CAR_Public/020418.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, April 18, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 76

                           Headlines

AMES TRUE: Voluntarily Recalls 647T Wheelbarrows Over Injury Hazard
AT&T CORPORATION: CO Landowner Files Suit Over Fiber Optic Network
BAYER CORPORATION: More Plaintiffs Join Suit Over Anti-Cholesterol Drug
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls More Than 1M Jeep Models Due to Fire Hazard
DAIWA BANK: Sued Over New York Bond Trading Scandal and Debt Waivers

ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over PPA Containing Products in W.D. LA
HERCULES INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Carbon Antitrust Suit
HOOTERS RESTAURANTS: Hearing Set For Final Approval of $9M Settlement
INDIAN FUNDS: Tribes Join Suit V. BIA Over Civil Rights Violations
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Faces Suit Alleging RESPA Violations in N.D. Alabama

MARSH MCLENNAN: Subsidiaries Sued For Violations of ICA in S.D. IL
TERRORIST ATTACKS: Suit Considered Over Treatment of Middle East Men
WISCONSIN: "Seriously Mentally Ill" Defined in Supermax Settlement

                         Securities Fraud

724 SOLUTIONS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in PA
ALAMOSA (DELAWARE): Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in NY
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Labels "Without Merit" NY, IL Securities Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

CLICK COMMERCE: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
CROWN MEDIA: Agrees To Settle Suit Over Hallmark Transactions in DE
DIGITAL ISLAND: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Delaware Court
EAGLE BUILDING: Rabin Peckel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
EAGLE BUILDING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Florida

EAGLE BUILDING: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ENRON CORPORATION: Defendants Expanded To Included Two Law Firms
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HUMANA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in W.D. KY

JDS UNIPHASE: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
JDS UNIPHASE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
SAF T LOK: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida
STILLWATER MINING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
VIRGINIA SPRINGS: Agrees To $9M Settlement of Securities Suit in DE
VIROPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
                             
                           *********

AMES TRUE: Voluntarily Recalls 647T Wheelbarrows Over Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ames True Temper, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 647,000
wheelbarrows.  The plastic wheel assemblies on these wheelbarrows,
manufactured by a predecessor company, can break when being inflated
with high-pressure air hoses. This can result in plastic pieces
exploding from the rims of the wheels, possibly hitting nearby
consumers and causing lacerations and other injuries.

The Company has received eight reports of plastic rims fracturing,
seven of which involve lacerations to consumers' hands, face, chest or
arms.  Some of the lacerations were severe, and required numerous
stitches.  One report involved nasal and other facial bone fractures,
three reports involved finger or knuckle fractures, and one report
included torn wrist ligaments caused by the force of the pieces
striking a consumer.

The wheel assemblies on these wheelbarrows have a black plastic rim and
have an approximately 14-inch diameter wheel. They have red, green or
orange tubs or trays made of steel or plastic. The recalled Ames
wheelbarrows were sold under the brand name "Mustang" or "Douglas."  
The brand name was printed on the label attached to the tray at the
time of purchase.  Wheelbarrows with metal wheel assemblies are not
part of this recall. Also, no "True Temper" wheelbarrow is part of this
recall.

Hardware stores and home centers nationwide sold the recalled
wheelbarrows from January 1993 through December 2000 for between $20
and $30.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 866-239-2281
between 8 am and 4:30 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit their
Web site: http://www.amestruetemper.com


AT&T CORPORATION: CO Landowner Files Suit Over Fiber Optic Network
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Colorado landowner recently filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court against AT&T Corporation, claiming it illegally buried
cables on his land, the Associated Press has reported.  The plaintiff,
Gene Peterson, seeks class action status for the suit, which could
bring in hundreds of other rural landowners.  

The lawsuit claims that the Company buried fiber-optic cable, near the
rail lines, on the plaintiff's Morgan County land, in agreements with
the rail owners.  The lawsuit alleges that permission for that work
could only come from landowners.

The lawsuit seeks damages for trespass, unjust enrichment and slander
of title, and further alleges that the Company wrongly posted signs on
the land, asserting its rights and used "threats and intimidation"
against landowners.

"AT&T has engaged in a common statewide course of conduct whereby it
knowingly and maliciously has slandered the title of the class members'
land," the lawsuit alleges.  

An Company spokeswoman did not return an after-hours call seeking
comment, AP reports.


BAYER CORPORATION: More Plaintiffs Join Suit Over Anti-Cholesterol Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 300 lawsuits have been filed in Pennsylvania courts against
Bayer Corporation on behalf of patients who took the Company's anti-
cholesterol drug, Baycol.  Recently, another five patients added their
names to the list of people seeking damages, Associated Press reports.  

The three women and two men from New York, California and Texas are
each seeking $20 million, claiming they suffered serious side-effects
from the drug, which has been linked to 100 deaths worldwide.

The Company is facing 260 federal suits and 408 in state courts.  About
75 percent of the state suits have been filed in Pennsylvania, where
Bayer's American subsidiary has its headquarters.  The majority of the
federal cases will be transferred to a judge in Minneapolis.

The Company acknowledges that the drug, which was pulled from the
market in August, had potentially dangerous side effects, but it
contends that only a fraction of the 700,000 Americans who took it
could have suffered harm.  What this mass litigation is doing, says
Bayer's lead counsel, Chicago attorney Philip Beck, "is diverting time,
attention and money away from people who have legitimate claims.  We
have to defend ourselves against an enormous number of cases where
there is no injury to anyone whatsoever, and it is very time consuming
and it is very expensive."

William M. Audet, a San Jose, California attorney, for some of the
class action lawsuits, rejected claims that the people signing on to
Baycol lawsuits were not seriously harmed.  "Let us not forget why they
(Bayer) are being sued here.  They made a defective product, and people
died," said Mr. Audet.  "The people we represent, who took this drug,
suffered health problems related to that drug, and I have no doubt that
some of their lives will be shortened because of it."

