CAR_Public/020408.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Monday, April 8, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 68

                          Headlines

BASF CORPORATION: NJ Judge Adds $7M to Award in Herbicide Fraud Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: NJ Court To Decide If Diocese Can Be Sued Over Abuse
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Trial For Individual Discrimination Lawsuits Nears
COLORADO: ACLU Sues Colorado Police For Keeping Files on Protesters
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Suit For Breach of Contract in NY Court

CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN: Voluntarily Recalls Water Coolers For Fire Hazard
DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 55,000 Circular Saws For Injury Hazard
FUNERAL HOMES: Four Cases Surface Over Unauthorized Embalming in FL
TENET HEALTHCARE: Registered Nurses Commence Wage Suit In CA Court
TIME WARNER: Court To Decide On Punitive Damages in Six Flags Suit

TOBACCO COMPANIES: Judge Grants Certification To Tobacco Farmers' Suit
TYSON FOODS: Sued For Hiring Illegal Immigrants as Factory Workers
WYETH INC.: Faces Suit Over Damages Brought By PPA Containing Drugs

*Reparations Advocates Demand Cure For Continued Effects of Slavery

                      Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in PA
ANDRX CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL

CALPINE CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
ENTRUST INC.: Moves To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit in E.D. Texas
FOCAL COMMUNICATIONS: Underwriter-Related Securities Suit Filed in NY
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in C.D. CA
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA

GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
INFOSPACE INC.: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA

INFOSPACE INC.: Asks For Dismissal of WA Suit Over Go2Net, Prio Merger
JDS UNIPHASE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in NJ
MGM MIRAGE: NV Court Dismisses Suit Over Boardwalk Hotel Securities
NRG ENERGY: Shareholders File Suit Over Xcel Energy Merger in DE, MN

STORAGE USA: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Over Suit Set For June 2002
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suits
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Court Orders Filing of Amended Derivative Suit
TRW INC.: Faces Additional State Suits Over Failed Northrop Takeover
WELLS REAL: Asks Georgia Court To Dismiss Part of Securities Fraud Suit
                            
                            *********


BASF CORPORATION: NJ Judge Adds $7M to Award in Herbicide Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey judge added US$7 million to a US$45 million award in the
consumer fraud class action filed against BASF Corporation, relating to
its marketing and pricing for Poast and Poast Plus herbicides from 1992
to 1996, Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges that the Company fraudulently marketed the same
herbicide as two different products, selling one at a higher price.  
The Company allegedly labeled the more expensive Poast for crops such
as sugarbeets, sunflowers, potatoes, field beans, vegetables and
fruits, and labeled cheaper Poast Plus for crops such as soybeans and
cotton.  The cost difference was about $4 per acre.  

The Company allegedly led farmers to believe Poast Plus was not
registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use on
certain crops.  The Company denied the allegations, saying it sold "a
good product at a fair price."

The jury initially awarded farmers nationwide with US$15 million, but
the award was later tripled under provisions of the New Jersey consumer
fraud statute. Rob Shelquist, an attorney with the Minneapolis firm
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, told Associated Press the plaintiffs can
expect to receive between $2,000 and $10,000 each from the Norman
County jury's award on December 6.  The Company said it will appeal the
judgment.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: NJ Court To Decide If Diocese Can Be Sued Over Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A court will decide whether members of a New Jersey family can sue the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden over alleged sexual abuse that
occurred almost 20 years ago, the Associated Press reported recently.

Joan Young and her two adult sons are among 16 plaintiffs who filed a
civil class action that claims the diocese conspired to conceal abuse
accusations for decades and should now be held financially responsible.  
Family members appeared in Atlantic County Superior Court, in Atlantic
City, New Jersey, before Judge G. Himmelberger Jr., for the first in a
series of hearings on the lawsuit.  It was not known when a ruling
would be issued in the matter.

Lawyers for the diocese-- which includes about 450,000 Catholics and
stretches from the Delaware River to the Jersey Shore - say the church
was unaware of any alleged abuse and would not have condoned it.  They
say the claim should be dismissed, because the plaintiffs, who sued in
1995, waited too long to go to court.  

Under New Jersey law, civil claims in child sex-abuse cases generally
must be filed by the time the victim reaches age 20.  The law does
allow exceptions, however, in cases where the victim can show that
duress or mental instability delayed the filing of a claim.

The Youngs and other plaintiffs in the class action argue that
"religious duress" prevented them from suing the church sooner.  As
devout Catholics, they had been raised to revere priests as "direct
messengers of God" and therefore were reluctant to challenge them.

According to the suit, Joan Young told bishop George H. Guilfoyle, in
1984, that her then-teenage sons had been repeatedly fondled and
sodomized by Msgr. Philip Rigney between 1978 and 1982.  The abuse,
they claimed, took place in church rectories in Camden and Barrington
and on family vacations to Florida and Canada, where the priest
accompanied them and their parents.

Msgr. Rigney, who is now living in Florida, has denied the plaintiffs'
claims.  In a sworn deposition, Msgr. Rigney said he offered to step
down but Bishop Guilfoyle told him to stay on, transferring him to
another parish until his retirement in 1987.  Msgr. Rigney has said
that he did not receive any counseling or mental-health treatment.

Stephen C. Rubino, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that Bishop
Guilfoyle told the Young family, in 1984, that they should not go to
law enforcement authorities because it would be "harmful" to them and
the church.  In court documents, the Youngs have said that Bishop
Guilfoyle, who has since died, assured them that Msgr. Rigney would be
removed from his post and sent for counseling.

Msgr. Joseph W. Pokusa testified, during the recent court hearing, that
he did not take notes or alert authorities when Joan Young told him, in
1984, that a parish priest had sexually abused her two sons for years,
and also had assaulted her and other members of her family.  Msgr.
Pokusa said he did not contact authorities, because he believed New
Jersey law required this only when such allegations came from a minor.
He also did not encourage Ms. Young to call the police and said she
told him that she did not want to see the accused priest "hurt."


