CAR_Public/020422.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Monday, April 22, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 78

                              Headlines

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Recalls 103T Mountain Bikes Over Injury Hazard
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Hearing On New Jersey Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Commences
ESTES INDUSTRIES: Recalls 140T Air-Powered Rockets For Injury Hazard
FREIGHTLINER INC.: Sued Over Western Star Factory Shutdown in Canada
FORD MOTOR: Appeals Certification of Explorer "Crazy Quilt" Lawsuit  

GILBERT EXPRESS: Settles NJ Suit Over Truth-In-Leasing Act Violations
HALLMARK CARDS: Recalls Harry Potter Key Chains Over Ingestion Hazard
HOMEGOLD INC.: NC Court Grants Certification To Mortgage Loans Suit
MINNESOTA: Student Files Suit Over Sexual Harassment On School Bus
MINNESOTA:  Race Bias Suit V. St. Cloud University Allowed To Proceed

STAR SCIENTIFIC: To Drop "Light" From Labels Due To Consumer Suits
TERRORIST ATTACKS: Justice Dept. Denies Allegations in Detainees' Suit
WEST VIRGINIA: Revival of Suit Over Welfare Limits Could Harm Budget

                           Securities Fraud

ADVANCED SWITCHING: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in VA
ANDRX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in FL
EAGLE BUILDING: Sichenzia Ross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
EMEX CORPORATION: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ENRON CORPORATION: Oregon State Agencies Begin Own Securities Probe

GARMENT CAPITAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in CT
GLOBALSTAR LP: DE Court Stays Suit Proceedings After Bankruptcy Filing
GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Asks For Dismissal of NY Securities Suit
HANOVER COMPRESSOR: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in S.D. TX

MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Act Violations in N.D. IL
SAF T LOK: Denies Allegations in Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. FL
SEAVIEW VIDEO: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
SWISS HELVETIA: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits in DE

TUT SYSTEMS: Vigorously Opposing Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
TUT SYSTEMS: CA Court Consolidates Suits for Securities Act Violations
                              
                              *********

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Recalls 103T Mountain Bikes Over Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brunswick Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 103,000
Mongoose and Roadmaster mountain bicycles with Ballistic 105 front
suspension forks.  The forks on these bicycles can break apart, causing
riders to lose control, fall and suffer serious injury.
        
By Us International Co. Ltd., of Taiwan, the manufacturer of the
bicycle forks, previously announced the recall of 13,500 of these forks
in May 2000. The recall was expanded to about 40,000 forks in February
2001. By Us International is no longer cooperating with the recall.

The Company is expanding the recall to include all Ballistic model
105 forks sold on the Mongoose and Roadmaster mountain bicycles they
manufactured (except the Mongoose A40). The previous recalls were
limited to forks with certain serial numbers.
        
There have been 34 reports of forks on these bicycles breaking
resulting in 31 riders, including children and teenagers, suffering
serious head and bodily injuries, abrasions, bruises and chipped teeth.
        
The recall includes only Ballistic 105 forks installed on Mongoose and
Roadmaster model bicycles manufactured by the Company.  The forks on
these bikes are black with decals that read "BALLISTIC" and "105" on
the sides of the suspension fork legs.  A small label on the bottom of
the bicycle reads "Brunswick."  The forks on the Mongoose A40 model
bicycles and forks on bicycles not manufactured by the Company are
not included in the recall.
        
Discount department stores and toy stores nationwide sold the bicycles
with these forks from June 1998 through December 2000 for between $125
and $150.  Additionally, consumers could have received a Ballistic
model 105 fork as a replacements when participating in one of
the previous recalls.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-508-2762
between 8 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site:  http://www.ballisticforkrecall.com.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Hearing On New Jersey Sexual Abuse Lawsuit Commences
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Diocese of Camden attorney focused on the issue that is the real
subject of the hearing, which is being held in Superior Court before
Judge John G. Himmelberger, as the attorney questioned one of the lead
plaintiffs in a daylong cross-examination., the Associated Press
reported.

The class action presents dramatic, and for some, shocking accusations,
that 14 Diocese of Camden, New Jersey priests sexually abused the 16
plaintiffs when they were young boys. After hearing graphic sexual
details in the course of this hearing, the public may find it difficult
remembering that the hearing's purpose is to determine whether the lead
plaintiffs, two now-adult sons and their mother, may bring the lawsuit
at all after so many years have passed.

