CAR_Public/020409.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Tuesday, April 9, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 69

                           Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Group Sues Over Care For "Grumpy Men Syndrome" Patients
ERIE INSURANCE: PA Court Certifies To Suit Over OEM Automobile Parts
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Suit Over Cable Tax Charges in KY
IVAX CORPORATION: Faces Suit For Shareholders Rights Plan in FL Court
LOUISIANA: Trial in Suit over 1983 I-12 Flooding Commences This Week

                        Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in PA
ART TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in MA Federal Court
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Cuts Compensation Offer To Enron Shareholders to $300M
AVICI SYSTEMS: Faces Suit For Securities Laws Violations in S.D. NY
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY

CAPTEC NET: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit Over Mergers in Delaware
CAPTEC NET: Shareholder Sues Alleging Securities Violations in N.D. CA
CBRE HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement in Securities Suits in DE, CA Courts
CORIO INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
EAGLE BUILDING: Fine Hatfield Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL

ENRON CORPORATION: Investors Sue Banks, Law Firms In Securities Suit
ENRON CORPORATION: Federal Judge Approves Independent Examiner In Suit
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Glancy Binkow Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HAWKER PACIFIC: Shareholders Sue Over Lufthansa Tender Offer in CA
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY

JDS UNIPHASE: Cohen Milstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
LUMENIS LTD.: Zwerling Schachter Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Suit in NJ
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
MEDI-HUT CO.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey

METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WA
PARTSBASE.COM: FL Court Certifies Suit For Securities Act Violations
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Suit in S.D. NY
UBS PAINEWEBBER: Faces Suit For Role in Enron's Collapse In Texas
                             
                           *********

AUSTRALIA: Group Sues Over Care For "Grumpy Men Syndrome" Patients
------------------------------------------------------------------
A men's health group in Perth, Australia, is suing the federal
government over its failure to subsidize hormone replacement treatment
for all men suffering Grumpy Men Syndrome (GMS), AAP News reported
recently.  A class action has been filed against the government
alleging sex and age discrimination, and the matter is due to continue
in federal court next week.

Well Men Centre coordinator and founder Linda Byart, who is
spearheading the court action, said the federal government is blatantly
discriminating against men by allowing only a fraction of sufferers
access to subsidies for hormone replacement therapy.  Ms. Byart said
that GMS, known technically as hypergonadism, is no laughing matter.  
"It is long-established, it is debilitating and it can have serious
consequences for men's health and lifestyle," Ms. Byart said.

Ms. Byart said the government provides $3 million in subsidies for the
treatment under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, but the blood tests
it uses to determine eligibility are inaccurate, meaning that very few
men qualify.  "On the other hand, the government spends more than $30
million annually on Hormone Replacement Therapy for women, and yet the
benefits for men and for women are almost exactly the same," Ms. Byart
said.  "There is a huge disparity in fairness in the approach to
treatment for men and women.  Men's virility and vitality is under
attack."

Symptoms include irritability, snappiness, fatigue, general aches and
pains, depression and loss of interest in sex.  Research has indicated
that more than a million Australian men suffer from the illness, most
unknowingly.

Ms. Byart observed that the women's vote has been far more important
for the last couple of decades, and that, therefore, women have got the
attention in matters of health.  Ms. Byart said the Well Men's Centre
in South Perth has more than 2,000 patients suffering from GMS, and the
syndrome was costing Australia greatly in terms of loss of
productivity.

"We have a culture here where men grin and bear it, where they put up
with things.  They are not supposed to be ill - they are supposed to
cope with things," Ms. Byart said.


ERIE INSURANCE: PA Court Certifies To Suit Over OEM Automobile Parts
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia County Judge John Herron granted class action status to a
class action against the Erie Insurance Group filed by its
policyholders over the quality of parts the insurer requires for
repairs to their automobiles, Associated Press reports.

The suit charges the Company with breach of contract, saying it
violated its own policy of repairing cars with "like kind and quality
parts."  The Company allegedly specified the use of "aftermarket" parts
or parts other than "original equipment manufacturer" products for
repairs.  The suit further contends that aftermarket parts are of
lesser quality than OEM parts. By not disclosing the use of non-OEM
parts, the suit said, "Erie (Insurance) diminishes the value of the
vehicle."

