---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, April 24, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 80

                            Headlines

AUCTION HOUSES: Sotheby's, Christie's Ran Price-Fixing Cartel, Says EU
FACTORY WORKERS: Asian Workers in American Samoa Get $3.5M Compensation
HIH INSURANCE: Shareholders File Suit in Sydney Over Firm's Collapse
JERSEY CENTRAL: Faces Suit Over July 1999 Power Outages in Mid-Atlantic
LOUISIANA: Judge Probes Defendants' Inclusion In Defective Homes Suit

NEBRASKA: Counties Consider Suit To Collect Prisoners' Housing Debt
SCI-SANMINA: Sued For Not Informing Workers of Ontario Plant Closure
WISCONSIN: Mediation in Students' Suit Halts Over Class Action Status
VITAMIN ANTITRUST: MA Court Approves $19.6 Million Antitrust Settlement

                          Securities Fraud

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Faces Suit for Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in PA
BORON LEPORE: To Settle Securities Fraud Suit Pending in New Jersey
CALPINE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in CA
CALPINE CORPORATION: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud

COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION: Asks GA Court For More Time To Amend Suit
CORNELL COMPANIES: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in TX
CRITICAL PATH: Agrees To Settle Securities, Derivative Suits in CA
DIGITAL RIVER: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY
FUNDTECH LTD.: NJ Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit

GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Discovery Proceeds In Securities Suit in M.D. FL
INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Vigorously Opposes Securities Suits in S.D. NY
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Denies Securities Suits' Allegations in N.D. CA

L90 INC.: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Act Violations
MARKETWATCH.COM: Denies Accusations in Securities Suit in NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in WA
MULTEX.COM: Sued For Federal Securities Laws Violations in S.D. NY

NTL INC.: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NTL INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
QUANTA SERVICES: Denies Allegations in Securities Derivative Suit in DE
SAF T LOK: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Act Violations
SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Hearing For Dismissal of Securities Suit in N.D. CA

SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA State Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Suit
SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Vows To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in NY
STILLWATER MINING: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STILLWATER MINING: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY

TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in CA
TICKETS.COM: Faces Suits For Securities Fraud Violations in S.D. NY
TRILOGY SOFTWARE: NY Court Allows Securities Fraud Suit To Continue
VIANT CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
VIROPHARMA INC.: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud

WESTMINSTER CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Offer To Purchase Own Shares in DE
                            
                            *********

AUCTION HOUSES: Sotheby's, Christie's Ran Price-Fixing Cartel, Says EU
----------------------------------------------------------------------
European Union (EU) competition authorities formally accused Christie's
International PLC and Sotheby's Holdings Inc. of colluding to fix fees,
The Wall Street Journal reports.  The auction houses face this second
round of accusations, after weathering last year's litigation, by
settling a class action, brought by clients who claimed the two houses
defrauded them by fixing prices.  Christie's and Sotheby's agreed to
pay the offended clients $512 million in cash and coupons for
resolution of the charges against them.

In a 50-page document outlining evidence gathered during a 28-month
investigation, EU lawyers said they believe the world's two largest
auction houses ran a price-fixing cartel between 1993 and 2000.  The
two auction houses have six weeks to respond before the EU decides
whether to press formal charges.

Christie's and Sotheby's have spent two years battling similar
accusations in US courts.  Last December, Sotheby's former chairman and
controlling shareholder, A. Alfred Taubman, was found guilty of
conspiring to violate antitrust laws by participating in a cartel.  He
has been sentenced recently in New York City.

Since allegations of wrongdoing first surfaced two years ago, both
companies have cooperated with probes by the US Justice Department and
the EU competition authority.  However, the results have been
strikingly different.  Christie's, for one, was granted conditional
immunity in the United States because it had disclosed the existence of
the cartel to investigators in the first place.  Because of its
cooperation, the US government agreed not to fine Christie's for its
involvement in the cartel.  Sotheby's, on the other hand, paid a $45
million fine.

Lawyers said it was not clear whether Christie's or Sotheby's would get
immunity from the EU.  Both firms have applied for immunity, and both
provided the EU with most of the evidence used against them in the
formal "statement of objections" (similar to a complaint) sent to the
two companies, according to people familiar with the matter.  

Sotheby's said the Company "has been cooperating fully with (the EU)
throughout its investigation and will continue to do so."  Christie's
would not comment on the EU's accusations.