Mr. Audet is helping to oversee the federal class actions against the
Company.  He said that the Internet has given lawyers a new ability to
quickly identify thousands of people who have been harmed by defective
products, a process that used to take years.  

So far, the Baycol case has attracted more than 200 law firms and an
estimated 40,000 to 50,000 plaintiffs.  Dozens of law firms have rushed
to put up Baycol-related Web sites, many of which include easy-to-fill-
out online forms for people interested in becoming a plaintiff.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls More Than 1M Jeep Models Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chrysler Group, the US arm of DaimlerChrysler AG, is instituting a
recall of more than 1.1 million Jeep models because of a potential
engine fire hazard, the Associated Press reports.  Included in the
recall are 2000-02 Jeep Wranglers, 2000-01 Jeep Cherokees and 1999-2002
Jeep Grand Cherokees with 4.0-liter engines.

The automaker said debris accumulation in the engine compartments of
these vehicles could potentially cause a fire.  The Company said that
an engine design modification could lead to a change in the airflow and
cause debris accumulation in the engine compartment. The automaker will
attach a shield in the engine area of each vehicle to prevent this from
occurring.

There have been no reports of related accidents or injuries, the
Company told AP.  The recall affects 182,044 Jeep Wranglers, 293,968
Jeep Cherokees and 639,310 Jeep Grand Cherokees.


DAIWA BANK: Sued Over New York Bond Trading Scandal and Debt Waivers
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Daiwa Bank Holdings Inc. shareholders recently filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company's management and are seeking about 326
billion yen in damages, JIJI Press English News Service recently
reported.

The two shareholders, both Tokyo residents, filed the suit with Osaka
District Court against Daiwa Holdings Chairman Takashi Kaiho, President
Yasuhisa Katsuta and 16 other executives, claiming that a bond trading
scandal involving Daiwa Bank's New York branch and a slew of debt
waivers, for failed construction firm Aoki Corporation, have damaged
the new holding company set up in December.  Daiwa Bank offered debt
waivers totaling 130 billion yen to Aoki and other firms, and invested
5 billion yen in the former Nippon Credit Bank, now Aozora Bank,
through a third-party allotment.

The plaintiffs claim the management damaged the new holding firm by not
having discussions about the transactions when they decided on the
business integration.

Earlier, Osaka District Court, in 2000, ordered 11 Daiwa Bank
executives to pay $775 million in damages, the largest-ever amount
ordered in a class action in Japan.  In December last year, former
Daiwa bank executives agreed to pay a total of 250 million yen to
settle a lawsuit over the bond trading snafus.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over PPA Containing Products in W.D. LA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces a class action currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
against the Company and ten other pharmaceutical companies over
products containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA), an ingredient in many
prescription cough and cold medication that increases the risk of
hemorrhagic stroke.  

The suit, originally filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, alleges that the defendants failed to
adequately warn plaintiff of the hazards of the use of the subject
products containing PPA.  As a result of this failure to warn
consumers, plaintiffs suffered injury.

The suit has been consolidated for pretrial proceedings with other
cases involving claims against manufacturers of PPA-containing
products.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself.


HERCULES INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Carbon Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
tentatively granted class certification to a consolidated class action
against Hercules, Inc. and other carbon fiber producers on behalf of
purchasers (excluding government purchasers) of carbon fiber and carbon
prepreg in the United States from the named defendants from January 1,
1993 through January 31, 1999.

The lawsuits were brought following published reports of a Los Angeles
federal grand jury investigation of the carbon fiber and carbon prepreg
industries.  The suits allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act for alleged price fixing.

This lawsuit is in the early stages of motion practice and discovery.
The Company has denied liability and will vigorously defend this
action.


HOOTERS RESTAURANTS: Hearing Set For Final Approval of $9M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 1,000 plaintiffs in a class action against Hooters for
sending unsolicited faxes have until next month if they want to object
to a $9 million settlement deal, the Associated Press reported.  A
final hearing in the case is scheduled for May 24, 2002.  

Under the settlement, the 1,093 plaintiffs will split $9 million, and
the lawyers who won the case will receive attorney fees up to $3.1
million.

Lawyers involved in the case began settlement negotiations late last
year, after the United States Supreme Court upheld a jury's finding
that Hooters had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. by
sending unsolicited advertising faxes.  Although a contracted agent,
Value-Fax of Augusta sent the faxes, federal law holds the advertiser
responsible.

Hooters of Augusta, Georgia, filed for bankruptcy in June.  The
restaurant's insurance companies, which carry policies for $2 million,
$5 million and $15 million, have denied responsibility for covering
the legal judgment.  The restaurant has filed a suit.


INDIAN FUNDS: Tribes Join Suit V. BIA Over Civil Rights Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chippewa Cree Grassroots People have agreed to join the members of
the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in a class action against the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA) alleging the bureau committed repeated civil
rights violations, msnbs.com reports.

More than 50 members of the Chippewa tribe voted to join the suit after
a meeting at a Great Falls hotel, discussing the long history of
injustices committed by the BIA, msnbc.com reports.  "I think this is
the right way to go," Grassroots People spokesman, Russell Standing
Rock, said.  "It's about time somebody goes after the government, after
all these years."

Both sides will meet this weekend to coordinate plans for the suit.  
Other Indian communities are expected to join the suit, with
representatives from the Fort Belknap and Crow reservations expressing
their interest to join.

James Montes, the BIA field representative at Rocky Boy, admitted that
he failed to abide by federal regulations that require the BIA to
notify all eligible voters of upcoming secretarial elections by mail,
according to msnbc.com.  