The Company denies any wrongdoing, saying it never issued such
directives. "We value our policyholders and we would not jeopardize
their safety," Company spokeswoman Karen Kraus Phillips told Associated
press.

The class certification allows policyholders in 11 states where the
Company does business, plus the District of Columbia to participate in
the suit.  The size of the class runs from 100,000 to 500,000 people
nationwide, according to court records.


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: To Settle Suit Over Cable Tax Charges in KY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Communications Kentucky reached an agreement in principle to
settle two class actions pending in two Kentucky state courts, alleging
that the Company's cable systems have improperly passed the state and
local property tax charges to customers.  The suits name the Company
and certain prior owners of the Kentucky systems, including affiliates
of AT&T Broadband, as defendants.

Such class actions are:

     (1) Alfred P. Sykes, Jr., Charles Pearl, Linda Pearl vs.
         InterMedia Partners of Kentucky, LP and TCI TKR of Jefferson
         County, Inc., filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court and
         consolidated with James F. Dooley vs. TCI TKR of Jefferson
         County and InterMedia Partners of Kentucky, LP, filed in
         Jefferson County Circuit Court, and

     (2) Charles Shaw and Loretta Shaw vs. TCI TKR of Northern
         Kentucky, Inc. TCI TKR of Southern Kentucky, Inc., TCI
         Cablevision of North Central Kentucky, Inc., TCI Cablevision
         of Kentucky, Inc. and InterMedia Partners of Kentucky, LP,
         filed in the Franklin County Circuit Court.

The settlement agreement is awaiting the execution of definitive
documentation and a determination of fairness by the respective
courts where these matters were filed.


IVAX CORPORATION: Faces Suit For Shareholders Rights Plan in FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivax Corporation faces a securities class action pending in the Circuit
Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between December 19,
1997 and the date of class certification.  The suit names the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors as
defendants.

The suit generally alleges that the Company's adoption of a shareholder
rights plan containing a provision that would limit the ability of
certain members who might be added to the Board of Directors following
a change of control to approve a decision to redeem the rights, which
is commonly known as a "dead hand" provision, is a violation of the
Florida Business Corporation Act and the Company's articles of
incorporation and by-laws.

On February 8, 2001, a motion for summary judgment was granted in the
Company's favor.  The court later denied the plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees.

The Company intends to vigorously defend each of the foregoing suits,
but their respective outcomes cannot be predicted.  Any of such
lawsuits, if determined adversely to the Company, could have a material
adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations.


LOUISIANA: Trial in Suit over 1983 I-12 Flooding Commences This Week
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action against the state of Louisiana charging its
Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) of negligence,
relating to the 1983 flooding of Interstate 12's crossing of the
Tangipahoa River, will resume this week, the Daily Star reports.

1,300 Louisiana residents filed the suit in 1984, after they lost their
properties in the flood that was one of the worst in state history.  
The suit alleges the DOTD improperly designed the interstate crossing
that that restricted the natural flood plain.

"I've been living with this thing for 19 years," plaintiffs' attorney
Byard "Peck" Edwards told the Daily Star. "I feel like my daughter's
graduating from high school finally."  He added that the state's
reckless attitude caused the flood and upset the lives of more than
1,000 people.  "It was 100 percent the carelessness and the I-don't-
give-a-damn attitude of the Department of Transportation that caused
this problem," he said. "There's no reason they should not have built
this bridge correctly."

The State Supreme Court has ruled that the DOTD was liable for damages.  
Prior to the ruling, the state maintained that the highway was
federally funded and therefore was the responsibility of the federal
government.

                            Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities, including
common stock and notes, of Adelphia Communications Corporation
(Nasdaq:ADLAC) between the period of January 19, 2001 through April 1,
2002.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of l934.  More specifically, the suit
alleges that defendants failed to disclose billions of dollars of off-
balance sheet debt. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company guaranteed
loans for certain entities controlled by the Rigas Family, the
Company's controlling shareholder, who used the money, in substantial
part, to purchase ADLAC 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 the Company and its outside
auditors additional time to review certain accounting matters relating
to co-borrowing credit facilities to which it 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.  On April 3, 2002, the Company announced
the SEC is conducting an informal investigation.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Diana Steele by Mail: 1100
New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
dsteele@cmht.com


ART TECHNOLOGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in MA Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities suit against Art
Technology Group, Inc. and certain of its officers, alleging violations
of federal securities laws.

