CAR_Public/020416.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Tuesday, April 16, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 74

                              Headlines

AUTO INSURANCE: Fraud Suits Dismissal Insurers' Top Priority in WV
CALIFORNIA: High Court Refuses Challenge To State's Anti-Spam Laws
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Hundreds Expected To Join Church Sexual Abuse Suit
CHASE MANHATTAN: May Be Barred From Talking to Homeowners in Fraud Suit
CHILES OFFSHORE: Agrees To Settle Wage Antitrust Suit For $1 Million

CRACKER BARREL: Responds As NAACP Joins Racial Discrimination Suit
HMO LITIGATION: New Jersey Doctor Files Suit Over Health Care Payments
INDIAN TRUST: Workers Still Untrained For Handling Indian Records
JAPAN: Limits Set On Executives' Money Liability In Shareholder Suits
MARYLAND: Homeowners, Developers Appeal Dismissal of Property Fee Suit

NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs To Amend Annuity Products Suit in OH
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Former Employee Files Suit Over Job Loss After 9/11
OKLAHOMA: Panel To Monitor Tulsa Police's Civil Rights Violations
PRESTAGE FARMS: Must Face MS Environmental Suit With Hog Contractors
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Former Employee Sues Over Pension Violations

TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Firm Plotted To Deny Smokers Justice
WALLACE'S BOOKSTORES: Court Denies Ex-Employees' Suit Certification
WISCONSIN: Government Probes State's Public Schools Disabled Program

                          Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Paskowitz Associates Files Suit in E.D. PA
ANDRX CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Vigorously Opposing Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Appellate Court To Hear Appeal of Suit Dismissal
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in NY
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Expects NY Court To Consolidate Securities Suits
ELAN CORPORATION: Eaton Vance To Be Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit

GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GILAT SATELLITE: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in E.D. NY
INTERFACE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Consider Filing Amended Suit in E.D. MI
JDS UNIPHASE: Stull Stull Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
JDS UNIPHASE: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in NJ
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SIPEX CORPORATION: MA Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
STILLWATER MINING: Securities Suits Filed Over Financial Statements
STILLWATER MINING: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

STILLWATER MINING: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
VERSATA INC.: Hearing On Dismissal Motion Set For May 2002 in N.D. OH
VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in S.D. NY
                              
                              *********

AUTO INSURANCE: Fraud Suits Dismissal Insurers' Top Priority in WV
------------------------------------------------------------------
Armed with the new law, for which they intensively lobbied in the West
Virginia Legislature during the recent session, insurance companies now
intend to rid themselves of lawsuits accusing them of fraud, the
Charlotte Gazette reported.  A group of insurers have transferred half-
a-dozen suits, most of them potential class actions, to the United
States District Court this month from state circuit courts.

The insurers want a federal judge to dismiss these complaints, filed
over the "owned but not insured" provisions found in the auto policies
they sell to West Virginians.  The lawsuits relied on a 2000 state
Supreme Court ruling that concluded that auto insurers must reduce the
premiums they charge whenever they exclude coverage, just as they
increase premiums for extra coverage.

Insurers, however, have applied this provision to exclude
"underinsured" coverage, which is meant to compensate policyholders
when the person who injured them lacks enough insurance to cover the
damages.

With insurance companies threatening to quit the state, lawmakers
rebuked the Supreme Court and its ruling with a bill passed earlier
this year.  The measure, set to take effect in June, calls the ruling
"a misinterpretation of the law."  Its language is invoked in the
petitions for dismissal filed by insurers in the transferred lawsuits.

"The Legislature has made it clear that (the insurance statute) has
never required the type of policy premium reductions or discounts
referenced in the plaintiffs' complaint," the petition from Nationwide
said.  "The plaintiffs' complaint is founded upon a false premise and
must be dismissed."

In testimony before legislators last year, however, Deputy Insurance
Commissioner, Vince King, said his predecessors failed to protect
consumers.  "The court questions whether or not the Commission was
following the duties that the Legislature put upon us," he testified,
referring to the Supreme Court's ruling.  "I am sorry to report that it
now appears that the commission was not," Commissioner King said.

Insurance lobbyists countered that allowing West Virginians to revisit
the thousands of policies purchased over the last several decades would
clog the Commissioner's office and the courts with claims for
compensation.

House Speaker Robert Kiss, D-Raleigh, picked a "select committee" to
push through the legislation and bypass the standing committees that
normally consider such measures.


CALIFORNIA: High Court Refuses Challenge To State's Anti-Spam Laws
------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has turned aside a challenge to the
state's anti-spam laws, a decision that raises the likelihood of a
class action for a Palo Alto Web publisher accused of sending
unsolicited e-mail that contravenes California business regulations,
Newsbytes News Network reported recently.

The relevant California law, which applies to e-mail delivered to
residents "via an electronic mail service provider's service or
equipment located in the state", requires the subject
header of unsolicited e-mail to begin with the tag "ADV" for
advertisement or "ADLT" for adult-oriented material.

Andrew Conru, who heads Web development company, Conru Interactive, was
sued by another Californian who complained in a class action that Mr.
Conru's Friendfinder Network failed to comply with anti-spam provisions
of the state's Business and Professions Code.

When Mr. Conru appealed to the San Francisco County Superior Court from
the class action, the judge ruled that anti-spam regulations, added by
the state in 1998, trampled unconstitutionally on interstate commerce.  
However, in January of this year, the California Court of Appeals
overturned the decision.  Mr. Conru turned next to the state's Supreme
Court with a petition seeking a review of the appeals court decision.

Mr. Conru's lawyer, Ira Rothken, said only Supreme Court Justice Joyce
Kennard was in favor of granting the petition.  "California has decided
to legislate what is allowed in the single subject line of an e-mail,"
Ira Rothken told Newsbytes.  "If each state were to legislate the
single subject line of e-mail it would lead to conflicting state laws
and paralysis of commercial e-mail as a whole.  We are disappointed
that the California Supreme Court decided not to clarify this issue."

In turning to the Supreme Court, Mr. Rothken complained that it was not
practical to enforce state-specific boundaries on the Internet, arguing
that, for example, it would not be possible for an advertiser to
identify an America Online user, who might be connected to AOL
"equipment" in California, to check e-mail on the ISP's servers in
Virginia.

Lawyers for Mark Ferguson, the Web developer who first objected to
e-mail he was sent by Mr. Conru's Friendfinder Network, offered the
unusual argument that Mr. Conru's companies could have determined
exactly where California's e-mail servers are located by querying such
information as the "whois" data of domain registries.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Hundreds Expected To Join Church Sexual Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Into the midst of the class action already filed against the Manchester
Diocese of the Catholic Church, in New Hampshire, comes a new lawsuit,
which has been filed against one of 15 Catholic priests who the
Manchester Diocese said were accused of sexual misconduct between the
years 1963 and 1987, the Associated Press recently reported.  This
latest lawsuit charges that Francis Talbot molested Cody Goodwin for
seven years, beginning in 1989 when Cody Goodwin was nine and seeks
$500,000 in damages.

Meanwhile, Peter Hutchins, a lawyer handling the class action against
the Manchester Diocese, says he expects hundreds of people to join the
case.  Mr. Hutchins said six people already have joined the suit, and
10 others called him after learning of it.  The amount of monetary
damages requested, said Mr. Hutchins, will depend on how many people
join the lawsuit.

The class action, filed in Hillsborough County Superior Court, is
believed to be the first class action against the Diocese.  The suit
charges the Catholic Church with concealing abuse allegations against
numerous priests for decades and of creating an environment of
intimidation in which boys were afraid to report the assaults.  The
lawsuit says the church failed to report known assaults against
children and failed to protect children from abusive priests in
parishes, schools and camps.  

