CAR_Public/020423.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Tuesday, April 23, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 79

                            Headlines

AMTRAK LITIGATION: Faces Suit Over April 2002 Derailment in Florida
E*TRADE GROUP: OH State Court Sets Certification Hearing For April 2002
GMO LITIGATION: Firms Seeks Delay of Genetically Modified Seeds Suit
HAWAII: Monitor Suggests Easing Special Education Program Oversight
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Complaints Against Subsidiaries on the Rise

ICT GROUP: Employees Move for Summary Judgment in W.V. Wage Suit
INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Can't Guarantee Royalty Payments To Indians
LOUISIANA: Court Allows Plaintiffs To Amend Lawsuit Over Encephalitis
LUMENIS LTD.: Faces Suit For Violations of Texas State Law in S.D. TX
PENSION FUNDS: Schools Back Deal Over Workers' Lost Pension Savings

SC JOHNSON: Recalls 2.5M Scented Air Fresheners For Fire Hazard
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: $18M Settlement Reached In CA Employee Wage Suit
TICKETMASTER INC.: Sued For Supplying Credit-Card Information to Time
UNITED STATES: Illegal Immigrants To Get Amnesty After Court Ruling
US HOSTAGES: Judge Blocks Suit Filed By 52 Former Hostages in Iran

                          Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz Nobel Launches Securities Suit in PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in PA
ANDRX CORPORATION: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Struggles To Survive as Enron Settlement Talks Stall
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
CALPINE CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Much Shelist Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. NY
DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
DAOU SYSTEMS: Faces Federal, State Securities Suits in California

EAGLE BUILDINGS: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. FL
FLAG TELECOM: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CT
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Scott Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT

i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Suit
ICT GROUP: Reaches Verbal Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in PA
JDS UNIPHASE: Scott Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
LUMENIS LTD.: Cooperating With SEC in Connection With Securities Suits
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY

MEDICAL SYSTEMS: NY Court Approves $13M Securities Suit Settlement
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NTL INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NTL INC.: Scott Scott Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
SCHLOTZSKY'S INC.: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX for $2M

SRI SURGICAL: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
TWINLAB CORPORATION: NY Court Approves $26M Securities Suit Settlement
UGLY DUCKLING: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suits in Delaware
ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Suits Over 1998 IPO in NY
ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Sued for Securities Violations in ZDNet Offering in NY
                             
                            *********

AMTRAK LITIGATION: Faces Suit Over April 2002 Derailment in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak (Amtrak) faces
a class action filed in the United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all persons suffering damage as a
result of the April 18, 2002 derailment of Amtrak train No. 52 in or
around Seville, Florida.

At or about 5:08 pm EDT, Amtrak Train No. 52 derailed in or around
Seville, Florida, causing the plaintiffs bodily injury, mental pain and
anguish, property damage and similar damage to numerous other people,
including passengers on the train at the time of the Accident.

The suit charges that because of its unique status, Amtrak has
substantively been a quasi United States governmental entity with a
stated purpose of facilitating and maintaining a national rail system
within the constraints and under the duties imposed by the Rail
Passenger Act of 1970, as amended, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability
Act of 1987, as amended, and the rail safety provisions of 49 U.S.C.
20101 et seq.

Amtrak allegedly has consistently fallen short of the goals set forth
by these federal laws and failed to maintain a national rail system
that is effective, which by definition is safe, for passage and
commerce and free from defects.

The suit further alleges the accident was a result of the defendant's:

     (1) breach of duty for failing to maintain a safe rail system;

     (2) failure to properly utilize federal and company funds to
         effect procedure and policy to prevent such occurrences such
         as the accident; and

     (3) failure to properly utilize federal and company funds to
         provide an adequate infrastructure for the safe carriage of
         passengers and property.

For more information, contact Cauley Geller Bowman and Coates, LLP by
Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 888-551-9944
or by E-mail: amtraksuit@classlawyer.com


E*TRADE GROUP: OH State Court Sets Certification Hearing For April 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio set an April 23,2002
hearing date for class certification of a class action filed against
E*Trade Group, Inc., alleging among other things, that the plaintiff,
Truc Q. Hoang, experienced problems accessing her Company account and
placing orders.  The suit asserts claims of:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) unjust enrichment,

     (4) fraud,

     (5) unfair and deceptive trade practices,

     (6) negligence and

     (7) intentional torts

In September 1999, the Company moved to compel arbitration, which the
Court later denied.  The Company appealed this ruling and in March
2000, the Appellate Court reversed and remanded this case to the State
Court, ruling that the Company's motion to compel arbitration could not
be decided until the State Court first determined whether this case
should be certified as a class action.

In September 2000, the plaintiff amended the suit limiting the class of
potential plaintiffs to customers who are Ohio residents. Subsequently,
the Court scheduled the hearing of the class certification motion, and
set this case for trial on November 12, 2002.

The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this
proceeding.  The Company denies all allegations and intends to
vigorously defend against the suit.


GMO LITIGATION: Firms Seeks Delay of Genetically Modified Seeds Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Two companies that sell genetically modified canola seeds want to delay
filing statements of defense against a lawsuit launched by two farmers
this year, The Grand Forks Herald recently reported.  Lawyers for
Monsanto Canada and Aventis CropScience recently told a Saskatoon judge
they want to wait until the court decides whether the lawsuit will
proceed as a class action on behalf of all certified organic
Saskatchewan farmers.

Larry Hoffman of Spalding, Saskatchewan, and Dale Beaudoin of Maymont,
Saskatchewan, are currently the only plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  They
filed the claim in January on behalf of all organic farmers in
Saskatchewan.  Justice Gene Ann Smith reserved her decision.  A hearing
to determine whether the lawsuit can become a class action is expected
to be held later this year.

Monsanto and Aventis both have demanded and received further details
from the plaintiffs, but still are not satisfied with the results, the
Companies' lawyers recently told the court.  Aventis lawyer Robert
Leurer said the farmers' allegations are based on imperfect
information.

The farmers claim that since genetically modified canola was introduced
in Canada in the mid-1990s, it has been found growing on land for which
it was never intended.  The farmers' claims say few, if any, seed
suppliers will certify their seeds as organic.


HAWAII: Monitor Suggests Easing Special Education Program Oversight
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal oversight of the state's special education program can be
eased, according to a court-appointed monitor, because the state has
made progress in improving education and health services for special-
needs students, The Associated Press reported recently.  Monitor Ivor
Groves made this statement in a 41-page report, in which he also
predicted that federal oversight could be ended by June 2004.  

Mr. Groves was appointed to monitor the state's effort to meet the
requirements under the 1994 Felix consent decree, which stemmed from a
1993 federal class action, accusing the state of ignoring the needs of
mentally disabled children.  US District Judge David Ezra is expected
to decide at a June 10 hearing whether the state has sufficiently
complied with the consent decree.