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Faces Suit Alleging RESPA Violations in N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation is vigorously defending against two class
actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama alleging that the Company violated the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to its payment of
broker fees to mortgage brokers.

In July 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment asking the court to find the Company summarily liable for
violating RESPA.  The Company filed a motion in opposition and these
motions are now pending before the federal court.

In November 2001, by order of the federal court, the parties filed
supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of a new HUD policy statement
that explicitly disagrees with the judicial interpretation of RESPA by
the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class
certification in this case.

The Company then filed a petition for certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court seeking review of the 11th Circuit's class certification
ruling and also filed a motion in the federal court seeking a stay of
further proceedings until the 11th Circuit renders decisions in the
other three RESPA cases pending before it.  The Supreme Court denied
the Company's petition for certioriari, but the federal court granted
its motion to stay proceedings in this case.

At this stage of the litigation, the Company is unable to determine the
outcome or a reasonable estimate of potential loss.  However, the
Company cautions that an adverse outcome in this lawsuit could result
in substantial monetary damages that could be material to its financial
position.


MARSH MCLENNAN: Subsidiaries Sued For Violations of ICA in S.D. IL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two indirect subsidiaries of Marsh & Mclennan Companies, Inc. were
named as defendants along with approximately two dozen other mutual
fund companies in a nationwide class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  

The Company subsidiaries named in the suit are Putnam Investment
Management LLC and Putnam Retail Management, Limited Partnership.  The
suit alleges that:

     (1) the distribution and advisor fees paid by the various mutual
         funds from May 1, 1991 to the present were unlawful and
         excessive;

     (2) each fund complex exercised a controlling influence over
         statutorily independent directors of each fund; and

     (3) these fees were thus not properly approved.

The suit also alleged that the defendants' actions violated the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as well as common law fiduciary duties,
and sought, among other things, actual and punitive damages and
declaratory relief.

The Court, responding to motions by Putnam and the other defendants,
has ordered that the respective claims asserted against the defendants
be severed into separate actions and transferred to a more convenient
forum for each defendant.  In Putnam's case, this transfer will be to
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The Company and the Putnam subsidiaries believe that this action is
without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against this litigation.


TERRORIST ATTACKS: Suit Considered Over Treatment of Middle East Men
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil rights attorneys of the Center for Constitutional Rights in
Manhattan are considering a class action against US Attorney General
John Ashcroft and other US officials, alleging widespread abuse of
Middle Eastern men detained on immigration violations after the
September 11 terrorist attacks, the Associated Press reports.  The
lawyers hope to file the suit in New York federal court this week.

The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were subjected to "unreasonable
and excessively harsh conditions even though they have never been
charged with a crime."  In some cases, detainees were "placed in tiny,
windowless cells for over 23 hours a day," the suit alleges. "Many
class members have suffered physical and verbal abuse by their guards.
Some were badly beaten."

"There's no explanation for why they're being held," attorney for the
center Barbara Olshansky told AP.  "These people are being treated
worse than criminals."

Spokesmen for the Justice Department and Immigration and Naturalization
Service would not comment before the suit is filed.  INS spokesman Bill
Strassberger told Associated Press, however, that the government
insists on a high standard of treatment for detainees.


WISCONSIN: "Seriously Mentally Ill" Defined in Supermax Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Federal Judge Barbara Crabb recently resolved one of the
last remaining issues in a lawsuit filed by inmates of Wisconsin's
Supermax prison, an ultra-security prison, when she defined which
inmates are "seriously mentally ill" and should not be kept at the
prison, according to an Associated News report.

Judge Crabb defined the seriously mentally ill inmates as those who
have been diagnosed with specific mental disorders or any other serious
mental illness that would be worsened by confinement at the Supermax in
Boscobel.

Judge Crabb had ruled earlier that the seriously mentally ill inmates
should be removed from the prison.  Critics have contended that the
prison meant for the most violent offenders in the state prison system,
instead was housing mentally ill inmates in need of treatment.  Judge
Crabb now has ordered that all inmates at the prison be reassessed by
June 10 to determine their mental status according to the new
definition.

Ed Garvey, the lawyer for the prisoners, said he was very pleased by
Judge Crabb's ruling.  "It is clear now that no seriously mentally ill
inmates may be transferred to or held at the prison," Mr. Garvey said.  
"It is everything that we really had hoped for in order to eliminate
the violation of the Eighth Amendment, which we think was ongoing."

Doctors should be able to apply the new definition of seriously
mentally ill to current inmates, based on previous evaluation records,
Judge Crabb said.  Judge Crabb also said that the Department of
Corrections must draft a proposal by May 10 for determining when a
seriously mentally ill inmate can be incarcerated at Supermax because
of the inmate's danger to others and the lack of alternative prisons.

The inmates then have until May 31 if they want to file objections to
that proposal.  In addition, a monitor was appointed to ensure that the
Department of Corrections continues to comply with all aspects of the
settlement and Judge Crabb's legal rulings.

Supermax Warden Gerald Berge said he had not had a chance to thoroughly
read the opinion, but it did not appear to be a drastic shift from the
screening process enacted for new inmates several months ago.

Last month, the state settled the class action with the inmates who  
claimed they were subjected to living conditions that were cruel and
unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.  
The agreement calls for establishment of outdoor exercise areas,
expanded face-to-face visits with inmates' friends and relatives, and
renaming the prison something other than Supermax.  It would also bar
corrections officials from referring to the prison as a place to house
"the worst of the worst."


                         Securities Fraud

724 SOLUTIONS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
724 Solutions, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against several
securities class actions pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging federal securities
violations in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) allocations.  
The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common shares
during certain periods, names as defendants the Company, some of its
current or former directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering.