The suit accuses former priest, Robert J. Densmore, of sexually abusing
Craig Galluzzo, now 41, of Londonderry, at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic
Church in New London more than 30 years ago.  "He was the one whose
case we thought was most ready to go," Mr. Hutchins said.

One of the exceptions to the statute of limitations allows legal action
for three years after people have been injured, no matter how long ago
the alleged abuse actually occurred.  The exception is usually
triggered by a showing that duress or mental instability delayed the
filing of the claim.  

In a case brought against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden, New
Jersey, the plaintiffs have claimed that "religious duress" prevented
them from suing the church sooner.  As devout Catholics, they argue
that they had been raised to revere priests as "direct messengers of
God" and therefore were reluctant to challenge them.

The lawsuit seeks court approval to join all victims of abuse by the
church in the lawsuit, although it does not say how many class members
are expected.  It was not until recently that the Diocese began to
release names of accused priests, even though the allegations against
the priests dated back to the early 1960s, the lawsuit said.  Mr.
Densmore was on the list released in February, as was the name of a
former chaplain, Mr. Talbot, who worked at the state juvenile center in
Manchester in the mid-1980s.


CHASE MANHATTAN: May Be Barred From Talking to Homeowners in Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys who hope to represent homeowners in a class action against
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation recently asked Federal Judge James
Munley for a temporary restraining order barring the Company from
communicating with hundreds of local customers who purchased houses at
allegedly inflated prices,  Associated Press reported.  

The attorneys also asked Judge Munley to order the Company to send
follow-up letters to the homeowners explaining that the Company is
involved in litigation and accepting its offer could impair their case,
the Pocono Record recently reported.  "People are being misled,"
attorney Melvyn Weiss told Judge Munley.

However, Company lawyer LeAnn Pope argued that Chase Mortgage had a
right to contact the homeowners and was not requiring them to sign any
type of release.  In a letter recently sent to homeowners, the Company
agreed to reduce the principal owed on hundreds of residential
mortgages, acknowledging that some of its loans were approved on homes
sold at inflated prices.  Under the Company's offer, homeowners could
see their mortgages reduced by tens of thousands of dollars.  Judge
Munley is expected to rule on the requests made by the attorneys for
the homeowners before the May 10 deadline the Company set for
homeowners to apply for the mortgage reduction

The offer was made as state and federal authorities investigate
allegations of real-estate fraud in the Poconos.  In October, the
Federal Home Mortgage Corporation barred developer Gene Percudani, his
mortgage company and appraiser Dominick Stranieri from doing business
with the national mortgage bank known as Freddie Mac.  They are among a
handful of real estate professionals accused of luring first-time home
buyers, many of them minorities from the New York City area, where
housing prices are sky-high, to the resort area of Pennsylvania's
Pocono Mountains.

The real estate professionals inflated home prices and approved people
for mortgages they could not afford.  The practice has contributed to
the skyrocketing foreclosure rate in Monroe County as homeowners
discover they are unable refinance or sell their homes.


CHILES OFFSHORE: Agrees To Settle Wage Antitrust Suit For $1 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiles Offshore, Inc. agreed to settle for $1 million the antitrust
class action pending against the Company and other offshore drilling
companies in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston, Division.

The suit was filed on behalf of offshore workers of the major offshore
drilling companies that operated in the US Gulf of Mexico since 1990.
The proposed class includes persons hired in the United States by the
companies to work in the Gulf of Mexico and around the world.  The suit
alleges that the companies, through trade groups, shared information in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws.

Although the Company believes that it has valid defenses in this
matter, the Company entered a settlement because it determined that
protracted litigation will be a distraction to the operation of its
business.  In May 2001, the Company agreed to settle plaintiffs'
outstanding claims for a conditional payment of $1 million. During
2001, the Company made a partial payment of the settlement amount.

In December 2001, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving
the proposed class action settlement, preliminarily certifying the
settlement class, and setting a fairness hearing for April 18, 2002, to
determine whether to give the settlement final approval.  A court
appointed settlement administrator will provide notice of the proposed
class action settlement.


CRACKER BARREL: Responds As NAACP Joins Racial Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel, the Tennessee-based food chain held a news conference
in Nashville in response to the Washington-based National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People's announcement that it is joining
the racial discrimination lawsuit against Cracker Barrel Old
Country Stores Inc., the Associated Press reported recently.

"I definitely respect the NAACP, no doubt about that, but I think in
this case they have been misinformed," said Thomas Pate, who is black
and has been the Company's Vice President for management training and
development for 15 years.  "It is just unbelievable that I would put up
with that type of behavior.  I wouldn't, period."  Mr. Pate said it was
ridiculous to believe he would allow racists to run the Company's
restaurants and discriminate against its patrons.

Norman Hill, senior vice president of human resources, who is also
black and called himself a card-carrying member of the NAACP, said the
lawsuit "presents a false picture of Cracker Barrel performance and the
performance of its 50,000 employees both black and white . I am
insulted anyone would think I would stand for the things this lawsuit
represents and stay with the company."

The lawsuit was originally was filed in December of last year, and an
amended complaint was filed recently in the United States District
Court in Rome, Georgia.  The NAACP and 41 other plaintiffs in the class
action are seeking $100 million in damages from the eating chain, which
owns and operates 450 restaurants in 41 states.


HMO LITIGATION: New Jersey Doctor Files Suit Over Health Care Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A New Jersey doctor recently filed a lawsuit, seeking class action
status, against four of the state's largest health maintenance
companies, charging that they routinely shortchange thousands of
physicians through late or improperly reduced payments, the Associated
Press reported.  

The suit, filed in state Superior Court for Essex County and believed
to be the first of its kind brought in New Jersey, seeks unspecified
compensation for denied, delayed or reduced claims and money to punish
misconduct.  The sum could total "many millions of dollars," said Eric
D. Katz, lawyer for the plaintiff.

The suit claims that the four companies operating in New Jersey violate
the state's prompt payment statute, which requires that claims be paid
within 30 days or accrue interest.  Mr. Katz also claims that the
health management organizations (HMOs) violate the state's Consumer
Fraud Act by engaging in "a pattern of deception" in their contracts.  
The lawsuit also charges that the insurers regularly and improperly
"downcode" doctors' claims, making it appear the doctor performed a
simpler procedure, so they can pay less.

Dr. John I. Sutter, the plaintiff, said that patients are hurt because
the HMO practices inhibit and prevent doctors from providing the best
care.  "It is almost impossible to comply with the demands of the
insurance companies," said Dr. Sutter, a pediatrician for 20 years, who
has 5,000 patients at his Clifton practice.  For example, vision and
hearing screenings, a normal part of a check-up, either are not
reimbursed or are reimbursed at such a low rate that it costs the
doctor money to provide them, Dr. Sutter said.  Few of the doctors in
New Jersey, however, can afford not to join a managed care network,
said Dr. Angelo S. Agro, president of the Medical Society of New
Jersey.  "Patients go where their insurance goes," Dr. Agrosaid.

The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Inc., based in
         Newark,

     (2) Cigna Healthcare of New Jersey Inc. of Rockaway, a part of
         Cigna Corporation of Philadelphia,

     (3) United Healthcare of New Jersey Inc. of Fairfield, a unit of
         United Healthcare of Minnetonka, Minnesota and

     (4) Oxford Health Plans Inc. of Trumbull, Connecticut.

