CAR_Public/020419.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Friday, April 19, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 76

                            Headlines

7-ELEVEN STORES: Court Rejects Settlement of ADA, Discrimination Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Suit Over Side-Effects of Serzone in IL
CALIFORNIA: San Francisco Airport Sued For Lack Of Facilities For Deaf
CALIFORNIA: Court Rules Parents Have Rights To Dead Children's Corneas
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Another Suit Charges New Jersey Priest With Sex Abuse

COLORADO: Rights Suit V. Denver Police Seeks Move To Federal Court
COLORADO: Denver Faces Suit Over Constitutionality of Parking Laws
FARMERS INSURANCE: Will Pay $15 Million To Refund Drivers' Surcharges
FLORIDA: Nurses Sue Corrections Department Alleging Sexual Harassment
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Violations of RICO Act in C.D. CA

LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. TX Suit Over Leases
MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Settling Suits Over Lease Contracts in CA Court
MICROFINANCIAL INC.: CA Court Stays Suit Over I-Phone Lease Agreements
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Employees File Suit Over Wages in CA State Court
RESOURCES ACCRUED: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Ink $9M Settlement

SIMON WORLDWIDE: Working To Settle Suit Over McDonald's Game Fraud
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Labels Without Merit Suit Over AR Plant Operations
UNITED KINGDOM: Earl To Define Working Class in Real Estate Dispute
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Keller Rohrback Lodges Suit For ERISA Violations


*Consumer Suits Pave Way for Rise of Class Actions in Indonesia

                          Securities Fraud  

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Harvey Greenfield Lodges Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in PA
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DURATEK INC.: Moves For Dismissal Of Securities Fraud Suit in MD Court

DQE INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in W.D. PA
EAGLE BUILDING: Beatie Osborn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Sued For Securities Fraud in California Courts
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Second Securities Suit in Nevada Court

LEGATO SYSTEMS: $87M Settlement Reached in Securities, Derivative Suits
MERRILL LYNCH: Investors Seek Inclusion Of New Findings In Complaint
SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Second Amended Suit
SPLASH TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
SYKES ENTERPRISES: FL Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
                             
                            *********

7-ELEVEN STORES: Court Rejects Settlement of ADA, Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
rejected a nationwide settlement proposed by the 7-Eleven convenience
store chain to settle a class action charging the Company with
discrimination and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).  The suit was commenced on behalf of blind and visually impaired
persons across the country.

The American Council of the Blind (ACB) and a number of Protection and
Advocacy agencies, member organizations of the National Association of
Protection and Advocacy Systems, Inc (NAPAS), welcomed the Judge's
ruling, saying the agreement would have unfairly prevented millions of
persons with disabilities across the country from asserting their
rights under both the ADA and the anti-discrimination laws of their own
states while ignoring established procedural safeguards designed to
ensure fair class action lawsuits.

"This settlement was unfair to blind people and we applaud the court's
decision to reject it," said Charles Crawford, Executive Director of
the American Council of the Blind.  San Francisco-based ACB President
Chris Gray agreed, explaining that "while class action suits have often
resulted in real gains for people with disabilities, this settlement
would have had negative consequences for the blindness community had it
been approved."

Curt Decker, Executive Director of NAPAS, also praised the court's
ruling, saying "This decision reaffirms the rights of all people with
disabilities to the protections afforded by the ADA.It sends a clear
message that class action ADA settlements deserve careful scrutiny to
ensure that those rights are protected."

The settlement agreement rejected by Judge Sanders proposed to cover
every individual with an ADA-covered disability in the United States,
which the Judge estimated to be between 43 and 56 million individuals.

These individuals would have been precluded from pursuing ADA claims
related to disability access at thousands of 7-Eleven stores across the
country even though the settlement did not fairly or completely address
those claims.

In addition, the settlement agreement would have unfairly prevented
persons with disabilities across the country from using laws of their
own states to ensure non-discrimination at 7-Eleven stores in those
states. Many state laws contain anti-discrimination provisions that are
similar to, or stronger than, provisions in the ADA.

For more information, contact Curt Decker of Napas by Phone:
202-408-9514 or Penny Reeder of the American Council of the Blind by
Phone: 202-467-5081 or visit the Web site:
http://www.protectionandadvocacy.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Suit Over Side-Effects of Serzone in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb faces a nationwide class action filed by Kenneth
B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, over its drug called Serzone (nefazodone
hydrochloride).

Serzone is an anti-depressant that is structurally different than other
antidepressants. Serzone inhibits serotonin reuptake and blocks one
type of serotonin receptor. It is prescribed for depression that causes
anxiousness.

Over 109 cases of serious liver injuries allegedly associated with
Serzone have been reported.  In at least 23 cases, Serzone users
experienced liver failure and 16 underwent a liver transplant and/or
died.  The FDA estimates that the reported rate of liver failure in
Serzone patients who used the drug for at least one year is about one
case in every 250,000 to 300,000.  The Company has admitted that liver
failure rates are 3-4 times greater for Serzone users than non-users.

On January 9, 2002, the Company warned health care providers that cases
of life threatening (liver) failure have been reported in patients
treated with Serzone and that liver failure rates are underestimated
because of under-reporting. The true risk could be greater.  According
to the Company, extreme cases of liver failure can occur within 2 weeks
to 6 months after beginning Serzone treatment.

Health Canada issued a warning in June 2001 regarding Serzone's serious
side effects.  Subsequently, the FDA announced on December 7, 2001 that
it would require a Black Box warning on the drug, designed to inform
patients about life threatening liver damage that can occur with the
use of Serzone.

Attorney for the plaintiffs, Kenneth Moll, said the primary goals of
this class action are to:

     (1) obtain a court order forcing the Company to stop the
         manufacture and sale of Serzone and issue a recall;

     (2) inform the public that Serzone users are at an increased risk
         of liver complications;

     (3) provide compensation to all victims for death and personal
         injuries;

    (4) provide a medical monitoring fund for Serzone users and

     (5) reimburse monies paid for Serzone.

