing credit facilities which it is party to.

In response to these negative announcements, the price of Company stock
dropped from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12 per share on
April 1, 2002.  The price of Company debt securities also materially
declined.

For more information, 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 by E-mail: adelphiacase@milbergNY.com or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross PC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Adelphia
Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and
April 1, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company,
and officers Timothy Rigas and John J. Rigas.

The complaint charges the defendants 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
financial condition and results because it failed to disclose the
existence of billions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt related to
Highland Holdings.

As alleged in the complaint, unbeknownst to investors, the Company
guaranteed credit facilities for certain closely-held partnerships,
which are controlled by the Rigas Family (its controlling shareholder),
and which used the money, in substantial part, to purchase securities
from the Company.

Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt
during an earnings conference call on March 27, 2002. Then, on April 1,
2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an extension to file
its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC. The Company reported that
the extension was being sought to allow it and its outside auditors
additional time to review certain accounting matters relating to co-
borrowing credit facilities which the Company is party to.

In response to these negative announcements, the price of Company stock
dropped from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12 per share on
April 1, 2002.  The price of the Company's debt securities also
materially declined.

For more information, contact Deborah R. Gross, Susan Gross or Tina
Moukoulis by Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Second Floor - Philadelphia, PA
19102 by Phone: 800-849-3120 or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com   


CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Prime Retailer's Insolvency in MI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Champion Enterprises, Inc. is vigorously defending against a securities
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.

The suit, which names the Company and Walter R. Young as defendants,
alleges violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs generally
alleged, among other things, that the Company made false and misleading
statements and omitted other information regarding the financial
condition of Ted Parker Homes Sales, Inc. (Ted Parker), its former
largest independent retailer, and the potential impact on the Company
of Ted Parker becoming insolvent.

In June 13, 2001, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend the
second amended complaint and dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
complaints.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of
Appeals, which is now pending.


EAGLE BUILDING: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman initiated a securities class action against Eagle
Building Technologies, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: EGBT), previously
known as Eagle Capital International, Ltd. 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 complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint 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 complaint 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 it may have been false and
misleading.

For more information, contact David C. Katz 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 by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


EAGLE BUILDING: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Eagle Building
Technologies, Inc. (OTC:EGBT) securities between April 18, 2001 and
February 14, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada, against the Company and certain key officers
and directors.

The suit charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South
Broad Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 or by E-mail: BrianFLaw@yahoo.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Prongay Borderud Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prongay and Borderud initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons or entities that acquired shares of Global Crossing (OTC
BB: GBLXQ) stock in exchange for shares of Frontier Corporation stock
on or about September 30, 1999.  

The suit charges the Company, certain of the Company's current and
former officers, certain of the Company's controlling persons and
Arthur Andersen with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

For more information, contact Kevin Prongay or Oren Giskan by Mail:
12121 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 by Phone:
310-207-2848 or by E-mail: osgiskan@aol.com


INTERWOVEN INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Interwoven, Inc. (NASDAQ:IWOV) labeled "without merit" the securities
class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between October 7, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York.  

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and its
underwriters with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit
alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements in their filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The regulatory filings allegedly failed to disclose
several agreements between the Company's underwriters and certain
purchasers of the Company's stock, which caused the stock price to be
artificially inflated.

The Company further asserted that the defense of this litigation could
result in substantial costs and diversion of its management's attention
and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on its
operating results and financial condition in future periods.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: 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 Juniper Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ:
JNPR) publicly traded securities during the period between April 12,
2001 and June 7, 2001.

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 during the class period, defendants stated that the
Company was on track to have 2nd Quarter 2001 revenues of $330+ million
and earnings per share (EPS) of $0.25, and that Deferred Revenue (i.e.,
revenue not yet recognized because customers had not yet accepted
products) had declined because customer acceptance cycles were shorter
than in the past.

Defendants also represented the Company was on track to report 2001 EPS
of $0.90-$1.00, pro forma, causing its stock to trade as high as
$69.50. Defendants took advantage of this inflation selling 747,463
shares, for proceeds of $42.9 million.

Then, on July 2001, the Company disclosed that its 2nd Quarter 2001
revenues would be much lower than previously represented and earnings
would be less than half of prior estimates.  Defendants also admitted
that customer acceptance cycles were in fact much longer than in the
past, stretching from days to months.  One analyst noted that the
Company's announcement was matched in "severity by its tardiness."