The state will need two more years of court supervision to address
remaining challenges and prove that it can maintain its progress,
including keeping track of the $340 million annual budget for special-
education resources, Mr. Groves said.  If Judge Ezra finds that the
state is in substantial compliance, then the monitor's oversight should
be reduced and restructured with the University of Hawaii's University
Affiliated Program taking over the monitor's records and activities,
said Mr. Groves in his report filed in federal court recently.

Mr. Groves said that 38 of 41 school complexes, a complex consisting
of a high school and its elementary and middle schools, are recommended
for full compliance.  The Pahoa, Waianae and Lanai complexes have not
met the federal requirements.  Mr. Groves and the Felix Monitoring
Project will continue to work on bringing those campuses into
compliance.   Both the state and the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit will have until the end of April to respond to the monitor's
recommendations and report.

Seven months ago, Judge Ezra had threatened to put the program into
receivership.  In December, he gave the state one final chance to meet
benchmarks established by Ivor Groves, telling officials they needed to
achieve full compliance by March 31.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Complaints Against Subsidiaries on the Rise
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty angry customers of two well-known Household International, Inc.
subsidiaries, HFC and Beneficial, in a public display of frustration
and anger, turned in complaints to the state Attorney General's office
in Seattle, and then protested at an HFC office, the Seattle Post-
Intelligencer reported recently.  

The customers, characterizing the companies as "predatory lenders,"
said that HFC charged some of them interest rates far higher than they
were promised, trapped them in loans with high prepayment penalties and
sold them costly credit life insurance policies that were unnecessary.

Since January 2000, the Attorney General's Office has received 76
complaints about HFC and its affiliates and another 45 against
Beneficial.  In addition, Chuck Cross, investigations supervisor for
the state of Washington's Department of Financial Institutions, said
that agency has received 80 to 85 complaints against HFC since 1995,
and about the same number against Beneficial.  The complaints escalated
sharply in 2000.  "These two companies, I believe, have the most
complaints that we have on record," Mr. Cross said.

On another front, HFC is being besieged by a lawsuit, which attorney
Robert Parlette has filed on behalf of four Whatcom County residents
against HFC.  Mr. Parlette has been contacted by 18 other residents and
plans to seek class action status for the lawsuit.  The suit alleges
that HFC's "fraud constitutes predatory lending with the intent of
inducing less knowledgeable borrowers into signing on HFC home equity
loans at exorbitant interest rates."

The lawsuit further alleges that HFC failed to disclose upfront finance
charges and packed the loan with expensive insurance policies, among
other charges.  In some cases, said Mr. Parlette, people go in seeking
a single loan and end up with two loans, the second sometimes a line of
credit charging as much as 25 percent interest.  The single-premium
credit life insurance, which sometimes lasts just five years, costs
more than $4,500.  It protects the lender by making sure the loan is
paid off if the borrower dies or is disabled.  However, consumer groups
say it is much cheaper to use life or disability insurance to pay off a
mortgage.

HFC spokeswoman Megan Hayden said she could not comment on pending
litigation.  However, she said, speaking generally, "Our number one
goal is to ensure that we are clearly communicating the true terms and
conditions of our loan contracts to our customers - no exceptions.  We
hold our people accountable for that and also uphold that through other
means."

In January of this year, HFC and Beneficial agreed to refund nearly $3
million to California borrowers and pay $8.9 million to the California
Department of Corporations to settle a lawsuit alleging predatory
lending.


ICT GROUP: Employees Move for Summary Judgment in W.V. Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ICT Group, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court of
Berkley County, West Virginia, filed on behalf of all current and
former hourly employees of the Company's facility in Martinsburg, West
Virginia.

The suit alleges that the Company violated the West Virginia Wage
Payment and Collection Act with respect to certain of its pay
practices.  The allegations include:

     (1) failure to pay promised signing and incentive bonuses and wage
         increases;

     (2) failure to compensate employees for short breaks or
         "transition" periods of less than 20 minutes; and

     (3) improper deductions for the cost of purchasing telephone
         headsets.

The complaint also includes a count for fraud, alleging that the
failure to pay for short break and transition time violated specific
representations made by the Company to its employees.

The Court certified the class and discovery commenced.  In 2001,
plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to expand the class to include all
current and former hourly employees at all four of the Company's West
Virginia facilities and to add twelve current and former executives of
the Company, which the Court granted.  

The Company has denied the allegations in the suit and has asserted
numerous defenses.  The Company is vigorously defending the suit, which
is now in the discovery process.  The plaintiffs have moved for summary
judgment on their claims for failure to pay for short breaks and
transition time on the basis that the Company's discovery responses
establish a violation.


INDIAN FUNDS: Interior Can't Guarantee Royalty Payments To Indians
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interior Department is not certain that 300,000 American Indians
are getting accurate payments for the use of their land, The Associated
Press reports, because management problems that existed in 1997 remain
uncorrected, according to a senior official in charge of the funds.

"The major problem is that after five years, we do not have a system
that can fulfill the fiduciary responsibility now or in the future,
much less account for the past," wrote John Miller, the No. 2 official
in the Office of Special Trustee, in a scathing draft memo obtained
recently by The Associated Press.  Congress created the Special
Trustee's office in 1994, in order to fix the troubled Indian trust
fund, which has been mismanaged since 1887.

Mr. Miller also wrote that "the bleeding would continue" if Interior
continues to use its current system, because it contains no mechanism
to maintain accurate trust records.  Trust data are not secure, and
systems are not in place to receive, track or audit the data, wrote Mr.
Miller.

"(The Interior Department) should accept the reality of the situation.  
Nothing has happened since 1997 that solves the basic problem, which is
to properly account for the trust account activities of each
beneficiary," he wrote.

Mr. Miller's draft memo marks the most pointed criticism of the
Interior Department's management of the trust from inside the Special
Trustee's office.  "DOI has no awareness of its fiduciary
responsibility, either on a legal or moral basis," he wrote.  
"Decisions are not based on what is best for the beneficiary, but what
best serves DOI and its decision makers."

Since 1996, Congress has spent $614 million to fix the fund, which
collects about $500 million annually in royalties from oil and gas
drilling, timber harvesting and grazing on Indian land, then pays the
landowner-beneficiaries.

Plaintiffs, some 300,000 Indians, in a class action contend that
Interior has cost Indian landowners at least $10 billion since the
trust fund was established.  The government admits money was
squandered, lost or not collected, but says it was much less.   

US District Judge Royce Lamberth has ordered the Interior Department to
overhaul the trust fund's management and piece together how much the
Indians are owed.  Mr. Miller has said that Interior's efforts to
change have been driven by winning the class action filed by the Indian
landowners rather than by fulfilling its duty to properly account for
the money.