Lawyers for the Diocese of Camden contend the claim should be
dismissed, because the plaintiffs, who sued in 1995, waited too long to
go to court.  Under New Jersey law, civil claims in child-sex-abuse
cases generally must be filed by the time the victim reaches age 20.  
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, Robert and Philip, and their mother, Joan Dougherty, along
with other plaintiffs in the action, argue that "religious duress"
prevented them from suing the church earlier.  As devout Catholics,
they say they had been raised to revere priests as "direct messengers
of God" and were therefore, reluctant to challenge them.  

Additional religious duress was imposed, the Youngs contend, when
Camden Diocese Bishop George Guilfoyle told them in 1984 not to report
the molestations and not to contact the authorities because the
allegations would be damaging for them and the church.

Philip Young, 36, who was on the stand during the cross-examination,
claims the sexual abuse by Msgr. Philip Rigney, now 84 and retired,
took place repeatedly between 1978 and 1982.  Defense attorney Joseph
Kenney was attempting to show by his questioning that the plaintiff
missed the statute of limitations for filing claims by more than ten
years and that he had no legitimate reasons for not coming forward
earlier.

Reading from Philip Young's medical records and statements he made in a
deposition, Mr. Kenney attempted to establish that Mr. Young knew he
had been harmed by the sexual abuse as early as 1983, and that he
discussed it freely with relatives, doctors, therapists and a lawyer
who represented him in a criminal case.

In a slow, methodical cross-examination, attorney John Kenney
confronted Philip Young with medical records showing he revealed the
sexual abuse to psychiatrists at Delaware State Hospital in 1984 and to
counselors at Brandywine Counseling, Inc. in 1987.  Mr. Young
challenged the lawyer at every turn, saying he did not remember
discussing the abuse, but also not denying it.  

Robert Young, 36, will be testifying next.  The Youngs say they joined
the class action filed on behalf of victims by Margate lawyer Stephen
C. Rubino, after reading about the case in the newspapers.  They felt
betrayed by Bishop Guilfoyle who told them that the molestation by
Msgr. Rigney was an isolated case.

After seeing the newspaper article, they learned that Msgr. Rigney had
never been defrocked or given counseling, things that the Bishop told
them, at an early meeting, would happen.


ESTES INDUSTRIES: Recalls 140T Air-Powered Rockets For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Estes Industries is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 140,000 Air Powered
Rockets.  The rockets' foam tips can break off exposing sharp edges
that can cause face lacerations or eye injuries to consumers.  The
rocket systems also have weak pump handles that can break during use,
posing a risk of hand lacerations to consumers.

The Company has received 16 reports of rocket tips breaking off.  Six
children were struck in the face by the rockets, including two children
who suffered detached retinas and four children who suffered
lacerations that required stitches or sutures.  There were 68 reports
of broken pump handles, including six hand lacerations.

The blue, yellow and black GL-X200 Estes Air Powered Rocket Systems
contains two blue rockets with yellow foam tips and are recommended for
children 8 years of age and older.  "ESTES AIR" is printed in black and
white lettering in a 6-inch wide yellow oval on the front of the pump.  
Underneath the pump appear the words, "Made in China."

Department stores nationwide, including Wal-Mart, Toys R Us and Zany
Brainy, as well as e-businesses, catalogers and hobby shops sold these
rockets from February 2001 through February 2002 for between $20 and
$40.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-576-5811 from
8 am to 4:30 pm MT for information on how to get a replacement rocket,
or visit the Company's Web site: http://www.estesrockets.com.


FREIGHTLINER INC.: Sued Over Western Star Factory Shutdown in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Freightliner, Inc., the parent of Western Star Trucks, faces a possible
class action on behalf of about 200 non-union former Western Star
workers, who allege that the Company may have wrongfully dismissed
them, the Okanagan.net reports.  The suit was commenced in B.C. Supreme
Court, and relates to issues such as termination notices, pension,
benefits and wage rollback recovery.

Last December, the Company announced that it would shut down Western
Star's Canada factory to transfer operations to its own factory in
Portland, Oregon.  Western Star's assembly line unionized workers are
covered by their collective agreement and a negotiated severance
package of 24 weeks notice of layoff and $1,600 severance for each year
worked.  However, non-unionized workers did not have any collective
agreement, hence the filing of the suit.

"This is the first case of its kind in B.C.," said Murray Tevlin of the
Vancouver law firm Tevlin Gleadle, which is representing the group.  
"This an efficient way to deal with the case. An individual may not be
successful taking on a big corporation like Freightliner (Western
Star's owner), but as a group they have a better chance."

Company spokesman, Chris Brandt, told the Okanagan.net the Company has
not been served with a lawsuit.  "Therefore, we are unable to comment,"
he said.