For more information, contact Hal J. Kleinman of Kenneth B. Moll and
Associates, Ltd. by Phone: 312-558-6444 by Fax: 312-558-1112 or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.kbmoll.com


CALIFORNIA: San Francisco Airport Sued For Lack Of Facilities For Deaf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco International Airport faces a class action filed by
Disability Rights Advocates and the California Center for the Deaf,
accusing the airport of failing to provide adequate access to deaf and
hard-of-hearing travelers, Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed Wednesday, seeks class-action status. It accuses the
airport of failing to inform deaf passengers when they are to board,
wrongly bumping them from flights and failing to notify them of gate
changes.

A spokeswoman for the airport, owned and operated by the city and
county of San Francisco, could not immediately be reached for comment,
according to AP.


CALIFORNIA: Court Rules Parents Have Rights To Dead Children's Corneas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two parents had a right to their dead children's corneas, which the Los
Angeles County Coroner's office removed without their permission, a
federal appeals court ruled, the Associated Press reported.

The suit was filed after parents of two boys learned the coroner's
office removed their children's corneas without authorization.  The
coroner then sold the corneas of the two boys to an eye bank for $215
to $335 per pair.

Bill Colovos, a Michigan attorney representing the parents, Robert
Newman of California and Barbara Obarski of Pennsylvania, is seeking
class action status for the suit, and said the class could include the
families of as many as 7,000 deceased.  

A federal court judge earlier dismissed the lawsuit without offering a
written opinion after attorneys for the coroner's office had argued
that the parents could not have a property interest in the corneas and
that the harvesting was allowed under state law.  However, in a 2-1
decision that reached back to ancient Rome for guidance, the Ninth US
Circuit Court of Appeals, revived the case.

Writing for the majority, Judge Raymond C. Fisher said, "California
infringed the dignity of the bodies of the children when it extracted
the corneas from those bodies without the consent of the parents.  The
process of law was due the parents for this deprivation of their
rights."

The opinion cited Roman civil law, which spelled out the responsibility
heirs and the government had to ensure the dead were respectfully
buried.  Two more recent and like cases come for the Sixth US Circuit
Court of Appeals, which allowed next of kin to challenge cornea laws,
similar to California's, in Michigan and Ohio.

The Judge then relied on common law principles.  "Under traditional
common law principles, serving a duty to protect the dignity of the
human body in its final disposition is so deeply rooted in our legal
history and social traditions that the parents had exclusive and
legitimate claims of entitlement to possess, control, dispose and
prevent the violation of the corneas and other parts of the bodies of
their deceased children," Judge Fisher wrote.

In dissent, Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez said the death of a loved one
creates "a duty rather than a right," to dispose of the body
appropriately.  California has not given families a constitutional
right to the bodies, "it has merely given them enough of a right to
allow them to fulfill their duty, and it has limited that in a number
of ways."

One of these ways was a 1983 state law that allowed coroners to take
corneas from bodies without prior consent from donor or families if the
coroner had no knowledge of objections.  This was the controlling law
when the boys died in 1997.  

After news reports, in 1997, prompted criticism, coroner's officials
began asking families for permission to harvest corneas.  In 1998, the
Legislature passed a law making consent mandatory.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Another Suit Charges New Jersey Priest With Sex Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Church faces another challenge as a Palm Beach Priest was
accused of sexually abuse by two Delaware siblings, the Associated
Press reports.  Msgr. Philip Rigney, 84, of Palm Beach, Florida,
allegedly abused brothers Philip and Robert Young between 1978 and
1982, in his stay at the St. Francis de Sales Church, in Barrington,
Camden County, New Jersey.

The Young brothers and 16 others filed a class action in 1994, accusing
the Diocese of Camden priests of sex abuse and diocesan leaders of
covering up the crimes.

At issue in the hearing before Superior Court Judge John G.
Himmelberger, Jr. is whether the Young brothers, who are now in their
30s, have a legitimate excuse for not reporting the alleged abuse
earlier.  Under New Jersey law, minors who are sexually abused have
until two years after their 18th birthday to make civil claims.  

The law does allow exceptions, however, in cases where the victim can
show that duress or mental instability delayed the filing of a claim.  
The Youngs and other plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit argue that
"religious duress" prevented them from suing the church sooner.  As
devout Catholics, they say, they had been raised to revere priests as
"direct messengers of God" and therefore were reluctant to challenge
them.

At the hearing, the retired New Jersey priest, Msgr. Rigney testified
that he was ready to resign when the sex abuse allegations were first
made against him in 1984, but the bishop decided to transfer him
instead.  He also said he was never asked to get professional help by
then Camden Diocese Bishop George Guilfoyle, or anyone else, after
being accused.  Msgr. Rigney said the bishop told him he didn't believe
it and would give him another parish, which he did.

The accused priest made his comments during a court-ordered video-
conference, his image broadcast on a television monitor in Judge
Himmelberger's courtroom.

Last week, the Youngs' mother, Joan Dougherty, testified that when she
brought her sons' allegations to Bishop Guilfoyle, he told her not to
report them, but said Msgr. Rigney would get treatment at a
rehabilitation center for priests.  Msgr. Rigney has testified, "I
don't remember ever being asked to get professional help.  I have
always had spiritual help."

Attorneys for the Guilfoyle estate and the Camden Diocese did not ask
Msgr. Rigney any questions, according to The Press of Atlantic City.
Ms. Dougherty, the Young brothers' mother, took the stand for a third
day of cross-examination.  Diocese attorney Joseph Kenney implied
through his questions that Ms. Dougherty and the Young brothers decided
to file a lawsuit after learning through a newspaper article that the
diocese had paid $3.2 million to settle sex abuse allegations.

Bishop Guilfoyle died three years before the lawsuit was filed.  
However, according to court documents, he wrote in a memo that the
accused priest "did not deny" the accusations made by the Young
brothers.

The hearing continues and it is expected that Philip Young will take
the stand.


COLORADO: Rights Suit V. Denver Police Seeks Move To Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently filed a notice of
removal to US District Court in Colorado for the lawsuit which it had
filed against the Denver Police Department, charging the Department
with keeping illegal files on peaceful protesters, the Associated Press
has reported.  The lawsuit seeks class action certification.

The suit, brought by End the Politics of Cruelty, Antonia Anthony and
Stephen and Vicki Nash of Amnesty International, as well as the
American Civil Liberties Union, alleges that the police violated the
protesters' First Amendment rights by keeping the files.  