In general, the suits allege that the underwriter defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange for
         which these customers agreed to pay the underwriter defendants
         extra commissions on transactions in other securities; and

     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public offering to
         certain of the underwriter defendants' customers, in exchange
         for which the customers agreed to purchase additional common
         shares of the Company in the after-market at certain pre-
         determined prices.

The Company labeled the allegations "without merit."  However, due to
the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the suits are at a
preliminary stage, the Company cannot accurately predict the ultimate
outcome of the litigation.


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

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

According to the complaint, Highland Holdings, a partnership controlled
by the Rigas family, borrowed the $2.284 billion against credit
facilities that were co-guaranteed by the Company.  They then used some
of the loans' proceeds to buy more Company stock, the complaint
alleges.

The information, which would have affected the Company's stock price,
was not disclosed to investors during the class period.  The SEC is
investigating the Company's accounting practices.

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

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


ALAMOSA (DELAWARE): Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa (Delaware), Inc. faces several securities class actions pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, arising out of the Company's initial public offering.  The suit
names the Company and the underwriters of the IPO as defendants.

The suits allege, among other things, that the registration statement
and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
purposes of the IPO were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that the underwriters allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for allocating to them shares of the Company's common
         stock in connection with the IPO, and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to allocate such
         stock to those customers in exchange for the customers
         agreeing to purchase additional Company shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The Court has ordered that these putative class actions against the
Company, along with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other
issuers, be transferred to Judge Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings. At a status conference held on September 7, 2001, Judge
Scheindlin adjourned all defendants' time to respond to the complaints
until further order of the Court.

These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery proceedings
have taken place.  The Company believes the claims asserted against it
in these cases are without merit and intend to defend vigorously
against them.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Labels "Without Merit" NY, IL Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Apropos Technology, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending
in Chicago and New York federal courts against the Company, certain of
its current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.

The suits are allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock, and assert that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in its
registration statement and prospectus in connection with the Company's
initial public offering in February 2000.

The suits further allege that the underwriters of the Company's IPO
improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of Company stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in the IPO.

The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant in a shareholder
derivative action filed against certain of its present and former
directors and officers, in Chicago Federal Court.  The suit alleges,
among other things, that the alleged conduct challenged in the
securities cases described above constitutes a breach of the
defendants' fiduciary duties to the Company.

The Company has reviewed these litigations and, although legal
proceedings can not be predicted with certainty, believes the
allegations are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend
the litigations.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of its client in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bristol-
Meyers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) securities between September 19, 2001
and March 19, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by making, and
permitting its drug development partner to make, without correction,
materially false and misleading statements concerning the progress of
its Erbitux cancer treatment drug's application for FDA approval.

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

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

For more information, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 or
by E-mail: clowther@whhf.com


CLICK COMMERCE: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Click Commerce, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between June
26,2000 and December 6,2000.  The suit names as defendants the Company,
two of its executive officers and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co.,

     (2) Dain Rauscher Incorporated,

     (3) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (4) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., and

     (5) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,

The suit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
against all defendants, a violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act
against two executive officers and violations of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, including Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
underwriters.

The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


CROWN MEDIA: Agrees To Settle Suit Over Hallmark Transactions in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Media Holdings, Inc. has agreed to settle a class action filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County, relating to the
Company's then proposed purchase of the Crown Media Library, referred
to as the films transaction.  The suit names as defendants the Company,
all of its directors and:

     (1) Hallmark Cards,

     (2) Hallmark Entertainment Distribution and

     (3) Hallmark Entertainment

The suit, filed on behalf of holders of the Company's Class A common
stock as well as a derivative action on behalf of Crown Media Holdings,
alleges that the proposed films transaction is the product of an unfair
process designed to advantage Hallmark Cards as the controlling
stockholder and that the price being paid to Hallmark Entertainment
Distribution is not entirely fair.  In that regard, the suit alleges
that:

     (i) the independent committee formed by the Company's Board of
         Directors did not function properly and failed to provide a
         disinterested mechanism to obtain a fair arm's length
         transaction with Hallmark Entertainment Distribution;

    (ii) the financial adviser and counsel were not independent and
         that the financial adviser's opinion was insufficient and
         unreliable.

The suit also alleges that the issuance of shares of Class A common
stock to Hallmark Entertainment Distribution in the transaction will
allow Hallmark Cards to have control of the vote of the Company's Class
A common stock in the event of a separate class vote.  In addition, the
complaint alleges that the defendants breached a duty of disclosure by
failing to disclose in the proxy statement all material facts in
connection with the films transaction.

In June 2001, the Company, Hallmark Cards and the other defendants and
the plaintiff entered into a memorandum of understanding stating an
agreement in principle on a settlement of the suit.  In accordance
with the memorandum of understanding, the Company conferred with the
plaintiff's counsel regarding information disclosed in a supplement to
the proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders at which the
films transaction was considered.

Company stockholders, excluding those of Hallmark Entertainment
Distribution and its affiliates, approved of the films transaction at
the reconvened annual meeting on July 17, 2001.  As permitted by the
memorandum of understanding, the films transaction closed on September
28, 2001.

As of February 20, 2002, the parties to the lawsuit entered into a
settlement agreement, with terms contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding.  The settlement agreement provides that the purchase
price of the film assets will be reduced by 425,000 shares of Class A
common stock. In accordance with the memorandum of understanding and
the settlement agreement, 425,000 shares of Class A common stock have
been placed in escrow pending release to us if there is final court
approval of the settlement or to Hallmark Cards if the settlement is
not approved by the court.  

The settlement agreement also provides that all claims, rights and
causes of actions against the Company and other related parties that
arise out of the events alleged in the lawsuit will be released if the
settlement receives final court approval.  The parties have presented
the settlement to the court for approval, and a hearing regarding the
settlement is scheduled in April 2002.  