If found guilty and denied immunity, the two companies could face fines
of as much as 10 percent of their world-wide revenue under EU rules.  
In Sotheby's case, that could mean a fine of as much as $33 million,
according to Amelia Torres, spokeswoman for the European Commission,
the EU's executive arm.  The size of Christie's potential fine is
harder to pinpoint. In 1998, Frenchman Francois Pinault bought
Christie's and made the group part of his Artemis SA investment holding
company.  Closely held Artemis no longer discloses Christie's annual
revenue.

The move against the two auction houses marks the EU's first major
anti-cartel initiative this year.  Last year, the EU broke up 10
cartels involving 56 companies and levied 1.84 billion euros (US$1.64
billion) in fines.  That amount was greater than the total sum levied
against cartels in the previous 45 years.


FACTORY WORKERS: Asian Workers in American Samoa Get $3.5M Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a landmark case against human traffickers, the High Court of
American Samoa has awarded nearly $3.5 million in back pay and damages
to 265 Asians kept for months as indentured servants, including two
dozen who escaped and found refuge in Orange County, California, The
Orange County Register has reported.

The money will be split among 265 people, among them 15 Chinese and 250
Vietnamese, according to the judgment.  Many of the plaintiffs say they
were promised good wages, but were duped into slave labor at a garment
factory in the South Pacific.  They survived what they call "an
unimaginable hell," and now the winners, who will receive $10,000 to
$15,000 per person in compensation, say they feel grateful.

The civil case handled by the volunteer lawyers is the largest single
federal prosecution against indentured servitude since Congress passed
the Trafficking Protection Act in 2000.  It marks an effort to punish
international perpetrators and provides shelter for victims by giving
them US residency and work permits under a new T visa.  "This is
clearly a verdict that recognizes that the Vietnamese government knew
what kind of situation the workers were going into," said Lan Quoc
Nguyen, a Westminster attorney helping the group apply for visas.

Most of the plaintiffs had mortgaged their homes, sold their
possessions and left children with relatives before paying loan brokers
at least $5,000 each for passage from their native countries to the
island.  They were held as virtual prisoners at a company called
Daewoosa Samoa Ltd., until local immigrants heard about their plight
and brought some of them to the Orange County area.

The class action suit they filed targets Kil-Soo Lee, Daewoosa's owner,
who has filed for bankruptcy, and the Vietnamese government, which sent
an agent to set up business between the laborers and the factory.  
Neither could be reached for comment, the Orange County Register said.

A criminal case pending in US District Court in Hawaii alleges that Mr.
Lee "defrauded, failed to pay and at times deprived of food, beat and
physically restrained these workers to force them to work."  The case
is expected to go to court in October.


HIH INSURANCE: Shareholders File Suit in Sydney Over Firm's Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders of failed Australian insurer HIH Insurance Ltd recently
filed a class action against the Company's former directors, auditors
and four global reinsurance companies, reports Reuters English News
Service.

Sydney law firm Dennis & Co. said it had filed the action on behalf of
thousands of former shareholders and noteholders who may seek total
damages of up to AU$1 billion.  "There could well be a whole bundle of
people out there who have lost money, it is many hundreds of millions
of dollars," Bruce Dennis, Dennis & Co. partner, told Reuters.  The
claim was lodged in the Federal Court in Sydney, and will go before the
court for directions on May 17.

The action alleges that eight former directors, the Company's auditor,
Andersen Australia, and re-insurers "aided and abetted the company in
making misleading and deceptive statements" before its collapse last
March.  The re-insurers named in the claim are:

     (1) Hannover Rueckversicherungs-Aktiengeselschaft,

     (2) Hannover Reinsurance (Ireland) Ltd.,

     (3) E&S Reinsurance (Ireland) Ltd., and

     (4) General Cologne Re Australia Ltd.

The Company is the largest corporation to collapse in Australian
history, with estimated deficiencies of up to AU$5.3 billion.  It
prompted a Royal Commission, the highest level of government inquiry in
Australia, to figure out how the collapse caught regulators, investors
and policyholders by surprise.  The inquiry is continuing.

Mr. Dennis said the firm decided to lodge the claim earlier than
expected because of concerns about the break-up of Andersen's non-US
operations.  He said 1,300 shareholders had expressed support for the
action and thousands more could become involved.  Mr. Dennis said he
would press for an "opt-out" provision which will include all former
shareholders and noteholders unless they ask to be excluded from the
class action.  He said Andersen alone could face claims of up to
AU$700 million.


JERSEY CENTRAL: Faces Suit Over July 1999 Power Outages in Mid-Atlantic
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jersey Central Power & Light Company faces a consolidated class
action pending in the New Jersey Superior Court relating to the July
1999 power outages that hit the Mid-Atlantic states service areas of
many electric utilities, including the Company, after the area
experienced a severe heat storm.  The suit also names as defendants GPU
Energy, Inc. and its subsidiaries.