Insurance companies, including some of those in the Sutter suit, have
been defendants in other class action, namely:

     (i) 29 Texas physicians sued Cigna Healthcare of Texas Inc. in
         October, claiming Cigna is unfairly and purposely refusing to
         pay for valid medical services;

    (ii) patients and doctors have twin actions pending in federal
         court in Miami against leading managed care companies Aetna,
         Cigna, United Healthcare, Humana, Prudential Healthcare,
         Pacificare, Wellpoint Health Networks and Health Net;

   (iii) Kansas physicians claim they were cheated out of money owed
         them by a health maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente
         that plans to leave the Kansas City area;

    (iv) a Connecticut judge approved a class action in July by about
         7,000 doctors against Anthem Health Plans Inc., which is
         accused of breach of contract and unfair trade practices;

     (v) in New Mexico, St. Joseph Healthcare won dismissal, in
         September of last year, of a lawsuit filed by senior citizens
         who contended its Medicare-Plus plan subjected them to bait-
         and-switch tactics.


INDIAN TRUST:  Workers Still Untrained For Handling Indian Records
------------------------------------------------------------------
An official appointed by Congress to fix a system of royalties from use
of American Indian lands has "utterly failed" to train workers in how
to handle vital records, a court-appointed "watchdog" said recently in
the ongoing trial over Indian royalties, the Associated Press reported.  

Special Master Alan Balaran, in recent court-filed documents, wrote
that despite promises made three years ago from senior officials in the
Interior Department to train employees to handle Indian trust fund
documents correctly, he found employee training to be lacking. "Left
unchecked, the consequences to Indian beneficiaries could prove
irreversible," Mr. Balaran said.

The Interior Department manages $500 million annually in royalties from
oil and gas drilling mining, grazing, logging and other uses of Indian
lands.  For more than a century, however, the Indian trust money was
sloppily managed by the department, and money intended for the Indians
was lost, misappropriated or never collected.

This mismanagement is now the subject of a class action brought by
300,000 Indians before federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who appointed Mr.
Balaran to monitor reform efforts.  Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim the
government has squandered more than $10 billion.

Congress also told the Interior Department to fix the system and
created the Office of Special Trustee for that purpose.  Promises were
given.  "Unfortunately, this representation stands in a long line of
broken promises," Mr. Balaran wrote.  The training efforts "add to the
grievous perception that trust records deserve no more special care
than an agency personnel file, a payroll record or a requisition for
paper clips."

Judge Lamberth is currently contemplating holding Interior Secretary
Gale Norton in contempt of court for failing to comply with his order
to overhaul the management of the trust fund.  The Judge heard 29 days
of testimony at a contempt trial late last year and earlier this year.  
Secretary Norton has proposed creating a new bureau within the Interior
to manage the trust funds, but that idea has been resisted by Indian
tribal leaders.


JAPAN: Limits Set On Executives' Money Liability In Shareholder Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan recently adopted government ordinances to implement a Commercial
Code revision on May 1, this year, limiting the amount of damages
shareholders can seek from company executives in class actions, the
JIJI Press English News Service reported.

The revised Commercial Code will limit the amount of damages that can
be sought from company executives to six years of remuneration for
directors with the right to represent the company, four years' worth
for other company board members and two years' worth for outside
directors.  Currently, executives face unlimited liabilities.  The new
limits will not be applied when grave negligence or crime is involved.

The revision was enacted last December in response to intensifying
requests from businesses since former Daiwa Bank executives were
ordered to pay $775 million in penalties in a derivative suit over a
bond trading scandal in September 2000.


MARYLAND: Homeowners, Developers Appeal Dismissal of Property Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hoping to revive a lawsuit filed by developers and homeowners seeking
to claim fees that developers paid to Anne Arundel County, Maryland, a
lawyer for the property owners recently told appellate judges that the
county's position on how his clients should seek the money is illegal
and unworkable, The Baltimore Sun reported.

A County attorney countered that a Circuit Court judge was right to
dismiss the lawsuit because state law provides a framework for
disgruntled property owners who are trying to recoup impact fees of
several thousand dollars per house.  Their class action is not the
remedy prescribed by state law, the attorney said.

With an estimated $27 million potentially at stake, an appeal is
expected whatever ruling emerges from the three-judge panel of the
Court of Special Appeals this year.

The homeowners and a developer in the West County community of Seven
Oaks contend that the county has wrongly spent impact fees-charges
levied since the late 1980s to help the county's infrastructure
accommodate population growth, or has held them beyond the six-year
limit, when a refund should have been offered if the money was not
spent or the county did not seek an extension.

The county maintains that a property owner should take the
administrative route of asking the county for a refund, and, if
dissatisfied, take up the issue with the Maryland Tax Court.  Anne
Arundel County Circuit Judge Eugene M. Lerner agreed with the county
early last year.  With the case dismissed early, the issue of how the
county might have spent impact fees was not aired.

During the hearing, two judges of the three-judge panel peppered Senior
Assistant County Attorney William D. Evans. Jr. with questions about
how the county's impact fee law and the state's refund law would mesh.
Judge James A. Kenney III asked how the refund law, which gives
property owners three years to file claims, can be reconciled with the
local law that gives the county six years to spend the money.  Mr.
Evans responded that the state's three-year limit on claims would start
after the county's six years end.

"Are these folks taxpayers?  When did they pay the tax?" Judge Kenny
asked, pointing out that developers, not homeowners, wrote the checks
for the impact fees.  Mr. Evans replied that in many cases, developers
no longer own the properties on which impact fees were levied.

John R. Greiber Jr., attorney for the developers and property owners,
said not only is there no provision in the county impact fee law to ask
the county for the money, but also the Tax Court is likely to tell
homeowners that it lacks jurisdiction and cannot give them money they
cannot prove they paid.  "They are not the taxpayer," he said.  He also
said that the county law "provides for a refund but no administrative
remedy" and that other issues, such as whether to use the county's five
percent interest rate or the state refund law's variable interest rate,
remain.  Making property owners go to Tax Court would be unfair because
homeowners would probably have to spend huge sums to recoup a few
thousand dollars.

The legal battle is one of several by builders who are trying to press
the county to back off its development fees.  Developers are also suing
for refunds from the county forest conservation fund.  Their challenge
to the county's waiver agreements, side contracts for developers to
give money and land for public improvements in exchange for approval to
build, will be heard in the fall by the state's highest court.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs To Amend Annuity Products Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action against Nationwide Financial Services,
Inc. asked for leave to amend the lawsuit, which is pending in Ohio
State Court, relating to the sale of deferred annuity products for use
as investments in tax-deferred contributory retirement plans. The suit
names as defendants the Company and subsidiaries:

     (1) Nationwide Life Insurance Company and

     (2) Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased individual
deferred annuity contracts or participated in group annuity contracts
sold by the Company and the other named Company affiliates which were
used to fund certain tax-deferred retirement plans.

In June 1999, the Company and the other named defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the suit, but the court denied the motion on March 8, 2000.  
On January 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
their complaint to add three new named plaintiffs.  On February 9,
2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The class
has not been certified.

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Former Employee Files Suit Over Job Loss After 9/11
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A former employee has filed a lawsuit for $300 million against
Northwest Airlines Corporation, in the United States District Court in
Memphis, after he, among 10,000 other workers, lost their jobs and
seniority as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the
Associated Press reported recently.

The Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) and the
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW)
also are named as defendants in the lawsuit, which seeks certification
as a class action.  Forty-three people have signed on as co-plaintiffs.

Greg Newsome, the lead plaintiff, a former technician from Cordova,
argues that the layoffs violated the collective bargaining agreement
between the airline and the AMFA and the IAMAW.  The lawsuit seeks back
pay, medical and pension benefits, vacation leave, salary and average
overtime pay, among other things.

The Company has said that the layoffs were covered by a provision in
its labor contracts allowing for layoffs in times of war.  The lawsuit
argues that the Company did not meet the criteria to invoke that
provision.

IAMAW is named as a defendant because the lawsuit says it refused to
recognize the seniority rights of employees.  AMFA took over bargaining
rights for mechanics in 1999, but its contract with Northwest did not
become official until May of last year.  The lawsuit argues that
IAMAW's contract with Northwest was still valid until that time, and it
claims that for 12 months after, employee seniority rights should have
been recognized under the IAMAW contract.  However, the lawsuit
contends, IAMAW refused to recognize seniority rights because of its
long-running dispute with AMFA.