Mark Silverstein, Colorado legal director for the ACLU, has released
the files, which, he said, came from the police department in early
March, when the ACLU first asked the police department to give up all
the files to the subjects of the files.

Among the events mentioned in the files were:

     (1) protest of a parade in honor of Columbus Day,

     (2) protests against the International Monetary Fund and World
         Bank in Washington, DC,

     (3) protests over the killing by a Denver SWAT Team that went to
         the wrong house, and

     (4) protests by the Chiapas Coalition of alleged civil rights
         violations in Mexico's poorest state

Denver Public Safety Department spokeswoman C.I. Harmer said the people
named in the files were not considered criminals.  She said the files
were collected because legal gatherings are sometimes the scene of
illegal actions.  Mayor Wellington Webb said the protesters' concerns
were legitimate, and planned to review city policies.

Mr. Silverstein said the ACLU had sent a letter to the mayor asking
that all monitoring be stopped, all files be made available to their
subjects; police disclose who has been given the information and that
all files be preserved.  The lawsuit claims the city has not yet given
the files to the subjects.


COLORADO: Denver Faces Suit Over Constitutionality of Parking Laws
------------------------------------------------------------------
The City and County of Denver faces a class action filed by its
residents questioning the constitutionality of the city's parking laws,
Rocky Mountain News reports. US Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Coan
allowed the suit to proceed as a class action early this month.

Residents filed the suit, which claims the city's tickets don't
adequately notify motorists they can challenge citations at a hearing
within 20 days.  Fines not paid within 20 days are automatically
doubled.

Denver issues about 630,000 parking tickets a year. More than one
million of those who received parking tickets including recipients of
tickets during the two years prior to filing of the suit, plus any one
who got a ticket between the filing of the case and its ultimate
resolution, could join the suit.

The city could end up paying at least US$6.2 million in refunds if the
suit succeeds.  Rob Carey and Lief Garrison, attorneys for the
plaintiffs, told Rocky Mountain News that even those who promptly paid
their original parking tickets, possibly not realizing that they had
the right to challenge the ticket at a hearing, would be eligible for a
"nominal damages" payment of $1 each.

Mr. Carey adds that the lawsuit is not just about obtaining refunds,
saying, "From a pragmatic standpoint, one of the goals for our lawsuit
is just to get them to stop doing it."  He cited the city's practice of
tacking on late fees and what he feels is inadequate appeal notice.

"For future people, the fact that they get fairness and they get a
chance to knowingly decide whether they want to go to a hearing or not
without duress, that's our goal."  Mr. Carey told Rocky Mountain News.  
However, Denver City Attorney J. Wallace Wortham said the city would
make every effort to prevail in the suit.  He said, "We'e comfortable,
at this point, that we'll have another opportunity to demonstrate that
the plaintiffs have in no way been damaged."


FARMERS INSURANCE: Will Pay $15 Million To Refund Drivers' Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmers Insurance Company will refund about $15 million to its Texas
customers who paid too much in surcharges after being involved in
traffic accidents, the State Department of Insurance reported recently.  
The Department and the Company signed a consent order that requires the
Company, the third-largest insurance company in Texas, to pay $10.6
million in restitution to customers, plus 10 percent per year for
overcharges dating back to 1991, the Austin American-Statesman reports.

Insurance Commissioner Jose Montemayor also fined the company $500,000,
but then waived $400,000 because the Company reported the surcharge
itself.  "The restitution with interest makes this a very consumer-
friendly agreement," Mr. Montemayor said.  "I am glad we were able to
work things out without a protracted hearing that would have delayed
the refunds."

One consumer advocate, however, characterized the Department's action
as too little, too late.  "I am disappointed," Rob Schneider, a senior
staff attorney at the Southwest regional office of Consumers Union,
told the American-Statesman.  "I think it sends a bad message to
companies in the future that if they get caught getting sued, they can
go to the department (of insurance) and casually negotiate a
settlement."

The Company notification came just two days before a class action by
its policyholders was to be filed.  The suit was later dropped.

Texas law requires insurance companies to levy surcharges against
policyholders who cause traffic accidents.  The Company has said that
the overcharges were caused by accounting mistakes when it reported
them to the insurance department in the summer of 2000.  According to
Company records, there were 261,884 instances of when its policyholders
were surcharged for too long for accidents between 1991 and 20001.

The average refund will range from $40 to $50 for every six-month
period customers were affected, the Company said.  Affected customers
will receive a check within 45 days.  Customers eligible for a refund
will automatically receive a check and do not need to do anything to
make a claim.


FLORIDA: Nurses Sue Corrections Department Alleging Sexual Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Department of Corrections faces a class action filed by
more than two dozen women, most of whom are nurses, alleging the
department failed to stop male inmates from sexually harassing them at
several prisons across the state, St. Petersburg Times reports.

The suit, filed in Washington County, enumerated several instances
where the nurses were harassed.  Allegedly, male inmates who were
isolated from the rest of the prison for behavior problems faked
medical emergencies to get female nurses to come to their cells.  Once
the nurse arrived, the inmates exposed themselves and masturbated in
front of the nurses while making derogatory comments, according to a
St. Petersburg Times report.

The incidents occurred during the nurses' daily rounds, when they
inspected inmates to see if they needed medical attention.  The nurses
wrote reports about harassment but the department allegedly did not
respond to the reports.  "Discipline is not getting meted out,"
attorney for the plaintiffs John Davis said.

A spokesman for the department refused to comment on the suit, the St.
Petersburg Times reported.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Sued For Violations of RICO Act in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. faces a class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging violations of various state and federal laws and of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The suit was filed in February 2002, against the Company and certain of
its distributors.  The suit alleges that specified marketing plans
employed by the distributor defendants are illegal, and that the
Company has permitted the use of these marketing plans and/or failed to
supervise its distributors' conduct to prevent violations of law by
them.  The suit, however, does not challenge the legality of the
Company's marketing system.

The Company has not yet answered the complaint, but it believes that it
has meritorious defenses to the allegations contained in the lawsuit.  
However, an adverse result in this litigation could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and operating
results.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. TX Suit Over Leases
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation intends to vigorously oppose an amended
securities suit pending in the Travis County District Court in Texas on
behalf of all persons in Texas who have executed the Company's finance
leases for "virtual terminal" type credit card software for the years
1998 to 2001.