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Trial For Individual Discrimination Lawsuits Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Several discrimination lawsuits filed by current and former Coca-Cola
Company employees who opted out of a huge class action settlement are
getting closer to trial, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported
recently.  The original class action alleged that the Company
discriminated against African-Americans in pay, promotion and
performance evaluation.

The Company reached a $192.5 million settlement of the racial
discrimination class action which had been filed against it.  Ninety-
nine percent of the 2,200 class members agreed to accept the settlement
terms.  Upward of 80 percent of the class members already have been
paid, averaging about $38,000 each, according to the Company's
spokeswoman, Sonya Soutus.  

A federal judge appointed a task force to oversee the Company's
settlement of the case, Ms. Soutus said.  "The work of the task force
is continuing, and we are moving to implement sweeping changes," she
said.

The cases of the plaintiffs who opted out of the class action
settlement were divided into 17 individual actions after first being
grouped into four lawsuits.  Attorney William Gary's Florida law firm
is representing the plaintiffs who are awaiting trial.  "The fight is
far from over," said Tricia C.K. Hoffler, an attorney at the Gary law
firm.  The plaintiffs believe the Company is still a hostile workplace
for African-Americans, Ms. Hoffler said.  "We are preparing for nothing
short of a flat, all-out war."


COLORADO: ACLU Sues Colorado Police For Keeping Files on Protesters
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed
a class action recently, challenging the Denver Police Department's
policy of keeping intelligence files on peaceful protesters, the
Associated Press reported.  The suit alleges, for example, that the
police have falsely labeled groups such as the Nobel Peace Prize-
winning American Friends Service Committee as "criminal extremist."

The lawsuit was filed in Denver District Court on behalf of 3,200
people and 208 organizations included in surveillance files that police
have acknowledged, the ACLU said.

Police have said that they keep records on nonviolent groups because
demonstrations sometimes turn violent.  Mayor Wellington Webb and
police officials have conceded that at least some of the files may
violate department policies.  The lawsuit asks that the police
department be ordered to stop the practice and be prohibited from
collecting, maintaining or sharing information on peaceful protesters
or groups.  It asks that the subjects of surveillance files be
permitted to review them, and the files then be destroyed.

Andrew Hudson, a spokesman for Mayor Webb, said that the city of Denver
has asked the ACLU to give it time to address the problem.  "We have
taken their concerns seriously in the past, and we are working on it,"
said Mr. Hudson.

Mayor Webb has appointed a three-judge panel to ensure surveillance
files are kept only of criminal organizations or people who pose a
threat to public safety.  The files detail such events as protests of a
killing by a police SWAT team that went to the wrong house, protests
against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and
demonstrations against alleged civil rights violations in Mexico.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Faces Suit For Breach of Contract in NY Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison of New York faces a class action pending in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, against it
and six of its employees seeking US$300 million in damages and alleging
breach of contract and torts.

Lead plaintiff Ronel Bennett performed work for the company at its
former Ravenswood generating station from September 1996 through
sometime in Spring 1997.  The plaintiffs claim that the Company:

     (1) failed to maintain a safe working environment;

     (2) misrepresented conditions;

     (3) failed to disclose information about hazardous and toxic
         substances;

     (4) violated federal and New York laws regarding hazardous
         substances; and

     (5) retaliated against the plaintiffs

The Company denied the allegations and expressed confidence that the
suit will not have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition, results of operation or liquidity.


CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN: Voluntarily Recalls Water Coolers For Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Mountain Water Cooler Corporation is cooperating with the US
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling
about 12,000 hot & cold water coolers, eighty percent of which were
sold in the United States. The hot & cold water dispenser's heater band
can short circuit, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

The Company has received about 20 reports of the water cooler's
insulation smoking or igniting the unit. Damages ranged from minor
smoke and fire damage up to $200,000 in property damage.

The Hot & Cold Water Dispenser is an upright water dispenser, with two
faucets. One faucet has a red lever and one faucet has a blue lever.  
The unit stands at 35 5/8 inches-high (98.1 square centimeters), weighs
36.43 pounds (16.56 kilograms) and has a base area of 120.5 square
inches (777.41 square centimeters). To determine if the water dispenser
is subject to this recall, the serial number plate is located on the
back at the top of the water dispenser.

Only water coolers with serial numbers between 1199125 and 1100175 are
included in the recall. The third and fourth digits of the serial
number represent the year of production.

The Company and its distributors sold these water coolers in the US and
Canada from May 1999 through July 2000 for about $300.  

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 678-4886
anytime to receive repair information.


DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls 55,000 Circular Saws For Injury Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DeWALT Industrial Tool Company is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 55,000
heavy-duty, lightweight circular saws.  The spindle on the saw may
slip, causing the blade to contact the lower guard, posing a hazard to
the consumer from an exposed blade.  The Company received one report of
the blade slipping.  A consumer received minor scratches to his hand
after his spindle slipped.

The recall involves 7 1/4-inch circular saws with the model numbers
DW368, DW368K, or DW369CSK.  The model number is located on a black
label near the handle of the saw, or on a yellow sticker attached to
the carrying case.  The saws have date codes 200128-F through 200152-F
stamped on the bottom of the motor case.  The housing is yellow and the
word "DeWALT" is printed on the upper blade guard.

Home centers and hardware stores nationwide sold the circular saws
from July 2001 through December 2001 for between $120 and $135.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 839-3559
between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.DeWALT.com.


FUNERAL HOMES: Four Cases Surface Over Unauthorized Embalming in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Four other cases of bodies being embalmed without consent surfaced
after a lawsuit was filed against Levitt-Weinstein Funeral Chapels and
Lynn University last week by a Broward County man who claimed the body
of his wife was diverted to the university without authorization,
Associated Press reports.

A review of the records of Lynn University, a university that trains
mortuary students, revealed that two other people were embalmed without
their families consent, Ruth Field of Bal Harbor and Thomas Marnin of
Miami.