AMFA is being sued because, the lawsuit says, it failed to ensure those
seniority rights under the IAMAW contract.  An AMFA attorney, Lee
Sehan, said the lawsuit is incomprehensible.  Citing the varying
elements involved with seniority, Mr. Sehan said, "The concept of
pursuing this on a class action basis is absurd."


OKLAHOMA: Panel To Monitor Tulsa Police's Civil Rights Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about the formation of a citizen panel to oversee police
activities continues despite the recent settlement of a federal class
action against the Tulsa Police department.  Although the city has
announced the settlement of a class action by a group of black officers
against the department, the settlement did not address the issue of
citizen oversight.

The Justice Department has been investigating the Tulsa Police
Department since last year for an alleged "pattern and practice" of
civil rights abuses.  When police oversight was not made a component
of the settlement of the class action, a 31-member panel made up of
both police and community leaders, which had been meeting since last
fall, continued to examine the issue.  The US Justice Department's
Dallas-based Communities Service Division has acted as a facilitator
during these meetings, according to Police Chief Ron Palmer.

Meanwhile, attorneys on both sides of the lawsuit submitted a proposed
schedule that includes a May 15 deadline for filing objections to the
settlement.  A hearing on any objections would occur sometime in June.

A draft report from the committee exploring oversight was submitted
recently to Chief Palmer, who sent it back to the committee for "minor
corrections."  Chief Palmer also hinted at what direction the report
would not take.  "It (the report) says community oversight as
recommended by others is not recommended," he said.  Chief Palmer
manifested a certain confidence that the work of the current panel
would move forward.  "This committee was developed with community
members and police in cooperation with each other," he said.  "So, it
is a much deeper thought process that what is represented in the decree
(the class action settlement)."

The union that represents Tulsa police officers has been on record as
opposing an oversight board.  The union's President said he was
skeptical that any proposal would be acceptable.  On a further negative
note, creation of a review board may be a moot point.  Five of the nine
City Council members said during a recent municipal campaign that they
oppose creation of a review board.


PRESTAGE FARMS:  Must Face MS Environmental Suit With Hog Contractors
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Prestage Farms Inc. and seven of its hog-growing contractors together
must face a class action that claims they pollute the water and air in
north Mississippi, the state Supreme Court recently ruled, according to
an Associated Press report.  The justices ordered the case to trial in
Montgomery County Chancery Court.

The class action against the Company, which is based in North Carolina
and operates Prestage Farms Mississippi headquartered at West Point,
was filed by dozens of residents who live near the Company's various
operations in north Mississippi.  The lawsuit claims that the Company
and its contract hog growers constitute a "menace to public health and
welfare" by emitting pollution and foul odors into the air and water.

The lawsuit seeks $75 million in damages from the Company and seven of
its contracted hog-growing operations.  The lawsuit also calls for hog
farms to install filters in the processing barns to eliminate the
smell.

Chancellor Dennis Baker earlier denied a motion by the Company and the
seven contract hog producers to hold separate trials for each
defendant.  Chancellor Baker stayed the proceedings until the issue
could be appealed to the state's Supreme Court.  Justice Oliver Diaz
Jr., writing for the Supreme Court, said there was a common pattern of
behavior among the Company and its contractors that justifies the
Chancellor's refusal to order separate trials.

"Plaintiffs in this case allege that Prestage Farms, acting in concert
with each of its contract growers, established and operated identical
public and private nuisances which caused harm to each plaintiff and
their property.  We find that . the plaintiffs' claims arise out of
the same series of transactions or occurrences," Justice Diaz wrote.

Presiding Justice James Smith disagreed with the majority ruling on the
severance issue.  He wrote that the Company and each of the seven
producers should be afforded separate trials because nuisance cases are
usually judged on facts as they affect individual plaintiffs.  Justice
Smith said that the claim of each of the 68 plaintiffs will vary
depending on their proximity to the farm, duration of each plaintiff's
exposure to odor and pollutants, the level of exposure, weather
conditions and topography, the number of other livestock present in the
vicinity and the plaintiff's prior medical history.  Justice Smith
therefore concluded that each producer deserves a separate trial.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Former Employee Sues Over Pension Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
A former Qwest Communications International employee recently filed a
lwsuit in the United States District Court, in Denver, Colorado,
alleging that the Company fired her to avoid paying out pension and
health care benefits.  The suit seeks class action status for
participants in the Qwest Pension Plan, the Qwest Health Care Plan, and
the Qwest Management Separation Program, which could result in a class
total of several thousand people.

The suit, brought by Robin Tingley of Arvada, Colorado, alleges that
the Company, trying to bolster its sinking stock price, has tried to
reduce pension payments because it includes income from its pension
funds in its annual earnings.  The lawsuit says that the Company
engaged in a "pattern and practice of discharging pension plan
participants . with the intent to interfere with their attainment of
pension plan benefits."

Ms. Tingley had worked for the Company and US West, which Qwest
acquired in 2000, for more than 26 years when she was fired in January
2001, as part of workforce cuts.  She claims that the lump sum value of
her pension plan was $51,000.  If she had been allowed to work four
more years, the pension plan's value would have been $200,000, and her
retiree health care coverage would have been $300,000, according to the
lawsuit.

Ms. Tingley alleges that the Company routinely fired long-term managers
and forced others to take reduced pension plan benefits, and then
replaced them with temporary or contract workers, in efforts to cut
costs.  The lawsuit also challenges a rule that former employees who
want to get their pension benefits may not be rehired for at least six
months.  In the filing, Ms. Tingley's lawyer, Curtis Kennedy, called
the rule "simply arbitrary and capricious."

The Company has said the rule is necessary to show the Internal Revenue
Service that the employee was let go.  The lawsuit says the IRS
requires no such procedure.

This lawsuit is only the latest in a string of legal actions against
the Company.  There are two other suits seeking class action status
that allege the Company inflated its stock price and defrauded
shareholders in a $450 million deal with another telecom company.  That
transaction with KMC Holdings is also the subject of a Securities and
Exchange Commission probe that is investigating the Company's
accounting practices in 2000 and 2001.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Lawyers Say Firm Plotted To Deny Smokers Justice
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cigarette maker British American Tobacco shredded documents in an
international plot to deny justice to smokers, lawyers for an
Australian lung cancer victim who successfully sued the Company, said
recently, according to the Associated Press.

In a landmark ruling, a Supreme Court Jury in Victoria state ordered
the London-based tobacco giant's Australian arm, British American
Tobacco Australia Services Ltd. (BAT), to pay terminally ill cancer
patient Rolah McCabe AUD$710,000 compensation.  The money is for pain
and suffering, medical expenses and loss of earnings.

Ms. McCabe, 51, from Melbourne, is the first Australian smoker to
successfully sue an international tobacco company.  Australian anti-
smoking activists say the ruling sets a precedent that could open the
way for a class action on behalf of thousands of tobacco victims.

Justice Geoffrey Eames recently lifted a suppression order, which had
prevented publication of documents giving reasons why he struck out the
company's defenses to the suit.  Justice Eames said the Company and its
lawyers, Sydney-based Clayton Utz, had deliberately destroyed thousands
of documents to subvert court processes and deny a fair trial to
plaintiff Ms. McCabe and other potential litigants.

Justice Eames said a Company policy known as "document retention,"
which started in 1985, let the Company destroy damaging documents
"under the cover of an apparently innocent housekeeping arrangement."  
On that basis, the Justice said, he struck out the tobacco company's
defenses and ordered a jury to award damages to Ms. McCabe, who is
expected to die before the end of the year.

