CAR_Public/020412.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
              Friday, April 12, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 72

                          Headlines

BEARD COMPANY: CO Court Approves $51 Million Settlement of CO2 Suit
CRACKER BARREL: NAACP To Join Racial Discrimination Suit in Georgia
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: CT State Court Approves Settlement for Consumer Suit
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Sued For Consumer Laws Violations in MO State Court
DELTA AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Retired Pilots Suit

DELTA AIRLINES: Travel Agencies File Suit Over Commissions in E.D. NC
DELTA AIRLINES: Sued For Sherman Antitrust Act Violations in E.D. MI
FISHER PRICE: Recalls 42,000 Smart Response Swings For Injury Hazard
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Suit Over Warranty Extension Dismissed By WI Court
UNITED DOMINION: Homeless Shelters Share in $2.65M Suit Settlement

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Allows Lukacs Suit To Proceed in FL
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Brokers Sue Over Insurance Policies in MA

                       Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in PA
ANTS SOFTWARE: Faces Suit For Operations Misrepresentations in CA Court
CHUBB CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense To Securities Suit in NJ
GILAT SATELLITE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY

GILAT SATELLITE: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HUMANA INC.: Oral Arguments in Dismissal Appeal Set for June 2002
JDS UNIPHASE: Spector Roseman Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
LUMENIS LTD.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MEDI-HUT COMPANY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
MEDI-HUT COMPANY: Berger Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
PLAINS HOLDINGS: DE Court Approves $1.1M Settlement To Derivative Suit
PREDICTIVE SYSTEMS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in CO

RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
SELECT COMFORT: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suit in MN
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
TALX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MO
TORCH OFFSHORE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: $45M Securities Suit Settlement Reached
WESTPOINT STEVENS: Faces Federal, Derivative Securities Suits in GA
XEROX CORPORATION: SEC Considers Civil Charges Over Accounting Fraud
                              
                            *********

BEARD COMPANY: CO Court Approves $51 Million Settlement of CO2 Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Denver, Colorado approved a US$51
million cash settlement of a 1996 lawsuit over payments for production
of carbon dioxide (CO2) from McElmo Dome Field in southwest Colorado,
one of the defendants, The Beard Company (OTCBB:BRCO) revealed in a
statement. President Herb Mee, Jr., stated, "The Beard Company
estimates that its share of the settlement will be in excess of $3.5
million, net of attorneys' fees."

The suit was filed against the Company, Shell CO2 Company and Mobil
Corp in 1996.  Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP acquired Shell CO2,
while Mobil is now part of Exxon Mobil.  The Companies admit no
wrongdoing.

At a hearing Monday, the Denver judge said the class action settlement,
which is expected to benefit about 2,000 royalty owners, overriding
royalty owners and small share working interest owners, was "fair,
reasonable and adequate."

The Company anticipates that the judge will issue the final order in
the case this week. Distribution of settlement proceeds will be delayed
until all appeal periods have run.

For more information, contact Herb Mee, Jr., by Phone: 405-842-3333 by
Fax: 405-842-9901 or by E-mail: hmee@beardco.com


CRACKER BARREL: NAACP To Join Racial Discrimination Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
will join the racial discrimination class action pending in the United
States District Court in Georgia against the Tennessee-based Cracker
Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., New Jersey Online reports.

The suit alleges the Company segregated black customers in the smoking
section and denied them service.  Participants in the suit have
increased from 21 to 42.  Lawyer for the plaintiffs David Sanford told
the Associated Press, "What it shows is that there is a pervasive
practice throughout America at Cracker Barrels. These allegations are
not random observations by a few individuals."

Company President Donald M. Turner told AP they were "disappointed"
that the NAACP chose to participate in the suit.  Mr. Turner said, "Our
service is colorblind."  He added that once the facts are laid out, the
civil rights group will "see they've been misinformed about the whole
situation."


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: CT State Court Approves Settlement for Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury, Connecticut
approved the settlement for a class action against Credit Acceptance
Corporation, filed on behalf of all Connecticut residents whose
vehicles were repossessed by the Company between August 5,1993 and
October 31,1998.

The suit alleges that the Company failed to provide consumers with
adequate notice of their rights to redeem the vehicle after
repossession and is seeking money damages for such failure.

In September 2001, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the action.  On March 6, 2002, the Court entered an order
approving the settlement.  The Company said that the settlement will
not have a material impact on its financial position, liquidity or
results of operations.


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Sued For Consumer Laws Violations in MO State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Acceptance Corporation continues to defend against a class
action currently pending in the Circuit Court of Jackson Missouri,
alleging violations of federal and state consumer protection laws.

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri. Two classes have been certified on
the claims brought against the Company, one relating to alleged
overcharges of official fees, the other relating to alleged overcharges
of post-maturity interest.

In August 1998, the Court granted partial summary judgment on liability
in favor of the plaintiffs on the interest overcharge claims based upon
its finding of certain violations but denied summary judgment on
certain other claims.  The Court also entered a number of permanent
injunctions, which among other things, restrained the Company from
collecting on certain class accounts. The Court also ruled in favor of
the Company on certain claims raised by class plaintiffs. Because the
entry of an injunction is immediately eligible for appeal, the Company
appealed the summary judgment order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Oral argument on the appeal was heard on April 19, 1999.  In September
1999, the Appeals Court overturned the August 1998 partial summary
judgment order and injunctions against the Company.  The Appeals Court
held that the Federal Court lacked jurisdiction over the interest
overcharge claims and directed the Federal Court to sever those claims
and remand them to state court.