Lead plaintiff Rae Lynn Copitka filed the suit to rescind her finance
lease with the Company and to recover economic damages arising from
prior payments under the lease.

The Company labeled the suit "without merit" and stated that it has
valid defenses to the allegations in the suit.  However, because of the
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Company cannot predict
whether the outcome will have a material adverse affect on its finances
or business operations.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Settling Suits Over Lease Contracts in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Microfinancial, Inc. agreed to settle a class action pending in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo against
the Company and Leasecomm Corporation, through which it operates, as
well as a number of other defendants with whom the two Companies are
alleged to have done business, directly or indirectly.

The suit seeks certification of a subclass of those class members who
entered into any lease agreement contracts with Leasecomm for the
purposes of financing the goods or services allegedly purchased from
other defendant entities.  The suit alleges multiple causes of action,
including:

     (1) fraud and deceit,

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) unfair competition,

     (4) false advertising,

     (5) unjust enrichment,

     (6) fraud in the inducement and the inception of contract,

     (7) lack of consideration for contact, and

     (8) breach of the contractual covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing

On February 1, 2002, the parties entered into stipulation of settlement
to the suit.  The stipulation of settlement will be effective only if
and when it is approved by the court as fair and reasonable to the
members of the plaintiff class and as a good faith settlement pursuant
to Section 877.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.  The
Company however is unsure at this point how long this process will
take.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: CA Court Stays Suit Over I-Phone Lease Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange agreed
to stay the class action pending against Microfinancial, Inc. and
Leasecomm Corporation, through which the Company operates.  The suit
also names another defendant - Prospecting Services of America, Inc.
(PSOA).

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of customers who were
allegedly solicited by PSOA to enter into leases with Leasecomm for the
lease of a "virtual link point gateway" and "I-phone."  The suit
alleged that PSOA made numerous misrepresentations and omissions during
the course of solicitation for which Leasecomm and the Company should
be responsible.

On January 25, 2002, the trial court granted the motion of Leasecomm
and the Company to stay the claims against them, on the grounds that
the forum selection clause contained in the lease agreements required
plaintiffs to litigate any claims against those entities in
Massachusetts.

In the event that this matter cannot be resolved, the Company intends
to vigorously defend the action.  Because of the uncertainties inherent
in litigation, the Company cannot predict whether the outcome will have
a material adverse affect on its finances or operations.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Employees File Suit Over Wages in CA State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. faces a class action pending in the
California Superior Court for the County of Orange, alleging that the
Company has not properly paid wages to its California-based store
managers, co-managers, and assistant managers.

The Company has denied the allegations in and raised affirmative
defenses to the suit. No class has been certified at this time.  The
Company believes that the outcome of current litigation will not have a
material adverse effect upon its results of operations or financial
condition.


RESOURCES ACCRUED: Plaintiffs in Securities Suit Ink $9M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Resources Accrued Mortgage Investors 2, LP agreed to settle a class
action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court by its limited partners,
where the Partnership was named as a nominal defendant.  The suits also
named as defendants:

     (1) RAM Funding, Inc.,

     (2) Presidio AGP Corporation,

     (3) NorthStar Capital Investment Corporation and

     (4) Charbird Enterprises LLP

The suit alleged purported breaches of fiduciary duties and breaches of
the Company's partnership agreement in connection with the March 1999
sale of the Harborista Loan and the marketing of Harbor Plaza, which
secured the Harborista 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 the Partnership to enforce the provisions of a
$6,500,000 first mortgage loan to High Cash Partners, LP, better known
as the "Sierra Loan."

On January 22, 2002, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that

     (i) provides for a $9,000,000 payment by the defendants to the
         Partnership; and

    (ii) requires that the Partnership distribute to its partners the
         $9,000,000 payment, less fees and expenses awarded by the
         court to plaintiff's counsel (which amount is not expected to
         exceed approximately 20% of the settlement amount).  

The settlement agreement is subject to Court approval.  The hearing on
the approval of the settlement agreement is scheduled for April 15,
2002.


SIMON WORLDWIDE: Working To Settle Suit Over McDonald's Game Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Worldwide, Inc. is negotiating for a nationwide class action
settlement to numerous consumer lawsuits initially filed in various
state and federal courts, over alleged fraud in an in-store promotion
it ran for McDonald's nationwide.

In August 2001, agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation
arrested eight of the Company's employees, who allegedly rigged the
"Monopoly" and "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" games used by the fast-
food chain as its in-store promotions.  These employees defrauded
McDonald's and its customers of more than $13 million.  The FBI
particularly pointed to employee Jerome Jacobson.

Plaintiffs in many of these actions allege, among other things, that
defendants, including the Company, its subsidiary Simon Marketing
Corporation, and McDonald's, misrepresented that plaintiffs had a
chance at winning certain high-value prizes when in fact the prizes
were stolen by Mr. Jacobson.  The suits asserted diverse causes of
action, including:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) restitution,

     (5) unjust enrichment,

     (6) misrepresentation,

     (7) false advertising,

     (8) breach of warranty,

     (9) unfair competition and

    (10) violation of various state consumer fraud statutes.

Complaints filed in federal court in New Jersey and Illinois also
alleged a pattern of racketeering.

The lawsuits remain in the very early stages and discovery has yet to
commence in any of these proceedings.  The Company has consented to the
removal to federal court by McDonald's of each of the complaints filed
in state courts other than in California and Illinois.  Plaintiffs in
some of these cases have moved to remand the cases to state court. In
those cases in which courts have ruled on the remand motions, they have
been denied in all but the case pending in Florida district court,
which recently remanded the case to Florida state court.  Other remand
motions remain pending.

On October 9, 2001, McDonald's filed a motion with the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to transfer all complaints pending
in federal courts nationwide, including the removed cases and
subsequently filed cases, to a single federal court in the Northern  
District of Illinois.

On February 21, 2002, the JPMDL granted McDonald's motion and ordered
cases pending in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee federal courts transferred to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The JPMDL further identified subsequently filed actions now pending in
Columbia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio federal courts as
subject to potential transfer as tag along actions.