Peter Gordon, a senior partner in the law firm Slater & Gordon, which
represented Ms. McCabe, claimed the policy was "an international
conspiracy by company executives and lawyers in the US, UK and
Australia to destroy evidence and prevent litigants like Rolan McCabe
from getting a fair trial."

Scott Hailstone, a spokesman for British American Tobacco in Britain,
admitted that documents had been destroyed, but said the Company had
broken no laws.  "We didn't know anything was going to be filed against
us, so we have acted perfectly within the law," he said.  Mr. Hailstone
also dismissed claims that the decision set a precedent, saying that
the judge's findings were specific to Ms. McCabe's case.  

However, Mr. Gordon said Slater and Gordon believe the documents
"detailed the master plan of the tobacco industry to entrap generations
of young Australians . to get them smoking, to get them young and to
get them hooked."

Quit Victoria Executive Director, Todd Harper's comment also indicated
the belief that the destroyed documents set forth a long-term plan of
action against litigants.  Mr. Harper said the documents were not
destroyed to deny Mrs. McCabe a fair trial, but to deny any smoker a
fair trial.  "Now, any smoker who sues BAT may also have their case
proceed to an assessment of damages, without having to prove
liability," he said.  "How incriminating must those documents have
been, for a company to decide, with the full knowledge of the possible
consequences, that it was better to destroy them than to have them seen
by a judge or jury or by the public?"

In a statement, law firm Clayton Utz said it had not destroyed any
documents and had not advised the Company "to dispose of prejudicial
documents so that their production could be avoided in tobacco
litigation."

Mr. Hailstone said he was confident the Company's appeal, which is to
be filed early next month, against the suit's decision would succeed,
adding that three similar suits against tobacco companies in
Australia had failed.


WALLACE'S BOOKSTORES: Court Denies Ex-Employees' Suit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Former employees of Wallace's Bookstores do not meet the requirements
for a class action in their claims for unused vacation pay and other
benefits they were owed, when the Lexington, Kentucky company went into
bankruptcy last year, the Associated Press reports.

US Bankruptcy Judge William S. Howard ruled recently that only
individual claims filed before the January 14 deadline could be
considered for payment.  The Judge also said the benefits were accrued
before the Company filed for reorganization, so the employees will be
paid the same percentage of their claims as other Company creditors.  
The Company, which had 1,800 employees, estimates the amount it owes at
$675,000, although employee claims "greatly" exceed that total, said
Timothy Robinson, Company attorney.

Judge Howard's rulings came at the end of a two-hour hearing in which
an attorney for the employees argued that they should receive 100
percent of their benefits, because the Company committed fraud after it
filed for bankruptcy in February 2001.  The Company promised its
employees that they would be paid in full for all unused vacation time
if they stayed while it reorganized, said attorney Christopher Miller,
who represents 112 Company employees.  The Company had no intention of
paying such benefits, Mr. Miller said, and might have known that
bankruptcy law would have prevented some of the payments.

If the request for a class action designation is denied, "we are going
to file 112 fraud lawsuits in this court," Mr. Miller said.  "Where
else can we go?"

The Company's attorneys denied the fraud allegation, which was not
decided by Judge Howard on the day of the hearing.  They argued that
the employees earned the benefits before the bankruptcy, so they had to
be considered along with all other pre-bankruptcy claims.  

Benefits earned after the bankruptcy filing have been paid in full,
however, Mr. Robinson said.  About 30 employees inadvertently had been
paid benefits earned before the filing, and they will be asked to
refund the money to the company, he said.

Even if the Company lied to its employees, said Company attorney
Michael Glassman, there was no way to tell whether all 1,800 employees
at 90 stores in 26 states heard the lies or believed them enough to
stay with the Company.  "The nature of the debtor's (Wallace's)
business and the way it was spread out makes that highly unlikely," Mr.
Glassman said.  Unless all former employees could be interviewed to
determine what they heard and how many heard the same thing, there is
no way to fit them into a group to qualify for class action status, he
argued.

Judge Howard agreed with this argument, and said that each of the
former employees had twice been sent claims forms and notified of
deadlines for filing individual claims for back benefits.  "If they
fail to do so (file claims), it is not the fault of the debtor
(Wallace's) in this case," said Judge Howard.  The original claims
deadline had been extended by more than two months to give employees
more time to file, he said.


WISCONSIN: Government Probes State's Public Schools Disabled Program
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal officials are investigating the treatment of disabled children
in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), representatives of the district and
the city teachers union said, according to The Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel.

The Justice Department launched the inquiry after the filing of a
private class action alleging that MPS systematically violated special-
education laws, said Richard Perry, an attorney representing the
Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association.  

"They felt they should look into it because of the seriousness of the
allegations - not that they are assuming that they are valid,
necessarily, but they ought to look into it to see whether they should
get involved in the lawsuit," Mr. Perry said.  The Justice Department
is proceeding informally in its investigation and has not ordered
anyone to cooperate, said Mr. Perry.

Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, managing attorney for the Wisconsin Coalition for
Advocacy, the non-profit group that brought the original lawsuit on
behalf of the children and parents, said that he would welcome the
resources and influence of the Justice Department on behalf of the
class action.  They may, however, have their own opinion as to what the
resolution is, which may not be in sync with our opinion, he said.  The
coalition, the district and the union are involved in mediation
sessions aimed at settling the suit.

The teachers union also is seeking to intervene in the lawsuit.  The
federal inquiry has spawned a dispute between MPS and the teachers
union about teachers' rights during meetings with investigators.  MPS
officials want administrators and an attorney present for the district
during interviews with Justice Department investigators.  Union leaders
think they should have a representative present as well, to protect
members' rights.

Mr. Perry explained that answers by teachers to some questions could
lead to disciplinary action, "such as if a special education teacher
assigned too many students admits that he or she failed to keep up with
mandatory reports."  However, MPS won't allow union representatives to
attend because state law forbids the disclosure of confidential student
information without parents' consent, MPS spokesman Donald Hoffman
said.

Mr. Hoffman said the prohibition also applies to disclosures to Justice
Department officials.  Mr. Hoffman could not explain how, if people
participating in the interviews will not reveal confidential
information to the Justice Department, the teachers union
representatives at such interviews might learn things they shouldn't.

Mr. Perry, the union's attorney, said the union has complained to the
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission that by barring union
representatives, MPS is violating state law.  A state hearing examiner
must review the complaint.

                          Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Adelphia Communications Corporation
(Nasdaq:ADLAC) during the period from April 2, 2001 through April 3,
2002, inclusive.  The suit, pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserts claims against the
Company and controlling shareholders and top executives, John and
Timothy Rigas.

The Rigas Family borrowed perhaps as much as $2.7 billion through
various entities, including a limited partnership named Highlands
Holdings, Inc. from credit facilities that were co-guaranteed by the
Company, without investors' knowledge.  This practice allowed for these
debt obligations to remain off the Company's balance sheet and,
instead, appear as if they were only the obligation of Highland and the
other entities. The Rigas Family used the borrowed money to purchase
Company stock and convertible bonds during the past four (4) years.

According to published reports, the securities purchased by the Rigas
Family cost approximately $1.8 billion, but their market value has
since shrunk by approximately $1 billion. Investors knew the Rigas
Family were buying stock through Highlands, but it was generally
assumed those purchase were made with the Rigas Family's personal
funds.

On March 27, 2002, during a conference call with analysts, questions
concerning how these purchases were financed led to disclosures that
the Rigas Family had caused the Company itself to guarantee at least
$2.3 billion in off-balance sheet debt to secure these purchases which
benefited the Rigas Family, and other transactions that also benefited
Rigas-controlled companies. Thus, the Company's debt obligations were
far higher than was ever revealed to the public, and the public was
unaware of the extent to which Company resources were being diverted to
the benefit of the Rigas Family.  The disclosures made in the last few
weeks suggest that all of the adverse news has not yet been revealed.