The consolidated suits arose from seven cases, alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, which generally may subject issuers of
securities and persons controlling those issuers to civil liabilities
for fraudulent actions or defects in the public disclosure required by
securities laws.

Four of the cases were filed on various dates in October 2001 in the
United States District Court in Massachusetts, while three were
initially filed in the Central District of California on various dates
in August and September 2001. These three California actions were
consolidated and transferred to the District of Massachusetts in
November 2001.  In December 2001, the Court issued an order of
consolidation, in which it consolidated all actions filed against the
Company and appointed certain individuals as lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated action. It also appointed two law firms as co-lead
counsel, and a third law firm as liaison counsel.

Counsel for the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 1, 2002, and the Company's response is due April 15, 2002.  The
Company labeled the consolidated suit "without merit," and stated its
intention to defend the action vigorously.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Cuts Compensation Offer To Enron Shareholders to $300M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversial auditing firm Arthur Andersen LLP reduced its
compensation offer to shareholders affected by Enron's collapse to US$
300 million, as it hurried to meet a midnight deadline to reach a deal
or face a class action on Monday, the FT.com reported.

The suits were filed by Enron shareholders who lost millions in
retirement income and savings after the energy trader filed the
nation's largest bankruptcy last year.  Andersen was included in the
investigation, facing charges that it engaged in accounting fraud and
shredded documents vital to investigation.

Initially, the Company had offered shareholders US$750 million to avoid
being named as a defendant in the class actions.  However, the
beleaguered firm saw clients and subsidiaries seeking to distance
themselves from the Company after its federal indictment for its role
in the collapse.

The planned class action would consolidate some 60 suits from
shareholders and pension funds seeking compensation pertaining to the
demise of the energy trader, FT.com said.  About 10 banks are likely to
be named as targets for their part in Enron's complex financial
arrangements.

Lawyers for the shareholders have accepted that Andersen has a
substantially reduced ability to pay, the FT.com said, citing sources
close to the negotiations. On Friday afternoon there were still other
obstacles to a deal including a demand that Andersen co-operate with
the shareholder efforts to retrieve compensation from other groups.


AVICI SYSTEMS: Faces Suit For Securities Laws Violations in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Avici Systems, Inc. labeled "without merit" the securities class action
pending against it, its former officers and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suits allege, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional
shares of the Company's stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
receiving shares in the Company's IPO.  The lawsuits further claim that
these supposed underwriter practices should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement.

The Company asserts that the suits are part of the trend of filing
securities suits against companies who made their initial public
offerings in the past few years.  In a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Company says it "understands that various
other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action cases
against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO
underwriters in New York City, which along with the cases against
the Company have all been transferred to a single federal district
judge for purposes of coordinated case management."  The Company also
stated that it intends to defend the litigation vigorously.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has amended the securities
class action pending against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE: BMY) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
to include allegations that since early in 2001, the Company has been
inflating its earnings by offering wholesalers incentives to purchase
drugs beyond their sales expectations.

After the market closed on April 3, 2002, the Company was compelled to
disclose that earnings for the first quarter of 2002 would be between
25 and 30 percent below last year's levels as a result of these
practices. This resulted in a 15% drop in the price of the Company's
stock on April 4, 2002.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making itself, and allowing its drug development partner to make,
without correction, materially false and misleading statements about
the progress of its Erbitux cancer treatment drug's application for FDA
approval even as the Company knew that the application and data were
false.

Specifically, the suit alleges that on December 28, 2001, a press
release disclosed that the FDA had rejected the filing of a Biologics
License Application for Erbitux.  On January 4, 2002, The Cancer Letter
reported that the FDA repeatedly informed defendants about problems
with the Erbitux clinical trials during the class period.

These shocking revelations caused the stock to plummet from a class
period high of $56 to below $50, and now to $40.

For more information, contact Fred T. Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 or by E-mail:
e-mail at classmember@whafh.com.  Your e-mail should refer to BRISTOL-
MYERS.