In February 2000, the Federal Court entered an order remanding the
post-maturity interest class to Missouri State Court while retaining
jurisdiction on the official fee class.  The Company then filed a
motion requesting that the Federal Court reconsider that portion of its
order of August 4, 1998, in which it had denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the federal official fee overcharge claims.

The Federal Court then entered an order dismissing the federal official
fee claims against the Company and directed the Clerk of the Court to
remand the remaining state law official fee claims to the appropriate
state court.  In September 2001, the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri mailed an order assigning this matter to a judge.

The Company will continue its vigorous defense of all remaining claims.
However, an adverse ultimate disposition of this litigation could have
a material negative impact on its financial position, liquidity and
results of operations.


DELTA AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Retired Pilots Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois' dismissal without prejudice of a class action
against Delta Airlines, Inc. and the Delta Pilots Retirement Plan.  The
suit seeks to assert claims on behalf of a class consisting of certain
groups of retired and active Delta pilots.

The suit alleges that the calculation of the retirement benefits of the
plaintiffs and the class violated the Retirement Plan and the Internal
Revenue Code and seeks unspecified damages which plaintiffs state they
believe to be in excess of $1 billion.

In March 2001, the Court dismissed this suit without prejudice for lack
of venue. Plaintiffs have appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.


DELTA AIRLINES: Travel Agencies File Suit Over Commissions in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Airlines, Inc., along with other airlines, faces an amended class
action filed by a North Carolina travel agent in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of
all travel agents in the United States that sold tickets from September
1, 1997 to the present on any of the defendant airlines.

The suit alleges that the Company and the other airline defendants
conspired to fix travel agent commissions in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act.

Discovery has commenced and the case is currently set for trial in
September 2002.  The Company vows to vigorously oppose the suit.


DELTA AIRLINES: Sued For Sherman Antitrust Act Violations in E.D. MI
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Airlines, Inc. faces two class actions pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) US Airways,

     (2) Northwest Airlines and

     (3) the Airlines Reporting Corporation, an airline-owned company
         that operates a centralized clearinghouse for travel agents to
         report and account for airline ticket sales.

The first suit alleges, among other things:

     (i) that the defendants and certain other airlines conspired with
         the Company in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act to
         restrain competition and assist the Company in fixing and
         maintaining anti-competitive prices for air passenger service
         to and from its Atlanta and Cincinnati hubs; and

    (ii) that the Company violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by
         exercising monopoly power to establish such prices in an
         anticompetitive or exclusionary manner.

The complaint asserts that, for purposes of plaintiffs' damages claims,
the purported plaintiff class consists of all persons who purchased a
Delta full-fare ticket between June 11, 1995 and the present on routes:

     (a) that start or end at the Company's hubs in Atlanta or
         Cincinnati;

     (b) on which the Company has over a 50% market share;

     (c) that are longer than 150 miles; and

     (d) that have total annual traffic of over 30,000 passengers

The second suit asserts similar allegations and claims under Sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act with respect to US Airways' pricing practices
at its Pittsburgh and Charlotte hubs.  The suit asserts, among other
things, that the Company, the other defendants and certain other
airlines conspired with US Airways to restrain competition and assist
US Airways in fixing and maintaining prices for air passenger service
to and from the US Airways Hubs.

The plaintiffs have asked the Court to certify the suits as class
actions, while the Company and other defendants have moved for summary
judgment.  The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit.


FISHER PRICE: Recalls 42,000 Smart Response Swings For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 42,000 Smart Response
Swings for in-home inspection and repair.  It is possible to
misassemble the seats of these swings so that they appear secure, but
are not.  If the seat of the swing is not properly attached, the seat
and baby can flip forward.

The Company has received seven reports of the seats of the swings
flipping forward, including four reports of babies hitting their heads
on the floor. Though bumps and red marks were reported, there have
been no serious injuries.

The Smart Response Swing is an indoor infant swing for use from birth
until baby can sit up unassisted.  The swing operates in response to a
sound sensor and plays music. The metal legs of the swing are either
blue or beige, and the seat is either beige or white. The Fisher-Price
logo appears on the seat's tray. Product numbers 79644, 79645 or 79647
are molded onto the back of the seat.

Discount department and juvenile product stores nationwide sold these
swings from December 2001 through March 2002 for about $70.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-942-5912
anytime or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.fisher-price.com


HARLEY DAVIDSON: Suit Over Warranty Extension Dismissed By WI Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Milwaukee County State Court in Wisconsin dismissed in its entirety
a nationwide class action filed against Harley Davidson, Inc. after the
motorcycle company extended the warranty for a rear cam bearing for
1999 and early-2000 model year Harley-Davidson motorcycles equipped
with Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines to 5 years or 50,000 miles.