Representative Nick Rahall, D-W. Va., concurred.  He called Interior
Secretary Gale Norton's recent proposal to create a new bureau to track
Indian money, a diversion.  "The Interior Department is trying to sell
us a bull while assuring us it will produce milk.  Its proposed scheme
of a new agency to manage the trust responsibility does nothing to
address the suffering in Indian Country," he said in a statement.  "In
fact, it is just a stall tactic while the lawyers focus on winning the
lawsuit at all costs."


LOUISIANA: Court Allows Plaintiffs To Amend Lawsuit Over Encephalitis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against Mosquito Control Inc. (MCI) and the Ouachita
Parish Police Jury in Louisiana has been amended to allow plaintiffs to
seek individual damages in their negligence lawsuits, the Associated
Press reports.

The suit, filed in Fourth Judicial District Court, claims that MCI
applied chemicals below manufacturer's recommendations, used improper
chemicals and was negligent and inefficient in their truck and aerial
fogging.  The lawsuit also charges that the Ouachita Parish Police Jury
was negligent in its failure to proper monitor and supervise MCI and
failed to properly administer its Mosquito Abatement Fund.

The plaintiffs in the suit claim they suffered pain and suffering,
diminished functional capacity and diminished neurological function as
a result of contracting encephalitis, a deadly brain-swelling disease
carried by mosquitoes.

Addressing the substance of the amended complaint, one of plaintiffs'
attorneys, Jeffrey Guerriero from Monroe, Louisiana, said, "We felt
that it would be to the clients' benefit to do each case on a case by
case basis."  He and his partners, Joseph Guerriero and Gerald Meunier
of New Orleans and Brian Crawford of Monroe, are representing 55
clients.

"Our focus is going to be more upon the people who actually suffered
from encephalitis," Mr. Joseph Guerriero said.  "For the 60-plus people
who actually contracted encephalitis, those injuries are severe and
some are disabling and could affect them the rest of their lives."  

Not all of his clients suffered from encephalitis directly, he said.  
Some are family members of people who died from encephalitis, and
others have permanent disabilities.  "People need to be made aware of
the fact that this is a devastating injury," he said.


LUMENIS LTD.: Faces Suit For Violations of Texas State Law in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a dismissed class action against Lumenis, Ltd. and an
unnamed leasing company re-filed the suit, which is now currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

Dr. Richard Urso initially filed the suit in September 1999 in Harris
County, Texas, alleging a variety of causes of action.  The suit was
later dismissed.  Dr. Urso then refiled the suit in the same court,
with approximately forty-eight physicians and medical clinics.  The
suit was later removed to the Texas Federal Court.

The current allegations on behalf of plaintiffs are:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of express and implied warranties,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) misrepresentation,

     (5) conversion,

     (6) product liability,

     (7) violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas
         Securities Act,

     (8) lender liability and

     (9) unconscionable conduct

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their complaint
to dismiss the class action and securities allegations and to add
several new plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have also filed a motion to
remand the suit to state court.

The Company denies the allegations and will continue to defend this
case vigorously. No assessment of likelihood of outcome or likely
damages, if any, can be made at this time.


PENSION FUNDS: Schools Back Deal Over Workers' Lost Pension Savings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
School employees who lost millions in retirement savings after an
adviser made risky investments are one step closer to recouping their
money, The Times Picayune reports, now that the Jefferson Parish School
Board has signed off on the terms of an almost $5 million settlement of
a lawsuit, brought on behalf of their employees, against  Connecticut
financial firm Tower Square Securities  The school employees who filed
a separate class action to recover their savings, also must sign off on
the deal.  The two cases have since been consolidated.

The agreement with Tower Square will be presented to 24th Judicial
District Judge Melvin Zeno next week and calls for the firm to repay
plan members $4.4 million in lost investment cash, with the rest of the
money going to costs and attorney fees.  If Judge Zeno signs off on the
deal, money will be deposited into the employees' individual retirement
accounts within the month, said Mark Beebe, an attorney for the School
Board.

Once the money is deposited with current retirement plan administrator
ING Aetna, employees will be able to designate into which investment
funds they want their money transferred.  They will not be allowed,
however, to withdraw the money until the settlement gets final
approval.  That typically takes 120 to 150 days after the judge signs
the agreement, Mr. Beebe said.

In return for the settlement, the School Board has agreed to drop Tower
Square from the consolidated suit against the company and several other
defendants, including financial adviser Kevin Dermody of Naperville,
Illinois.

Mr. Dermody resigned in May 2001.  He, along with several of his
business partners and other firms are still defendants in the lawsuit
and could be ordered to pay further losses.  If more money is
recovered, the settlement stipulates that Tower Square be at least
partly reimbursed.


SC JOHNSON: Recalls 2.5M Scented Air Fresheners For Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
SC Johnson is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 2.5 million Glade
Extra Outlet Scented Oil Air Fresheners.  These Extra Outlet PlugIns
may have been misassembled during manufacture, which could pose a risk
of fire. The Company has received five reports of mis-assembly and no
reports of injury or property damage.

The Glade Extra Outlet Scented Oil electric air fresheners come in two
fragrances, Sky Breeze and Mystical Garden.  The air fresheners have a
unique rotating plug-thru outlet, which allows other electrical devices
to be used in the same outlet as the plug-in.  The rotating outlet says
"15 Amps Max" on the front and has a yellow disk on the back.  The
Extra Outlet Scented Oil units have a model number "SCJ079" on the
back.  No other products, sold under the Glade PlugIns brand names, are
part of the recall.

Grocery and retail stores nationwide sold the air fresheners between
January 2002 and April 2002 for between $4 and $5.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-571-0920
between 8 am and 6 pm CT Monday through Sunday, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.scjohnson.com,for free, full value replacement  
coupons or a refund.


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: $18M Settlement Reached In CA Employee Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Starbucks Corporation (Nasdaq:SBUX) has reached an agreement to settle
two California class action lawsuits filed in 2001, that challenged the
status of Starbucks California store managers and assistant store
managers as exempt employees under California wage and hour laws.

Under the settlement, the Company will pay up to $18 million in claims
to eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, and costs to a
third-party claims administrator, as well applicable employer payroll
taxes.  While the Company denies all liability in these cases, it
agreed to the settlement in order to resolve all of the plaintiffs'
claims without engaging in protracted litigation.  The settlement fully
resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in these California
lawsuits.

"Given the unique aspects of California wage and hour laws, which
differ significantly from federal and other state laws, we believe this
settlement was the best solution for all parties involved," said
Jennifer O'Connor, senior vice president and deputy general counsel,
Starbucks Coffee Company.  "Starbucks was one of many companies that
has faced this type of class action lawsuit in California in recent
years."