CAPTEC NET: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit Over Mergers in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Captec Net Lease Realty, Inc. agreed to settle in principle the
consolidated securities class action pending in Delaware and Michigan
courts opposing the Company's proposed merger with CNL Realty Advisors,
Inc. and the sale of certain of the Company's assets to CRC Asset
Acquisition LLC.

The suits were commenced in July 2001, following the public
announcement of the merger. Three lawsuits were filed in the Chancery
Court of the State of Delaware for New Castle County and an one lawsuit
in the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, charging the Company and certain of its officers with
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Company has since been dismissed as
defendant in the Michigan lawsuit.

In October 2001, the Delaware court issued an order consolidating the
three Lawsuits.

The Company and the other defendants later entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the plaintiffs, pursuant to which the parties
agreed in principle to settle the consolidated action.  Under the MOU,
the Company agreed to provide to its shareholders additional
disclosures concerning the proposed merger with the Company and agreed,
if the settlement is approved ultimately by the court, to pay
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined by the court  
but not to exceed  $350,000.  The parties also agreed to negotiate and
execute a Stipulation of Settlement, and to submit the stipulation of
settlement to the court for approval.  If a stipulation of settlement
is not executed by the parties or if the stipulation of settlements not
approved by the court, the consolidated suit could continue and could
result in damage awards against the Company and/or its directors.

At this stage of the anticipated settlement of the consolidated suit,
the Company is not in a position to assess the likelihood that the
settlement will not be consummated in substantial conformance with the
MOU.


CAPTEC NET: Shareholder Sues Alleging Securities Violations in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Captec Net Lease Realty, Inc. faces a securities class action filed by
the Calapasas Investment Partnership No. 1 Limited Partnership, a
Company shareholder, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Commercial Net Lease Realty, Inc., as successor in interest to
         the Company,     

     (2) Patrick L. Beach,

     (3) W. Ross Martin,

     (4) H. Reid Sherard,

     (5) Richard J. Peters,

     (6) Lee C. Howley and

     (7) William H. Krul III


The suit alleges that the defendants violated provisions of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting the value of
certain Company assets on certain of its financial statements in 2000
and 2001.  The suit purports to be brought on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the Company's common stock between August 9,
2000 and prior to July 2, 2001.  

At this early stage in the suit, management is not in a position to
assess the likelihood, or amount, of any potential damage award to the
plaintiff class.


CBRE HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement in Securities Suits in DE, CA Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions against CBRE Holdings, Inc. in the
Delaware and California state courts were dismissed, after the Company
reached an agreement to settle the class actions.

Five suits were commenced in November 2000 in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County by various of the
Company's stockholders against the Company, its directors and the
buying group which has taken the Company private.  A similar action was
also filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for
the County of Los Angeles.

The suits uniformly alleged that the offering price for shares of the
Company's common stock was unfair and inadequate and sought injunctive
relief or rescission of the transaction and, in the alternative, money
damages.

The five Delaware actions were subsequently consolidated and a lead
counsel appointed.  As of October 2001, the parties to the Delaware
litigation entered into a settlement agreement that was filed with the
appropriate court in Delaware.  On November 26, 2001, the Delaware
court approved the settlement of the Delaware litigation, however, it
reduced the fees payable to the lawyers for the plaintiffs. The lawyers
for the plaintiffs have filed an appeal solely from the award of fees,
resulting in a final judgment as to the dismissal of the claims of the
plaintiffs and barring further prosecution of such claims or the
commencement of other actions based on such claims.

The suits in Delaware and California have been completely resolved,
with the appeal from the Delaware award of fees being dismissed on
February 1, 2002 and the California action being dismissed with
prejudice on February 8, 2002.

The Company believes that the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits will
not have an impact on its ability to carry on its operations.


CORIO INC.: Denies Allegations in Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Corio, Inc. vowed to vigorously oppose the 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 common stock of
Corio, Inc. (NASDAQ:CRIO) between July 20, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its
officers and its underwriters.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company's
prospectus relating to its July 2000 initial public offering allegedly
failed to disclose that the underwriters had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those investors
material portions of the restricted number of shares issued in
connection with the IPO

The suit further alleges that the prospectus did not disclose that the
underwriters had entered into agreements with customers whereby the
underwriters agreed to allocate shares to those customers in the IPO in
exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase additional shares
in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  These practices
artificially inflated the Company's stock price.