FORD MOTOR: Appeals Certification of Explorer "Crazy Quilt" Lawsuit  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company and Bridgestone/Firestone appealed Indianapolis
Federal Judge Sarah Evans Barker's decision granting class
certification to a class action spurred by the rollover accidents on
the popular Ford Explorer SUV, which were allegedly caused by defective
Firestone Tires, USA Today reports.

The suit is different from other suits concerning the rollover
accidents as it involved plaintiffs who have not suffered any physical
injury or property damage over the accidents.  In her ruling, Judge
Barker said the suit could cover virtually all owners of Explorers
built from 1990 to 2001 and people who bought any of 60 million
Firestone tires from 53 different product lines.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said these people have valid claims, because
they would never have paid more for their vehicles and tires than they
would have had they known about safety issues, that the Explorers have
lower resale value, and that both Explorer and Firestone owners have
breach of warranty claims, USA Today states.

Ford and Firestone lawyers called the class a "crazy quilt class" and a
"mish-mash."  Ford also argued that it is impossible to judge as one
class 11 years of Explorers from different models and configurations
driven under different conditions.

The Appeals Court is expected to come out with its ruling within a
month.  According to USA Today, the court could uphold Judge Barker's
decision, overturn it or rule that some but not all of the class should
continue. It could rule, for example, to allow the class action against
Ford but not Bridgestone/Firestone.


GILBERT EXPRESS: Settles NJ Suit Over Truth-In-Leasing Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Express agreed to settle a class action filed in New Jersey
Federal Court by the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association
(OOIDA) on behalf of individual owner operators, alleging that the form
of owner-operator agreement then used by the Company violated certain
federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations.

The Company sought bankruptcy protection last June in Trenton, New
Jersey, citing the costs and uncertainty related to the litigation as a
principal reason for its filing.  According to Richard Gilbert, Company
President, the settlement with OOIDA paves the way for the company's
prompt emergence from Chapter 11.

"The cost to continue to defend the OOIDA litigation class action was
undoubtedly one of the biggest single factors that prompted the
bankruptcy filing and, until now, one of the impediments to our
successful emergence. With the matter now resolved, I see no reason we
can not successfully reorganize and come out of chapter 11 quickly,"
Mr. Gilbert said.

Jim Johnston, OOIDA's President, also voiced his support for the
settlement.  "Whenever and wherever we believe our members have been
harmed, we will vigorously pursue appropriate remedies to the full
extent of the law. The settlement with Gilbert Express resolves issues
of vital importance to our members in a satisfactory way. We look
forward to normal relations with the company and its owner-operator
drivers on a go-forward basis."

Though the terms of the settlement were not announced, they are known
to include a commitment by the Company to use the form of agreement
negotiated with OOIDA that complies with federal regulations.  The
settlement still must be approved by the Bankruptcy Court.


HALLMARK CARDS: Recalls Harry Potter Key Chains Over Ingestion Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hallmark Cards, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 7,000
Harry Potter key chains.  The key chains can leak petroleum
distillates, which can pose an ingestion hazard to children.  The
Company has not received any reports of incidents. This recall is being
conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The Harry Potter Magic Potion Bottle key chain is made of styrene and
has a "potion bottle" filled with purple-colored mineral oil and red-
colored water.  The 3-inch tall key chain has a green base and a gold
top, and has the letters "HP" printed on the bottle.  

Hallmark, Hallmark Card, Wal-Mart, grocery, drug, and gift stores
nationwide sold the key chains from October 2001 through November 2001
for about $5.

For more information and a full refund, contact the Company by Phone:
800-425-5627 between 8 am and 5 pm CT Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.hallmark.com


HOMEGOLD INC.: NC Court Grants Certification To Mortgage Loans Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Business Court granted class certification to a
class action filed against Homegold, Inc. and other personal credit
institutions, alleging a variety of statutory and common law claims
arising out of mortgage loans the plaintiffs obtained through Chase
Mortgage Brokers.

The suit seeks monetary damages, which fall into three basic
categories:  

     (1) refund of all fees charged by Chase in connection with the
         mortgage loans;  

     (2) forfeiture of all profits realized from the sale of the
         mortgage loans in the secondary  market; and

     (3) refund of two times the past interest paid on the mortgage  
         loans, and forfeiture of future interest.

The suit alleges participation by the Company in an arrangement with
Chase under which Chase allegedly failed to make necessary disclosures
to the borrowers, and charged excessive and duplicative fees to the
borrowers, and under which Chase allegedly received undisclosed
premiums.  

The Company intends to vigorously contest the suit.  Because these
matters are in their early stages, it is not possible to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or estimate the amount of
potential loss.  