The Florida Sun-Sentinel also reported two other cases.  Joyce Shays of
Hollywood learned for the first time Wednesday that the body of her
husband, Everett Shays Jr., had been sent to the University for
embalming in February 2001 before being cremated. Mrs. Shays had
thought that her husband's body had gone directly from the hospital,
where he died, to a crematorium.

The body of Edwin Hamza was also taken to Lynn University without the
permission of Henry Scurry Sr., owner of Scurry Funeral Home in Fort
Lauderdale.  University records revealed that Mr. Hamza was embalmed at
the school November 28.

Mr. Scurry and Levitt Weinstein pointed to Professional Transport
Systems, a Fort Lauderdale-based company, and owner Joseph Damiano for
taking the bodies for embalming without consent.  Mr. Damiano allegedly
told investigators that he had a written agreement with a Levitt-
Weinstein employee, allowing him to ship the bodies to the University.
Also, he stated that he had a verbal agreement with Joseph Quinn and
Marcella Piasecki, assistant professors in Lynn's Funeral Service
Education program, to provide bodies, the Sun-Sentinel reports.

Levitt-Weinstein has denied the existence of any agreement, while Lynn
University said it "acted in good faith and that the transport agent
was providing the University with bodies authorized to be embalmed,"
according a statement released Wednesday.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Registered Nurses Commence Wage Suit In CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare (NYSE: THC) faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County by the United
Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals
(UNAC/UHCP) on behalf of all the Company's resident nurses (RNs) in
Southern California.

The suit claims that the Company has engaged in systematic
understaffing of RNs throughout Southern California, and failed to pay
them for legally protected work breaks.

"Tenet Healthcare has RN staffing shortages throughout Southern
California. As a result, many RNs are forced to work through their
breaks to provide desperately needed patient care without getting paid.
The plaintiffs believe its wrong for Tenet Healthcare to steal from
frontline nurses and harm patient care," Sonia Moseley, Executive Vice-
President of UNAC/UHCP said in a statement.

The suit alleges that the Company is violating California's Unfair
Competition Law and California Labor Code's wage and hours regulations.  
In an unusual request of the court, the RNs are asking for injunctive
relief which would if granted force Tenet Healthcare to provide
adequate nursing staff for RNs to take lunches and breaks.  The RNs
believe the lawsuit will force the Company to operate their hospitals
in accordance with California law and will help protect patients

For more information, contact David Miller, Senior Strategic Analyst of
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees by Phone:
202-429-1000 or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.afscme.org


TIME WARNER: Court To Decide On Punitive Damages in Six Flags Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Court of Appeals has yet to decide on punitive damages in
the class action filed against Time Warner Entertainment Company LP
charging the Company of breach of fiduciary duty relating to its
operation of the Six Flags Over Georgia theme park.  

Following a trial in December 1998, a Georgia jury returned a verdict
for plaintiffs and against the Company on plaintiffs' claims for
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The jury awarded plaintiffs approximately
$197 million in compensatory damages and $257 million in punitive
damages, and interest began accruing on those amounts at the Georgia
annual statutory rate of twelve percent. The Company paid the
compensatory damages with accrued interest during the first quarter of
2001.

Payment of the punitive damages portion of the award with accrued over
interest was stayed by the United States Supreme Court on March 1, 2001
pending the disposition of a certiorari petition with that court, which
was filed by the Company on June 15, 2001.

On October 1, 2001, the United States Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition, vacated the decision by the Georgia Court of
Appeals affirming the punitive damages award, and remanded the matter
to the Georgia Court of Appeals for further consideration. The matter
remains pending in the appeals court and a decision is expected later
in 2002.


TOBACCO COMPANIES: Judge Grants Certification To Tobacco Farmers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge William Osteen granted class action status to a lawsuit
filed by farmers from six states, charging several tobacco companies
with conspiring to set prices they offered to US growers for their
tobacco, the Associated Press reports.

The suit was commenced in 2000 on behalf of farmers from North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the companies rigged the government-sponsored
auction system of auctions to keep prices low.  The alleged agreements
among the companies are illegal under federal law.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) RJ Reynolds,

     (2) Philip Morris,

     (3) Lorillard Tobacco Company,

     (4) Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation,

     (5) Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.,

     (6) JP Taylor Co.,

     (7) Southwestern Tobacco Co.,

     (8) Dimon Inc. and

     (9) Standard Commercial Corp.

The ruling means that the suit could now include 500,000 growers.  "I'm
as happy as I've ever been in my life," Lamar DeLoach of Statesboro,
Ga., a tobacco farmer and president of the 500-member Georgia Tobacco
Growers Association told Associated Press. "Tobacco farmers are really
pretty well on their last leg."

The Companies have denied the allegations. Senior Counsel for RJ
Reynolds Darryl Marsch states, "Judge Osteen's ruling is disappointing,
but not surprising.In cases where price fixing is alleged, courts
typically initially certify the class. But as this case proceeds, we
believe the facts will clearly show that this class should be
decertified."


TYSON FOODS: Sued For Hiring Illegal Immigrants as Factory Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Four former employees of Tyson Foods, Inc. filed a class action against
the meat processing company, charging it of hiring illegal immigrants
to depress workers' wages, the Associated Press reported.  The suit
alleges the Company of relying on temporary employment services and
recruiters who were paid for every illegal immigrant they hired.

"The civil action is going to compensate the innocents who have been
devastated by the illegal hiring scheme," John McMahan, attorney for
one of the plaintiffs told the AP.  "It's the only way to hold Tyson
accountable."

The Company and six of its former managers are already facing a federal
indictment accusing them of conspiring to smuggle illegal immigrants to
work at 15 plants.  The Company said the government's case involves a
"few managers who were acting outside of company policy."  One
executive said the indictment followed the Company's refusal to pay the
government a $100 million penalty.

Company spokesman Ed Nicholson declined comment on the lawsuit.


WYETH INC.: Faces Suit Over Damages Brought By PPA Containing Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries face a class action relating to
a number of cold, cough and sinus products that it manufactured, which
contained the drug phenylpropanolamine (PPA).  