The Company cannot predict the outcome of the suit, as the matter is in
preliminary stages.  However, the Company expressed confidence that the
ultimate costs to resolve these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on its financial statements.


EAGLE BUILDING: Fine Hatfield Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine & Hatfield initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm
Beach Division on behalf of purchasers of Eagle Building Technologies,
Inc. (OTC:EGBT.OB) securities between April 18, 2001 and March 1, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company, certain of its officers and directors
and its accounting firm Tanner & Co.

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

The suit alleges that the artificial inflation continued until the
Company admitted that it would be forced to restate its prior
overstated and inflated financial results.  Additionally, the Company
acknowledged that its press releases touting post-September 11 anti-
terrorism security measures marketed by the Company might have been
false and misleading.

For more information, contact Danny E. Glass or B. Scott Daugherty by
Phone: 812-425-3592 or by E-mail: deg@fine-hatfield.com or bsd@fine-
hatfield.com


ENRON CORPORATION: Investors Sue Banks, Law Firms In Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Several investment banks and law firms with ties to Enron Corporation
will be added as defendants in a securities fraud class action to be
filed in Houston this week by investors, the Associated Press reported
recently.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources close to the litigation
said that JP Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co.
and Credit Suisse First Boston are among up to eight banks named in an
amended version of the lawsuit.

Other new defendants will include at least two law firms that advise
Enron, Vinson & Elkins in Houston and Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, the
same sources said.  Other plaintiffs include Amalgamated Bank and
several state pension funds.

JP Morgan and Citigroup were lenders and provided financial services to
Enron, while Credit Suisse touted Enron stock sales as the company was
failing Merrill Lynch recommended the stock until August when it
downgraded it to neutral.  JP Morgan was the Company's biggest creditor
and lost about $2.6 billion when Enron collapsed last December, shortly
after the Securities & Exchange Commission began investigating Enron
accounting problems.

The original lawsuit was filed late last year in Houston on behalf of
shareholders and large investors.  It targeted 29 current and former
Enron executives and board members for the $1.1 billion they gained
from selling company stock before Enron filed for bankruptcy last
December.  These officials include Kenneth Lay, former chairman and
chief executive and Jeffrey Skilling, who quit as chief executive in
August before the Company entered its final spiral toward collapse.

Arthur Andersen LLP also is among the original defendants.  However,
Andersen's perceived ability to pay a large court judgment has
disappeared along with its client list in the wake of last month's
federal indictment of the auditing firm for destroying documents
related to Enron audits.

Robert Prentice, a business law professor at the University of Texas at
Austin, said plaintiffs' attorneys probably saw little to lose in
widening the lawsuit to the banks and law firms.   He said the Enron
case is likely to set new legal precedents.  While auditors are charged
with protecting investors and could face liability, the attorneys are
strictly bound to serve their clients, a legal ethics principle that
likely will shield law firms from liability, Mr. Prentice noted.  

The banks also "are closer to the law firms" in terms of their legal
standing, Mr. Prentice said.  Working through the complexities of where
liability vests, will result in precedent-setting principles of law,
according to Mr. Prentice's analysis.

This class action is not the first to target banks.  Last month, the
Retirement Systems of Alabama broke off from one of the class actions
in which Milberg Weiss is lead counsel, having decided to go it alone
in Alabama State Court.  That case's defendants include JP Morgan,
Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse and Bank of America.  "We are suing the
banks because they did business directly with us, through subsidiaries,
and actually sold Enron securities to the retirement systems in the
state of Alabama.  That's a big hit," said Mike Rediker, a lawyer for
the pension fund.  Alabama law also allows the state to sue for aiding
and abetting and conspiracy, options that don't exist under federal
law, Mr. Rediker said.

Citigroup spokesman Daniel Newman said the bank could not comment on
the specifics of the securities fraud lawsuit, since the amended
version with the additional defendants had not yet been filed.  
However, he did say, "We believe that our business dealings with Enron
were entirely appropriate, and therefore we think there is no merit to
this lawsuit."

JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse declined comment.


ENRON CORPORATION: Federal Judge Approves Independent Examiner In Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge tentatively has agreed to let an independent examiner
investigate Enron Corporation's collapse and protect shareholders'
interests throughout the bankruptcy process, the Associated Press
reported recently.  Judge Arthur Gonzalez of the US Bankruptcy Court
also has approved a revised employment contract for the Company's
acting chief executive officer, the Associated Press reported recently.