The suit alleges that the cam bearing is defective and asserts various
legal theories.  The suit sought unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages for affected owners, an order compelling the Company to repair
the engines and other relief.

The Company denied the allegations, saying that the warranty extension
it announced in January 2001 adequately addresses the condition for
affected owners.  The Company later moved to dismiss the suit, and in
February 2002, the Court dismissed the suit.


UNITED DOMINION: Homeless Shelters Share in $2.65M Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two homeless shelters received $784,000 from a $2.65 million settlement
of a class action filed against United Dominion Realty Trust by North
Texas apartment dwellers who were illegally billed for water, New
Jersey Online reports.

The Austin Street Center and the Vogel Alcove received part of the
settlement, although they were not parties to the suit, which was filed
on behalf of 18,000 apartment residents.  The Company later agreed to
settle the suit, under which they agreed to give money to two
charities.  Lead plaintiffs Roger Mandel and Bruce Priddy received
$904,000, the rest went to the two homeless shelters.

"This lawsuit focused our attention on housing, something many of us
take for granted. We couldn't help but think about those who have no
place to call home," Priddy told Associated Press.

"This is a windfall. This will help us to meet our budget this year,"
said Barbara Landix, executive director of Vogel Alcove. "We're just
delighted that we were selected."  


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Allows Lukacs Suit To Proceed in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third District Court of Appeals allowed a dying
cancer patient to proceed with an individual suit against several big
tobacco companies in Miami-Dade Circuit Court next month, law.com
reports.

Plaintiff John Lukacs is part of the class action known as the Engle
case for Florida smokers.  The plaintiffs won a $145 billion punitive
damages verdict in July 2000, but even though they won the case,
individual smokers such as Lukacs now must try their cases individually
to determine how much of the award they are entitled to.

The defendant tobacco companies, which include RJ Reynolds, Lorillard,
Brown and Williamson and Philip Morris have appealed the $145 billion
verdict to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.  They argued that while
the appeal is pending, no individual cases should be permitted to go to
trial.

The Appeals Court's decision allowing Mr. Lukacs' suit would now serve
as a model for other smoker cases that go trial, Mr. Lukacs' lawyer
Miles McGrane asserted.  He told law.com that if Mr. Lukacs dies before
the case goes to trial, his suit against the tobacco companies would
die with him.  He said Mr. Lukacs is willing to risk the time and
expense of going to trial on a case that could become moot if the
tobacco industry wins its appeal.

The Court gave no reason for its decision.  Mr. McGrande said the
Court's lack of justification may be that it did not want to establish
a precedent for similar cases.  By issuing its ruling with no opinion,
the Appellate Court effectively took away any chance that lawyers for
the tobacco industry can appeal.

Attorneys for the tobacco companies did not return calls for comment,
law.com reports.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Brokers Sue Over Insurance Policies in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Unumprovident Corporation and its subsidiaries faces two class actions
pending in the Superior Court in Worcester, Massachusetts, relating to
brokers who sold the Company's insurance policies.  The suits also name
as defendants:

     (1) The Paul Revere Corporation (Paul Revere),

     (2) The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company,

     (3) The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company,

     (4) The Paul Revere Protective Life Insurance Company, and

     (5) Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

The first suit was filed on behalf of independent brokers who sold
certain individual disability income policies with benefit riders that
were issued by subsidiaries of Paul Revere.  

The trial for the independent broker suit commenced in March 2001, and
in April 2001, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.  
The Court subsequently entered judgment on that verdict.  The
plaintiffs have not given an indication as to whether or not they will
appeal the jury verdict, but have filed a motion seeking a new trial.  

Notwithstanding the jury verdict, the judge is obligated to rule
separately on the claim that the Company and its affiliates violated
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The bench trial for the
alleged violation commenced in October 2001 and concluded in November
2001 with closing briefs submitted to the judge in December 2001.  
Closing arguments were heard in January 2002, and a decision is
expected by May 2002.

The second suit was commenced on behalf of all career agents of
subsidiaries of Paul Revere whose employment relationships ended on
June 30, 1997 and were offered contracts to sell insurance policies as
independent producers.  The Court denied class certification for this
suit in 1999.  Summary judgment motions were heard in November 2000 and
all motions from plaintiffs and defendants were denied pertaining to
the two class representatives whose cases survived.

Plaintiffs in the second suit have re-filed their complaint seeking a
class action status by limiting the issues to those in the certified
broker class action. The Court has not ruled on the re-filing.

                          Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP alleges Adelphia
Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLAC) manipulated its financial
statements whereupon it misrepresented its earnings and financial
results, thereby artificially inflating the Company's stock price by
improper accounting practices in a suit it filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from April 2, 2002 through March 26, 2002, inclusive,
charged the Company and five of its senior officers with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On March 27, 2002, the Company disclosed for the first time in
conjunction with fiscal 2001 financial results that it was liable for
at least $2.3 billion in debt related to the co-borrowing guarantees
entered into with Highland Holdings, a third party controlled by the
defendants.  Following the announcement, the price of the Company's
common stock fell to $16.70 per share, a loss of approximately 20% of
the value of the stock from the previous trading day. During the class
period, Company shares traded as high as $45 per share.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529,
888-4-POMLAW by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo intiated a securities
class action against Adelphia Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:
ADLAC), alleging the Company deceived its shareholders about the true
state of its finances.  The suit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
all investors who bought the Company's common stock and/or sold put
options from April 2, 2001 through March 27, 2002.