An investigation conducted by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities
(NJBPU) into the causes of the outages and the reliability of the
transmission and distribution systems of all four New Jersey electric
utilities discovered that there was not a prima facie case
demonstrating that, overall, the Company provided unsafe, inadequate or
improper service to its customers.  

The defendants then filed a motion in May 2001 seeking to decertify the
class, but the Court denied this motion without prejudice.  In October
2001, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, which contends
that the Company is bound to several findings of the NJBPU
investigation, but the Court denied the motion. The plaintiffs then
filed an appeal in the state appellate court, seeking permission to
file an appeal on this denial, but again the appeals court denied their
motion.

The Company has filed a motion for partial summary judgment.  Discovery
continues in the class action, but no trial date has been set.  The
judge has set a schedule under which factual legal discovery would
conclude in March 2002, and expert reports would be exchanged by June
2002.  The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters.


LOUISIANA: Judge Probes Defendants' Inclusion In Defective Homes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Lafayette, Louisiana has ordered plaintiffs' lawyer
to explain why 282 manufactured-housing companies were included as
defendants in a class action over the homes' defective design, even
though many of them have not done business in Louisiana, the Saturday
State Times/Morning Advocate reports.

At a recent hearing, US District Judge Tucker Melancon told Lafayette
plaintiffs attorney Barry Domingue that he is considering sanctions
against him.  Judge Melancon called the lawsuit a "wad of spaghetti
you've thrown on the wall hoping something will stick."

Mr. Domingue will be required to pay legal fees of any companies
included in the lawsuit without proper justification, and has 10 days
to meet the court's order, Judge Melancon said.  "I cannot allow this
to go forward unless you can show I'm dead wrong," he added.

Judge Melancon said he believes Mr. Domingue named the 282 defendants
"with absolutely no investigation."  However, the attorney said the
case was filed after three years of investigation, and the Judge has
replied that he wants to see proof of that claim.  Mr. Domingue said he
is concerned that revealing his rationale for including each defendant
would reveal his case to the defendants.  Judge Melancon said he had a
solution for that problem, and would consider sealing any sensitive
information, although "I don't like filing things under seal."

Mr. Domingue represents 17 plaintiffs who allege they bought poorly
made manufactured homes, defective in design, composition and
construction.  The lawsuit alleges that the homes' designs allow the
formation of a toxic mold in the walls, making occupants sick.  The
lawsuit was originally filed in St. Landry Parish, but was moved to
Federal Court in Lafayette after challenges by the defendants'
attorneys.

Mr. Domingue has told the Judge that the common thread in the case is
the manufacturing techniques used by the companies and the failure to
disclose inherent problems of the new homes.  The companies have denied
that they produce an inferior product, and they are seeking dismissal
of the case.

Mr. Domingue told the Court that some defendants will be dismissed
because companies have gone bankrupt.  One company should not have been
included because it makes modular homes, he said.  Judge Melancon said
that's the same as naming the wrong driver in a lawsuit involving an
automobile accident.

The Judge told the other 16 lawyers in the courtroom to keep their
records current to show how much time they have spent on the lawsuit.
He said it would be wise not to do any further work until this matter
[of inclusion] is resolved.

Mr. Domingue told the Court he will be contesting the Federal Court's
jurisdiction if the number of defendants is reduced to fewer than 100
companies.


NEBRASKA: Counties Consider Suit To Collect Prisoners' Housing Debt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Nebraska owes $749,710 to counties in reimbursement
payments for housing state prisoners for the 2000 to 2001 fiscal year,
the Associated Press reports.  Joseph Hewgley, a Lincoln County Board
member, said it may take a class action to effect payment of what the
counties are owed.  

Lincoln County, alone, is owed $30,240, Mr. Hewgley said.  Last week,
Mr. Hewgley met with Larry Dix, Executive Director of the Nebraska
Association of County Officials, to discuss the situation. He said,
however, that every effort will be made to avoid a lawsuit, and that he
planned to discuss the matter with a number of people before taking
action.  Working with the state may be the best way to approach the
situation, he said.

As a result of the Nebraska Association meeting, Larry Dix will meet
with Governor Mike Johanns in about two weeks on the problem.  "I think
we are going to try to see if there is something we can work out," Mr.
Hewgley said.  The state has indicated, he added, that it does not have
the money to make the payment.