DIGITAL ISLAND: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in Delaware Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, on
behalf of holders of Digital Island, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISLD) common stock
between May 14, 2001 and August 30, 2001, inclusive against the
Company, Cable & Wireless PLC, Dali Acquisition Corp., and individual
defendants Ruan F. Ernst, CEO of Digital Island and the members of the
Digital Island board of directors during the class period.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a), 14(e),
14(d)(7) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
14d-10 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose material
information to those Company shareholders who had received an Offer to
Purchase from defendant Cable & Wireless in May and June 2001, and to
those Digital Island shareholders who received a proxy statement in
connection with the merger between Digital Island and Cable & Wireless
which was consummated on August 30, 2001.

In particular, defendants failed to disclose important contracts
between Digital Island and Bloomberg, LLP, and Digital Island and Major
League Baseball's Internet media. Those contracts were not disclosed
either in the Offer to Purchase or the Proxy Statement. Defendants also
violated the all-holders provision of the Williams Act by giving
additional consideration to directors and officers of Digital Island,
who were also shareholders, in excess of that given to other Digital
Island shareholders as an inducement to support Cable & Wireless' Offer
to Purchase.

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


EAGLE BUILDING: Rabin Peckel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Eagle Buildings Technologies,
Inc. common stock (OTCBB:EGBT) between August 11, 2000 and February 14,
2002, both dates inclusive.  The suit also names Anthony D'Amato, and
Donald Pollock as defendants.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements about the Company's quarterly financial
results for the second and third quarters of 2000, its year-end 2000
financial results, and its quarterly financial results for first,
second, and third quarters of 2001.  In particular, it is alleged that
a material amount of the revenues and earnings reported in those
financial results included fictitious sales to a purported project in
India.

The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements the price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiffs and the other
members of the class to suffer damages.

For more information, contact Maurice Pesso or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.rabinlaw.com.


EAGLE BUILDING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Suit in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Eagle Building Technologies, Inc. (OTCBB:EGBT) and Anthony M.
D'Amato in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between April 18, 2001 and
February 14, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws. The complaint alleges, among other things, that during
the class period, the Company:

     (1) improperly recorded revenue from its construction business in
         India and made false and misleading statements regarding its
         India operations; and

     (2) made false and misleading statements regarding its post-
         September 11 business endeavors, including an airport baggage
         security system, mail sterilization technology, and money
         laundering detection software.

As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the class period, trading as
high as $12.30.  On the Company's February 14 announcement, its stock
fell 68% to $1.44 on heavy trading.

For more information, contact Robert N. Kaplan or Shelley Thompson by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or by E-mail:
mail@kaplanfox.com


EAGLE BUILDING: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Eagle Building
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: EGBT.OB) between February 20, 2001 and
February 13, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida against the Company and Anthony D'Amato.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between February 20, 2001 and February 13, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which
materially overstated the Company's sales, earnings and net income.

Specifically, defendants issued multiple statements, which:

     (1) attributed a continuing portion of the Company's revenues to
         its purported joint venture in India with Fuller International
         Development Ltd. for the years 2000 and 2001; and

     (2) touted the prospects of the Company's BioSterile Sentinel
         System for use in US airports in detecting various explosives
         and bacteria, including anthrax.

On February 14, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
requested that the SEC suspend trading in its stock because it would be
restating its revenue for the prior two years. In a subsequent filing
on Form 8-K on March 5, 2002, defendants disclosed that:

     (i) the Company's joint venture with Fuller had never been
         finalized and, in fact, the Company had received no earnings
         from its India operations; and

    (ii) defendants' statements regarding the performance of its
"BioSterile" equipment may have been materially false and misleading.

Before the SEC halted trading in the stock, the price plummeted to
$1.44 per share.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 or Kenneth Vianale or Tara Isaacson by Mail: The
Plaza 5355 Town Center Road Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
561-361-5000 by E-mail: Eaglecase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.milberg.com  


ENRON CORPORATION: Defendants Expanded To Included Two Law Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an intensified effort to recoup billions of dollars for investors in
bankrupt Enron Corporation, an amended complaint of 503 pages in a
consolidated class action was filed recently, alleging that nine major
banks and securities firms and two national law firms, among others,
participated in a scheme with Enron's top executives to defraud
shareholders and creditors, The Wall Street Journal reported.

The lawsuit was originally filed in October, but has been amended to
include more than three dozen new defendants.  The Regents of the
University of California, which lost nearly $150 million when the
Company's stock spiraled downward in value, is the lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit filed in federal district court, in Houston, by the law
firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, the class action's
lead counsel.

Named as defendants in the original lawsuit were Enron, several of its
executives and its former outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP.  
Kenneth Lay, Enron's former chairman, Jeffrey Skilling, its former
chief executive and more than a dozen former and current Enron
executives are alleged to have carried out a scheme to defraud
investors while making profits totaling about $1.2 billion through
insider trading.

The roster of new defendants in the expanded lawsuit, in addition to 24
Andersen partners and Andersen's offices outside the United States,
includes some of Wall Street's most reputable and financially sound
institutions as well as some of the country's top banks.  

Lawyers for the Board of Regents, in the 502-page complaint, allege
these newly-named defendants participated in a scheme with Enron to
deceive shareholders and other investors by helping Enron with phony
deals to inflate the energy company's earnings.

"This fraudulent scheme could not have been and was not perpetrated
only by Enron and its insiders," the lawsuit states.  "It was designed
and/or perpetrated only via the active and knowing involvement of
Enron's law firms, banks and accounting firm."