The suit charges the Company, a provider of cable television and local
telephone service, with failing to disclose its liability from at least
$2.284 billion in off-balance-sheet debt during the class period.  The
suit named four members of the Rigas family, which has a controlling
interest in the company, as individual defendants.

According to the complaint, Highland Holdings, a partnership controlled
by the Rigas family, borrowed the $2.284 billion against credit
facilities that were co-guaranteed by the Company.  The Rigas family
then used some of the loans' proceeds to buy more Company stock, the
complaint maintains.  The information, which would have affected the
Company's stock price, was not disclosed to investors during the Class
Period.  The SEC is investigating the Company's accounting practices.

On March 27, 2002, the suit says, the Company revealed the existence of
the off-balance-sheet debt.  The Company's stock quickly fell 18%, or
$3.69, to close at $16.70 that day.  The following day, the stock price
dropped an additional 11%, or $1.80, to close at $14.90, wiping out
more than $1 billion in market capitalization.

For more information, contact Nancy Ghabai or Alicia Duff by Mail: One
Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com.  


ANTS SOFTWARE: Faces Suit For Operations Misrepresentations in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTs Software.com faces a securities class action pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court against the Company and certain of its
former officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock from October 5, 1999, through March 23, 2001.

The suit alleges violations of certain provisions of the California
Corporations Code because:

     (1) the Company misrepresented that Dr. Peter Patton was a member
         of its board of directors;

     (2) the Company failed to disclose an effort by a creditor to
         force the Company into involuntary bankruptcy; and

     (3) Donald Hutton falsely identified himself as a certified public
         accountant in a SEC filing.

The Company believes these claims to be without merit and intends to
defend this case vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that
this matter will be resolved without costly litigation, or in
a manner that is not materially adverse to the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. Preliminary court
scheduling and alternate resolution meetings are scheduled in
March 2002.


CHUBB CORPORATION: To Mount Vigorous Defense To Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Corporation faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The securities
suit, filed by the California Public Employees and Retirement System
(CaLPERS), names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Dean R. O'Hare,

     (2) Henry B. Schram,

     (3) David B. Kelso

     (4) Stephen J. Sills,

     (5) Robert H. Kullas,

     (6) Robert V. Deutsch, and

     (7) Executive Risk Inc.

The defendants are allegedly liable for certain misrepresentations and
omissions regarding, among other matters, disclosures made between
April 27, 1999 and October 15, 1999 relating to the improved pricing in
the Company's standard commercial insurance business and relating to
the offer of the Company's securities to, and solicitation of votes
from, the former shareholders of Executive Risk, Inc. in connection
with its acquisition of Executive Risk, Inc.

The Company also faces a shareholders' derivative suit in the same
court, charging the Company and its directors with:

     (i) breaching their fiduciary duties;

    (ii) engaging in gross mismanagement; and

   (iii) failing properly to exercise control over the dissemination of
         information regarding the Company's operations and
         performance, which allegations are based on substantially the
         same allegations made in the prior suit.

The Company is defending these actions vigorously.


GILAT SATELLITE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Gilat Satellite Networks,
Ltd. (NASDAQ: GILTF) between November 13, 2000 and October 2, 2001,
inclusive, against the Company, Yoel Gat and Yoav Libovitch.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between November 13, 2000 and October 2, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

Prior to and throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint,
the Company issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements which materially misrepresented its financial condition and
results because, among other things, the Company was improperly
delaying the writedown of tens of millions of dollars of inventory and
investments which were impaired and of diminishing value.

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

On October 2, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company
issued a press release announcing that its financial results for the
third quarter of 2001 would be below previously announced guidance and
that it was taking additional charges. The Company reported that
revenues for the third quarter were expected to be $80 million,
compared to the $150 million announced on May 14, 2001, and that the
Company expected to report a loss of $267 million or approximately
$11.40 per share.

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

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


GILAT SATELLITE: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd.
common stock (Nasdaq:GILTF) between November 13, 2000 and October 2,
2001, both dates inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial results.

Specifically, the Israel-based Company knew or recklessly disregarded,
yet covered up the fact, that:

     (1) the demand for and acceptance of its products and the products
         of its subsidiary, StarBand Communications, Inc., were greatly
         overstated;

     (2) the Company was having difficulty manufacturing and selling
         its chief product, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT)
         profitably;

     (3) the Company's purported gross profit margins were false;

     (4) the Company was materially understating its costs and
         expenses; and

     (5) the Company, accordingly, would have to take massive charge-
         offs, numbering in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the
         future.

The suit claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
enormous damages on investors

For more information, contact Eric Belfi or Maurice Pesso by Phone:
800-497-8076, 212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail:
email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.rabinlaw.com


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of those persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Globix Corporation (Nasdaq: GBIX) during the period
of November 16, 2000 through and including December 27, 2001.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Marc Bell,

     (2) Peter Herzig, and

     (3) Brian Reach

The complaint charges that the defendants violated federal and state
securities laws by, among other things, issuing false misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition as well as its
present and future business prospects.