MINNESOTA: Student Files Suit Over Sexual Harassment On School Bus
------------------------------------------------------------------
A Minneapolis elementary school-age boy has sued the Minneapolis School
District and one of its bus drivers, alleging that he was sexually
harassed while he was a passenger in the bus, reports the Star-Tribune
Newspaper of the Twin Cities.

The suit, filed by Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick, who has called
the defendant's behavior "a pervasive pattern of abuse," is seeking
class action status on behalf of unnamed others.  The lawsuit charges
Donald H. Hanson, 48, with sexual misconduct and asks damages in excess
of $50,000.

Mr. Hanson also has been charged with felony counts of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct and second-degree attempted criminal sexual
conduct and one count of indecent exposure, a gross misdemeanor.  These
charges allege that Mr. Hanson, who is currently jailed and on leave
from his bus-driving job, sexually touched one student, tried to
sexually touch another and made lewd comments to a third.  All the
victims were under the age of 8 and were on the bus Mr. Hanson was
driving, the criminal charges said.


MINNESOTA:  Race Bias Suit V. St. Cloud University Allowed To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court Judge Richard Kyle, has denied a request
by St. Cloud State University to dismiss a discrimination lawsuit filed
last year by its current professors, a former professor and a student,  
alleging the school has created an anti-Semitic and hostile work
environment.  Plaintiffs are seeking class action status.

Attorneys for the University argued that the lawsuit cannot be
considered by the court for a number of reasons, including lack of
evidence.  They also argued that the Statute of Limitations had
expired.


STAR SCIENTIFIC: Dropping "Light" From Labels Due To Consumer Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
An American tobacco company has announced plans to stop identifying its
cigarettes as "light" or "ultra-light" in response to several consumer
class actions pending in eleven states against Philip Morris Inc., RJ
Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Corporation over the use of
terms such as "light," saying they constitute a deliberate attempt to
mislead smokers.  The suits seek billions of dollars in damages for
alleged violations of consumer protection laws.  

Star Scientific, Inc. is the first tobacco company to announce plans
to stop identifying its cigarettes as "light" or "ultra light," which
critics say mislead smokers into believing the cigarettes are safer,
the Associated Press reports.  

The Chester, Virginia company recently sent letters to other cigarette
manufacturers and lawmakers that said it would drop the terms from its
Vegas brand of cigarettes by the end of September.

In the letter to the other companies and lawmakers, Company Chairman
Paul Perito cited a National Cancer Institute study published last year
that found smoking light cigarettes does not decrease smoking-related
disease.  The study found that while the cigarettes yield less tar and
nicotine when tested on government-approved machines, real smokers tend
to inhale more deeply and take more puffs.

Star Chairman Perito also wrote in this letter, "In taking this step,
we hope to challenge all tobacco manufacturers to follow our lead.
Fundamental changes in the industry must take place, so that tobacco
users can make informed decisions about the use of tobacco products and
their inherent risk."

Spokeswoman Sara Machir said the Company will assess whether to remove
the terms from its other brands, Main Street, Sport and Gsmoke.  Star
products account for less than one percent of US cigarette sales.  
"Star deserves to be applauded for being the first tobacco company to
eliminate the use of light and ultralight," said Matthew Myers,
president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.  Mr. Myers said,
however, that the Company should go ahead and remove the terms from all
its brands.

Brendan McCormick, a spokesman for Philip Morris Inc., said the
nation's largest tobacco company would continue using the terms.  "We
think they provide useful points of comparison regarding the
characteristics of various cigarette brands, such as strength of taste
and reported tar yields."


TERRORIST ATTACKS: Justice Dept. Denies Allegations in Detainees' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Justice Department responded to a class action
accusing the department of widespread abuse of Middle Eastern men
detained on immigration violations after the September 11 terrorist
attacks, saying the department has "struck a proper balance between the
rights of the detainees and our national security needs."

In a statement, Justice Department Spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said
they were reviewing the suit, filed by the Center for Constitutional
Rights.  The suit alleges that the detainees were subjected to  
"unreasonable and excessively harsh conditions even though they have
never been charged with a crime," according to an earlier Class Action
Reporter article.

Ms. Comstock said, "It is important to remember that our efforts are
aimed at preventing further terrorist attacks, safeguarding the lives
of Americans and protecting our national security."  

She added, "Individuals taken into custody by the INS have been
informed of their rights under the law. They are informed that they
have a right to counsel and that they may contact their consulate. They
are given a detainee handbook explaining their rights and
responsibilities, facility visitation hours and special family visits.
They are provided with a list of free legal service providers and given
access to telephones, law libraries and other materials necessary to
defend their case."

Ms. Comstock said the department was taking the allegations seriously,
and expressed confidence that the Bureau of Prisons will do a thorough
inquiry on the matter.