Among the newly-named defendants are two of Enron's outside law firms,
Houston's Vinson & Elkins and Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis.  Vinson &
Elkins has worked with Enron since the Company's formation in 1985.  It
provided the legal advice on many of Enron's now questionable
partnerships, and it reviewed Enron's filings with the Securities &
Exchange Commission, according to The Wall Street Journal's recent
report.  In a statement, Vinson & Elkins said that it could not comment
on the lawsuit's specifics because it had not yet seen the complaint.  
"As we have stated from the outset, we are confident that when all the
facts are known, it will be clear that Vinson & Elkins properly
performed its professional responsibilities."

A Supreme Court ruling prohibits plaintiffs to recover damages from law
firms on the grounds that they aided and abetted in a fraud by, for
example, signing off on deals that later turned out to have been
fraudulent.  The Board of Regents' lead lawyer, William Lerach, said,
"We are suing them as direct violators and, secondly, as knowing
participants in a fraud."

Kirkland & Ellis, in a statement, said the complaint "unfairly
includes" the law firm and that "no one representing the plaintiffs has
even contacted Kirkland & Ellis to get the facts right.  These facts
are that Kirkland & Ellis never represented Enron, had no
responsibility for the accounting judgments and related public
disclosures."

Some major allegations against Vinson & Elkins (V&E), appearing in the
consolidated complaint are:

     (1) In 1997 when Enron launched a new strategy to move debt off
         its books by using partnerships operated by its own financial
         officer, it turned to V&E for guidance on how to make the
         deals work;

     (2) Enron's management and Board of Directors relied heavily on
         the perceived approval by V&E of how the deals were structured
         and reported, according to the Board's special investigating
         committee, which said it observed an absence of "objective and
         professional advice by outside counsel at V&E;"

     (3) V&E accommodated Enron's desire for one partnership, Chewco,
         to be formed quickly, completing the necessary legal
         documentation in 48 hours;

     (4) V&E shared in the failure to disclose the extent to which
         Enron's Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Fastow, was benefiting
         from his ownership in the partnerships doing business with
         Enron;

     (5) V&E agreed to investigate the allegations made by Sherron
         Watkins, a human resources manager at Enron, even though she
         said the firm had an inherent conflict of interest;

     (6) In her memorandum to Enron Chairman and CEO Kenneth Lay, Ms.
         Watkins suggests that V&E wrote so-called opinion letters
         vouching for the legality of some of the deals under scrutiny.  
         According to two Enron executives contacted by Business Week,
         V&E played a creative role in structuring and managing some of
         Enron's controversial "special purpose" partnerships;

     (7) V&E gave Enron advice on how much information it had to
         disclose about its financial machinations in its 10K and 10Q
         reports to the SEC;

     (8) Sherron Watkins, in her memo, claimed that V&E "provided some
         true sale opinions on some of the deals" related to the so-
         called Condor and Raptor deals.  True sale opinions are
         letters that law firms write vouching for the fact that
         business transactions meet particular legal requirements;

     (9) the comments of the Powers Report, prepared by a former
         director of the SEC, William McLucas, also a partner in the
         law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, on behalf of a
         special committee of the Enron board are incorporated into the
         complaint.  The report contends that V&E "was in fact involved
         in many of Enron's most controversial deal, and was also
         involved in decisions about how to disclose those deals to the
         public.  The document criticizes the firm for "an absence of.
         objective and critical professional advice;"

    (10) V&E provided advice and documentation "for many of the "now
         infamous partnerships," such as Chewco and the cluster of
         entities known as Raptors, and "assisted Enron with the
         preparation of its disclosures of related-party transactions
         in the proxy statements and the footnotes to the financial
         statements in Enron's periodic SEC filings."  Many of the
         "most significant transactions apparently were designed to
         accomplish favorable financial statements, not to achieve bona
         fide economic objectives or to transfer risk;"

    (11) V&E issued opinions to Enron, Mahonia and JP Morgan
         representing that billions of dollars in forward sales
         contracts of natural gas and oil by Enron were legitimate
         commodities trades, when in fact V&E knew the trades were
         bogus;

    (12) These manipulations allegedly resulted in Enron's massive
         restatement in November 2001 and collapse into bankruptcy
         shortly thereafter.


Some major allegations appearing in the consolidated complaint against
Kirkland & Ellis (K&E) are:

     (1) K&E began working with Andrew Fastow, former Enron Chief
         Financial Officer, Enron, V&E and several banks in the early
         90s to create and utilize off balance sheet investment
         partnerships and SPEs (special purpose entities) to enable
         Enron to engage in transactions designed to enhance or
         maintain its credit rating by removing debt from its balance
         sheet and artificially inflating its reported financial
         results;

     (2) K&E's ostensibly separate legal representation was utilized to
         provide the appearance of independence of the SPEs.  In fact,
         K&E was selected by Mr. Fastow, who had a close relationship
         with K&E dating from the 80s, when Mr. Fastow worked at
         Chicago's Continental Bank.  Mr. Mintz, Vice President and
         General Counsel for Global Finance, referred to K&E as
         "Fastow's attorneys."  K&E was considered "willing to take
         direction from Mr. Fastow & Enron.  K&E's participation in the
         scheme was considered essential as it provided some of the
         expertise necessary for creating SPEs that would appear to be
         arm's-length transactions with independent entities.  Working
         with Andersen, V&E and Enron's banks, K&E structured the
         manipulative devices that formed the core of the scheme
         including the partnerships and the SPEs known as LJM1, LJM2,
         Chewco and the Raptors, which were used to artificially
         inflate Enron's reported financial condition and results;"

     (3) In addition to structuring Enron's SPEs, K&E issued numerous
         legal opinions in connection with the formation and later
         transactions of the LJMs and other related SPEs.