As alleged in the suit, on November 16, 2000, in an effort to stabilize
the price of Company stock and to assuage investor concerns over the
Company continuing as going concern, defendants set forth the Company's
business plan which stated that it would be fully funded to fiscal 2003
and thereafter cash flow positive.   This sentiment was repeated in the
Company's annual report filed on Form 10-K with the Securities Exchange
Commission and numerous times thereafter in Company press releases and
conference calls.

Despite such assurances, on December 27, 2001, defendants shocked the
investing community by announcing that management had been secretly
negotiating with its bond holders and preferred stock holders to
effectuate a pre-packaged bankruptcy that would result in a near total
dilution of the existing common stockholders' interest in the Company.

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


HUMANA INC.: Oral Arguments in Appeal Over Dismissal Set June 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear on June
11,2002 oral arguments for the appeal of a Kentucky federal court's
dismissal of a consolidated securities class action against Humana,
Inc.

The consolidated suit arose from six class actions filed in 1999 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at
Louisville by the Company's stockholders against the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers.  The suits
contained the same or substantially similar allegations, that the
Company and the individual defendants knowingly or recklessly made
false or misleading statements in press releases and public filings
concerning the Company's financial condition, primarily with respect to
the impact of negotiations over renewal of the Company's contract with
HCA-The Healthcare Company, formerly Columbia/HCA Healthcare
Corporation, which took effect April 1, 1999.

The suits allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. They
seek certification of a class of stockholders who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock starting either (in four complaints) in late
October 1998 or (in two complaints) on February 9, 1999, and ending (in
all complaints) on April 8, 1999.  The suits were later consolidated.

In April 2000, the defendants filed a motion requesting dismissal of
the suit, which the federal court granted in November 2000.  The
plaintiffs promptly appealed the decision.

The Company believes the above allegations are without merit and
intends to continue to pursue defense of the action.


JDS UNIPHASE: Spector Roseman Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman and Kodroff PC initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of JDS
Uniphase Corp. (Nasdaq:JDSU) from July 27, 1999 through July 26, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company, and certain of its officers and
directors, with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.  The Company is a provider of fiber
optic components and modules, which form the building blocks for fiber
optic networks.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants were
motivated to inflate the value of the Company's stock so that the
Company could make acquisitions using stock and so the individual
defendants, who are the top officers and directors of JDS Uniphase,
could sell their shares.

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

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

The individual defendants, all of whom were top officers and directors
of the Company, and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the
inflation, selling or disposing of 25.2 million shares of their company
stock for proceeds of $2.1 billion.  In July 2001, the Company
announced the restatement of its 3rdQ 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, over 94% lower than the class period high of $146.32.

For more information, contact Robert Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


LUMENIS LTD.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Lumenis Ltd. (NASDAQ: LUME) between
January 7, 2002 and February 28, 2002, inclusive, against the Company
and certain of its officers including Chairman Jacob Frenkel,
President/CEO Yacha Sutton, and COO Sagi Genger.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
discounted and disputed marketplace rumors about its operations even as
it knew it was being investigated by the SEC and that its distributors
had been contacted by the SEC.  Additionally, even after announcing in
a press release that it was subject to an SEC investigation, the
Company continued to hide the fact that it had been aware of the SEC
investigation and had been providing information to the SEC for several
weeks.

On February 28, 2002, the Company revealed the facts concerning the SEC
investigation in a conference call.  These shocking revelations caused
the stock to plummet 30% in one day and more than 69% from its class
period high, resulting in damages to plaintiff and members of the
class.

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


MEDI-HUT COMPANY: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Medi-Hut Co., Inc.
(Nasdaq: MHUT) from April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002, inclusive.
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Joseph A. Sanpietro, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Laurence M. Simon, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,

     (3) Robert Russo, Treasurer,

     (4) Vincent Sanpietro, Secretary,

     (5) James G. Aaron, director, and

     (6) James S. Vacarro, director

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

As stated in the suit, the Company misled the investing public by
failing to disclose that a Company vice president had a controlling
interest in Larval Corp., the Company's largest customer. Specifically,
the Company failed to disclose that Lawrence Marasco, its Vice
President for Sales and Marketing, had a controlling interest in
Larval.  During fiscal year 2001, sales to Larval accounted for 62% of
Company revenues.

Because Mr. Marasco had a controlling interest in one of the Company's
customers, generally accepted accounting principles dictated that the
Company identify sales to that customer as related party transactions.  
The Company, however, failed to disclose the true nature of its sales
to Larval.  Indeed, each report it filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission during the class period, including quarterly and
annual reports, was devoid of any reference to the fact that one of its
largest customers was controlled by a Company employee. These reports
were disseminated to shareholders and/or were publicly available to
potential investors.

Plaintiff alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by
defendants influenced the views of stock market analysts and the
investing public and brought about an unrealistic assessment of the
Company's performance and prospects.  As a result, Company stock traded
at artificially inflated prices throughout the class period.