WEST VIRGINIA: Revival of Suit Over Welfare Limits Could Harm Budget
--------------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Supreme Court voted 4-1 to review a class action
challenging limits on the state's welfare program, which state
officials fear could open a huge gash in a welfare budget already
facing severe shortfalls, the Associated Press reports.  The Court said
it would appoint a special commissioner to review the case and other
issues raised by the lawsuit.

A Jackson County attorney filed the lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of
families recently cut off coverage under the federal Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program.  The families were cut off from
financial aid because they reached the 60-month welfare assistance
limit mandated when Congress authorized the program in 1996.

The families want their cash benefits restored because they say they
have a constitutional right to a minimum amount of humane sustenance.
They continue to be eligible for benefits such as food stamps and
Medicaid.

Health and Human Resources Secretary, Paul Nusbaum, whose agency runs
the program, warned legislators that striking down the 60-month limit
could devastate the program's budget and prompt out-of-staters to move
in for unlimited benefits.  Agency spokesman John Law said there is
only so much money available for such a large program.  "If we are
forced to extend some of these benefits to people, we shall have to
look at how much money we'll be able to give," Mr. Law said.

The Court's decision came at a private conference, with only Justice
Elliott Maynard voting not to hear the case said Supreme Court
spokeswoman, Michelle Mensore.

Mr. Nussbaum's agency, Health and Human Resources, asked the Court not
to consider the case, arguing the state has no constitutional
obligation to extend welfare payments beyond the federally mandated
program limit.

Several social and political activist groups nationwide have backed the
lawsuit, along with Attorney General Darrell McGraw.  They and the
families hope to maintain benefits under a program designed to be
temporary in order to move people from welfare rolls into jobs.

Mr. McGraw said he was pleased the Court had agreed to hear the case.
He said his friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief points out that
the state Constitution calls for county overseers to provide basic
sustenance to poor people.  "When the Constitutions says that you have
an overseer of the poor, that is a provision intended to ensure
indigent people do not starve to death or freeze to death," he said.

About 200 families have been cut out of the program since December and
as of the end of March, there were 14,639 active cases in the program.  
More than 500 of these will run out of eligibility within a year, Mr.
Law said.

The lawsuit argues that the Department of Health and Human Resources
has botched the process for weaning families off the cash assistance
payments, which average about $450 for a family of three.  The families
argue that the department has a constitutional responsibility to ensure
needy families have a minimum amount of aid to survive.

The agency counters that cutting off aid at the federally mandated
deadline is not unconstitutional and that families in certain cases can
still qualify when their five-year timeline runs out. The agency's
secretary Paul Nusbaum said that if the 60-month limit is thrown out,
however, the size of monthly assistance checks could be slashed
severely.

                           Securities Fraud

ADVANCED SWITCHING: Finkelstein Thompson Lodges Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson and Loughran initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of purchasers of Advanced Switching Communications,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ASCX) securities between October 5, 2000 and February 12,
2002.  Named as defendants are the Company and certain of its officers
and 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,
defendants issued a series of misstatements concerning the Company's A-
4000 and A-4500 products and a $24 million contract with Qwest
Communications.

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


ANDRX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of Andrx Corporation (NASDAQ: ADRX)
securities between April 30, 2001 and February 21, 2002, inclusive,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants made materially false
and misleading statements concerning Taztia XT, the generic version of
Biovail Corporation's Tiazac, a blood pressure drug.  Defendants
repeatedly represented to the investing public that Taztia would be
marketed once the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave final
approval for the product. Defendants claimed that this was delayed by
ongoing patent litigation with Biovail regarding Tiazac.

However, the true problem was that the Company had difficulty producing
a stable version of Taztia.  There were thirteen amendments to its
primary application to the FDA.  This, rather than any patent
litigation with Biovail, remains as the cause of the Company's
inability to bring Taztia to market.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske, Gustavo
Bruckner, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Andrx.  


EAGLE BUILDING: Sichenzia Ross Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference 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 names
as defendants the Company, Anthony D'Amato, and Donald Pollock.

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 Complaint alleges that as a result
of these false and misleading statements the price of Eagle 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 Marc J. Ross by Mail: 1065 Avenue of the
Americas, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10018 by Phone: 212-930-9700 or by
Fax: 212-930-9725.


EMEX CORPORATION: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Emex Corporation has asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action filed by purported shareholders who alleged that they had
purchased shares of the Company during April and May in reliance on a
press release issued by the Company concerning project financing for
the construction of a natural gas conversion plant for Blue Star.