SCI-SANMINA: Sued For Not Informing Workers of Ontario Plant Closure
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SCI-Sanmina has been hit with a class action by a non-unionized
enployee of a plant in Brockville, Ontario, that will close later this
year, the National Post reported.  The suit is based on allegations
that the Company did not provide its 230 non-unionized employees with
sufficient notice of termination when it sent a letter to employees in
January that the plant would be closed.  The Company told its employees
that they would be terminated any time between January and when the
plant closes in October.

Nelligan O'Brien Payne, who is representing the plaintiff, Terry
Bosley, said the lawsuit focuses on ensuring that the Company's
employees are fairly compensated for their loss of employment.  Mr.
Bosley is also seeking to protect his pension.

The plant, which makes telecommunications equipment, was purchased by
Sanmina Corporation from Nortel Networks Corporation in 1999.  
Officials from San Jose, California-based SCI-Sanmina were unavailable
for comment, the National Post reported.


WISCONSIN: Mediation in Students' Suit Halts Over Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation sessions in a massive lawsuit against the Milwaukee Public
Schools (MPS) have hit a serious stumbling block, increasing the
prospect of long, costly litigation over services for students with
disabilities, The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported recently.

The plaintiffs want MPS and the State Department of Public Instruction
(DPI) to agree that the case can be considered a class action.  
However, the two agencies have yet to accept or reject the demand, and
the plaintiffs will not return to mediation until they accept, said
Jeff Spitzer-Resnick, managing attorney at the Wisconsin Coalition for
Advocacy, which filed the suit in federal court.  

The non-profit Coalition for Advocacy represents seven children with
disabilities, who, it contends, do not receive legally required
services from MPS.  Among the plaintiffs, for example, a 17-year-old
was made to watch "Teletubbies" on TV instead of learning to cope with
daily life.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the coalition can
contend in court that the seven cases are representative of much
broader problems relating to how MPS treats children with disabilities.  
Mr. Spitzer-Resnick said more than 16,000 of MPS' 100,000 students have
disabilities.

The suit accuses the school district of systematically violating
federal laws requiring an appropriate education for every child who has
disabilities.  The suit also says that the DPI fails to enforce those
laws.  Among the coalition's claims are that MPS does not draw up
required individual education plans for some children with disabilities
and that when it does draw up such plans, the plans are often ignored.

MPS officials decline to discuss details of the case, but they do say
the district properly educates students with disabilities.

Mr. Spitzer-Resnick said no more meetings have been scheduled since the
mediation session on April 11.  "It has at least failed for the time
being," he said.  He added that the coalition wanted MPS and DPI to
accept class action status because it would let the parties focus on
improving special education, rather than use time to seek class action
status, a pretty simple issue.   However, without the two agencies'
stipulation, he said, it will likely take a year for the issue of class
action to be decided.  

A leader of an organization that advocates for students with
disabilities agreed that class action status is warranted.  "We are
absolutely rushed off our feet covering the cases in Milwaukee, that in
itself tells me that it's a class action," said Sue Endress, project
director of the Community Parent Resource Center for Wisconsin FACETS,
a non-profit statewide group that helps people with disabilities and
their families.

Both Ms. Endress and Mr. Spitzer-Resnick said decentralization in MPS
has hurt students with disabilities.


VITAMIN ANTITRUST: MA Court Approves $19.6 Million Antitrust Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts State court judge today granted preliminary approval to
a $19.6 million class action settlement of consumers' price-fixing
claims against six pharmaceutical companies:

     (1) Aventis Animal Nutrition SA,

     (2) BASF Corporation,

     (3) Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.,

     (4) Eisai Co., Ltd.,

     (5) Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. and

     (6) Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd.

Under the terms of the settlement, the money will be distributed to
charitable organizations in Massachusetts for purposes of food and
nutrition programs. The class action, filed in June of 1999, alleged
that the settling companies and others engaged in an international
conspiracy over a ten year period to fix prices and allocate markets
for bulk vitamins which are used in many processed products, including
cereals, milk and bread.

The settlement comes on the heels of a landmark decision by the Supreme
Judicial Court that allowed the consumers' claim to proceed under the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.  "This settlement serves a
number of purposes: it alerts corporations that illegal price-fixing
schemes will lead to substantial consequences if they are directed at
consumers in Massachusetts, and it benefits Massachusetts consumers by
earmarking a substantial sum of money to assist programs that provide
food and nutritional services to infants and children, families, the
elderly, and others in need," said Fredric L. Ellis, lead counsel for
the consumer class. "In these times of budget cutbacks, such funds are
sorely needed."