On February 4, 2002, the nature of the relationship between the
Company, Mr. Marasco and Larval Corporation was revealed.  The market,
recognizing that a majority of the Company's revenues in fiscal year
2001 were generated via sales to a related party, reacted swiftly and
severely.  

By the close of business on February 4, shares of the Company had lost
51% of their value, falling $3.41 to $3.29 in unusually heavy trading.
Four days later, Grant Thorton LLP resigned its position as the
Company's independent auditor after only two weeks. Grant Thorton
served as the Company's auditors from January 24, 2002 through February
8, 2002.

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


MEDI-HUT COMPANY: Berger Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against Medi-
Hut Co. (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
during the period from April 4, 2000 through February 4, 2002.

The suit seeks damages for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and:

     (1) Joseph A. Sanpietro, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Laurence M. Simon, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Robert Russo, Treasurer,

     (4) Vincent Sanpietro, Secretary,

     (5) James G. Aaron, director, and

     (6) James S. Vacarro, director

The suit alleges that defendants knowingly and recklessly disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and omissions that
misrepresented the Company's business, operations and financial
performance.  As stated in the suit, the Company misled the investing
public by failing to disclose that a Company vice president, Lawrence
Marasco had a controlling interest in Larval Corporation, the Company's
largest customer.

Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that Mr. Marasco, its Vice
President for Sales and Marketing, had a controlling interest in
Larval.  During fiscal year 2001, sales to Larval accounted for 62% of
Company revenues.

Because Mr. Marasco had a controlling interest in one of the Company's
customers, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) dictated
that the Company identify sales to that customer as related party
transactions.  The Company, however, failed to disclose the true nature
of its sales to Larval.  Indeed, each report it filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the class period, including
quarterly and annual reports, was devoid of any reference to the fact
that one of its largest customers was controlled by a Company employee.
These reports were disseminated to shareholders and/or were publicly
available to potential investors.

The suit alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions by the
defendants influenced the views of stock market analysts and the
investing public and brought about an unrealistic assessment of the
Company's performance and prospects and that, as a result, Company
stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the class
period.

On February 4, 2002, the nature of the relationship between the
Company, Mr. Marasco and Larval Corporation was revealed to the market.
The investing public, recognizing that a majority of the Company's
revenues in fiscal year 2001 were generated via sales to a related
party, reacted swiftly and severely.

By the close of business on February 4, shares of the Company had lost
51% of their value, falling $3.41 per share to $3.29 in unusually heavy
trading. Four days later, Grant Thornton LLP resigned its position as
the Company's independent auditor after only two weeks. Grant Thornton
served as the Company's auditors from January 24, 2002 through February
8, 2002.

For more information, contact Darin R. Morgan or Kimberly A. Walker by
Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289
or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


PLAINS HOLDINGS: DE Court Approves $1.1M Settlement To Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County approved the $ 1.1
million settlement proposed by Plains Holdings, Inc. to settle the
consolidated shareholder derivative suit against the Company, its
directors and certain of its officers.

The suit relates to the Company's role as general partner of Plains All
American Pipeline, LP (PAA).  The suit charged defendants with
breaching their fiduciary duties they owed to PAA and its unit-holders
by failing to monitor properly the activities of its employees.

The defendants asked the Court to dismiss the suit in August 2000.  
They later reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the suit
by PAA making an aggregate payment of approximately $1.1 million.
On March 6, 2002, the Delaware court approved this settlement.


PREDICTIVE SYSTEMS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Predictive Systems, Inc. labeled "without merit" the 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
directors and certain investment banks that underwrote its initial
public offering.

The suit generally alleges that the underwriters obtained excessive and
undisclosed commissions from customers who received allocations of
shares in the Company's initial and secondary public offerings and that
the underwriters maintained artificially inflated prices in the after
market through "tie-in" arrangements, which required customers to buy
additional shares of Company stock at pre-determined prices in excess
of the offering prices.

The suit charged the Company and its officers and directors with
violations of Sections 11, 12(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
because the Company's registration statements did not disclose the
purported misconduct of the underwriters.

This suit has been coordinated with over 300 virtually identical
actions against other companies and the investment banks that
underwrote their initial public offerings.  The Company intends to
defend the case vigorously.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a securities fraud class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of purchasers of Qwest Communications
International, Inc. (NYSE: Q) securities between January 16, 2000 and
February 13, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that throughout the class period
defendants knowingly or recklessly disseminated materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition,
causing the price of Company securities to be artificially inflated.

For more information, contact Conor R. Crowley by Phone: 866-592-1960,
or 202-337-8000 by E-mail: crc@ftllaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.ftllaw.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Rent-A-Center Inc.
(NASDAQ: RCII) between April 25, 2001 and October 8, 2001 inclusive.  
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) J. Ernest Talley (Chairman and CEO until October 8, 2001),

     (2) Mitchell E. Fadel (President and Director),

     (3) Robert D. Davis (CFO and Treasurer) and

     (4) Mark E. Speese (Director until October 8, 2001, thereafter
         Chairman and CEO)

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market between April 25, 2001 and October 8, 2001.

For example, on April 25, 2001, the Company issued a press release
announcing record results for the first quarter of 2001 and
highlighting its resilience in a weakening economy.