The suit arose from several suits basically alleging that the press
release overstated the role of Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
in the potential financing and was therefore false and misleading.  On
November 2, 2001, a consolidated amended complaint was filed which
substantially repeated the allegations of the four prior complaints and
referred to another Company press release which the plaintiffs alleged
contained misleading statements.  The defendants in the consolidated
action are the Company and:

     (1) Walter W. Tyler,

     (2) Milton E. Stanson,

     (3) Vincent P. Iannazzo,

     (4) David H. Peipers,

     (5) Universal Equities Consolidated, LLC and

     (6) Thorn Tree Resources, LLC.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose this suit.


ENRON CORPORATION: Oregon State Agencies Begin Own Securities Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Three Oregon state agencies have launched an investigation to determine
whether Enron Corporation, its executives and business allies violated
Oregon racketeering or securities laws, state officials announced
recently, the Associated Press reports.

Investigators from the state Justice Department, Treasury Department
and Securities Division will determine within three to four months
whether to file suit against the fallen energy trader.  The lawsuit
would seek $80 million in damages to cover the sum lost by Oregon's
public employees retirement fund after Enron collapsed in December,
said Attorney General Hardy Myers.

The investigation would be separate from a class action filed in Texas
on behalf of public pension funds, and is also separate from a 14-month
investigation by Mr. Myers' office, along with the attorneys general in
California and Washington, into Enron's role in the Western power
crisis.

Attorney General Myers said recently that Oregon may be in a unique
position to go after the Houston energy giant because of the toll
Enron's downfall has taken on Portland General Electric (PGE), the
State's largest utility, and its 2,700 employees.  

"I think it does make the accountability for the wrong-doing more
important in Oregon," Mr. Myers said.

Enron incorporated Oregon in 1996 as it was preparing to buy PGE.  
Enron also employed more than 300 Oregonians through its energy-trading
floor and broadband subsidiary.  Today, PGE faces an uncertain future.  
Enron agreed in October to sell the utility to Northwest Natural Gas
Co., but now, in the midst of a Chapter 11 restructuring, Enron is
reconsidering whether to sell PGE.

Northwest Natural Gas has asked for more time to decide whether it
wants to go ahead with the deal.  Many of PGE's 2,700 employees lost
portions of their retirement savings when Enron imploded.  Many
workers, encouraged by management, had invested heavily company stock.  
Participants in the company's 401(k) plan lost more than $1billion
after the company went bankrupt.

Attorney General Myers has said that even though the state waited more
than four months after Enron's December 2 bankruptcy to pursue an
official investigation, he is not concerned about its being too late.
Because the state courts in Oregon move relatively quickly compared
with other jurisdictions, there is a possibility the state could move
to trial ahead of other plaintiffs.

The investigation will extend to Enron associates, including the
accounting firm Arthur Andersen, Enron's former auditor.  "I am not
ruling out any individuals, whether inside or outside Enron," Mr. Myers
said.


GARMENT CAPITAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Court of Appeals upheld a New York Federal Court's dismissal of
a class action filed on behalf of the holders of three participation
interests in Garment Capital Corporation, alleging violations of
federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty against the
Company and:

     (1) 4987 Corporation,

     (2) 498 Seventh Avenue Associates,

     (3) Petr L. Malkin,

     (4) Thomas N. Kelther, Jr., and

     (5) Richard A. Shapiro

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, claiming that the defendants violated the anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws and committed breaches
of fiduciary duty and fraud in relation to the sale of the Garment
Capital Building.  The suit seeks to enjoin the allocation of sale
proceeds to the 4987 Corporation approved by the individual defendants,
money damages and related relief.  

The defendants then asked the Court to dismiss the suit, which the
court granted.  The plaintiffs then appealed the ruling to the US Court
of Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal
of the action.  In August 11, 1999, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
derivative claims.

The case was certified as a class action and a trial was conducted
beginning in September 2000.  The jury later returned a verdict for all
defendants on all claims.  The plaintiffs made a motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, but the court denied
the plaintiff's motion and plaintiff filed appeals from the jury
verdict and the denial of those motions.  In February 2002, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the judgment, dismissing the complaint in all
respects.


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Gerber Scientific,
Inc. (NYSE: GRB) between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court, District of Connecticut against the
Company and:

     (1) Michael J. Cheshire,

     (2) Marc T. Giles,

     (3) George M. Gentile,

     (4) Shawn M. Harrington,

     (5) Gary K. Bennett and

     (6) Anthony L. Mattacchione

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).  The
suit alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading
because, among other things:

     (i) the Company was employing improper inventory and reserve
         accounting practices in violation of generally accepted
         accounting principles. As a result, the Company's operating
         results were materially misrepresented and overstated;

    (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of
         the Company; and

   (iii) based on the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the
         prospects of the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On April 15, 2002, before the market opened, the Company announced that
it expected to take a $12 million pre-tax charge in its fiscal fourth
quarter, the period ending April 30, 2002.  Additionally, the Company
announced that, in response to an investigation by the SEC into its
inventory and reserve accounting practices, it was conducting an
internal review of its financial reporting for the period January 1,
1998 through April 30, 2002.