McDonald's, with the Company's consent, also filed a petition to
coordinate, in a single court in Orange County, all actions pending in
California State Superior Court.  The court granted the petition and in
February 2002 all cases pending in California state court were assigned
to the Honorable Ronald Bauer in Orange County.  In addition, the
Illinois state court actions remain consolidated before a single judge.

The Company is currently involved in negotiations to settle these
actions as part of a single nationwide class action settlement. The
Company is unable to predict the outcome of any or all of these
lawsuits and the ultimate effect, if any, on its financial condition,
results of operations or net cash flows.


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Labels Without Merit Suit Over AR Plant Operations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company faces a class action filed in Sebastian
County, Arkansas, on behalf of all mineral owners who own or owned a
royalty and/or overriding royalty interest in oil and gas leases or
other agreements in certain sections of Franklin County, Arkansas.  The
suit names the Company and its subsidiaries as defendants.

The Company was granted authority in 1968 by the Arkansas Oil and Gas
Commission to operate a gas storage facility in one section of Franklin
County.  Based upon subsequently developed geological data, the Company
sought authority to expand this area and was granted authority by the
Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission to operate gas storage in additional
sections.  

The suit challenges the storage agreements that the Company obtained
from the mineral interest owners in 1968, 1999 and 2000 to operate the
gas storage facility known as "Stockton."  The suit alleges various
wrongful, intentional and fraudulent acts relating to the operation of
the storage pool beginning in 1968 and continuing to the present.  The
above-referenced agreements from the mineral owners were allegedly
obtained through misrepresentation and fraud.

The Company has owned and operated the Stockton storage unit through
its Arkansas Western Gas Company subsidiary until 1994, at which time
it was transferred to its subsidiary, SEECO, Inc.  The suit claims
ownership rights in the gas that the Company has stored in the storage
pool in an amount in excess of $5 million in actual damages, interest,
attorney's fees and punitive damages.  

The Company believes that this action is without merit and does not
meet the requirements for a class action.  The Company further asserts
that plaintiffs' claim to the storage gas, which the Company has
injected into the storage facility, has no merit and is not supported
by the Arkansas gas storage statute under which the Company operates
this facility.  


UNITED KINGDOM: Earl To Define Working Class in Real Estate Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a writ obtained by The Independent (London), the eighth
Earl Cadogan, a man whose personal fortune is conservatively estimated
at GBP1.3 billion, will go to the High Court to prove that there is
still a section of society that can call itself working class, and that
group has certain property rights bestowed upon it by covenants that
run with certain pieces of land.

The 64-year-old Earl is blocking a GBP2 million development of the site
of a disused pub, the former Rat and the Parrot, once frequented by
both local gentry and nouveaux riches in Chelsea, West London. He says
when the Cadogan family sold the land to the borough of Chelsea in
1929, it ensured there was a legally binding covenant to the effect
that the land should always be used for the benefit of the working
class.

The development company, Danu, which bought the site in 2000, argues
that the term working class is no longer capable of any "meaningful
definition," and that therefore there is no legal obstacle to Danu's
development of the land by building luxury homes at the pub's site.

The legal action will not just settle a political argument between
Thatcherites and Marxists.  It could also safeguard the future of
thousands of "affordable homes" in some of London's richest areas.  
However, the prospect of an aristocrat riding to the rescue of the poor
has been greeted with some skepticism locally.  After all, the Cadogan
family built its fortune through hard-headed investment in the property
market.

Recently, Stuart Corbyn, a friend and spokesman for the earl, as well
as chief executive of the Cadogan Estates, has said that the earl is
very serious about the social issues that underpin the case he is
expected to argue in the High Court later this year.  

As an example of one of the broader issues the Earl sees involved in
the case he has brought to the court, Mr. Corbyn noted the lack of
social housing provided by the state, which had been caused by the loss
of thousands of council homes (houses built by the state for rental at
an affordable rental) to the private sector under Margaret Thatcher's
right-to-buy legislation.  It is a "debate," said Mr. Corbyn, which the
Earl perceives to be as important now as it was at the end of the 19th
century.

"There is just as great a need for affordable housing today as there
was a hundred years ago.  That is particularly so for people living in
the Chelsea area, where property can cost in the region of GBP1 million
and GBP2 million.  Therefore, the undertaking by Earl Cadogan, on
behalf of the working class, to ensure legal recognition of the
covenants already in existence for their benefit is of inestimable
value.

Lawyers say the case could have a massive impact on thousands of homes
built on land that was sold or given to local authorities on condition
that it should only be used for benefit of the working class.  If the
court decides that this term no longer has a legal meaning, then
affordable housing in some of the most expensive parts of the country
could be lost forever.

Margaret Casley-Haford, an expert in planning law at the London Law
firm of Denton Wilde Sapte, said the issues would make the Earl's
action a test case.  "One of the arguments that I expect the developers
to raise is that we are all middle class now.  That will be a very
interesting debate."

However, she said, the court would have to consider the purpose of
the covenant as well as looking at the modern meaning of working and
middle class.  "The aim of the covenant," she said, "was to provide
affordable accommodation for key workers to live inside the borough.
The floor scrubbers and factory workers of the past might well be the
teachers and police officers of today."

She added, "Authorities are now in a quandary as to how best to define
affordable housing, social housing and key-worker housing in order to
bring forward the type of development that they would like to see
coming on stream for the less well off.  The landlords that provided
the major charitable estates at the turn of last century no longer
exist, hence the Government's attempts to engender a requirement that
this type of housing be built as part of modern commercial housing."

The Peabody Trust owns 19,000 properties in London, one of which is
next door to the disputed site where the Rat and Parrot now stands.  
Dickon Robinson, the trust's director of development and technical
services, said that many of their low-rent properties were subject to a
working-class clause.  He said that his lawyers had advised him that
the term "working class" still has meaning today.  "There is a section
of society that can be said to be working class.  It is, after all, a
euphemism that can be regulated by law."