PPA has been linked to hemorrhagic strokes and other serious medical
side effects, and was widely used in nasal decongestants, in
prescription and non-prescription cough, cold, sinus and other
combination allergy medications. Health Canada issued an Advisory on
November 6, 2000 concerning the drug's reported association with
hemorrhagic stroke. The Advisory recommended that consumers not use any
products containing PPA.

The claim alleges:

     (1) consumers who purchased and ingested products with PPA were
         unaware that the drug was unsafe;

     (2) the losses they have incurred extend beyond the purchase price
         of PPA products;

     (3) many consumers have and will continue to face health problems
         associated with the ingestion of PPA, due to the inadequate
         warning and inadequate withdrawal program instituted as a
         result of Health Canada's November 6th, 2000 Advisory.

The claim also alleges that the Company's conduct constitutes
negligence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and unfair business practices.  Kirk Baert of the Toronto law
firm Koskie Minsky says, "The case raises very serious issues regarding
the conduct of Wyeth."

For further information, contact Kirk Baert by Phone: 416-977-8353


*Reparations Advocates Demand Cure For Continued Effects of Slavery
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For African-Americans, "the wounds of slavery have never completely
healed," according to the San Jose Mercury News in a recent article.  
The institution was outlawed, but its effects linger amid a community
that still struggles to attain full equality in income, education,
health care, home ownership and employment.

For many white Americans, slavery was a sad chapter that closed 14
decades ago, only to be reviewed during one week in the 1970s when
"Roots" aired on TV.  Now, leading African-American lawyers and
scholars hope to reopen the chapter to help close the wound.

In a class action filed in late March, and in similar lawsuits expected
to be filed this summer, black lawyers, historians and civil rights
activists intend to prod all Americans to come to terms, once and for
all, with slavery's legacy.

In the recently filed lawsuit, Deadria Farmer-Paellmann seeks damages,
on behalf of slave descendants, from three companies; FleetBoston
Financial, a large bank; CSX, a freight-rail company; and Aetna, the
insurance firm. All are alleged to have profited, directly or
indirectly, from slavery.  This case is but a prelude, writes the San
Jose Mercury News, to a lawsuit against the United States itself, in an
attempt not only to gain reparations for slaves' descendants, but
perhaps more critically, to set history straight.

It is time, advocates argue, to draw a line from the treatment of
slaves between 1619 and 1865 to the continued problems of their
progeny.  Perhaps then, they say, the remaining vestiges of
discrimination will begin to disappear and opportunities for African-
Americans will grow.

Even supporters of the lawsuits concede that getting courts to order
payment of reparations to millions of slaves' descendants is a long
shot.  However, it is conceivable to win in the court of public
opinion, and even to shame the corporations and the government into
establishing trust funds that would support African-American programs
in such fields as education and health care, creating an entirely
different form of reparations.

Advocates believe that out of these lawsuits there could come some
symbolic victories as well, some sort of national atonement for the
ills of the past, and a greater understanding of history by more
Americans.  They believe the lawsuits might also bring significant
steps to close the opportunity gaps that they believe have prevented
African-Americans from gaining equality in any number of arenas.

"Most people mistakenly think that slavery, Jim Crow and discrimination
are distant history with no powerful role in explaining the problems we
face today," said Christopher Edley, a Harvard law professor and co-
director of the Harvard Civil Rights Project and a member of the US
Commission on Civil Rights.  "A discussion of reparations may be a
strategy for educating so that people can understand that we are not
healed yet," he said.

For example, said Professor Edley, "I think the 8-to-1 disparity in
median family wealth between whites and blacks is a very concrete
measure of the inherited legacy of slavery, Jim Crow and
discrimination.  People who think that problems were solved with Brown
v. Board of Education or the 1964 Civil Rights Act deeply misunderstand
the continuing hold that history has on our lives."

Ron Walters, University of Maryland political scientist and director of
the African American Leadership Institute, sees a national debate on
reparations as a way to puncture what he calls the "Mount Rushmore
myth."  "We have this thing in our heads about who made America," said
Mr. Walters.  "Blacks built the Capitol and forged the icon on top of
it.  That aspect of America as a slave state has been lost."

"Stereotypes of African-Americans as lazy and unmotivated are rooted in
a false notion that they have not contributed to America's
development," Mr. Walters added.

That, in turn, has led to an "inner wound" within the black community,
which Mr. Walters believes could be addressed by a national
conversation on race.  "The change of attitudes is not only for whites
but also blacks," he said.  "Self-hatred, inferiorization, which is now
part of the culture, a lot of black-on-black crime, has to do with a
loss of respect."

The notions of reparations has been around for decades, but has gained
momentum in recent years, in part because of legal victories on behalf
of two other groups; Holocaust victims and their families, and
Japanese-Americans interned during World War II.

Famed black historian and author, John Hope Franklin, who chaired
former President Bill Clinton's advisory board on race, has had his own
trials as a black man.  He recalled how his father was a victim of the
1921 Tulsa riots and how he himself was denied entry into the
University of Oklahoma in the 1930s.

"Now you multiply that a hundred thousand times, including all the free
labor that blacks have given this country, building capital, buildings,
all the fortunes that were accumulated.  What did they get?  Nothing,
nothing," Mr. Franklin said in a telephone interview from his Durham,
North Carolina home.  "This country has got to face that at some point.
The sooner they face it, the better."

Not all African-Americans agree.  Ward Connerly, who runs the
conservative American Civil Rights Institute and has battled
affirmative action as a University of California regent, said he
considers the fight for reparations a waste of time.

"I can't understand how a court would rule X number of decades later
and three generations later that I, whose great-grandmother was born a
slave, am somehow entitled to some sort of compensation from my
government or some sort of compensation from a corporation.  One, I
could not prove that I am a descendant of  a slave and, two, I have not
been personally disadvantaged by it," said Mr. Connerly.

Many civil rights leaders contend that today's discrimination, along
with all its side effects, stems from yesterday's slavery, and the time
has come to mend the damage that has spanned the life of a nation.