Under the settlement agreement, eligible current and former California
store managers and assistant store managers may submit claims to a
third-party claims administrator. Claims will be paid on a "claims
made" basis. The parties hope that the claims process will be completed
by September 30, 2002. The settlement is subject to court approval.

For more information, contact Audrey Lincoff by Phone: 206-318-5013 by
E-mail: alincoff@starbucks.com or Lara Wyss by Phone: 206-318-4620 or
by E-mail: lwyss@starbucks.com


TICKETMASTER INC.: Sued For Supplying Credit-Card Information to Time
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ticketmaster Corporation faces two class actions in Florida and
Michigan relating to its use of their client's credit card information
in its role as agent of publisher Time, Inc.

The first suit was commenced in the Florida Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County against the Company
and Time, alleging that the offering for sale by of subscriptions to
Entertainment Weekly magazine, a publication of Time, as an agent of
Time, involves a pattern of criminal activity, conspiracy and unfair
and deceptive trade practices by allegedly disclosing credit card
account information to third parties without express written consent
and unauthorized posting to credit card accounts.

The two companies asked the Court to dismiss the complaint on various
grounds.  In May 2001, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
purported to add a second consumer as a plaintiff.  In response to the
amended complaint, the Company and Time requested that their motion to
dismiss be taken off calendar.  Discovery is in its beginning stages.

A similar lawsuit is pending in the Circuit Court for the County of
Macomb, State of Michigan against the two companies, alleging that the
Company is providing credit card information to Time so that Time can
sell unwanted magazine subscriptions without the consumer's knowledge
or consent in violation of various Michigan state laws.  Discovery is
in the beginning stages.

The Company believes both cases are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the lawsuits.


UNITED STATES: Illegal Immigrants To Get Amnesty After Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More than 100,000 illegal immigrants could be affected by a federal
appeals court's recent ruling in a class action that rejects the
immigration authorities' interpretation of legislation enacted by
Congress in the 1980s (the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act),
which would grant some illegal immigrants amnesty, the Associated Press
reports.

The ruling by the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the
argument by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that
certain illegal immigrants were not eligible for legal residency under
a 1986 law that granted amnesty.

The INS first interpreted the law to bar amnesty for anyone who left
the United States for even a brief period since 1982, and returned
illegally using a non-immigrant visa.  Many amnesty applicants were
turned away, and many others said they were discouraged from applying
before the policy was ruled illegal in 1988.

The INS objected to the court-ordered remedy, which extended the
amnesty filing deadline for those who had been turned down.  The class
action bounced through the courts for years, reaching the Ninth Circuit
three times and, at one point, reaching the US Supreme Court.

Calling the government's appeal "insubstantial," the Appeals Court's
ruling, made public by plaintiffs' lawyers, would allow those who were
denied or turned away during the original amnesty period from 1987 to
1988 to apply for amnesty under the 1986 law.

"As many as possibly 100,000 people will finally, hopefully, achieve a
remedy that Congress intended them to achieve 14 years ago," said Peter
Schey, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and
Constitutional Law, lead plaintiffs in the case.  "They have, in
essence, been forced to live an underground existence for 14 years,
when, if the INS had only followed the law, the vast majority would now
be US citizens."

The ruling applies to those who applied to the INS for amnesty, as well
as those who tried to apply, but were turned away before submitting
their application, Mr. Schey said.

A spokeswoman for the INS said the government was reviewing the ruling
and had not yet decided what further action, if any, to take.


US HOSTAGES: Judge Blocks Suit Filed By 52 Former Hostages in Iran
------------------------------------------------------------------
The 52 Americans held hostage in Iran more than 20 years ago cannot sue
their captors, US District Judge Emmett Sullivan ruled recently,
dismissing their class action and barring the plaintiffs from
collecting damages against a nation still designated by the State
Department as the world's chief financier of international terrorism,
according to a report by the Houston Chronicle.  The former hostages
and their families, numbering 137, are members of the class.

This lawsuit is seen as a test case for the validity of US agreements
and treaties with other nations in the light of antiterrorism laws that
seek to financially punish sponsors of terrorism.

Judge Sullivan ruled that the Algiers Accords, the executive agreement
that ended the 444-day crisis, still requires the US government to "bar
and preclude" any suits by the hostages or their families.  Laws passed
by Congress in recent years that allow US victims of state-sponsored
terrorism to sue their tormentors, and specific congressional support
for the Tehran hostages were not enough to overcome that legal hurdle,
Judge Sullivan ruled.

"There are two branches of government that are empowered to abrogate
and rescind the Algiers Accords, and the judiciary is not one of them,"
Judge Sullivan wrote.  "The political considerations that must be
balanced prior to such a decision are beyond both the expertise and
mandate of this court.  This court has no choice but to grant the
government's motions and dismiss this case."

The Justice Department, representing both the White House and the State
Department, argued in court that national security interests demand
that the United States live up to those agreements, even if they were
with countries the State Department has designated as terrorism
sponsors.  Those interests must outweigh the rights of individual
victims, they argued.

Thomas Lankford, attorney for the former hostages, said that the
plaintiffs will appeal.  "We disagree with the judge on the law . but I
guess when the State Department tells you this is a matter of national
security, it can be intimidating."
  
The lawsuit was filed in 1998.  Iran did not respond, and Judge
Sullivan entered a default judgment against that nation.  The case was
about to proceed to awarding damages last September when the Justice
Department intervened, informing the judge of the provisions of the
Algiers Accords.  

In a December 13 hearing, Judge Sullivan wondered aloud in open court
whether Congress had intended to overturn the Accords with
antiterrorism laws passed in 1996 and 2000.

Congress responded a week later.  A conference committee report,
included in the Defense Department appropriations bill, read as if
written directly to Judge Sullivan, "The provision (in an antiterrorism
bill) . acknowledges that, notwithstanding any other authority, the
American citizens who were taken hostage by the Islamic Republic of
Iran in 1979, have a claim against Iran under the Antiterrorism Act of
1996, and the provision specifically allows the judgment to stand for
purposes of award damages."  The bill was passed by both the House and
the Senate and signed into law by President Bush.

"Congress has spoken beyond a shadow of a doubt," Mr. Lankford, the
hostages' attorney, told Judge Sullivan in a January hearing.  However,
the statement was from a conference committee, and not in the final
bill, which meant it carried less legal weight, Justice Department
attorney reminded Judge Sullivan.  Since the statement did not mention
the Algiers Accord by name, referring only to "any other authority," it
was even less clear.

President Bush mentioned the Algiers Accords when he signed the Defense
Department appropriations bill, saying specifically that he did not
want the court to interpret his signature as a revocation of the
Accords.  "The executive branch has encouraged the courts to act, and
will continue to encourage the courts to act, in a manner consistent
with the Algiers Accords," his statement read.