The Company further stated that its investigation is ongoing and once
it has been completed, the Company will likely restate its financial
results for the appropriate periods. In response to the Company's
announcements, the price of the Company's common stock declined to
$6.99 per share, a decline of more than 71% from a class period high of
$24.50 per share, reached on July 6, 1999.

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 by E-mail: GerberScientificcase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com


GLOBALSTAR LP: DE Court Stays Suit Proceedings After Bankruptcy Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in the securities class action against Globalstar LP and
its subsidiary Globalstar Capital Corporation are now automatically
stayed in accordance with Section 362(a) of the US Bankruptcy Code,
after the Company filed for bankruptcy in February 2002.

The suit was commenced in February 2001 on behalf of the owners of the
10 3/4% bonds, due November 2004 in Superior Court, New Castle
County, Delaware.  The suit named the two Companies as defendants for
they issued the bonds as joint obligors.

The suit alleges that the defendants repudiated the bonds' registration
statement, prospectus and indenture, without consent of the
bondholders, when the Company announced that it was suspending its
future interest payments on the bonds.

In April 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action. A second similar class action was
filed in Delaware in June 2001, which the defendants also moved to
dismiss.

The plaintiffs subsequently amended the complaint and defendants again
moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of
action.  In December 2001, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss in part, dismissing plaintiffs' claims for principal and
interest not yet due, but allowing plaintiffs to proceed with their
breach of contract claim based on the interest payments already missed
at the time the amended complaints were filed.

The Company has already answered the complaints.  However, it cannot
give any assurance that their defense of the suit will be successful.


GLOBALSTAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Asks For Dismissal of NY Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Globalstar Telecommunications Ltd. moved for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock from December 6, 1999, through
October 27, 2000.  The suit also names as defendants, Loral Space &
Communications Ltd. and Bernard Schwartz, the former Chief Executive
Officer of Globalstar LP.  

The consolidated suit arose from several suits, uniformly alleging
that:

     (1) the Company and Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
         thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to
         state material facts about the Company's business and
         prospects; and

     (2) that Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the
         Exchange Act as alleged "controlling persons" of the Company.

The Court later ordered these suits consolidated and in November 2001,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended suit and a demand for jury
trial.  The amended suit drops the cause of action against certain
individuals and adds causes of action against Globalstar LP and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Globalstar Capital Corporation.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these actions
and in February 2002, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  
However, the case against Globalstar LP and Globalstar Capital is
stayed pursuant to the US Bankruptcy Code. There are, however, no
assurances that the defenses to these actions will be successful


HANOVER COMPRESSOR: To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Compressor Co. labeled "without merit" the securities class
actions filed against it and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and
the derivative actions pending in various federal and state courts.

The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during various periods ranging from May 15, 2000 through January 28,
2002, assert various claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.

The Company intends to defend the suits vigorously. The lawsuits are at
a very early stage, and it is not possible at this time to predict
whether the Company will incur any liability or to estimate the
damages, or the range of damages, if any, that the Company might incur
in connection with such actions, or whether an adverse outcome could
have a material adverse impact on its business, or operations.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX:
MSS) securities between August 1, 2001 and February 14, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

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

On August 1, 2001, the Company commenced a public offering of 2.2
million shares of its common stock at $13.50 per share raising
$29,700,000.  The registration statement revealed the financial results
for the first quarter of 2001, ended June 30, 2001.  The suit alleges
that the registration statement possessed misrepresentations and
omissions of material fact including improperly recognized revenue and
improperly overstated inventories in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP).

On February 4, 2002, the Company declared that it would report its
earnings for the third fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2001 on
February 14, 2002. However, on February 15, 2002, before the market
opened, the Company issued a press release disclosing that the Company
anticipated a significant loss for the third fiscal quarter and a
restatement of its financial statements for the quarter ending
September 30, 2001. Even by March 1, 2002, the Company announced that
it would delay the release of its third quarter results for the third
time since its primary announcement of its delay on February 15, 2002.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole,
Gustavo Bruckner, Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail:
270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to Measurement Specialties.  