                         Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull and Brody initiates a securities class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased the securities of Adelphia Communications
Corporation (NASDAQ: ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania against the Company, Timothy Rigas and John J. Rigas.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by issuing materially false and
misleading statements and omitting material information regarding the
Company and its business operations.

For example, as alleged in the suit, defendants concealed borrowings
and understated the Company's debt levels and failed to adequately
disclose the existence of billions of dollars of off-balance sheet
debt.  Upon disclosure of these risks, the Company's stock declined
from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12 per share on April
1, 2002.

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


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf all persons who acquired Adelphia Communications Corporation
(NASDAQ: ADLAC) securities between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002 in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against the Company and:

     (1) Timothy Rigas, CFO, and

     (2) 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 during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities.

The suit 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. 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 the Company 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 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 Company debt securities also
materially declined.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: ADLAC@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com.


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Adelphia Communications
Corporation (Nasdaq: ADLAC) publicly traded securities during the
period between April 2, 2001 and 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 suit alleges false and
misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition.

The suit alleges that, throughout the class period, the Company failed
to disclose billions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt.  As alleged
in the suit, 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. 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 a party.

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

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
1-888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.classlawyer.com


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barrow LLP expanded the class period in the securities
suit filed against Adelphia Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: ADLAC)
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging the Company misled shareholders about its
business and financial condition.  

The suit now asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all investors who
bought the Company's securities between March 30, 2000 and April 1,
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 Company failed to disclose billions of
dollars of off-balance sheet debt.

As alleged in the suit, 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 the Company 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 Company 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 610-822-2221 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


ANDRX CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired Andrx Corporation (NASDAQ: ADRX)
securities between April 30, 2001 and February 21, 2002, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

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 issue" concerning the generic Tiazac, the Company's stock
price dropped from $42.61 per share on February 21, 2002 to $34.96 per
share on February 22, 2002, on volume of 15,767,100, over seven times
the prior day's volume.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: ADRX@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com


CALPINE CORPORATION: Leo Desmond Initiates Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond commenced a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Calpine Corporation (NYSE:CPN)
securities between January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company, Ann B. Curtis and Peter Cartwright.

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

For more details, contact Leo W. Desmond by Phone: 888-337-6663,
561-712-8000 by E-Mail:  Info@SecuritiesAttorney.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.SecuritiesAttorney.com


ENTRUST INC.: Moves To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit in E.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrust, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas to dismiss the amended securities class action filed
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock during the period from October 19, 1999 through July 3,
2000

The suit alleges that the defendants misrepresented and failed to
disclose certain information about its business and prospects, thus
violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The court initially dismissed the first suit in July 2001, but granted
plaintiffs 30 days leave to file an amended complaint.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in August 2001, and on September 21, 2001,
the Company moved to dismiss the amended suit.  The court has not yet
ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss.  There has been no discovery
to date, and no trial date has been established.

The Company believes this class action is without merit and intends to
deny all material allegations and to defend itself vigorously. An
adverse judgment or settlement in this lawsuit could have a significant
adverse impact on its future financial condition or results of
operations.


FOCAL COMMUNICATIONS: Underwriter-Related Securities Suit Filed in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Focal Communications Corporation vehemently denies allegations in a
securities class action pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, alleging federal securities
violations.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Robert C. Taylor, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
         Officer and Director,

     (2) John R. Barnicle, President, Chief Operating Officer and
         Director,

     (3) Joseph A. Beatty, former Executive Vice President and Chief
          Financial Officer,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (5) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (6) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (7) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,

     (8) Salomon Smith Barney Holdings, Inc., and

     (9) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC


The suit i alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit alleges
that defendants issued and sold the Company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement for the Company's 1999 initial public
offering (IPO) without disclosing to investors that certain
underwriters in the offering had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The suit also alleges that the registration statement for the IPO
failed to disclose that the underwriters allocated Company shares in
the IPO to customers in exchange for the customers' promises to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices
above the IPO price, thereby maintaining, distorting and/or inflating
the market price for the shares in the aftermarket.

The action is being coordinated with over three hundred other nearly
identical actions filed against other companies. No date has been set
for any response to the complaint. The Company is not aware of any
wrongdoing on its part or on the part of the individual defendants, and
no specific facts have been alleged that demonstrate any such
wrongdoing.  The Company intends to vigorously to defend the action.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Denies Allegations in Securities Suits in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. says it has fully complied with
federal securities laws in response to securities class actions
commenced this week in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The company disclosed in a filing with the SEC earlier this week that
nearly $80 million in sales last year were either barter exchanges or
future revenues that depended on a favorable ruling in a court case
that had yet to be decided, according to a Reuters report.  The
disclosure alarmed Wall Street analysts and investors who have become
increasingly wary of corporate accounting practices following the
collapse of energy trader Enron Corporation.

The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly
traded securities during the period between August 11, 1999 and April
1, 2002, charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint
alleges that during the class period, defendants caused the Company's
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements.

The Company said in a press statement that it will vigorously oppose
the suits.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. (Nasdaq: GMST) publicly traded securities during the period
between August 11, 1999 and April 1, 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 during the class period, defendants caused the Company's
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements.

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed its 10-K, which stated in part,
"During 1997 through 1999, Scientific-Atlanta was under a license
agreement with the Company for the incorporation of interactive program
guides into Scientific-Atlanta set-top boxes. The license expired on
July 23, 1999, however, Scientific-Atlanta continued to ship set-top
boxes incorporating IPGs, which are the same or similar to the products
shipped during the term of the agreement. The Company instituted legal
proceedings in federal district court to recover damages, which are
probable, based upon the factors described above, to include revenues
commensurate with the licensing fees under the expired agreement. The
Company has accrued an aggregate of $107.6 million ($58.9 million,
$36.5 million and $12.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2001,
the nine months ended December 31, 2000 and for the period of July 23,
1999 through March 31, 2000, respectively) in license fees from
Scientific-Atlanta."