That left the case to turn on Judge Sullivan's interpretation of the
phrase "notwithstanding any other authority."  The Judge made it clear
in his ruling that he viewed unfavorably the Congressional half-steps,
as he used language of rebuke aimed at Congress, "Rather than proceed
with the requisite clarity, Congress chose to enact two provisions
about which only one thing is clear - Congress' intent to interfere
with ongoing litigation.  If the political consequences of overturning
the Algiers Accords are too great, so be it, and my co-equal
counterparts should say so.  However, the only branch of government
with the power to make that difficult decision should not with one hand
express support for plaintiffs and with the other leave it to this
court to play the role of the messenger of bad news."

                           Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz Nobel Launches Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock and/or publicly traded options of Adelphia Communications
Corporation (Nasdaq: ADLAE; formerly ADLAC) between January 19, 2001
and April 1, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, one of the largest cable providers
in the country, and several of its top corporate officers misled the
investing public during the class period by misrepresenting its
financial condition.

More specifically, the suit alleges that the defendants, all of whom
are members of the Rigas family that founded the Company and remain its
controlling shareholders, failed to disclose that the Company was
liable for $2.3 billion in off-balance-sheet debt, and that the Company
was the guarantor on certain loans to entities controlled by the Rigas.  
It is further alleged that these loans were primarily used to purchase
more of the Company's securities.

When defendants casually disclosed the staggering level of indebtedness
during a March 27, 2002 earnings conference call, the financial
community was shocked.  On April 1, 2002, the Company announced that it
had requested an extension for the filing of its annual report with the
SEC, for the stated purpose of permitting the Company and its outside
auditors additional time to review certain accounting matters
pertaining to "co-borrowing" credit facilities to which the Company was
a party.

As this information was disclosed to the market, the share price of the
Company's stock dropped to $13.12 per share on April 1, 2002, well
below its March 26, 2002 close of $20.39 per share.

On April 3, 2002, the Company revealed that it was the subject of a SEC
investigation into its accounting, and it also has been reported that
the Company may be de-listed from the Nasdaq Stock Market.

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


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Adelphia Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:
ADLAE; formerly Nasdaq: ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002,
inclusive.

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 during
the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of Adelphia
securities.

The suit alleges, among other things, that defendants:

     (1) misled investors by failing to disclose approximately $2.7
         billion in off-balance sheet debt acquired through a related
         party transaction;

     (2) failed to disclose that this off-balance sheet debt posed
         serious risks to the Company's capitalization and was not
         fully guaranteed by sufficient underlying assets of the co-
         borrower;

     (3) failed to disclose that the transactions entered into between
         the Company and related parties, were not at arms length or
         reasonable, but rather on terms which were designed to benefit
         the defendants at the expense of the Company and its
         shareholders; and

     (4) failed to disclose that significant off-balance sheet
         transactions created a false and misleading picture of the
         Company's financial success including its reported earnings
         and revenues.

Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt
on March 27, 2002, when the Company announced its Fourth Quarter and
Full-Year results for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. Then, on
April 1, 2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an
extension to file its Form 10-K with the SEC in order to review certain
accounting matters relating to the co- borrowing credit agreements.

In response to these negative announcements, the price of the Company's
common stock fell to $11.83 per share on April 2, 2002.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Jayne Nykolyn by Phone:
800-721-3900 by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.zsz.com


ANDRX CORPORATION: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
Andrx Corporation (Nasdaq:ADRX) and certain of its officers and
directors for potential securities act violations on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock from April 30, 2001 to February 21,
2002.

The firm is investigating whether the Company and its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false
and misleading statements concerning its business and financial
condition.

Specifically, Much Shelist believes that the Company issued a series of
statements concerning its generic version of the drug Tiazac, which
indicated that the only item preventing the drug from reaching the
market was continuing patent litigation with Biovail Corporation.  The
proposed defendants, however, failed to disclose that the Company had
difficulty making a stable version of generic Tiazac, including that it
had amended its original application to the FDA thirteen times.

When the Company announced on February 21, 2002 that the FDA had raised
"certain issues" concerning the generic Tiazac, the Company's stock
price dropped from $42.61 per share on February 21, 2002 to $34.96 per
share on February 22, 2002, on volume of 15,767,100, over seven times
the prior day's volume.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or
visit the firm's Web site: http://investorhelp@muchlaw.com


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Struggles To Survive as Enron Settlement Talks Stall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP continued its attempts to reach
settlements with federal prosecutors and class action attorneys in
separate meetings and discussions, but was unable to conclude
agreements, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Andersen attorneys have met in New York with lawyers representing Enron
investors and employees seeking to recover losses from Enron's Chapter
11 filing.  These talks were snagged over the question of how
plaintiffs could reach a settlement with Andersen that would not set a
precedent limiting what they could collect from other defendants in the
litigation, including banks and investment banks that worked for Enron,
sources said.

Though the talks ended with the attorneys heading for the airport to
return to their respective offices, no agreement in hand, a source
familiar with the discussions said that the parties planned to continue
negotiations.  Andersen has offered $250 million in insurance money and
an additional $50 million in cash to settle the claims.

On another Andersen front, sources familiar with the firm's efforts to
craft a deal with the Justice Department in order to defer prosecution
of an obstruction-of-justice indictment said that although both sides
planned more discussions and some progress had been made, there were
still significant issues to deal with, and it was unclear when or
whether an agreement would be reached.

The talks are focusing on the wording of a deal under which Andersen
would offer an admission of wrongdoing for destroying documents sought
in the federal probe of Enron's accounting and subsequent bankruptcy
filing.  Andersen would admit wrongdoing but would stop short of
pleading guilty.  The firm would then enter a probationary period
with the charges dropped if it enacted reforms and did not violate any
laws.

Meanwhile, more details emerged on the structure of various deals to
sell pieces of Andersen's business to other accounting firms.  Regional
offices and practice groups are looking to bolt for other firms, and a
pattern for how these deals might get done is emerging, said Allan
Koltin, an industry consultant helping broker several deals.

Andersen has preliminary agreements to sell various offices and parts
of its US business to Deloitte & Touche, KPMG and leveraged buyout
firm, Fox Paine & Co.  Generally, Andersen wants a "finder's fee"
payment of $100,000 to $200,000 for every partner who moves to a new
firm, Mr. Koltin said.

Additionally, the acquiring firm also would have to agree to pick up
certain lease obligations and to offer employment for about eight non-
partner Andersen professionals and two members of the support staff at
their current wages, Mr. Koltin said.  The acquiring firms are in turn
asking for total indemnification from Andersen's liabilities, something
that could be conferred only under a court-approved settlement with the
claimants in the various suits against Andersen or through a bankruptcy
proceeding.