The representations in the press release were, according to the
allegations of the complaint, materially false and misleading because
the Company did not disclose that its expenses were rising dramatically
as it attempted to combat weakening demand with deep discounts and
promotions.

While in possession of this adverse non-public information, the Company
completed a secondary offering of 3,200,000 shares of its common stock
at $42.50 per share, on May 25, 2001.  Defendant Talley sold 1,700,000
Company shares in the secondary offering, grossing over $72 million,
and defendant Speese sold 500,000 shares, grossing over $21 million.
Then, on May 31, 2001, defendant Talley sold an additional 1,955,000
shares of common stock at $40.38 per share, grossing over $78 million.

Subsequently, on October 8, 2001, only five months after the secondary
offering, the Company issued a press release announcing that earnings
for the third and fourth quarter of 2001 would be significantly less
than its previous guidance to the market, due to rising expenses. In
response to this announcement, Company stock price dropped by 19% in
one day on heavy trading volume.

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


SELECT COMFORT: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suit in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------
Select Comfort Corporation and certain of its former officers and
directors face a securities class action pending in the United States
District Court in Minnesota, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from December 4, 1998 to June 7, 1999.

The suit alleges the defendants violated federal securities laws by
failing to disclose or misrepresenting certain information concerning
the Company's business during the class period.  The suit does not
specify an amount of damages claimed.

The Company believes that that the complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the claims, but cannot give any assurance
that it will be successful in defending the lawsuit. Defense of the
suit could be expensive and may create a distraction to the management
team, the Company revealed in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.



SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Symbol
Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL) between October 19, 2000 and February
13, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers.

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

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants engaged in the following
conduct, which had the effect of increasing the Company's reported
revenue and profits:

     (1) the Company booked as profit in the third quarter 2000 a one-
         time royalty payment in excess of $10 million, enabling the
         Company to make its third quarter projections;

     (2) the Company used expenses associated with its acquisition of
         Telxon to mask the fact that its sales were declining; and

     (3) the Company booked as having shipped in the first quarter of
         2001 more than $40 million in inventory that included side
         provisions allowing customers to delay payments or return
         merchandise, or included products that "never left the
         warehouse."

The Company subsequently had a second-quarter 2001 inventory write-down
of $67.1 million after tax.

On February 13, 2002, Newsday, Inc. reported that the Company had
engaged in these accounting practices, received an inquiry letter from
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and had hired accounting and
consulting firm KPMG to review its sales process.  The next day, the
Company announced it was lowering its outlook for 2002 earnings and
that its Chief Executive Officer would retire in May 2002.

In response to the Newsday article and the Company's announcements, the
price of Company stock plunged more than 53% from an opening price of
$14.15 on February 14, 2002 to a low of $6.60 on February 15, 2002 on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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


TALX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. MO
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers of Talx Corporation
(Nasdaq: TALX) common stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001,
inclusive, against the Company and certain officers and directors of
the Company.

The complaint charges the Company, and certain of its officers and
directors, with violations of the federal securities laws.  On August
3, 2001, the Company completed a secondary offering of 3.245 million
shares of its stock (including over-allotments, and also including the
sale of 253,000 shares by the Company's CEO), raising gross proceeds of
approximately $100 million for the Company, pursuant to a registration
statement and prospectus dated August 2, 2001.

The suit alleges that the registration statement/prospectus was false
and materially misleading because:

     (1) defendants had failed to disclose that the Company had
         improperly capitalized significant amounts of software related
         to the Company's customer premised systems line of business,
         which assets were already substantially impaired and which
         would have to be written off in the near term;

     (2) defendants failed to properly account for the true value of
         the Company's inventory, such that the overstated value of its
         impaired inventory would have to be written down in the near
         term;

     (3) defendants misrepresented that the Company's business was
         expanding, when it was not, and at which time defendants were
         already planning on reducing staff and closing offices;

     (4) defendants were already planning to take at least $2.8 million
         in write-offs; and

     (5) the outsourced benefits enrollment business was not operating
         according to the expectations that had been promoted by
         defendants, and this line of business was not a significant
         growth-driver as represented by the Company.

The complaint further alleges that, throughout the class period, the
same factors, which were not properly disclosed in the Company's
secondary offering registration statement/prospectus were also hidden
by Defendants from the Company's public shareholders.  The defendants
misled investors and analysts by issuing a series of false and
materially misleading public statements that were designed to, and
which, did artificially inflate the value of Company shares.  This
inflation allowed the Company and its CEO to reap almost $100 million
from the sale of stock.

Then, on October 1, 2001, weeks after defendants had sold almost $100
million worth of Company stock and used over $11 million in Company
stock to acquire Ti3, that defendants issued a press release which
revealed that the Company's fiscal 2002 earnings would be only $0.58-
$0.62, excluding charges, on revenues of less than $50 million and that
second quarter fiscal 2002 revenues would be less than $12 million.  
The Company also announced it would recognize charges of $2.8 million
to write off capitalized software costs, inventory and to close
offices.

As a result of the defendants' shocking disclosures, Company stock
declined to less than $17 per share, representing a loss to investors
of over 50% of the value of their investment by the end of the class
period.