Mr. Robinson added that the great Victorian reformers knew exactly what
they meant when they had their lawyers draw up such covenants.  "What
we are doing is perpetuating them (the covenants) through the modern
planning system."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Keller Rohrback Lodges Suit For ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback LLP initiated a class action against the Williams
Companies, Inc. (NYSE:WMB) on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the Company's retirement and 401(k) plans from March 1, 1999,
through Oct. 12, 2001, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The suit alleges that the Company and its plan administrators breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence.  The suit continues
that the breach occurred when material information was withheld or
concealed from the Plan participants and beneficiaries with respect to
the Company's business, financial results and operations, thereby
encouraging participants and beneficiaries to continue to make and
maintain substantial investments in company stock and the Plans.

Like other energy traders, such as Enron, the Company uses mark-to-
market accounting practices, which allow a Company to book profits on
long-term energy contracts upfront, which uses assumptions about the
value of a Company's future profits.  Between 30 percent and 40 percent
of the Company's profits come from mark-to-market accounting.

For more information, contact Jennifer Tuato'o by Phone: 800-776-6044
by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit the Web sites:
http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.SeattleClassAction.com


*Consumer Suits Pave Way for Rise of Class Actions in Indonesia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The current buzzwords in campaigns for the protection of consumers'
rights, be they consumers of products and services or consumers of
arbitrary public policies, is class action, according to a report in
the Jakarta Post.  

Class actions are fast gaining popularity, especially since the recent
suit filed by Jakarta-based NGOs (non-governmental organizations)
representing flood victims against the policies of Governor Sutiyoso
over poor disaster preparedness in the capital.  Among the 30
plaintiffs are such entities of consumer vigilance as the Indonesian
Corruption Watch, the Urban Poor Consortium and the Indonesian Forum
for the Environment.

Finding himself accused of failing to take adequate measures to
anticipate the disaster, Governor Sutiyoso has gone on record as not
only regretting the lawsuit but also questioning its suitability or
appropriateness.  After all, he has argued, the disaster struck because
of the weather.  He also has accused the NGOs of using the flood
victims to further their own agendas.

Class actions were not common in Indonesia before.  In the past, any
legal moves against authorities would usually cause the public to just
shrug because of the "David vs. Goliath image" such actions called
forth.

More recently, however, there have been cases where David prevailed.  
One such success story concerned the class action filed by Siamet
Tompel and Gatot Sudarto, residents of Karang Anyar, Taman Sari, in
Central Jakarta.  These two plaintiffs represented 43 other residents
who worked as scavengers and whose dwellings were demolished by the
Jakarta administration.

Siamet and Gatot are not lawyers, and their decision to undertake the a
legal move earned them the title of "ghost lawyers."  However, they won
the class action against the Jakarta governor, the Central Jakarta
mayor, PT Kereta Api Railway Company and the Mobile Brigade of the
National Police.

Another success story unfolded when an alliance of consumer rights
advocates, the Committee for the Advocacy Against the Price Increase of
LPG (gas), led by the Indonesian Consumers Foundation, won its class
action against Pertamina, the state oil company.  The Central Jakarta
District Court ordered the state oil company to revoke its arbitrary
decision to increase the price of Elpiji gas.  The court also ordered
the company to refund the difference in the money that the consumers
had paid for the gas.

Newsweek, in its March 4 edition, described a "legal revolution" that
had taken place in Liushugouzi village in Shandong province, China.  
Here, two farmers with limited knowledge of and limited experience with
legal technicalities defended fellow farmers who were beaten up by
thugs paid by the local administrators, who had decided this was how
they would deal with late taxpayers.  The two farmers filed a suit for
compensation for their friends' injuries, and earned the nickname
"barefoot lawyers" from the weekly.

The time of the class action has come to Jakarta and China and the
"ghost lawyers" and the "barefoot lawyers" are true Davids fighting the
Goliaths of power and greed.   

Why is the class action important as an emerging legal device?  Because
it can be used successfully in cases of poorly matched fights.  

There always has been an imbalance in the bargaining power of consumers
and producers because of the nature of the relationship between the
two, which is characterized by the almost unquestioning trust which the
consumers place in producers--nearly a fiduciary relationship.  When
one goes to a supermarket and buys a product, one does not usually
check whether the printed weight on the package is accurate, or whether
the product is free of contaminants.  One simply trusts the producers'
claims.

Given the increasing sophistication of the manufacturing process,
consumers are steadily finding it more difficult to investigate whether
the producers' claims have any truth.  The David vs. Goliath image
makes its way into the public consciousness.

Class actions reflect people's growing confidence that they can apply
pressure on producers or policy makers, who not only are neglecting but
also are violating consumers' rights.  It is a new venue, in Jakarta,
for the public to defend their rights.  People are beginning to view
class actions as a part of the legal system that might be effective
enough to be used in the fight against arbitrary actions by producers
or officials.

Class actions are statutorily provided for by various sections of the
Civil Code, according to the Jakarta Post.  Supporters of class actions
in Jakarta are usually activists who act as society advocates and
public interest lawyers.  They usually believe that class actions
represent access to justice for members of the public.  Regrettably,
only a few commercial lawyers in Jakarta have expressed an interest in
becoming public interest lawyers.

The Supreme Court in Jakarta reportedly has taken steps to fill a legal
void.  The Court is planning to issue a Supreme Court decree on class
actions in order to guide judges trying class-action lawsuits.  The
next logical step is that Legislators draft a law pertaining to class
actions, according to the Jakarta Post.  By institutionalizing the law
on class actions, the years of hard work by advocates of the Indonesian
Consumers Foundation, for example, would be protected from going down
the drain because of the absence of adequate legal cover.  Judges, in
their new role, would do well to heed the precedents set by the Central
Jakarta District Court, which backed the Elpiji consumers' suit against
Pertamina.

There is much to be done if the legal system in Indonesia is to build
on the work of the Davids, the "ghost lawyers" and "barefoot lawyers"
by creating and strengthening the means by which the general public can
improve their bargaining position with the Goliaths, the producers and
policy makers.

                          Securities Fraud  

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Harvey Greenfield Lodges Securities Suit in PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Harvey Greenfield initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Adelphia Communications
Corporation (ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 8, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against the Company and:

     (1) Timothy Rigas, CFO,

     (2) John J. Rigas, President, CEO and Chairman,

     (3) James P. Rigas,

     (4) Michael J. Rigas and

     (5) Peter L. Venetis

The suit alleges that defendants violated of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing financial statements containing material
misrepresentations or omissions within the class period.  