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

For more information, contact 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 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


LONE STAR: Officers Move For Dismissal of CalPERS Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain directors and officers of Lone Star Steakhouse and Saloon, Inc.
have asked a California trial court to dismiss the claims against them
in a shareholder derivative suit filed by the California Public
Employees Retirement System (CalPERS)

CalPERS filed the derivative suit in October 2001 against certain of
the Company's present and former directors, alleging breach of
fiduciary duties.  The suit further states that certain of the
defendants were unjustly enriched through related party transactions
and by the repricing of stock options previously issued.  The suit
names the Company as a nominal defendant.

The suit also seeks to prevent enforcement of certain change of control  
agreements granted to executive officers of the Company and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

On January 9, 2002, CalPERS filed an amended complaint and added a
claim to attempt to certify a class action based on their allegation
that a provision in the change of control agreements violates Delaware
law.  Certain defendants countered by filing a motion to dismiss the
suit on February 8, 2002.  Discovery has been stayed pending a court
decision on the motion to dismiss.

The Company believes the outcome of such matters will not have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or
results of operations.


MCAFEE.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense Against Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
McAfee.com vehemently denied allegations in a consolidated securities
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock between December 1,1999 and December 6,2000.

The consolidated suit, which names the Company, certain of its officers
and directors and three underwriters of its initial public offering as
defendants, alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged
in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the Company's initial public offering of securities.

The suit brings claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws against those underwriters and also against the
Company and certain of its directors and officers.

The Company mentions that similar suits have been filed asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 300 other companies
in New York federal court. The suit and all other IPO allocation
securities suits have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

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


NEWMARK HOMES: Sued Over Planned Merger With Engle Holdings in NV, TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newmark Homes Corporation faces two class actions in Nevada and Texas
State Courts charging the Company with violation of fiduciary duty over
its planned merger with Engle Holdings Corporation.

The first suit was filed in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada
and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Michael J. Poulos,

     (2) Yannis Delikanakis,

     (3) Michael S. Stevens,

     (4) Constantinos Stengos,

     (5) George Stengos,

     (6) Andreas Stengos,

     (7) James M. Carr,

     (8) William A. Hasler,

     (9) Larry D. Horner,

    (10) Lonnie M. Fedrick, and

    (11) Engle Holdings Corporation

The second case was filed in the 80th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas against the same defendants in the first suit.

The first suit has been stayed indefinitely pending the resolution of
the second class action in Texas.  The Company's obligation to answer
the second lawsuit has been deferred until the plaintiff requests in
writing that the Company answer the complaint pursuant to an agreement
with the plaintiffs.  Although both of these class actions are in their
early stages, the Company does not believe the cases have merit and
intends to vigorously defend these actions.


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against NewPower Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: NPW) and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the initial public offering on October 5, 2000 and
thereafter in the period October 5, 2000 through October 19, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of press releases and public filings containing
materially false or misleading statements representing that the Company
could profitably provide electricity and natural gas to residential and
small commercial markets because of its ability to hedge against price
volatility and because of its technical resources and regulatory and
risk management expertise.

These representations were false and misleading because the Company did
not have any such expertise superior to any competitors and it did not
have a viable hedging strategy.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Shapiro, Ted Hess-Mahan, or Liz
Hutton by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone:
(800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134, or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.  


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Scott Scott Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC 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) between Feb. 15,
2000 and Feb. 14, 2002, inclusive.

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 the Company violated generally accepted accounting
principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal accounting scheme
that dramatically overstated revenues and assets.  The defendants
misrepresented the Company's true prospects in order to conceal the
Company's wrongful acts until the defendants were able to sell at least
$66 million worth of their own stock.

On February 14, 2002, the Company partially admitted that its past
accounting for its prior results may be inaccurate. This news caused
its shares to plummet the following day.

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott or James
E. Miller by Phone: 800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com,
drscott@scott-scott.com or jmiller@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.scottscott.com


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in E.D. LA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthodontic Centers of America will ask the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 27, 2000 through
March 15, 2001.

The consolidated suit arose from three class actions filed against the
Company and:

     (1) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., Chief Operating Officer, and

     (3) Dr. Gasper Lazzara, Jr., former Chairman of the Board

The three suits uniformly alleged that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder, by allegedly recognizing revenue in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles and SEC disclosure
requirements and by allegedly making false and misleading statements
about the Company's financial results and accounting. The suits were
later consolidated.

On February 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint that named W. Dennis Summers, one of the Company's directors
and former Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of
OrthAlliance, as an additional defendant and purported to extend the
class period for the action through February 7, 2002.

In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs alleged, in addition to
the prior allegations, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, by allegedly making false and misleading statements about
the OrthAlliance merger and the status of litigation between
OrthAlliance and certain of its affiliated practices.

The Company expects to file a motion to dismiss the suit by April 11,
2002.  The Company further believes that the suit lacks merit, and
denies the plaintiffs' allegations.  The Company intends to defend this
action vigorously but cannot predict whether it will prevail in the
suit.