The suit charges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. During the class period, the Company's
shares traded as high as $45 per share.  On April 11, 2002, the stock
closed at only $8.01 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by Phone:
800-889-3701 by E-mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.abbeygardy.com


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Cohen Milstein Lodges 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
Company securities.  Defendants first disclosed the existence of the
off-balance sheet debt during an earnings conference call on March 27,
2002.

Then, on April 1, 2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an
extension to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC.  The
Company reported that the extension was being sought to allow the
Company and its outside auditors additional time to review certain
accounting matters relating to co-borrowing credit facilities to which
the Company is a party.

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


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Paskowitz Associates Files Suit in E.D. PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Adelphia Communications Corporation
(Nasdaq: ADLAC) during the period from April 2, 2001 through April 3,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The suit asserts claims against the Company
and controlling shareholders and top executives, John and Timothy
Rigas.  

Unbeknownst to investors, the Rigas brothers borrowed perhaps as much
as $2.7 billion through various entities, including a limited
partnership named Highlands Holdings, Inc. from credit facilities that
were co-guaranteed by the Company. This practice allowed for these debt
obligations to remain off the Company's balance sheet and, instead,
appear as if they were only the obligation of Highland and the other
entities. The Rigas brothers used the borrowed money to purchase
Company stock and convertible bonds during the past four (4) years.

According to published reports, the securities purchased by the Rigas
brothers cost approximately $1.8 billion, but their market value has
since shrunk by approximately $1 billion. Investors knew the Rigas
brothers were buying stock through Highlands, but it was generally
assumed those purchase were made with the Rigas brothers' personal
funds.

On March 27, 2002, during a conference call with analysts, questions
concerning how these purchases were financed led to disclosures that
the Rigas Family had caused the Company itself to guarantee at least
$2.3 billion in off-balance sheet debt to secure these purchases which
benefited the Rigas Family, and other transactions that also benefited
Rigas-controlled companies. Thus, the Company's debt obligations were
far higher than was ever revealed to the public, and the public was
unaware of the extent to which the Company's resources were being
diverted to the benefit of the Rigas Family. The disclosures made in
the last few weeks suggest that all of the adverse news has not yet
been revealed.

The suit charges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  During the class period, Company
shares traded as high as $45 per share. On April 11, 2002, the stock
closed at only $8.01 per share.

For more information, contact Laurence Paskowitz by Phone: 800-705-9529
by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com or visit the Web site:
http://www.classactionsonline.com


ANDRX CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of Andrx Corporation (Nasdaq: ADRX) who
publicly traded securities between April 30, 2001 and February 21,
2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors 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 throughout the class period, the
defendants issued a series of misstatements concerning Taztia, a
generic drug version of Tiazac, stating that the only issue preventing
production of the drug was continuing patent litigation. Defendants
failed to disclose that it was having repeated difficulty in
manufacturing a stable form of Taztia, forcing the Company to amend its
FDA application 13 times.

On February 21, 2002, when the Company finally disclosed this
information, the price of its stock fell from $42.61 per share to
$34.96 per share.

For more information, contact Patricia Guiteau by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by
E-mail: pguiteau@whhf.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whhf.com  


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Vigorously Opposing Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from July 15,1999 and
December 6,2000.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against one
or both of the Company and the individual defendants.

The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's July 15, 1999 initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The suit
alleges that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering
was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it
did not disclose these arrangements.

This lawsuit is part of the massive "IPO allocation" litigation
involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating shares of
successful initial public offerings.  The Company believes that more
than one hundred and eighty other companies have been named in more
than eight hundred identical lawsuits that have been filed by some of
the same plaintiffs' law firms.

The Company believes that such lawsuit and claims are without merit,
and have meritorious defenses to the actions.  The Company plans to
vigorously defend the litigation. However, failure to successfully
defend this action could substantially harm its results of operations,
liquidity and financial condition.


BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: Appellate Court To Hear Appeal of Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States 8th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear on April 18,
2002 the appeal of the dismissal of a securities class action against
Beverly Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors by
the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

The suit asserts claims under Section 10(b) (including Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and under Section 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising from practices being investigated by the US
Department of Justice and the Office of Inspector General of the
Department of Health and Human Services.  The federal agencies earlier
conducted an investigation of the Company's allocation to the Medicare
program of certain nursing labor costs in our skilled nursing
facilities from 1990 to 1998.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit in October 1999. In
October 2001, the court granted the motion and the complaint was
dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The briefing schedule has been
completed.

Due to the preliminary state of the class action and the fact the
second amended complaint does not allege damages with any specificity,
the Company is unable at this time to assess the probable outcome of
the suit or the materiality of the risk of loss.  The Company believes
that it acted lawfully with respect to plaintiff investors and will
vigorously defend against the suit.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
(Nasdaq:BMY) between September 25, 2001 and March 19, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company and Peter R. Dolan.

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

Specifically, as alleged in the suit, defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that the Company's clinical trial of VANLEV, a new drug for
the treatment of hypertension, that was completed in September,
demonstrated that VANLEV users experienced a higher risk of a side
effect known as angiodema and that it was not shown to be superior to a
cheaper generic drug already on the market. When this information was
belatedly disclosed to the market on March 20, 2002, the price of
Company shares dropped 15.6%, or $7.57, to close at $41.08.

For more information, contact Robert Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 or
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who acquired Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) common
stock between May 16, 2001 and April 1, 2002, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District Court of New York.  Named as
defendants in the complaint are the Company and:

     (1) Peter R. Dolan,

     (2) Frederick S. Schiff,

     (3) Harrison M. Bains, Jr. and

     (4) Curtis L. Tomlin.

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 suit alleges, among other things, that throughout the
class period, defendants engaged in a scheme to mislead the investing
public as to the Company's ability to maintain its historical revenue
and earnings growth, its future prospects and its sales and revenue
levels for fiscal year 2001.

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants engaged in a systematic
program of moving sales from future periods in a process of what is
sometimes called "channel stuffing."  In fact, on April 1, 2002,
defendants admitted that the Company had overloaded US wholesalers with
products by them offering incentives.

The defendants further admitted that US wholesalers were holding
approximately $1 billion in excess inventory and that the de-stocking
of this inventory would materially adversely affect sales and earnings
in 2002.

The suit further alleges that defendants' misrepresentations caused the
price of the Company's common stock securities to be artificially
inflated throughout the class period.  In response to the April 1, 2002
announcement, the price of the Company's stock dropped over 5% to
$38.24.

For more information, contact Jennifer Haas by Phone: 800-889-3701 by
E-mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


CALIPER TECHNOLOGIES: Expects NY Court To Consolidate Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Caliper Technologies Corporation expects that the four securities class
actions pending against it and certain of its officers and directors
will be consolidated by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suits were commenced in June 2001.  Two of these suits allege
claims against the Company and certain of its officers or directors
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The other two
suits allege claims against the same defendants under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act.  Each of the complaints also names as a
defendant one or more of the underwriters of the Company's December
1999 initial public offering of common stock.

Each of the complaints allege that one or more of the Company's
underwriters charged excessive, undisclosed commissions to investors
and entered into improper agreements with investors relating to
aftermarket transactions.  The suits seek rescission or rescissionary
damages on the Section 11 claims and an unspecified amount
of money damages on the Rule 10b-5 claims.

The Company believes that the claims alleged against it and its
officers and directors are without merit, and intends to defend these
cases vigorously.


ELAN CORPORATION: Eaton Vance To Be Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston-based Eaton Vance Corporation has emerged as the leading
plaintiff in the litany of securities fraud claims made against Irish
pharmaceuticals group, Elan Corporation, the Irish Times reported
recently.