The 10-K also provides in relevant part, "In April 2001, the Company
entered into a non-monetary transaction with an unrelated company in
which $20.8 million of intellectual property was acquired in exchange
for $740,000 in cash and advertising having a fair value of $20
million. In addition, the Company received an option to acquire the
company in the event that certain performance criteria were met in each
of the following two years. The Company determined the fair value of
the advertising consideration, all of which was recognized during 2001
as the advertising was aired, based on cash transactions for similar
advertising sold to other parties."  The stock dropped below $9 per
share on this news.

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


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Gemstar-TV Guide
International, Inc. (Nasdaq:GMST) from August 11, 1999 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 suit alleges that on April
1, 2002, the Company filed its 10-K, which stated in part, "During 1997
through 1999, Scientific-Atlanta was under a license agreement with the
Company for the incorporation of interactive program guides into
Scientific-Atlanta set-top boxes. The license expired on July 23, 1999,
however, Scientific-Atlanta continued to ship set-top boxes
incorporating IPGs, which are the same or similar to the products
shipped during the term of the agreement. The Company instituted legal
proceedings in federal district court to recover damages, which are
probable, based upon the factors described above, to include revenues
commensurate with the licensing fees under the expired agreement. The
Company has accrued an aggregate of $107.6 million ($58.9 million,
$36.5 million and $12.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2001,
the nine months ended December 31, 2000 and for the period from July
23, 1999 through March 31, 2000, respectively) in license fees from
Scientific-Atlanta."

The 10-K also provides in relevant part, "In April 2001, the Company
entered into a non-monetary transaction with an unrelated company in
which $20.8 million of intellectual property was acquired in exchange
for $750,000 in cash and advertising having a fair value of $20
million. In addition, the Company received an option to acquire the
company in the event that certain performance criteria were met in each
of the following two years. The Company determined the fair value of
the advertising consideration, all of which was recognized during 2001
as the advertising was aired, based on cash transactions for similar
advertising sold to other parties."  The stock dropped below $9 per
share on this news.

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


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Robbins Umeda Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Gemstar-TV Guide
International, Inc. (Nasdaq:GMST) between August 11, 1999 and April 1,
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 defendants caused the Company's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading financial statements.

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed its 10--K, which stated in part,
"During 1997 through 1999, Scientific-Atlanta was under a license
agreement with the Company for the incorporation of interactive program
guides into Scientific-Atlanta set-top boxes. The license expired on
July 23, 1999, however, Scientific-Atlanta continued to ship set-top
boxes incorporating IPGs, which are the same or similar to the products
shipped during the term of the agreement. The Company instituted legal
proceedings in federal district court to recover damages, which are
probable, based upon the factors described above, to include revenues
commensurate with the licensing fees under the expired agreement. The
Company has accrued an aggregate of $107.6 million ($58.9 million,
$36.5 million and $12.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2001,
the nine months ended December 31, 2000 and for the period from July
23, 1999 through March 31, 2000, respectively) in license fees from
Scientific-Atlanta."

The 10--K also provides in relevant part, "In April 2001, the Company
entered into a non-monetary transaction with an unrelated company in
which $20.8 million of intellectual property was acquired in exchange
for $750,000 in cash and advertising having a fair value of $20
million. In addition, the Company received an option to acquire the
company in the event that certain performance criteria were met in each
of the following two years. The Company determined the fair value of
the advertising consideration, all of which was recognized during 2001
as the advertising was aired, based on cash transactions for similar
advertising sold to other parties."

The stock dropped below $9 per share on this news.

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


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Weiss Yourman Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman commenced a securities class action in United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (Nasdaq: GMST)
common stock between May 14, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, and certain of its officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
misrepresenting the Company's quarterly financial results in press
releases, statements to analysts and filings with the SEC in an effort
to foster the illusion that earnings growth was in line with analysts'
estimates.

Specifically, in contravention to generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP), defendants materially misrepresented the Company's
Fiscal 2001 financial results by failing to disclose that $20.8 million
of the Company's $101 million in Interactive group sales came from a
barter exchange of intellectual property with Fantasy Sports and that
$58.9 million of its $327 million Technology and Licensing segment
revenue for 2001 was related to accruals based on Scientific-Atlanta
Inc. (SFA) set-top box shipments that would only be realized upon a
successful ruling in a civil suit in Georgia federal court.

The suit alleges that as a result of the defendants' conduct, plaintiff
and other members of the class suffered damages by purchasing the stock
at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman, Los Angeles by Phone:
800-437-7918 by E-mail: wyinfo@wyca.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.wyca.com


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper, LLP initiated a securities class action against Gemstar
TV-Guide International, Inc. (NASD:GMST) and certain of its senior
officers in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock from August 11, 1999 through April
1, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company's financial results were artificially
inflated by the improper recognition of $107.6 million in revenue which
the Company hoped to collect in litigation pending against Scientific-
Atlanta, Inc. (SFA).  

The collection of such revenue was by no means assured and is entirely
contingent on the Company securing a complete victory in pending
litigation against SFA. Defendants, by virtue of their improper
recognition of that revenue, caused the Company's common stock to trade
at inflated prices.

The facts concerning the Company's revenue and income were revealed in
its annual report filed with the SEC on April 1, 2002, which disclosed
that the Company had improperly recorded over $100 million in revenue
associated with the SFA litigation. As a result of this disclosure,
Company shares declined over 33% from their April 1, 2002 closing price
of $14.36 per share, closing at $9.60 per share on April 3, 2002.

For more information, contact Robert C. Finkel, James A. Harrod or
Abigail Kowaloff by Mail: 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-6689 by
Phone: 212-759-4600 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-Mail:
IRRep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


INFOSPACE INC.: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. WA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Infospace, Inc.
filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, consolidating the suits and adding the
Company's chief financial officer as defendant.

The suits were commenced in June 2001 initially against the Company and
its chief executive officer, charging them with making false and
misleading statements about the Company's business and prospects during
the period between January 26, 2000 and January 30, 2001, in violation
of federal securities laws.

The court ordered the suits consolidated, and the plaintiffs filed the
amended consolidated suit on January 22, 2002.  The Company believes it
has meritorious defenses to these claims but cannot give an assurance
that the Company will prevail in this matter.