PAN PACIFIC: Trial In Suit Over Western Merger Set For October 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda against Pan Pacific Retail Properties,
Inc. is set to commence on October 7,2002.

The Bennett Family Trust, and trustee Bryant M. Bennett, initiated the
suit in November 2000 over Pan Pacific's acquisition of Western
Properties Trust.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Western Properties Trust;

     (2) Bradley N. Blake;

     (3) L. Gerald Hunt;

     (4) Dennis D. Ryan;

     (5) James L. Stell;

     (6) Reginald B. Oliver;

     (7) L. Michael Foley;

     (8) Joseph P. Colmery;

     (9) Revenue Properties (US), Inc.; and

    (10) Stuart A. Tanz.


The suit alleges that the merger terms between the Company and Western
were unfair and violated the defendants' fiduciary obligations to
Western's shareholders. On February 22, 2002, the court granted class
certification to the suit.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against each of the
claims and intends to vigorously and effectively defend against them.
However, the Company cannot give any assurance of a result in their
favor, as the litigation is by its nature unpredictable.


PNC FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: PNC) from July 19, 2001 through
January 29, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and its auditor and consultant Ernst & Young, LLP (E&Y) with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that during
the class period, defendants misrepresented the Company's financial
results and issued false and misleading statements with regard to PNC's
financial condition.

Defendants failed to properly consolidate liabilities associated with
three subsidiaries the Company had established with American Insurance
Group (AIG).  Throughout the class period, defendants misrepresented
the Company's earnings as well as the Company's ability to reduce its
liabilities related to non-performing assets.  In fact, defendants
failure to conform with proper accounting standards produced inflated
earnings and misled investors as to the Company's true financial
condition.

The complaint further alleges that while acting as auditor and a
consultant for the Company, E&Y was also acting as a consultant for
AIG. In fact, as the Company's auditor, E&Y approved its transactions
with AIG while at the same time acting as an "accounting adviser" to
AIG.  E&Y drew up the financial structure for the subsidiaries in
question and approved them for implementation by AIG. E&Y also issued a
letter that helped AIG pitch its product to banks.

On January 29, 2002, the Company announced that the Federal Reserve
Board had contacted the Company about accounting inaccuracies and as a
result, its financial results for 2Q:01 and 3Q:01 would be restated and
its financial results for 4Q:01 would be revised.

The Company also stated that the updated financials would result in
year-end earnings being reduced $155 million to approximately $412
million, or $1.38 a share, and revealed that these accounting
adjustments would cause its non-performing assets to rise by $125
million to $393 million.

In addition, the Company announced that the Federal Reserve Board and
the SEC were making inquiries about the Company's transactions and that
the Company would cooperate with their investigations.

These disclosures shocked the market, causing Company stock to close on
January 29, 2002 down $5.79 or nearly 10% at $56.08 in extremely heavy
trading volume of 6,305,100 shares.

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 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


RADIO ONE: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio One, Inc. vowed to vigorously defend against a securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

The suit alleges that the Company's registration statements and
prospectuses filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
in May 1999 and November 1999 contained untrue statements of material
fact or omissions of material fact in violation of the federal
securities laws.

In particular, the suit alleges that the Company's registration
statements and prospectuses failed to disclose that:

     (1) certain underwriters required several investors who wanted
         large allocations of its initial public offering to pay
         excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased
         brokerage commissions; and

     (2) such underwriters required investors to agree to buy shares of
         the Company's securities after the initial public offering was
         completed at predetermined prices as a precondition to
         obtaining initial public offering allocations.

The suit claims that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.  The Company is confident that the resolution
of the suit will not have a material adverse effect on its business,
financial condition or results of operations.


REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida
Gainesville Division on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Regeneration Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: RTIX) between July 25, 2001
and January 31, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Richard Allen,

     (2) James Grooms and

     (3) Brian Hutchinson

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, throughout the class period, defendants made highly
positive statements regarding the Company's financial results.  The
Company reported quarter after quarter of "record" financial results
and strong revenue growth, which caused the price of Company securities
to trade as high as $12.82 per share during the class period. These
statements were allegedly false and misleading because the Company
failed to take a charge to earnings to recognize worthless inventory.

On February 2, 2002, the Company shocked the market by announcing that
it was delaying its fourth quarter and yearend results for fiscal year
2001 while "management completes its evaluation of certain inventory
issues."

The Company also announced that its "Chief Financial Officer Richard
Allen and Vice President of Marketing and Sales, James Abraham are
leaving the Company, effective immediately." The Company further
announced that it is "evaluating whether these issues may affect RTI's
previously reported financial results" and although "RTI's annual
results have not been finalized, company officials expect to report a
loss for both the quarter and the year."