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Securities Act Violations in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanophase Technologies, Inc. plans to ask the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss an amended
securities class action, charging the Company and four of its officers
with violations of the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit was initially filed in early November 2001 against the Company
and one of its officers.  The suit asserts that defendants made
fraudulent material factual misstatements, and neglected to state
material facts necessary to make other factual statements not
misleading, in connection with the Company's public disclosures
including press releases, concerning the Company's dealings with a
certain British customer.

The suit alleges that the action should be maintained as a plaintiff
class action on behalf of certain persons who purchased shares of the
Company's common stock from April 5, 2001 through October 24, 2001.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit in December 2001, but
rather than respond to that motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 8, 2002.  The amended suit names the same putative
class and makes the same allegations as the first suit, but adds three
of the Company's officers as defendants.

Although the Company believes that the allegations of the amended
complaint are without merit, it is not feasible for the Company to
predict at this time the outcome of this litigation or whether its
resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition.


SAF T LOK: Denies Allegations in Multiple Securities Suits in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Saf T Lok, Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between April
14,2000 and April 16,2001.  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 F. 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 during the class period, 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.

The Company denies the allegations and plans to defend itself
vigorously.


SEAVIEW VIDEO: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seaview Video Technology, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida to dismiss an amended consolidated
class action pending against the Company and its founder Rich McBride
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock from March 30,2000 to
March 19,2001.

The suit arose from five nearly identical class actions commenced in
May 2001, claiming violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
The suits alleged that during the class period, the defendants:

     (1) misstated the Company's sales and revenue figures;

     (2) improperly recognized revenues;

     (3) misrepresented the nature and extent of the Company's dealer
         network;

     (4) falsely touted purported sales contracts and agreements with
         large retailers;

     (5) misrepresented the Company's ability to manufacture, or to
         have manufactured, its products; and

     (6) misrepresented the Company's likelihood of achieving certain  
         publicly announced sales targets.

The suits were later consolidated and amended in December 2001.  As
amended, the consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and other
damages, and costs and expenses associated with the litigation and now
seeks relief against James Cox, the Company's secretary and treasurer,
also on the same grounds as the claims against the Company and Mr.
McBride.

The suit is in its beginning stages. It is too early to assess its
likely outcome or the impact on the Company. The Company, however, is
confident that the ultimate disposition of these matters will not have
a material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


SWISS HELVETIA: Moves For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swiss Helvetia Fund, Inc. asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to
dismiss the two shareholder class actions filed by individuals claiming
to be the Funds's stockholders against the Fund, each of its directors
and Hottinger Capital Corporation (HCC), the Fund's investment advisor.

The suits allege that the defendants have:

     (1) breached fiduciary duties to stockholders and violated Section
         109(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law by adopting
         amendments to the Fund's Bylaws requiring a vote of 75% of the
         Fund's outstanding shares to alter, amend or repeal the Bylaws
         or to adopt other bylaws;

     (2) breached fiduciary duties to stockholders by adopting
         amendments to the Fund's By-laws requiring nominees for
         election as directors to satisfy certain qualifications; and

     (3) breached fiduciary and contractual duties through the manner
         in which the Fund effected a capital gains distribution in
         December 2000.

The complaints seek as relief among other things:

     (i) a declaration that the defendants have breached their
         fiduciary duties to stockholders and that the amendments to
         the Bylaws are null and void;

    (ii) an injunction preventing the defendants from enforcing the
         Bylaw amendments; and

   (iii) certain unspecified damages.

The claims relating to the by-Laws were dismissed as moot by
stipulation of the parties to the litigation.  In addition, the
defendants have moved to dismiss the capital gains distribution
claims because the defendants believe that the plaintiffs fail to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.


TUT SYSTEMS: Vigorously Opposing Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tut Systems, Inc. labeled "without merit" an amended securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against it, certain of its current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's public
offerings.

The suit asserts that the prospectuses from the Company's January 29,
1999 initial public offering and its March 23, 2000 secondary offering
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for the
offerings.

The suit alleges claims against all the defendants under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and alleges claims against
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors
under Section 15 of the 1933 Act.  

The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.  An unfavorable
resolution of this litigation could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, results of operations, or financial condition.


TUT SYSTEMS: CA Court Consolidates Suits for Securities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California consolidated six securities class actions against Tut
Systems, Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors.  The
suits were filed on behalf of people who purchased the Company's stock
during the period between July 20, 2000 and January 31, 2001.

The consolidated suit alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the Company's business during the class
period.  Specifically, the suits allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company believes the allegations in the suit are without merit and
intends to defend the action vigorously.  However, the Company warned
that an unfavorable resolution in the suit could have a material
adverse effect on its business, results of operations, or financial
condition.


                              *********


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  * * *