Specifically, the Company failed to disclose in its financial
statements that it had made up to $2.7 billion in loan guarantees to
members of the Rigas family, the Company's founders.  By structuring
the debt through a variety of other entities controlled by the Rigas
family, including Highland Holdings, a limited partnership, the Company
was able to prevent the debt from appearing on its balance sheet.  The
Rigas family used the money to purchase $1.8 billion in Company stock
and convertible bonds over the last four years.

On March 27, 2002, the Company announced its Fourth Quarter and Full-
Year results and the true financial condition of the Company began to
be revealed.  The Company requested an extension of time from the SEC
to file its Form 10-K.  By April 3, 2002, the off-balance-sheet debt
was reported to reach $2.7 billion, although investigations remain
ongoing.  The Company disclosed on April 3, 2002 that the SEC had
commenced an informal inquiry into its "co-borrowing agreements" and
had petitioned to review related Company documents.

The recent revelations have caused the price of the Company's common
stock to drop from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002 to close at
$10.99 on April 8, 2002.

For more details, contact Harvey Greenfield by Mail: 60 East 42nd
Street, Suite 2001, New York, NY, 10165 by Phone: 212-949-5500 by Fax:
212-949-0049 or by E-mail: harvey.greenfield@verizon.net.


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Adelphia
Communications Corporation (ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 8,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

According to the suit, the Company manipulated its financial statements
and misrepresented its earnings and financial results, thereby
artificially inflating its stock price by improper accounting
practices.

On March 27, 2002, the Company disclosed that in conjunction with its
fiscal 2001 financial results, it was liable for at least $2.3 billion
in debt related to the co-borrowing guarantees entered into with
Highland Holdings, a third party controlled by the Company.

Following this disclosure, the price of the Company's common stock fell
to $16.70 per share, a loss of approximately 20% of the value of the
stock from the previous trading day.  During the class period,
Adelphia's shares traded as high as $45 per share.

For more information, contact, Andrew G. Tolan by Phone: 888-476-6529
(888-4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co. (NYSE:BMY) between Sept. 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 between Sept. 25, 2001 and March 19, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, as early as September 2001,
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the Company's clinical
trial of VANLEV, a drug designed to treat hypertension, caused users to
experience a higher risk of a side effect known as angiodema.  Further,
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that VANLEV had not proven 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 Mark S. Willis or Mary Ann Fink by Mail:
1100 New York Ave. NW West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005 by
Phone: 202-408-4600 by Fax: 202-408-4699 by E-mail: mwillis@cmht.com or
mfink@cmht.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.cmht.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 of New York.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges, 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 complaint 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 offering them 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. 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


DURATEK INC.: Moves For Dismissal Of Securities Fraud Suit in MD Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Duratek, Inc. asked the United States District Court in Baltimore,
Maryland to dismiss the amended securities suit pending against the
Company and two of its executive officers, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

The suit alleges that certain statements and information included in
the Company's press releases and in the periodic reports filed by it
with the Securities and Exchange Commission contained materially false
and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws.

The dismissal motion currently is pending before the court.  Although
the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims
alleged against it in this action, it is too early in the litigation to
provide an accurate assessment of the likelihood or the extent of any
liability arising from this matter.


DQE INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in W.D. PA
------------------------------------------------------------------
DQE Inc. labeled "without merit" the securities class actions pending
against the Company and former chairman, David Marshall, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between December 6,2000 and
April 30,2001.

The suits allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements during the class period concerning investments made by DQE
Enterprises, Inc. and their impact on the Company's current and future
financial results.

The suits further claim that, as a result of these statements, the
price of the Company's securities was artificially inflated.

The Company vows to vigorously defend against the suits, and expresses
confidence that the suit will not have a material effect on its
business operations and finances.


EAGLE BUILDING: Beatie Osborn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beatie and Osborn LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Eagle Building Technologies, Inc. (OTC
Bulletin Board: 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 during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company 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 Eduard Korsinsky or Benjamin Coleman by
Mail: 521 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, New York 10175 by Phone:
800-891-6305 by Fax: 212-888-9664 by E-mail:
clientrelations@bandolaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bandolaw.com


ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Sued For Securities Fraud in California Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics For Imaging, Inc. faces several securities class actions
pending in the California Superior Court for San Mateo County and in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The state court suits allege that the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its business during a putative class period of
April 10, 1997 through December 11, 1997 and allege violations of
California Corporations Code Sections 25400 and 25500 and Civil Code
Sections 1709 and 1710.  The federal court suit makes the same factual
allegations, but alleges violations of certain United States federal
securities laws.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to contest them vigorously.  However, the Company cannot give any
assurance that if damages are ultimately awarded against it, the
litigation will not adversely affect its results of operations.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross 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.

According to the suit, the Company improperly recognized $107.6 million
in licensing revenue from cable TV equipment maker Scientific-Atlanta,
Inc. since 1999, although Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. stopped making
payments to the Company beginning in 1999.

Additionally, the Company improperly booked $20 million in revenue from
advertising space it purportedly "sold" on its interactive program
guides to a company called Fantasy Sports, although the transaction was
actually a "barter arrangement" in which the Company received
intellectual patents, not cash, from Fantasy Sports.

As a result of the Company's misrepresentations and omissions about its
financial results, the price of its shares traded at artificially
inflated prices.

On April 1, 2002, when the Company filed its 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2001, it belatedly provided some disclosures of its
improper revenue recognition practices. As a result of this disclosure,
the price of Company shares fell as much as 37%, or $5.35, to $9.01.

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

                                  
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Second Securities Suit in Nevada Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. faces a second securities class action
pending in the United States District Court in Clark County, Nevada
relating to the Company's adoption of a Preferred Share Purchase Rights
Plan and its rejection of a purported offer by a third party to acquire
a controlling interest in the Company.

The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary obligations by the Company's
directors and majority stockholder in the rights plan and the offer.  
The plaintiffs in the lawsuits request:

     (1) an order compelling the defendants to take steps to seek a
         sale of the Company;

     (2) an order enjoining the defendants in office;

     (3) unspecified damages; and

     (4) other relief

The Company has not yet answered the complaints.  However, it believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations contained in the
lawsuit.  