INFOSPACE INC.: Asks For Dismissal of WA Suit Over Go2Net, Prio Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Infospace, Inc. asked the Superior Court of Washington for King County
to dismiss a shareholder derivative suit filed against current and
former officers and directors of the Company and entities related to a
few of the individual defendants, in connection with the mergers of
subsidiaries Go2Net and Prio, Inc.  The Company is named as a nominal
defendant.

The suit alleges that certain defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company and were unjustly enriched by engaging in insider
trading, and also alleges that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the mergers and that one defendant
converted the Company's assets to his personal use

The special litigation committee of the Company's Board of Directors,
with the assistance of independent legal counsel, has investigated the
complaint, and filed on March 22, 2002 a motion to terminate this suit.


JDS UNIPHASE: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who acquired JDS Uniphase Corp. (NASDAQ: JDSU)
securities between July 27, 1999 and July 26, 2001, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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 it could
make acquisitions using stock and so the individual defendants, who are
the top officers and directors of the Company, 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 and that the Company
had 80 engineers whose job it was to monitor customers and their
inventory levels and as a result, it 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.

On July 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, more than 94% lower than the
class period high of $146.32.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder
Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: 800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: JDSU@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com.  


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in NJ
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Measurement Specialties, Inc. (Amex:
MSS) from August 1, 2001 through February 14, 2002, inclusive,
including all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock pursuant, or traceable to, a public
offering, which became effective on or about August 1, 2001.

The suit 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 the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
August 1, 2001 offering misrepresented and omitted material facts
concerning the Company's financial results.

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

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


MGM MIRAGE: NV Court Dismisses Suit Over Boardwalk Hotel Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Clark County Nevada dismissed the
securities class action charging MGM Mirage and certain former
directors and principal stockholders of its subsidiary, which owns and
operates Boardwalk Hotel and Casino, with violations of federal
securities laws.

The suit was commenced in September 1999 by a former stockholder of the
Company's Boardwalk subsidiary alleged that the Company induced the
other defendants to breach their fiduciary duties to Boardwalk's
minority stockholders by devising and implementing a scheme by which
the Company acquired Boardwalk at significantly less than the true
value of its shares.

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the suit for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the ruling to the Nevada Supreme Court. The parties filed
briefs with the Nevada Supreme Court, and oral arguments were conducted
in October 2001.  The Company expects that the Nevada Supreme Court
will issue its opinion sometime in 2002.  The Company is confident that
the outcome of this suit will not have a material adverse effect on its
operations or financial position.


NRG ENERGY: Shareholders File Suit Over Xcel Energy Merger in DE, MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action in the
Delaware Chancery Court relating to its proposed merger with Xcel
Energy, where Xcel offered to exchange their common stock for the
Company's shares.

The suit alleges violations of fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and
candor by the defendants in connection with the offer and merger.  The
suit also asserts that the merger is being undertaken in an unfair and
coercive manner, at an unfairly low price using inside information and
with inadequate disclosure, all in furtherance of the interests of Xcel
Energy at the expense of the Company's public stockholders.  The suit
names as defendants the Company, Xcel Energy and the nine members of
NRG's Board of Directors.

More specifically, the consolidated suit alleges that:

     (1) the defendants are engaged in an improper plan or scheme to
         benefit Xcel Energy at the expense of NRG's minority
         stockholders;

     (2) the defendants are engaged in self-dealing and are not acting
         in good faith toward, or dealing fairly with, NRG's minority
         stockholders;

     (3) the defendants have clear and material conflicts of interest,
         and have not taken adequate measures to protect the interests
         of NRG's minority stockholders by launching the offer without
         negotiating with, and before receiving a recommendation from,
         NRG's special committee of independent directors;

     (4) the defendants have used their access to internal financial
         information about NRG, its true value, expected increase in
         its value, and the benefits of 100% ownership of NRG, for
         their own benefit and to the detriment of NRG's minority
         stockholders, who are not privy to that information;

     (5) the defendants timed the offer and the subsequent merger to
         take advantage of a depressed price for NRG stock and to place
         an artificial lid or cap on that price, in order to justify an
         unreasonably low price to NRG's minority stockholders, which
         does not reflect NRG's intrinsic value, its progress or its
         future value, and represents an inadequate premium;

     (6) the defendants are using our control of NRG to force NRG
         stockholders to sell their common stock at an unfair price
         that is dictated by them;

     (7) as a result of the defendants' stock ownership of NRG shares
         and representation on NRG's board, no third party will likely
         make a competing bid for NRG, and there is no opportunity for
         an auction or other type of market check;

     (8) the documents provided to NRG's minority stockholders,
         including the registration statement, are materially false and
         misleading and fail to provide the information necessary for
         the minority stockholders to assess the proposed transaction;

     (9) the defendants have created a false image that NRG is in
         imminent danger of having its credit downgraded and failed to
         disclose that other financing is available to NRG; and

    (10) the defendants failed to disclose all material facts in
         connection with the offer and the subsequent merger, including
         but not limited to, misrepresenting the value of NRG and the
         exchange ratio; failing to disclose the grounds and
         justification for the proposed exchange ratio; failing to
         disclose a fairness assessment and supporting details; and
         failing to disclose the analysis and conclusions of its
         financial advisor.

Acting on a motion filed by plaintiffs, the court set a hearing for
April 8, 2002, to consider plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction, and has allowed discovery to go forward on an expedited
basis in advance of that hearing.

A similar class action challenging the transaction was filed in a
Minnesota state court by an NRG stockholder against Xcel Energy, NRG
and seven of the nine NRG directors (excluding two of our present
officers), advancing essentially the same charges of breach of
fiduciary duty, unfairness and use of superior knowledge in furtherance
of the interests of Xcel Energy at the expense of public stockholders
of NRG, and characterizing the activities of the special committee and
its advisers as a sham.  The defendants removed this action from the
Minnesota state court to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, and subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint.