The revised employment contract for CEO Stephen Cooper, who replaces
former CEO Kenneth Lay, sets his compensation at $1.32 million a year
while he helps Enron emerge from bankruptcy.  Mr. Cooper, 55, is
managing partner of New York-based restructuring firm Zolfo Cooper.   
An official ruling on the independent examiner is expected sometime
this week.  

Judge Gonzalez agreed in principle with requests made by the SEC and
lawyers representing pension funds that lost billions of dollars in
Enron stock that in addition to probing the Enron meltdown, the
examiner would protect shareholders' interests throughout the
bankruptcy process.

The examiner's investigation will focus on the Company's questionable
partnerships, its accounting and any companies involved in those
transactions, said Andrew Entwistle of Entwistle & Capucci LLP, the law
firm representing the Florida State Board of Administration, which is
seeking $334 million from Enron relating to investment losses.

Mr. Entwistle and others had complained that members of the official
Creditors' committee had conflicts of interest that prevented them from
serving the best interests of shareholders, who typically are the last
ones to receive payments in bankruptcy cases.  Mr. Entwistle suggested
that some large banks represented on the creditors' committee might be
reluctant to probe the company's collapse for fear of bring attention
to their own roles in financial dealings with Enron.  

JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Credit Suisse First Boston, all on the
creditors committee, are among up to eight banks that will be named as
defendants in a securities fraud class action filed by investors.

Luc Despins of Milbank Tweed, Hadley and McCloy LLP, the head lawyer
for the creditors' committee, denied Mr. Entwistle's allegation but
said he wanted to limit the "scope" of the examiner's role.  The
tentative agreement appears to do that by requiring the examiner to
return to the bankruptcy judge to expand the investigation.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Glancy Binkow Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased 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 federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements regarding
the nature of the Company's revenues and earnings caused the Company's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting enormous
damages on investors.

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg by Mail: 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone:
310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


HAWKER PACIFIC: Shareholders Sue Over Lufthansa Tender Offer in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawker Pacific Aerospace (Nasdaq:HPAC) faces two securities class
actions filed by its shareholders in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles, in connection with the pending tender offer by LHT Acquisition
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lufthansa Technik AG, for all
of the outstanding Company shares that Lufthansa Technik AG does not
already own.  

The suits name as defendants the Company, the members of its Board of
Directors and Lufthansa Technik AG.  In their suits, which are
substantially identical, plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duty
to Company shareholders in connection with the tender offer.

Hawker intends to respond to the complaints. In the meantime, according
to Dick Fortner, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, "Hawker expects
the tender offer for its shares to proceed as planned."

For more information, contact Jim Bennett, CFO by Phone: 818-765-6201
by E-mail: investor@hawker.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.hawker.com


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Inrange Technologies, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its officers, and its underwriters,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The suit alleges, in essence that the underwriters combined and
conspired to increase their respective compensation in connection with
the IPO by:

     (1) receiving excessive, undisclosed commissions in exchange for
         lucrative allocations of IPO shares and

     (2) trading in the Company's stock after creating artificially
         high prices for the stock post-IPO through "tie-in" or
         "laddering" arrangements (whereby recipients of allocations of
         IPO shares agreed to purchase shares in the aftermarket for
         more than the public offering price for Company shares) and
         dissemination of misleading market analysis on the Company's
         prospects.

The suit further alleged the Company violated federal securities laws
by not disclosing these underwriter arrangements in its prospectus.

The Company said that at this point, it is too early to express an
opinion concerning the outcome of the matter.  In a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company cited that the suit is
part of the trend of lawsuits filed against companies who made their
initial public offering for the past years.


JDS UNIPHASE: Cohen Milstein Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the securities, including common
stock and notes, of JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq:JDSU) between the
period of July 27, 1999 through July 26, 2001.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of l934.  More specifically, the suit
alleges that the Corporation, several of its top officers, and its
majority shareholder, falsely represented the demand for the Company's
products, misrepresented the success of acquisitions, and
misrepresented its financial position by failing to timely account for
changes in goodwill values in order to inflate the value of the
Company's securities.