In response to the news the price of Company stock plunged more than
50% from $10.15 on January 31, 2002 to $5.19 on February 1, 2002.

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 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


REGISTER.COM: To Mount Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
federal securities violations in the Company's March 3,2000 initial
public offering (IPO).  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Richard D. Forman, Chairman, President and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Alan G. Breitman, former Vice President of Finance and
         Accounting,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co., underwriter for the Company's IPO, and

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc, underwriter for the IPO.

The suit seeks unspecified damages as a result of various alleged
securities law violations arising from activities purportedly engaged
in by the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.  

The suit further alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's IPO to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices.  The suit alleges that the prospectus for the
Company's IPO was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The Company intends vigorously to defend the action, which is
being coordinated with over three hundred other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies before one judge in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  No date has been
set for any response to the complaint.


SYNSORB BIOTECH: 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, on behalf of purchasers of Synsorb Biotech Inc. (Nasdaq: SYBB)
between April 4, 2001 and December 10, 2001, inclusive, against the
Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements throughout
the class period that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

The suit alleges that throughout the class period, defendants touted
the successful progression of its SYNSORB Cdr Phase III clinical trials
while concealing from the public that, in fact:

     (1) defendants had "concerns about enrollment;"

     (2) defendants knew that "the completion of the trial would reach
         out years beyond" what they had forecast;

     (3) the FDA had directed defendants to use a more stringent
         protocol in its Phase III trials;

     (4) defendants had repeatedly failed to increase enrollment in the
         Phase III trials during the class period;

     (5) that defendants had been experiencing "unacceptably high drop
         out rates;" and

     (6) that defendants could not afford to continue to finance the
         Phase III clinical trials

After the market closed on December 10, 2001, the Company issued a
press release announcing the termination of its SYNSORB Cdr development
program; and in a conference call the next morning, revealed the true
facts concerning the Phase III clinical trials.

These shocking revelations made in the press release and in the
conference call had a dramatic effect on the price of Company stock,
causing the stock to plummet over 52% and causing plaintiff and the
class to suffer damages.

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 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: 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 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Tyco International Ltd. (NYSE: TYC) between February 5,
1999 and February 1, 2002, inclusive.

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

The suit alleges that the Company's representations were rendered false
and misleading by defendants' failure to disclose:

     (1) that the Company would achieve its earnings targets only
         through undisclosed acquisitions;

     (2) that the individual defendants sold in excess of $100,000,000
         of their individual stock holdings to the company; and

     (3) that the Company's management procedures were to make large
         payments to insiders, including a $20,000,000 payment to one
         director and his charity for furthering the interests of the
         Company.

The complaint further alleges that external rule changes required the
Company to cease its allegedly aggressive revenue recognition practices
and recognize the revenues from its security contracts only as the
monies thereunder were received.

Throughout the class period, defendants were allegedly aware that the
adverse financial effect of the rule change by the Securities and
Exchange Commission would be approximately $1,000,000,000. However,
defendants allegedly failed to disclose this adverse financial effect
until partial disclosure was made in October 2001.

As defendants belatedly announced portions of the foregoing material
facts between October 2001 and January 2002, Company stock fell
allegedly by more than 40 plus percent.

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 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


VANTIVE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision
dismissing a consolidated securities class action charging Vantive
Corporation and certain of its current and former directors and
officers with federal securities violations.

The consolidated suit arose from a series of securities suits commenced
in July 1999, alleging that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
suits were later consolidated and amended.  Plaintiffs added to the
previous complaints, among other things, allegations of accounting
improprieties.

The suit was dismissed with prejudice in March 2000 and in June 2000,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit appellate court. On
March 15, 2002, the appellate court affirmed the district court's
dismissal. The plaintiffs have ninety (90) days following the entry of
that order to petition for review by the US Supreme Court.

The Company expressed confidence that the resolution of the suit will
not have a material adverse affect on its financial position, results
of the operations and cash flows.  However, depending on the amount and
the timing, an unfavorable resolution of some or all of these matters
could materially affect the Company's future results of operations or
cash flows in a particular period.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma on behalf of investors who purchased Williams Companies, Inc.
(NYSE: WMB), Williams Communications Group, Inc. (NYSE: WCG) securities
between July 24, 2000 and January 29, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material information to their shareholders regarding:

     (1) the spin-off of WCG from WMB,

     (2) the accounting and financial impact of the contingent
         liabilities retained by WMB, and

     (3) the nature of the assets and liabilities of WCG

These caused the common stock of both companies to trade 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 or by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.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  * * *