Andersen has about 1,700 partners.  If half left under such terms, the
surviving firm would be able to raise $340 million, slightly more than
the $300 million in insurance money and other cash Andersen has offered
to settle the class action.

An Andersen representative said the agreements were not following a set
formula, but that it was clear that partners at the firm were
considering outside deals as a way to protect their staffs and to make
sure that clients continue to receive full service.  Still, he said, a
"critical mass" of partners remain committed to a plan by former
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker to transform Andersen into a
smaller, audit-oriented accounting firm.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz and Nobel PC commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock or
call options, or who sold put options, of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
(NYSE: BMY) between September 19, 2001 and March 19, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and two members of its senior
management misled the investing public during the class period by
misrepresenting the Company's progress in the development and testing
of new drugs.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Company disseminated misleading
information regarding two highly touted drugs under development during
the class period.  VANLEV, under development for the treatment of
hypertension, was the subject of a clinical study and Erbitux, a drug
developed by ImClone Systems to combat colorectal cancer, was subject
to a rolling Biologics License Application to the US Food and Drug
Administration that was jointly presented by the Company.

Maintaining new drugs in the Company's pipeline, to replace existing
drugs coming off patent protection, is critical to its financial
growth.  However, it is alleged that defendants were aware of negative
data from the VANLEV clinical study, as well as the impending rejection
by the FDA of the application for Erbitux, months before that news was
released to the market.

Once the adverse news regarding Erbitux became known, the Company's
share price reacted sharply dropping from its class period high of $56
per share to below $50 and, as a result of the March 20, 2002
disclosure about VANLEV, the price dropped over $7 per share, to close
at $41.08.

Subsequently, on April 3, 2002, the Company announced the termination
of Richard J. Lane, one of the two top executives named as defendants.  
More recently, on April 16, 2002, it was announced that the Company's
Chief Financial Officer was leaving.

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



BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporation (NYSE:BMY) for possible securities act
violations from the periods starting from September 19, 2001 to March
19, 2002 and from May 16, 2001 to April 1, 2002.

The firm is investigating whether Bristol-Myers Squibb Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities
laws by making, and permitting its drug development partner to make,
without correction, materially false and misleading statements
concerning the progress of its Erbitux cancer treatment drug's
application for FDA approval.

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

Additionally, Much Shelist is also investigating whether the Company
knew or recklessly disregarded that its clinical trial of VANLEV, a new
drug for the treatment of hypertension, that was completed in
September, demonstrated that VANLEV users experienced a higher risk of
a side effect known as angiodema and that it was not shown to be
superior to a cheaper generic drug already on the market.

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market, the stock
price plummeted from a class period high of $56 to below $50 - and now
to near $30 per share.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or
by E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com


CALPINE CORPORATION: Rabin Peckel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin and Peckel LLP commenced a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Calpine Corporation securities
(NYSE:CPN) from February 6, 2001 through December 13, 2001, both dates
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  The Company acquires, develops, owns, and
operates power generation facilities, as well as sells electricity in
the United States to a utility or other third-party user, and also
produces thermal energy for industrial customers.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants were
motivated to inflate the value of Company stock so that the Company
could complete a $2.6 billion debt offering, and to enable top Company
officers and directors to sell their Company shares under favorable
market conditions.

During the class period, defendants inflated the Company's earnings
before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) by adding
back various Company expenses, and burying the truth in confusing
footnotes in various company SEC filings and press releases.  Despite a
warning from the SEC that this practice was misleading to investors,
defendants continued to report the Company's EBITDA in such terms.

The individual defendants, all of whom were top officers and directors
of the Company, and the Company's controlling shareholder took
advantage of the inflation, selling or disposing of 835,314 shares of
Calpine securities during the class period for proceeds of over
$34,909,181.

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

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


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Much Shelist Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC commenced a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Computer Associates International Inc. (NYSE:CA) between May 28,
1999 and February 25, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants
the Company and:

     (1) Charles B. Wang, Chairman and former CEO,

     (2) Sanjay Kumar, CEO, and/or

     (3) Ira H. Zar, CFO and Executive Vice President of Finance

It has been alleged 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 before and during the class period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Specifically, it has been alleged that the Company's representations
were rendered false and misleading by its failure to disclose that:

     (i) beginning not later than May 1999, the Company created the
         impression that its revenue growth was sustainable by falsely
         claiming that the Company had transitioned from its mainframe
         core business to selling software for distributed systems;

    (ii) starting at the same time, the Company also boosted its
         revenue by extending contracts in the middle of their term,
         booking all the revenue from the sale of a software license,
         but not writing down the revenue from the overlapping period
         for which the Company had recognized revenue under the old
         license, thereby double-counting revenue for the overlap in
         the licensing periods; and

   (iii) hiding the disastrous drop that has accompanied the
         contraction in its sales, the Company instituted a "new
         business model" involving sales of flexible subscription
         agreements instead of fixed-term licenses, which covered the
         Company's inability to continue selling long-term licenses for
         mainframe software.

The Company engaged in these practices without alerting the market to
the actual deterioration in its financial condition.  Instead, the
Company released non-GAAP-compliant financial results, which used
revenue booked in prior periods to obscure a dramatic drop in new
sales.  These practices are now under investigation by the Securities
and Exchange Commission and the US Attorney's office.

When news of these investigations emerged in late February 2002,
Company stock lost over one third of its value, falling from its
closing price of $25.31 on February 19, 2002 to $15.99 on February 22,
2002.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 by
E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.muchlaw.com


DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Sued For Federal Securities Violations in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Daleen Technologies, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
September 30, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The suit names as defendants
the Company and:

     (1) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (4) James Daleen,

     (5) David B. Corey and

     (6) Richard A. Schell

The suit includes allegations of violations of:

     (i) Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by all named
         defendants,

    (ii) Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
         underwriter defendants,

   (iii) Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the individual
         defendants and

    (iv) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the underwriter defendants.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges in the complaint that, in
connection with the Company's IPO, the defendants failed to disclose
"excessive commissions" purportedly solicited by and paid to the
underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of the
Company's common stock in the IPO to the underwriter defendants'
preferred customers.

The plaintiff further alleges that the underwriter defendants had
agreements with preferred customers tying the allocation of shares sold
in the Company's initial public offering to the preferred customers'
agreements to make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-determined
prices.

The plaintiff claims that the failure to disclose these alleged
arrangements made the Company's prospectus included in its registration
statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in September 1999 materially
false and misleading.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suit was similar to more than 1,000 lawsuits filed
in the Southern District of New York against more than 263 different
companies relating to their initial public offerings.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the plaintiff's
claims, although it cannot yet determine any losses it may incur
because the lawsuit is in its initial stages.


DAOU SYSTEMS: Faces Federal, State Securities Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daou Systems faces two consolidated securities class actions - one
pending against the Company and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California and another in the Superior Court of San Diego,
California.