The Company believes that there are both factual and legal defenses
available for all the above-mentioned actions and intends to pursue
them actively.


STORAGE USA: Preliminary Injunction Hearing Over Suit Set For June 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs in the class
action against Storage USA, Inc. has been set by for June 5,2002.  The
suit relates to the sale of the Company's assets to Security Capital
Group, Inc. and also names as defendants:

     (1) SUSA Partnership LP, the Company's operating partnership,
         and

     (2) Security Capital Group, Inc.

The suit was commenced on March 12, 2002, on behalf of all limited
partners of the operating partnership and on behalf of a subclass of
those limited partners who are parties to tax deferral agreements with
the operating partnership. The complaint purports to state causes of
action against some or all of the defendants for:

     (i) breach of fiduciary duty,

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

   (iii) breach of the existing partnership agreement and

    (iv) breach of the tax deferral agreements, and against Security
         Capital for interference with contractual relations and
         interference with economic advantages.

The suit alleges these causes of action on the grounds that, among
other things, the vote of the minority limited partners is not being
sought for the transactions, the limited partners are not being offered
appraisal rights in the transactions, the special committee did not
contain any limited partners or representatives of the limited
partners, and the ownership of both general and limited partnership
interests by Storage USA amounts to a conflict of interest.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmeta Corporation intends to ask the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
amended securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock from November 2000 to July 19,2001.

The suit arose from several class actions filed against the Company,
its directors, and certain of its officers in the United States
District Courts for the Northern District of California and the
Southern District of New York.  The suits were later consolidated into
a single action in California federal court.

The consolidated amended suit alleges various violations of federal
securities law, including violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain defendants made
materially misleading statements or material omissions in various
contexts, including the registration statement and prospectus for the
initial public offering of the Company's common stock on November 7,
2000.

On January 17, 2002, the Company asked the court to dismiss the first
amended suit, and on March 5, 2002, the court granted in part and
denied in part the motion and directed plaintiffs to file an amended
pleading by March 22, 2002.  The plaintiffs complied by filing their
second amended suit.

The Company believes that the allegations in the second amended suit
and the antecedent complaints are without merit and intends to defend
the consolidated action vigorously.  Based upon information presently
known to management, the Company does not believe that the ultimate
resolution of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its
business, including its financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Court Orders Filing of Amended Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara Superior Court ordered plaintiffs in the consolidated
shareholders derivative suit against certain directors and officers of
Transmeta Corporation to file an amended complaint by April 15,2002.

The suit was commenced in June 2001, relating to the federal securities
suits in California federal court.  The suit alleges that certain of
the individual defendants sold shares of the Company's common stock
while in possession of material inside information, purportedly in
breach of their fiduciary duties to the Company, and that the so-called
selling defendants were aided and abetted by the other individual
defendants.  The complaints also allege:

     (1) gross mismanagement,

     (2) waste of corporate assets, and

     (3) abuse of control

By a stipulated order dated January 8, 2002, the court ordered
plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint and ordered that
the defendants will have 45 days from the date of any such filing to
answer or otherwise respond.  Plaintiffs have propounded some limited
discovery, which has been stayed by the same January 8 stipulated order
until April 15, 2002.

The Company believes that the allegations in these purported derivative
actions are without merit and intends to challenge the complaints and
defend the actions vigorously.  Based upon information presently known
to management, the Company does not believe that the ultimate
resolution of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on its
business, including its financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.


TRW INC.: Faces Additional State Suits Over Failed Northrop Takeover
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TRW, Inc. faces four securities class actions on behalf of its
shareholders over the failed takeover of the Company by Northrop
Grumman, Inc.  Three suits were filed in Ohio State Court, Cuyahoga
County, while one suit was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The lawsuits allege that the Company's Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties by failing to adequately consider an offer to acquire
control of the Company by Northrop.  The suit seeks to force the board
to "adequately consider" the bid, saying the Company is ignoring its
duty to increase shareholder value.


WELLS REAL: Asks Georgia Court To Dismiss Part of Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Real Estate Fund I and its general partners asked the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division to dismiss part of the amended securities class action filed
on behalf of all of the Partnership's Class A Limited Partners.

The amended suit alleges, among other things, that:

     (1) the Amended and Restated Consent Solicitation Statement dated
         August 25, 2000 contained material misrepresentations or
         omissions of fact in violation of Rule 14a-3 promulgated under
         Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and

     (2) the defendants had breached the partnership agreement and
         breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs by
         reallocating capital accounts to artificially create positive
         capital accounts for the Class B Limited Partners and by
         holding net proceeds from the sale of the Partnership's
         properties that should be distributed to the Class A Limited
         Partners.

In addition to seeking any compensatory damages that might be suffered,
the plaintiffs sought an injunction against the defendants from:

     (i) issuing consent solicitations for proxies to disburse monies
         in breach of the partnership agreement;

    (ii) submitting any further consent solicitations for proxies that
         do not meet the requirements of Rule 14a-3;

   (iii) modifying the partnership agreement without the approval of
         100% of the Class A Limited Partners, and

    (iv) disbursing the proceeds from the sale of the Partnership's
         properties to Class B Limited Partners that rightfully should
         be distributed to the Class A Limited Partners.

In addition, the plaintiffs requested specific performance to require
the defendants to perform their obligations under the partnership
agreement and that an equitable accounting be made of the nature and
amount of net proceeds from the sale of the Partnership's properties
and the appropriate distribution and time for distribution of such
funds.

On March 13, 2002, the defendants answered the suit and moved to
dismiss count one of the suit on the basis that:

     (a) plaintiffs had failed to comply with the certain procedural
         requirements imposed on litigation of this type;

     (b) plaintiffs' claims under count one were time-barred because
         they were not filed within the applicable one-year statute of
         limitations period; and

     (c) plaintiffs' claims were moot due to the fact that the
         consent solicitation was withdrawn and terminated on January
         17, 2002.

In their answer, the defendants denied that they had breached the
partnership agreement or breached their fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs and opposed all relief sought under the suit.


                              *********


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  * * *