Robert Prentice, a business law professor at the University of Texas at
Austin, said plaintiffs' attorneys probably saw little to lose in
widening the lawsuit to the law firms and banks.  He said the Enron
case was likely to set new legal precedents relating to attorney
liability.  While auditors are charged with protecting investors and
could face liability, the attorneys traditionally are strictly bound to
serve their clients, a legal ethics doctrine.  However, as the courts
work their way through the complexities of when liability vests, and
a not-so-bright line emerges, some precedent-setting principles of law
may emerge as to attorney liability.

To some extent, University of Illinois law professor Ronald D. Rotunda,
an expert in legal ethics, appeared to agree with Professor Prentice.
"Under these fact scenarios (in the consolidated complaint), they (the
law firms) could have real problems."

Undoubtedly, as the consolidated complaint is analyzed in the next
couple weeks, additional commentary will emerge.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Rabin Peckel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Gemstar-TV
Guide International common stock (Nasdaq:GMST) between May 14, 2001 and
April 1, 2002, both dates inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting the Company's
quarterly and year-end financial results in press releases, statements
to analysts and filings with the SEC during the class period to create
the illusion that earnings growth was in line with analysts' estimates.

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

The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements the price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated throughout the class period causing plaintiff and the other
members of the class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by
Fax: 212-682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.  


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Gemstar-TV Guide International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GMST) publicly traded securities during the period
between August 11, 1999 and April 1, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that during the class period, defendants caused the Company's
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements.

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

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

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

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


HUMANA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit in W.D. KY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action against Humana,
Inc. appealed the United States District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky's dismissal of the suit, which charges the Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers with federal
securities violations.

Six suits were initially filed 1999 containing the same or
substantially similar allegations, namely, that the Company and the
individual defendants knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading
statements in press releases and public filings concerning the
Company's financial condition, primarily with respect to the impact of
negotiations over renewal of its contract with HCA-The Healthcare
Company, formerly Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation, which took
effect April 1, 1999.

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

The defendants later filed a motion requesting dismissal of the suit,
which the court granted.  The plaintiffs then filed a notice of appeal
to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Oral argument is
scheduled for June 11, 2002.

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


JDS UNIPHASE: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq:JDSU) publicly traded
securities during the period between July 27, 1999 and July 26, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors and
its controlling shareholder with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The Company is a provider of fiber optic components and
modules, which form the building blocks for fiber optic networks.

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

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

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

The individual defendants, all of whom were top officers and directors
of the Company, and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the
inflation, selling or disposing of 25.5 million shares of their stock
for proceeds of $2.1 billion.

Then, on July 26, 2001, the Company announced the restatement of its
3rdQ F01 results, the write-off of $44 billion in goodwill associated
with its acquisitions, inventory write-downs and that F01 EPS would be
only $0.16 and that it would incur a loss of $0.15 in F02.  On this
news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90, or more than 94% lower
than the class period high of $146.32.

For more information, contact Tanya Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: jge@emersonfirm.com


JDS UNIPHASE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq:JDSU), claiming
the Company and ten of its top officers used false and misleading
statements to artificially inflate stock price.  The suit is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common
stock from July 27, 1999 through July 26, 2001.

The suit claims that the San Jose based fiber-optics company issued
false and misleading financial statements to the public.  According to
the suit, the defendants stated throughout the class period that demand
for the Company's products was accelerating, and that its only problem
was its ability to manufacture enough to meet demand.

The suit also maintains that the Company misrepresented the success of
several major acquisitions and downplayed its dependence on its two
largest customers.  However, the Company falsely informed investors
that demand was as strong as claimed, the complaint alleges.

On July 26, 2001, the Company restated its third quarter 2001 financial
results and took massive fourth-quarter charges to account for a total
of $44 billion in write-offs associated with its acquisitions and
excess inventory.  Those revisions and write-offs increased the
Company's losses for fiscal year 2001 to $56.1 billion.

According to the complaint, Company executives knew of a slowdown in
demand because the company employed 80 engineers to monitor customers
and inventory levels.

After the revised numbers were announced, Company stock fell to as low
as $7.90 per share after trading at a class period high of $146.32, a
94% decline.  The lawsuit also alleges that the artificially inflated
stock price enabled certain company officers to sell $2.1 billion of
their own holdings before the Company's true financial state became
public.

For more information, contact Jennifer Abrams or Joseph J. Tabacco Jr.
by Mail: 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104 by
Phone: 415-433-3200 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com.  


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX: MSS) alleging
that the Company's publicly reported financial results were misleading.  
The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, 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 Company's
finances began to emerge on February 15, 2002, when it 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.
It has not yet resumed. The shares had traded as high as $16 during the
class period.

For more information, contact Julie A. Richmond or 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


SAF T LOK: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Saf T Lok Corporation (OTC
BB: LOCK.OB) between April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, inclusive.
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Franklin W. Brooks,

     (2) Jeffrey W. Brooks,

     (3) William Schmidt,

     (4) James E. Winner, Jr.,

     (5) John Hornbostel, Jr. and

     (6) Goldberg Wagner Stump and Jacobs LLP.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
filed materially false and misleading financial statements with the US
Securities & Exchange Commission, which, among other things, did not
comply with generally accepted accounting principles.

Specifically, at the start of the class period, defendants disclosed
that the Company had terminated its exclusive consumer market
distribution agreement with United Safety Action, Inc. and that the
Company itself would now be permitted to market its products to retail
customers.

The suit alleges that the financial statements filed by defendants
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) a catalog retailer had previously obtained Company products
         from USA at a sharply reduced price and was now selling these
         products at extremely low prices, thereby limiting the market
         opportunity for the Company;

    (ii) the Company's earnings, assets and shareholder equity were
         overstated by at least $3.2 million; and

   (iii) the Company's inventories were not stated at the lower of cost
or market, as represented.