Fox Asset Management, a subsidiary of Eaton Vance based in New Jersey,
has joined the class action being put together by New York law firm
Wolf Haldenstein Alder Freeman & Hertz, according to Mr. Fred Isquith,
a partner with the law firm.

"We believe that Fox is the largest single claimant," Mr. Isquith said.  
Fox lost $12 million when shares in the Dublin-based group slumped
after concerns about its accounting practices were raised in February,
he said.  The shares, currently trading around $11 in the U.S., were at
$50 at the start of the year when the Company's accounting practices
came under scrutiny in the wake of the Enron collapse.  Shortly
afterward, the Company issued a profits warning, driving the shares
down further.

Many of the suits also list Mr. Donald Geaney, the Company's chairman
and chief executive, as a defendant along with a number of other senior
management figures.  KPMG, the Company's auditors, also has been named
in the litigation.

Approximately 30 law firms have filed proceedings seeking class action
status against the Company on behalf of their clients.  The claims
center on around 50 research-and-development (R&D) vehicles set up by
the Company.  The suits allege that the Company used the vehicles to
inflate its earnings, because it would invest in the vehicles and then
take back the cash as licensing fees that were booked as revenues.  The
run on Company shares was triggered by a front-page article in The Wall
Street Journal that focused on the use of the R&D firms.

Other law firms have filed similar class actions in San Diego and
Atlanta.  Under US law, the various claims will be combined, but only
those initiated within two months of the first class action are taken
into account when the class of plaintiffs eligible to share damages is
defined by the courts.  This process got under way last week when the
court was asked to consolidate the class actions and appoint a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  Normally, the largest plaintiff is the
lead plaintiff and its lawyers the lead counsel.  The lead counsel will
fight the action and earn the largest fee, which can be up to 25
percent of damages won.

Any shareholder who falls within the class defined by the court is
eligible to share any damages that are awarded.  According to Mr.
Isquith, any Irish shareholder who bought shares on the US market will
almost certainly qualify for the class.  Over half the Company's shares
bought by Irish brokers for private clients are purchased in the US
according to Dublin market sources.  It has not yet emerged whether any
private or institutional Irish investors have joined any of the class
actions.

Once the consolidated complaint has been filed, the Company will be
able to apply to the court to have the action dismissed.  The Company
has said its accounting and business practices will stand up to any
scrutiny.  A spokesman for the group has characterized the actions as
being entirely without merit.

Eaton Vance manages assets of around $49 billion.  Although small by
US standards, Eaton Vance has been one of the best-performing fund
managers in the recent bear market.  Fox Asset Management, an
80 percent owned subsidiary, has around $2 billion in assets under
management.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (Nasdaq: GMST)
between August 11, 1999 and April 1, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Comapny, which invented the VCR technology
that allows users to record TV programs using a simple code and which
now owns TV Guide magazine, along with senior management and a majority
shareholder, violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting its
financial condition and improperly recognizing revenue.

Among other things, it is alleged that, contrary to generally accepted
accounting principles, the Company was accruing revenue that was
dependent upon a favorable outcome of patent litigation that it could
easily lose.

The truth began to emerge on March 18, 2002, when the Company announced
its co-chief operating officer was resigning, just hours before the
Company released the news that it was reporting a loss of $210 million
for the fourth quarter.  The next day, the Company announced that it
would also be taking a $5 billion write-down associated with goodwill.
Ultimately, with the filing of its annual report on April 1, 2002, it
was revealed that the Company's financial results may have been
overstated by as much as $80 million for 2001.

On this news, the price of the Company's shares fell to $9.01, over
$5.00 below its previous close.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman,
Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


GILAT SATELLITE: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who acquired Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd.
securities between November 13, 2000 and October 2, 2001.  The suit is
pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New
York 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 during the class period, 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, as
compared to the $150 million announced on May 14, 2001, and that it
expected to report a loss of $267 million or approximately $11.40 per
share.

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

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


INTERFACE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Consider Filing Amended Suit in E.D. MI
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions against Interface Systems,
Inc. intend to file an amended complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The suits were initially commenced in July 2000 against the Company and
various additional defendants, including Company President and Chief
Executive Officer, Robert A. Nero and Fiserv Correspondent Services,
Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The three cases contain substantially similar
allegations of false and misleading representations by various
defendants allegedly designed to inflate the Company's stock price.

In September 2000, the Company filed motions to strike or dismiss the
suits for three reasons:

     (1) failure to meet the certification requirements of the Private
         Securities Litigation Reform Act;

     (2) failure to state a claim, and

     (3) because of improper venue, or in the alternative, motion to
         transfer the lawsuits to the Eastern District of Michigan.

In July 2001, the NY court granted the motion to transfer the lawsuits
to the Eastern District of Michigan, and left the decision on the
pending motions to dismiss to the transferee court.  The United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held a status
conference on the cases on October 23, 2001 without resolving either of
our pending motions.  On March 8, 2002, the court ordered the parties
to appear for a status and scheduling conference on April 4, 2002.

On March 26, 2002, the Company received from plaintiffs' Michigan
counsel a draft amended complaint through which plaintiffs proposed to:

     (i) consolidate the separate actions into one action;

    (ii) add certain new plaintiffs;

   (iii) add Tumbleweed Communications Corporation (the Company's
         parent) as a defendant;

    (iv) drop the claims under the federal securities laws; and

     (v) add claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent
         misrepresentation.

Plaintiffs have not yet filed a motion to amend the pending complaints,
nor has the court authorized such an amendment.  In the meantime, the
motions to dismiss or strike remain before the court with respect to
the pending complaints.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit, but cannot give
any assurance can be given about their outcome.  The Company concedes
that an adverse outcome could significantly harm its business and
operating results.


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

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its high-ranking officers
and its controlling shareholder violated federal securities laws by
deliberately inflating the stock price of the Company through the
issuance of false and misleading reports, press releases and statements
to securities analysts.  Specifically, defendants misrepresented the
demand for the Company's products, misrepresented the success of its
acquisitions, and failed to timely account for changes in goodwill.

The suit alleges that defendants needed to maintain an artificially
inflated stock price in order to successfully negotiate stock-for-stock
acquisitions.  In addition, defendants also used the opportunity to
sell off over 25 million shares of their personal holdings of stock at
artificially inflated prices.

For more information, contact Timothy J. Burke by Phone: 888-388-4605
by E-mail: tburke@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.secfraud.com


JDS UNIPHASE: Schatz Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq: JDSU) between July 27,
1999 and July 26, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, which makes laser subsystems and
equipment used to build fiber-optic telecommunications networks,
together with ten top officers and its controlling shareholder,
violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting its ability to
monitor demand and to control its inventory.

Specifically, it is alleged that, among other things, throughout the
class period, the Company was aware that demand for its products was
diminishing and that, despite numerous acquisitions, its continued
financial growth was dependent upon only a few customers. Nonetheless,
the Company represented that future sales would continue to be strong
and that its customer base was expanding.

Moreover, it is alleged that, in order to meet analysts' earnings
expectations, the Company was shipping products to customers before the
orders were even confirmed.  The suit also alleges that the individual
defendants and the controlling shareholder sold or disposed of 25.2
million shares of their Company stock for proceeds of $2.1 billion.

On July 26, 2001, the Company announced that it was restating its
results for the 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2001 and would be writing
off $44 billion in goodwill associated with its acquisitions. On this
news, the price for Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90 per
share, considerably below its class period high of $146.32.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman,
Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX:MSS) claiming
that the Company's publicly reported financial results were misleading,
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  
The suit was filed on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's
common stock from August 1, 2001 through February 14, 2002 or acquired
shares in or traceable to its August 1, 2001 public stock offering.