The suits uniformly assert claims under the alleged improper use of the
percentage-of-completion accounting method for revenue recognition.
Claims are pleaded under both the 1993 Securities Act (relating to the
Company's initial public offering) and section 10b of the 1934
Securities Exchange Act.  

The federal suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of
investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock between February 13,
1997 and October 28, 1998.  The state suit mirror the allegations set
forth in the federal complaints and assert common law fraud and the
violation of certain California statutes.

The Company asked the federal court to dismiss the federal suit, and by
stipulation of the parties, the state court litigation has been stayed
pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss.  The court later
dismissed the federal suit on March 27, 2002, but the Court extended to
plaintiffs the opportunity to file a third amended complaint no later
than April 16, 2002.  If they fail to do so in the time allotted, the
Court will dismiss the case with prejudice without further notice to
the parties.

The Company believes that the allegations set forth in all of the
foregoing complaints are without merit and intends to defend against
these allegations vigorously. No assurance as to the outcome of this
matter can be given, however, and an unfavorable resolution of this
matter could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations and financial condition.


EAGLE BUILDINGS: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Eagle Building
Technologies, Inc. (OTC:EGBT) securities between February 20, 2001 and
February 13, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the District for the Southern District of Florida, against the Company
and Anthony D'Amato.

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

The suit alleges that throughout the class period, defendants issued
statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual financial
performance and filed reports confirming such performance with the SEC
which materially overstated the Company's sales, earnings and net
income.

The suit further alleges that on February 14, 2002, the Company filed
an 8-K reporting that the Company had requested that the SEC suspend
trading in its stock because it believed that its financial statements
would have to be restated for at least the prior two years.

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


FLAG TELECOM: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman launched a securities class action against FLAG
Telecom Holdings, Ltd. (Nasdaq:FTHLQ) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between March 23, 2001 and February 13, 2002.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between March 23, 2001 and February 13, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company shares.

For more information, contact David C. Katz, James E. Tullman and/or
Mark D. Smilow by Mail: 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY
10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Gerber Scientific, Inc.
(NYSE:GRB) securities between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the 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 charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

The suit alleges that the Company was employing improper inventory and
reserve accounting practices in violation of generally accepted
accounting principles and that, as a result, the Company's operating
results were materially misrepresented and overstated.

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


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Gerber Scientific, Inc.
(NYSE:GRB) securities between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, against the Company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

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


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Scott Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated 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's 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 details, contact Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott or James E.
Miller by Phone: 800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com,
drscott@scott-scott.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com


i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
i2 Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) to dismiss a shareholder
derivative lawsuit, against certain of its officers and directors, and
against it as a nominal defendant.

The suit, originally filed in Dallas County, Texas, claims that certain
of our officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company and its stockholders by:

     (1) selling shares of the Company's common stock while in
         possession of material adverse non-public information
         regarding its business and prospects, and

     (2) disseminating inaccurate information regarding the Company's
         business and prospects to the market and/or failing to correct
         such inaccurate information.

The complaint is derivative in nature and does not seek relief from i2
itself.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.


ICT GROUP: Reaches Verbal Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ICT Group, Inc. has reached a verbal agreement to settle an amended
securities class action pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of
its directors, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The Court dismissed the initial suit in May 1998, but granted the
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on narrow accounting
allegations. The plaintiffs then filed the present suit in June 1998,
purporting negligence claims in connection with the Company's
initial public offering.  In February 1999, the Court dismissed the
case without prejudice, directing that the case remain in status quo,
that the statute of limitations be tolled and that the parties continue
with discovery and advise the Court if assistance by the Court is
needed.

The defendants later filed a motion for summary judgment seeking case
dismissal on the grounds that there is no material issue of fact.  
Plaintiffs opposed the defendant's motion and also filed a motion to
have the matter certified as a class action. In September 2000, the
Court entered orders dismissing the defendant's motion for summary
judgment and the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without
prejudice, with leave to re-file such motions upon the completion of
discovery.

The Company and the plaintiffs have reached a verbal agreement to
settle this litigation. The finalization of the proposed settlement is
subject among other things, to the parties agreeing upon and executing
a definitive settlement agreement having mutually agreeable terms and
conditions.  The settlement is also subject to court approval.


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

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

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

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

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

The individual defendants (all of whom were top officers and directors
of the Company) and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the
inflation, selling or disposing of 25.2 million shares of their Company
stock for proceeds of $2.1 billion.

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

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein, David R. Scott or James E.
Miller by Phoen: 800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com,
drscott@scott-scott.com, or jmiller@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com


LUMENIS LTD.: Cooperating With SEC in Connection With Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lumenis Ltd. intends to vigorously defend against 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 New York
on behalf of purchasers in the Company's stock between January 7, 2002
and February 28,2002.

The suits arose when the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
requested the Company, in February 2002, to voluntarily provide certain
documents and information for a period commencing January 1, 1998.  The
request primarily relates to the Company's relationships with its
distributors, and also asks for amplification of the Company's
explanation of certain previously disclosed charges and write-downs.

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

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

The Company intends to furnish all requested documents and information,
and cooperate with the SEC and is currently in the process of
collecting and producing such documents and information.  The Company
believes the allegations and the claims are baseless.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 it
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 details, 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.  


MEDICAL SYSTEMS: NY Court Approves $13M Securities Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted final approval to a $13 million settlement proposed by Medical
Systems, Ltd. to settle a consolidated class action charging it with
violations of federal securities laws.

The suit seeks damages and attorneys' fees under the United States
securities laws for alleged irregularities in the way in which the
Company reported its financial results and disclosed certain facts
throughout 1997 and 1998 and for allegedly "tipping" non-public
information to Salomon Smith Barney Inc. in September 1998.

The Company has entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs, which requires it to pay $4,500,000 and to issue up to
500,000 Ordinary Shares.  The court approved this settlement on March
26,2002.


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Weiss Yourman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss and Yourman initiates a securities class action against NewPower
Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:NPW) and certain of its officers and directors, as
well as the underwriters of its Initial Public Offering (IPO) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Company securities between October 5, 2000 and
December 5, 2001.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, by issuing
material misrepresentations and omissions in the prospectus for IPO and
in public statements during the class period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company shares.

For more information, contact Jack I. Zwick, Mark D. Smilow and/or
Joseph H. Weiss by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025
or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


NTL INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NTL, Inc. (NYSE:
NLI) between August 9, 2000 and November 29, 2001, inclusive. The suit
is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York against the Company and:

     (1) George S. Blumenthal,

     (2) J. Barclay Knapp,

     (3) Steven Carter and

     (4) John F. Gregg

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.