During the class period, the individual defendants, officers and the
controlling shareholder of the Company, sold more than 25 million
shares of stock, for proceeds of more than $2.1 billion, and the
Company used its allegedly inflated stock as currency to complete
several acquisitions.

On July 26, 2001, the Company announced that it would restate its
fiscal third quarter of 2001 (ended March 31), write-off $44 billion in
goodwill from those acquisitions, write-down inventory, and post a loss
of $0.15 per share for fiscal 2002.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by Mail:
1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005
by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com


LUMENIS LTD.: Zwerling Schachter Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 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 Lumenis Ltd. (Nasdaq: LUME) between January 7, 2002 and
February 28, 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 during
the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's common stock.

The suit alleges, among other things, that defendants misled investors
by failing to disclose that the Company had received a request for
information from the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and
that its distributors had been contacted by the SEC as part of an
inquiry involving certain accounting issues.

Additionally, after the Company announced, via press release, that it
was the subject of an inquiry by the SEC, the Company continued to hide
the fact that it previously had known of the SEC inquiry and had been
submitting information to the SEC for a number of weeks.

For more information, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Jayne Nykolyn by Phone:
1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com and jnykolyn@zsz.com, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.zsz.com.  


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Leo Desmond Launches Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
on behalf of shareholders who acquired Measurement Specialties, Inc.
(AMEX: MSS) securities between August 1, 2001 and February 14, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company and:

     (1) Joseph R. Mallon Jr.,

     (2) Kirk J. Dischino,

     (3) Dr. Steven P. Petrucelli,

     (4) Damon Germanton,

     (5) John D. Arnold,

     (6) Theodore J. Coburn and

     (7) Dan J. Samuel

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

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


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of 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. 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 suit 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, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated levels
during the class period.

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


MEDI-HUT CO.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Medi-Hut Co., Inc. (NASDAQ: MHUT) and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's common stock between April 4, 2000 and February 4, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that during the class period defendants issued
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly
reported revenues.

Furthermore, the Company substantially overstated its revenue and
earnings results through accounting practices, which violate generally
accepted accounting principles. As a result of defendants' misleading
statements and accounting improprieties during the class period, the
price of the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine or
Adam M. Walsh by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022
by Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Leo Desmond Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Leo W. Desmond initiated a securities class action
has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired Metawave
Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:MTWV) securities between April 25,
2001 and March 14, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the Company, Robert H.
Hunsberger and Stuart W. Fuhlendorf.

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

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


PARTSBASE.COM: FL Court Certifies Suit For Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted class certification to a securities suit against Partsbase.com,
Inc., certain of its former officers and directors and the underwriters
of its initial public offering, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from March 22,200 to April 25,2000.

In April and May 2001, four lawsuits were commenced, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and alleges the Company's March 2000 registration statement
misrepresented and failed to disclose matters related to the Company's
business operations and membership sales.

The Company continues to believe that the allegations contained in the
consolidated lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously  
defend this action.  Nevertheless, an unfavorable resolution of these
lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the Company in one or
more future periods.


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
charging the Company, ceratin of its officers and the underwriters of
its initial public offering with violations of federal securities laws.

The suit alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the
Company's initial public offering, including obtaining commitments from
investors to purchase shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.
The suit brings claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suit are without merit
and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.  However, the Company
cannot give any assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the suit.


UBS PAINEWEBBER: Faces Suit For Role in Enron's Collapse In Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Painewebber, the American subsidiary of Switzerland's largest bank
group UBS, faces a class action filed in Houston, Texas over its role
in the collapse of energy giant Enron, according to a Swiss Radio
International (SRI) report.

The Company allegedly recommended Enron shares at a time when Enron was
already struggling financially.  The Company allegedly acted on its own
interests to profit at the expense of its customers.

UBS spokesman Christoph Meier confirmed that a lawsuit had been
submitted. He said the bank was confident it would be able to defeat
the challenge.  However, he was unable to confirm earlier reports that
the claims for damages or compensation ran into several hundred million
dollars, according to a Xinhua News Agency Report. "We don't know the
actual amount of the claim," he said.

According to SRI, Mr. Maier denied that the bank had tried to silence a
critical voice and said the adviser had been asked to leave because he
had broken company rules.


                              *********


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  * * *