According to the suit, the Company's financial results were falsely
enhanced by, among other things, improperly recognized revenues and
overstated inventories.  The truth about the state of the electronics
company's finances began to emerge on February 15, 2002, when the
Company issued a press release before the market opened stating that
it:

     (1) would delay filing its financial report for the third fiscal
         quarter ended December 31, 2001 because it was in the process
         of verifying its earnings and inventory valuation;

     (2) expected a significant third quarter 2001 loss;

     (3) was in default under its loan agreements;

     (4) expected to restate its financial statements for the second
         fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2001 and possibly for other
         periods; and

     (5) Had terminated its chief financial officer.

After the announcement, trading of Company stock was abruptly halted,
and has not yet resumed. The shares had traded as high as $16 during
the class period.

For more information, contact Julie A. Richmond, Michael G. Lange 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.  


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of investors who acquired shares of New Power Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NPW)
between October 5,2000 and December 5,2001.

The firm notes that the class action on behalf of New Power investors
will continue, regardless of the outcome of a bid by Centrica. Some
investors have expressed concern that the class action for securities
law violations is dependent on the outcome of the Centrica proposal.
This is incorrect. The suit will be vigorously prosecuted no matter
which option Centrica chooses to pursue, as these two matters are
independent of each other.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's public offering on October 5, 2000 was false and misleading
in several ways, including misrepresentations and omissions concerning
the adequacy of risk management systems put in place in conjunction
with NewPower affiliate, Enron Energy Services, Inc. (EES), and the
true nature and purpose of certain related party transactions,
including transactions pursuant to which Enron attempted to hedge its
investment in NewPower through use of a partnership known as "Raptor
III," which was conceived and designed by Enron CFO Andrew Fastow.

Claims regarding these misrepresentations and omissions have been
asserted under Section 11 of the Securities Act against the
underwriters of the October 5, 2000 initial public offering and against
those persons who were directors (or about to become directors) of the
Company at the time of that offering, including the Company's top
executives, CEO H. Eugene Lockhart, Chairman Lou L. Pai and CFO William
I Jacobs.

The suit also alleges claims against certain of these same defendants
for violations of 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 during the
class period. The suit alleges in this regard that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors misrepresented or failed to
disclose:

     (1) that the Company had not adopted effective and appropriate
         hedging strategies against volatility of commodity prices;

     (2) that the Company was on course to achieve its financial goals
         and had sufficient liquidity to do so; and

     (3) that certain forward contracts with EES posed little risk of
         loss when in truth and in fact they were driving the Company
         toward insolvency, and were largely structured to protect and
         enrich Enron, NewPower's controlling shareholder.

For more information, contact Tanya Autry by Phone: 501-907-2555 or by
E-mail: jge@emersonfirm.com


SIPEX CORPORATION: MA Federal Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, in Massachusetts, recently dismissed
a securities class action that accused Sipex Corporation of improperly
recognizing revenue in 2000, filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock from July 20, 2000 through January 11, 2001.  

The suit was filed in July 2001, six months after the Company's January
11 warning that fourth quarter 2000 revenue would miss previous
guidance, due to order cancellations, product returns and production
problems.  

The Court granted the Billerica, Massachusetts-based semiconductor
Company's request to dismiss the suit, which also alleged that Company
insiders sold more than $35 million of its stock prior to the January
11 announcement.

Company Chief Financial Officer Frank DiPietro said that the lawyers
for the plaintiffs, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, dropped
the case after the judge refused to allow them to solicit for
plaintiffs again.  Milberg Weiss solicited shareholders 12 times, but
none signed on as plaintiff in the purported class action, said Mr.
DiPietro.


STILLWATER MINING: Securities Suits Filed Over Financial Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stillwater Mining Company faces two securities class actions, both
charging the Company with releasing false financial statement in New
York and Philadelphia, the Associated Press reported recently.

A New York law firm filed the first suit on behalf of investor groups
PGM Associates LP and PGM Offshore Partners, blaming bogus performance
statements for millions of dollars in losses.  The second suit, filed
by Brian Felgoise of Philadelphia, also contends the Company's
financial statements inflated its market price.

The first suit focuses on a one-year period ending this month, and
specifically names Company CEO Frank McAllister, Chief Financial
Officer Jim Sabala and Harry Smith, a chief operating officer who
resigned in December.  Among other allegations, the complaint accuses
the Company of improperly reporting "probable reserves," and inflating
the value of mine property.  The Company knew about the potential
problems as early as last December, the lawsuit claims.  When that was
disclosed this month, the Company's stock dropped nearly a quarter in
value.

The first complaint also says the Company moved to reduce shareholder
power, when it increased the shareholder majority needed to call a
special meeting from 20 percent to 50 percent.  The Company failed to
disclose that change for seven months, the suit says.

Last month, mine officials said they spoke with officials from the
federal Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the financial
reports.  At the time, CEO Frank McAllister said the mine's reporting
methods had been reviewed by an independent consultant since 1994.  A
second company also has looked over those methods and said they were in
compliance with the SEC, Mr. McAllister said.

Victor Flores, an analyst with HSBC Securities, said he was aware only
of the first lawsuit, but it is not good for the Company.  "They are
fighting so may battles on so many fronts," he said.  "They are being
sued for misrepresentation.  They have the SEC problem.  They have
dissident shareholders wanting to throw out the board.  They have
operational problems, and they have analysts writing negative
comments."

Mr. Flores said the Company is getting closer scrutiny in the wake of
the Enron collapse, but added, if the company had stayed on the
"straight and narrow," it would not be drawing attention to itself.


STILLWATER MINING: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Stillwater Mining Company
(NYSE:SWC) securities between April 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and certain of its key
officers and directors.

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

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


STILLWATER MINING: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Stillwater Mining Company
(NYSE:SWC) securities between April 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and:

     (1) Francis R. McAllister,

     (2) James A. Sabala and

     (3) Harry C. Smith

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

The suit alleges that the Company improperly classified "mineralized
material" as "probable reserves" and, further, that defendants'
improper manipulation of probable reserves overstated the Company's net
income during the class period because defendants depreciated its plant
and equipment costs according of the life of these reserves.  The suit
alleges that these alleged facts will likely have a negative impact on
the financial circumstances of the Company.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-332-0030 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL)
common stock during the period between October 19, 2000 and February
13, 2002, inclusive.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants engaged in 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 the above-described 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 Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.classlawyer.com


VERSATA INC.: Hearing On Dismissal Motion Set For May 2002 in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California set for May 10,2002 the hearing for the motion to dismiss
the securities class action pending against Versata, Inc.

The consolidated suit arose from several suits filed in April 11, 2001,
charging the Company and certain of its current and former officers
with violations of federal securities laws.  The consolidated suit
alleges claims under section 10(b) and section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and claims under section 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The Company intends to defend against these actions vigorously.  


VITRIA TECHNOLOGIES: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Vitria Technologies, Inc. faces a securities class action pending
against it and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO)
violated the federal securities laws because the Company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court beginning in January
2001 against numerous public companies that first sold their common
stock publicly since the mid-1990s.  In August 2001, all of these IPO-
related lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.  Judge
Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on September 7,
2001, at which time she ordered, among other things, that the time for
all defendants to respond to any complaint be postponed until further
order of the court.  Thus, neither the Company nor any of its officers
or directors has been required to answer the complaint, and no
discovery has been commenced.

At a further status conference in March 2002, Judge Scheindlin stated
that she would appoint lead plaintiffs counsel in these IPO-related
lawsuits in March 2002 and would require the appointed lead plaintiffs
counsel to file amended, consolidated complaints in the these IPO-
related lawsuits by April 17, 2002.  Judge Scheindlin further stated
that she did not expect the defendants to file motions to dismiss the
amended, consolidated complaints until at least mid-June 2002.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend against it vigorously.

                              *********


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  * * *