The suit alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements, which failed to
disclose, among other things:

     (i) that the Company was unable to effectively integrate its
         acquisitions and, as a result was experiencing substantial
         difficulties in operating its business;

    (ii) that the Company was not fully funded until 2003, and as a
         result of its massive debt burden would necessarily have to
         restructure its debt;

   (iii) that the Company was underreporting churn rates by failing to
         report terminations and by continuing to bill customers for
         accounts which they had terminated, thereby creating the false
         impression that the Company was retaining customers longer and
         that migrations were decreasing; and

    (iv) that the Company was improperly delaying the write-down of
         billions of dollars of impaired assets, thereby artificially
         inflating the Company's operating results.

Indeed, after the end of the class period, the Company announced that
it would write off over $11 billion of goodwill and other asset
impairments prior to reporting fourth quarter financial results, which
would result in an astounding loss per share for the fourth quarter
2001 of $46.46 per share.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman or Samuel H. Rudman by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: 800-320-5081 by E-mail: ntlcase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com  


NTL INC.: Scott Scott Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of NTL, Inc. (NYSE: NLI) between August 9,
2000 and November 29, 2001, inclusive, in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) George S. Blumenthal,

     (2) J. Barclay Knapp,

     (3) Steven Carter and

     (4) John F. Gregg

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.

The suit alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements, which failed to
disclose, among other things:

     (i) that the Company was unable to effectively integrate its
         acquisitions and, as a result was experiencing substantial
         difficulties in operating its business;

    (ii) that the Company was not fully funded until 2003, and as a
         result of its massive debt burden would necessarily have to
         restructure its debt;

   (iii) that the Company was underreporting churn rates by failing to
         report terminations and by continuing to bill customers for
         accounts which they had terminated, thereby creating the false
         impression that the Company was retaining customers longer and
         that migrations were decreasing; and

    (iv) that the Company was improperly delaying the write-down of
         billions of dollars of impaired assets, thereby artificially
         inflating the Company's operating results.

Indeed, after the end of the class period, the Company announced that
it would write off over $11 billion of goodwill and other asset
impairments prior to reporting fourth quarter financial results, which
would result in an astounding loss per share for the fourth quarter
2001 of $46.46 per share.

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by
Phone: 800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
drscott@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.scott-
scott.com


SCHLOTZSKY'S INC.: Settles Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX for $2M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schlotzsky's Inc. agreed to settle for US$2 million a consolidated
securities class action pending in the United States District Court,
Western District of Texas, Austin Division, seeking remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) John C. Wooley,

     (2) Jeffery J. Wooley,

     (3) John M. Rosillo, and

     (4) Monica Grill

The suit alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading
statements in the Company's registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's secondary public offering,
which became effective on September 24, 1997, and subsequent press
releases.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,
which was granted, with prejudice, by the court in August 1999.  
However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal
court's denial of leave to amend and remanded the case in January 2001
to allow the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint in March
2001. The amended complaint sought relief under the 1933 Act claims
only.

Without conceding the facts that formed the basis of plaintiffs'
claims, the Company entered into a stipulation of settlement on January
26, 2002, settling all claims, with prejudice, for the sum of $2
million, the entirety of which will be paid by the Company's insurer.
On February 19, 2002, the federal court entered its preliminary
approval and set the matter for final settlement hearing on April 2,
2002, at which time the court will determine whether the proposed
settlement is fair to the settlement class and should be approved.


SRI SURGICAL: Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SRI Surgical Express, Inc. vehemently denied the allegations in several
securities class actions pending in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.  The plaintiffs purport to assert claims
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the period from July 23, 2001 through November 27, 2001.

The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under that
act.  Among other things, the actions allege that during the class
period, the Company and the individual defendants made materially false
statements concerning the Company's financial condition and its future
prospects.

The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to this matter
and intends to assert them vigorously.


TWINLAB CORPORATION: NY Court Approves $26M Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
approved the US$26 million settlement proposed by Twinlab Corporation
to settle a securities class action pending against it and certain of
its officers and directors.

The suit alleged that the Company and the other defendants violated
securities laws by making material misstatements and failing to state
material facts about the Company's business and financial condition,
among other things, in securities act filings and public statements.  
The class of plaintiffs included all buyers of the Company's stock from
April 8, 1998 through February 24, 1999, other than the defendants and
certain related parties.

The Court approved the settlement in February 2002.  Pursuant to the
settlement, the Company has agreed to pay $26 million, all of which is
covered by its existing insurance.


UGLY DUCKLING: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suits in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ugly Duckling Corporation reached an agreement to settle a
consolidated securities class action pending in the Delaware Court of
Chancery in New Castle County, relating to an offer by Company Chairman
Ernest Garcia to purchase all of the outstanding shares of the
Company's common stock.

The suit alleges that the Company and its directors breached fiduciary
duties in connection with the proposed acquisition by Mr. Garcia.  The
suit sought to enjoin the proposed acquisition and to recover
compensatory damages.  These cases were consolidated in June 2001.

In September 2001, Mr. Garcia withdrew his offer to acquire the
Company's common stock by means of a merger, and in November 2001,
initiated a tender offer for the Company's stock.  On December 10,
2001, we announced our Board of Directors had agreed to an amended
tender offer and back end merger at $3.53 per share, and an agreement
in principle to resolve the shareholder litigation.  

In January 2002, after the completion of confirmatory discovery, a
settlement agreement was entered into resolving this litigation.  A
settlement hearing is scheduled for April 17, 2002.

Meanwhile, the Company still faces two shareholder derivative suits in
the same court, alleging that the Company's current directors breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company in connection with the said
transactions.  The Company is a nominal defendant in the suit.  

The Company vows to vigorously oppose these suits.


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Suits Over 1998 IPO in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ziff-Davis, Inc. has agreed to settle eight securities class actions
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, against it and certain of its directors and officers,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The suits alleged that the registration statement relating to the ZDNet
tracing stock IPO on April 28, 1998 contained false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose facts that could have indicated an
impending decline in the Company's revenue.

The parties have agreed to settle the case, and the Court entered a
preliminary settlement order on December 4, 2001.  A hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement was held on March 13, 2002,
but the Court's ruling has yet to be released.  


ZIFF-DAVIS INC.: Sued for Securities Violations in ZDNet Offering in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ziff-Davis, Inc. faces two securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, officers Eric Hippeau and Timothy O'Brien, and investment
banks that were the underwriters of the public offering of ZDNet series
of Company stock.  

The suits similar allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, and
one of the complaints also alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The suits allege the receipt of excessive and
undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the ZDNet
offering and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs
allege that the prospectus for the ZDNet Offering was false and
misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not
disclose the arrangements.  

The action is being coordinated with over 300 nearly identical actions
filed against other companies.  No date has been set for any responses
to the complaints.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against
the suit.



                              *********


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  * * *