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


TORCH OFFSHORE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Torch Offshore, Inc. (Nasdaq: TORC) from June 7, 2001 through August 1,
2001, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of
its officers and directors and:

     (1) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (2) CIBC World Markets Corp., and

     (3) Howard Weil, a division of Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc.,

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading representations
in the June 7, 2001 registration statement and prospectus prepared and
disseminated by defendants in connection with the IPO.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the prospectus contained
material misrepresentations concerning the prices of natural gas and
oil in the period preceding the IPO, as well as the effect of those
prices upon the Company's business and the demand for the Company's
services.

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


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: $45M Securities Suit Settlement Reached
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unumprovident Corporation agreed to settle for US$45 million two
consolidated securities class actions pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Maine, charging the Company and
several of its officers with federal securities violations.

The consolidated suit arose from five class actions commenced in
September 1999 in Maine Federal Court and one class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  
The suits were later consolidated in Maine.

In February 2000, two consolidated amended class action complaints were
filed against the same defendants.  The first amended class action
complaint asserts a variety of claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired stock in the Company between February
4, 1998 and February 9, 2000.

The second amended complaint asserts a variety of claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who exchanged
the common stock of Unum Corporation and Provident Companies, Inc.
(Provident) for Unum's stock pursuant to the joint proxy/registration
statement issued in connection with the merger between the two
companies.

Both suits allege that the defendants made false and misleading public
statements concerning, among other things:

     (1) the Company's reserves for disability insurance and pricing
         policies,

     (2) the Company's merger costs, and

     (3) the adequacy of the due diligence reviews performed in
         connection with the merger.

In April 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaints.
In January 2001, the Court affirmed a recommended decision by the
magistrate judge that granted in part, and denied in part, the motion.
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of the
former shareholders of Unum, and under Section 12(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of the Company stock after the
merger.

The Court also dismissed plaintiff's claims relating to disclosures
regarding the costs associated with the exit from its reinsurance
business, but otherwise denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiff's claims under Sections 11 and 12(a) (2) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the claim under Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In October 2001, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the suits. Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject
to final approval by the court, the Company has agreed to pay $45
million to settle all claims that were or could have been asserted by
the class in the suits.  The parties agreed that, for purposes of the
settlement only, the litigation may be maintained as a class action on
behalf of all persons who exchanged the stock of Unum or Provident for
the common stock of the Company pursuant to the joint proxy/
registration statement or otherwise acquired Company common stock
traceable to the joint proxy/registration statement on or before
August 3, 1999, other than the defendants and their officers,
directors, affiliates, and subsidiaries.

On January 9, 2002, the Court entered an order that, among other
things, approved preliminarily the terms of the proposed settlement.  
On March 21, 2002, the Court held a hearing to determine, among other
things, whether the settlement should be finally approved.  The Court
has not yet entered its ruling on the motion to finally approve the
settlement.

The Company vehemently denied the allegations in the suit.  The Company
is confident that if the settlement is finally approved, this matter
will not have any material adverse affect on its financial position or
results of operations.


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Faces Federal, Derivative Securities Suits in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WestPoint Stevens, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from February
10,1999 to October 10, 2000.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers and directors.

The consolidated suit arose from several securities class actions
commenced in November 2001, that allege the defendants caused false and
misleading statements to be issued regarding alleged over-capacity and
excessive inventories of the Company's towel-related products and
customer demand for such products, during the class period.

The suit refers to the Company's press releases and quarterly and
annual reports on Securities Exchange Commission Forms 10-Q and 10-K,
which discuss the Company's results and forecasts for the Fiscal years
1999 and 2000.  These press releases and public filings were allegedly
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the Company
allegedly "knew sales would be adversely affected in future quarters
and years."  The suit further alleges in general terms that the Company
materially overstated revenues by making premature shipments of
products.

The suit assert claims against all defendants under ss. 10(b) of the
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and against
the Company and one of its officers as "controlling persons" under ss.
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Additionally, a shareholder derivative action was filed against certain
of the Company's directors and officers in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by acting in bad faith and wasting corporate assets. The suit
also asserts claims under Georgia Code Ann. ss.ss.14-2-740 to 14-2-747,
and 14-2-831.  The claims are based on the same or similar facts as are
alleged in the federal suit action.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends
to contest the action vigorously, on behalf of its officers and
directors.  


XEROX CORPORATION: SEC Considers Civil Charges Over Accounting Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission is considering the
filing of civil charges against Xerox Corporation's former chairman
Paul Allaire and former chief financial officer Barry Romeril for
alleged accounting fraud at the world's largest copier company, The
Wall Street Journal reports.

Earlier, the Company agreed to pay a $10 million penalty and revise
several years of financial statements to settle allegations that since
June 2000, the Company prematurely booked revenue.  Under the
agreement, the Company will restate financial statements for 1997
through 2000 and adjust previously announced 2001 results to reflect
adjustments in the timing and allocation of lease revenue.  The
restatement could result in a reallocation of equipment sales revenue
in excess of $2 billion from 1997 through 2000, Reuters reports.

Xerox spokeswoman, Christa Carone, told the Wall Street Journal the
Company would not comment on the newspaper story.

                               *********


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  * * *