When this information was finally disclosed on April 16, 2001, the last
day of the class period, the stock price of the Company fell to under
$0.30 per share.  Subsequently, on May 15, 2001, the Company's
securities were delisted from the NASDAQ Small Cap Market and are
currently traded on the OTC (Over The Counter) Bulletin Board.

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


STILLWATER MINING: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Stillwater Mining Company
(NYSE: SWC) between April 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Francis R. McAllister,

     (2) James A. Sabala and

     (3) Harry C. Smith.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between April 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
its financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The
suit alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, among other things:

     (i) the Company improperly classified "mineralized material" as
         "probable reserves;"

    (ii) defendants' improper manipulation of probable reserves
         overstated the Company's class period net income because
         defendants depreciated its plant and equipment costs according
         of the life of these reserves. If defendants had properly
         accounted for these reserves, depreciation would have occurred
         much faster; and

   (iii) the reduction in probable reserves will likely result in an
         impairment charge, or a restatement of at least fiscal year
         2001 results.

Furthermore, defendants failed to disclose that the SEC had advised the
Company by mid-December 2001/ early January 2002 that its methodology
for the calculation of probable ore reserves was improper and would
have to be changed.

On April 2, 2002, when defendants belatedly disclosed that the
Company's accounting practices had been condemned by the SEC, the stock
dropped by 24% in one day on extraordinarily high volumes of 4,743,600
shares traded, vastly greater than the Company's average trading volume
of approximately 400,000 shares per day. The full extent of the
Company's losses is still unknown to the market, since the revision to
reserves could adversely impact 2001 net income, and result in a
downward financial restatement of prior quarters.

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


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Supportsoft, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and:

     (1) Radha Basu,

     (2) Brian Beattie,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

The suit alleges, inter alia, that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance and initial public
offering of 4,250,000 shares of the Company's common stock contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions, related to alleged
inflated commissions received by the underwriters of the offering.

While it is too early to predict with certainty the outcome of the
litigation, the Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


VIRGINIA SPRINGS: Agrees To $9M Settlement of Securities Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Springs Ltd. Liability Company agreed to settle for $9 million
a securities class action and derivative lawsuit pending since May 2000
in the Delaware Court Chancery, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty.  
The suit names the Partnership, its former general partners and two of
their affiliates as defendants.

The suit seeks monetary damages resulting from purported breaches
of fiduciary duties and breaches of the Firm's partnership agreement in
connection with the March 1999 sale of one of its mortgage loans and
the marketing of the property which had been secured by that loan.

In addition, the suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection
with the purported failure of the Partnership to distribute cash and
the purported failure of its general partners to enforce the provisions
of the Partnership's remaining mortgage loan.

The defendants later preliminarily agreed to enter into a memorandum of
understanding settling the lawsuit.  As then contemplated, the
memorandum:

     (1) provides for an $8,000,000 payment by the defendants to the
         Partnership; and

     (2) required the Partnership to make a special distribution to
         partners of the $8,000,000 payment, less fees and expenses
         awarded by the court to plaintiff's counsel, together with
         $1,000,000 of the Partnership's cash reserves.

On January 22, 2002, following completion of discovery, and further
negotiations, which resulted in an increase in the settlement
consideration, a stipulation of settlement was executed setting forth
the final terms of the settlement.  The settlement, which is subject to
approval by the Chancery Court, requires the defendants to establish a
fund in the amount of $9,000,000 in full settlement and compromise of
the claims made by the plaintiff, the partnership and all members of
the class.  The settlement amount plus any interest earned, less court-
approved attorneys' fees, expenses and taxes will be distributed to
eligible class members.  


VIROPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of ViroPharma
Inc. (NASDAQ: CPHM) between July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and certain directors.

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 suit alleges that throughout the class period, the
defendants made highly positive statements regarding the Company's drug
Picovir.  The Company represented that its growth was contingent on US
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Picovir (pleconaril)
drug as a cure for the common cold.  The Company informed the investing
public of every positive part of the Picovir studies, and sent numerous
press releases praising the effectiveness of Picovir.  The Company
minimized or concealed potential obstacles to FDA approval.

On March 19, 2002, trading was halted as the Company revealed that an
FDA advisory committee was deciding the fate of its cold treatment,
Picovir.  The panel voted 15-0 against approval because of safety
concerns.  However, during the class period, the Company insisted that
treatment was well tolerated and that adverse events were comparable to
placebo in the trials.

On March 20, 2002 after the resumption of trading, Company shares
plummeted 60 percent. The 15-member FDA committee had questions about
the safety of the drug in women taking oral contraceptives and in the
elderly.  In addition, the committee asked for broader studies on the
drug's benefits with minorities, the elderly, patients with asthma and
chronic bronchitis, children, and more about the drug's interaction
with other medications.  They also expressed concern that the drug may
aid the development of drug-resistant cold germs.

The FDA pointed out that the drug had several significant side effects,
with headache the most frequently cited.  Seven patients out of 4,500
who took the drug reported rapid heart palpitations and four patients
withdrew from the study for that reason.  The side effect that most
concerned the panel was abnormal bleeding by 3 percent of women taking
birth control pills.  Because Picovir needs to be taken within the
first 24 hours of getting a cold and after eating, several panelists
worried that doctors would dole out prescriptions before the cold
season began, without discussing safety considerations.

There were tremendous obstacles for the Company to overcome before it
could receive regulatory approval for Picovir.  These obstacles, as
enumerated by the FDA as set forth above, were undisclosed during the
class period, but were well known to defendants by virtue of their
testing and trials of this drug on thousands of people for several
years.

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


                              *********


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  * * *