LEGATO SYSTEMS: $87M Settlement Reached in Securities, Derivative Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Legato Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:LGTO) forged agreements to settle
securities class action and derivative lawsuits filed in 2000 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
and in San Mateo County Superior Court.

Both the securities class action and the derivative action arose from
events that caused the Company to restate its results for the first
three quarters of 1999.  

The federal suit generally alleged that, between April 22, 1999 and May
17, 2000, the defendants made false or misleading statements of
material fact about the Company's prospects and failed to follow
generally accepted accounting principles in violation of the federal
securities laws.  Additionally, the derivative suit charges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by issuing false and
misleading statements about the Company's business prospects and
engaged in improper insider trading.

The settlements in the federal and state litigation call for the
Company to pay a total of $87.65 million, including attorneys' fees, in
the two cases.  The settlements do not constitute any admission of
wrongdoing on the part of the Company or the individual defendants.  
The settlements also have yet to be approved by the courts.

"We are pleased that the litigation has been resolved. Putting this
behind us provides a clear path to the achievement of our strategic
long-term goals," said David B. Wright, chairman and CEO of the
Company.  "As a management team we can now fully dedicate our efforts
to expanding key relationships and developing opportunities with our
customers, our strategic alliances and channel partners."

For more information, contact Sandy O'Halloran of Legato Systems, Inc.
by Phone: 650-210-7481 by E-mail: sandyoh@legato.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Investors Seek Inclusion Of New Findings In Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's investigation of Merrill
Lynch & Co. research practices is spilling over into the civil arena,
with plaintiffs' lawyers in a number of cases seeking to use his
findings to bolster their contentions that the firm misled investors,
The Wall Street Journal reports.  

Legal experts say the findings of Mr. Spitzer's investigation into the
nature of the ties between the investment banker and their firms'
analysts have opened the doors for massive class actions.

In one example, investors who brought suit last week against Merrill
and former star analyst, Henry Blodget, have asked a federal judge in
Manhattan for permission to amend their complaint to include Mr.
Spitzer's allegations that the investment firm hyped stocks, about
which its own analysts harbored doubts, in an effort to win lucrative
banking work.

In announcing the findings of a 10-month investigation into the Firm's
research process recently, Mr. Spitzer also released e-mails from  
certain Merrill Lynch officials, including Mr. Blodget, showing their
doubts about stocks that got bullish investment ratings from the firm.
The Merrill probe is one of several by the Attorney General,
scrutinizing the research practices of a variety of Wall Street firms.

Mr. Spitzer's office is now in preliminary talks with Merrill about a
settlement that, if it includes the acknowledgement of wrongdoing he is
seeking, could help the plaintiffs' case.  Merrill has denied the
allegations and said that many of the e-mails released by Mr. Spitzer
contained comments taken out of context.  Even if the new information
is allowed into the lawsuit, "we believe this case (the investors'
civil case) has no merit, and we intend to defend vigorously against
it," said Timothy Cobb, a Merrill spokesman.

However, the e-mails, unearthed by the Mr. Spitzer's investigation,
have set off a great deal of bad publicity for the firm and a flurry of
activity by plaintiffs' lawyers.  

Still another example of the effects of the investigation on civil
cases has emerged is the e-mails appear "to be very powerful
information supporting our case," said Steven J. Toll, managing partner
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll.  The Washington firm is co-lead
counsel for five plaintiffs who sued Merrill and Mr. Blodget in July,
alleging that they violated federal securities laws by pumping up the
stock of InfoSpace, Inc.

Mr. Toll said the lawyers, who are now seeking to have the case
certified as a class action on behalf of investors who bought InfoSpace
shares will "very likely" try to expand the case to include holders of
other Internet stocks recommended by Merrill.

Legal specialists say the immediate benefit for plaintiffs is that the
Spitzer material is likely to help them survive a motion to dismiss, a
key hurdle in any shareholder action.  As the case proceeds, they say,
the lawyers will be able to seek in the pre-trial fact-finding process,
discovery, the same e-mails and other documents obtained by Mr.
Spitzer.  "This is the kind of gift from heaven that very few
plaintiffs' lawyers receive - specific hard evidence that shows
analysts contradicting their own public statements," said John Coffee,
a securities and corporate-litigation specialist at Columbia University
Law School.


SEROLOGICALS CORPORATION: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Second Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Serologicals Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Northern  District of Georgia to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock from April 27,1999 to April 10, 2000.

The suit arose from twelve suits initially filed in 2000 against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors, which allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) thereof and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suits were later consolidated.

In November 2000, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court granted in its
entirety with prejudice and ruled that the plaintiffs would not be
allowed to amend the complaint.

In September 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the judgement
and/or for relief arguing that they should have been allowed to amend
the complaint.  In January 2002, the court reconsidered its decision
and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint on February
12, 2002.

The Company does not consider the claims of the second amended
consolidated complaint to be substantively different than those of the
initial consolidated complaint and therefore asked the court to dismiss
the suit.  The plaintiffs and the Company will each have an additional
opportunity to respond.

Although management considers all of the claims in the second amended
consolidated complaint to be without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously if the Company's motion to dismiss is denied,
management is unable at this time to predict the final outcome of these
claims.


SPLASH TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities suit against Splash
Technology Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers, appealed a
California federal court's dismissal of the suit.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock from January 7,1997 to October 13,1998, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The suit
alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about
the Company's business condition and prospects during the class period
and asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

In August 2001, the Company asked the federal court to dismiss the
suit, and the court granted the motion.  The plaintiffs then filed a
notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses in this suit and intends to defend
it vigorously.


SYKES ENTERPRISES: FL Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division certified as a class action the securities suit filed
against Sykes Enterprises, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between July 27,1998 and September 18,2000.

The suit alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by improperly recording revenues
from certain of the Company's software contracts in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.

As a result, defendants caused the Company to report materially false
and misleading financial statements for the second and third quarters
of fiscal 1999.  As a result of these false and misleading statements,
the market price of the Company's common stock was artificially
inflated during the class period.

The court also appointed the Florida State Board of Administration and
the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System were appointed as lead
plaintiffs for the class.

For more information, contact Michael J. Pucillo and Wendy H. Zoberman
by Mail: 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL 33401
by Phone: 561-835-9400 or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com


                              *********


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  * * *