For more information, contact Fredric L. Ellis by Mail: 85 Merrimac
Street, Suite 500, Boston, MA 02114 by Phone: 617-523-4800 or visit the
Web site: http://www.massvitaminlitigation.com

                            Securities Fraud

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Faces Suit for Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aclara Biosciences intends to vigorously oppose a securities class
action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain of its current or
former officers and directors and several of the underwriters involved
in the Company's initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from March 20, 2000) through December 6, 2000,
alleges that the underwriters in the IPO solicited and received
undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements
with, certain investors who purchased Company stock in the IPO and the
after-market.  The suit also alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO prospectus
that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly undisclosed
arrangements.

The Company denies the allegations in the suit and believes it has
meritorious defenses against it.


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

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

According to the complaint, Highland Holdings, a partnership controlled
by the Rigas family, borrowed the $2.284 billion against credit
facilities that were co-guaranteed by the Company.  The Rigases then
used some of the loans' proceeds to buy more Company stock, the
complaint maintains. The information, which would have affected the
Company's stock price, was not disclosed to investors during the class
period.  The SEC is investigating the Company's accounting practices.

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

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


BORON LEPORE: To Settle Securities Fraud Suit Pending in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Boron Lepore & Associates, Inc. agreed to settle a securities class
action pending against it and certain of its offices in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

The suit was commenced in May 1999, alleging the defendants and certain
institutional stockholders violated the federal securities laws by
making material misrepresentations and omissions in certain public
disclosures related to, among other things, the secondary offering made
by the Company in May 1998, the Company's relationship with
GlaxoWellcome, and the impact of various events on the Company's
earnings.

In March 2002, the Company entered into a definitive settlement
agreement to settle all claims in connection with the suit.  This
settlement will result in the release of all claims brought by the
participating class action plaintiffs against the Company and its
current and former officers and directors.  This settlement has been
signed by the parties and is subject to final approval by the Court.
The settlement has no admission of liability by the Company or its
current or former officers or directors and will be funded by payment
from the Company's insurance carriers.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Calpine Corporation (NYSE: CPN)
securities between January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001, inclusive,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing false and misleading statements throughout the class period
that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.  Specifically, the suit alleges defendants issued
opaque and confusing balance sheets, which artificially inflated the
Company's reported EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation and amortization).

On January 5, 2001, the Company announced that it was increasing its
earnings expectations for 2000 and 2001.  During the class period, the
Company continually issued releases to the investing public
representing their strong projected earnings, financial, and operating
results.

On December 13, 2001, an article in The New York Times revealed that
the Securities and Exchange Commission had objections to the Company's
reported EBITDA. On December 14, 2001, after the market closed, Moody's
Investors Service announced it had cut its rating of the Company's
$11.6 billion of debt to junk.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, 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 Calpine.  


CALPINE CORPORATION: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
Calpine Corporation (NYSE:CPN) for possible securities fraud on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 5, 2001 to
December 13, 2001.

The firm is investigating whether the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing false and misleading statements and press releases concerning
the Company's sale of and demand for power and the Company's ability to
generate sufficient cash revenue to service its debt.

The Company's stock, which went public in 1996, on a split adjusted
basis, went from $2 at the IPO stage to over $33 in January 2001.  The
firm believes that the Company's stock price was very important because
the Company was planning to build or acquire $15 billion of plants over
the next four years.  The financing for these plants was based on the
performance of its stock because many of its bond buyers were looking
to convert to common stock.  If the stock did not perform, financing
would be difficult to fund the Company's expansion.

However, certain of the Company's manipulative transactions, including
those with Enron, such as inflated revenues, began to emerge on
December 9, 2001. On December 14, 2001, before the market opened,
Moody's Investors Service announced that it might cut the credit rating
on the Company's $11.6 billion of debt to junk. In response, Company
shares plummeted to $12.50, a more than 26% drop. Then, after the close
of the market on December 14, 2001, Moody's Investors Service announced
that it had in fact cut its rating of the Company's debt to junk.

Nevertheless, during the class period, certain Company officers and
directors sold their personally held common stock, generating more than
$34 million in proceeds, while the Company raised billions of dollars
in a series of debt offerings.

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


COMPUCREDIT CORPORATION: Asks GA Court For More Time To Amend Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action against CompuCredit
Corporation and two of its top officers asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for additional time
to amend their initial complaint, which was dismissed by the court.

The suit, which names David Hanna, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, and Brett Samsky, the Company's Chief Financial Officer as
defendants, arose from the decline in the market value of the Company's
common stock on October 25, 2000.  The suit alleges that prior to that
date, the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation
of federal securities laws.

In July 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which
the Court granted in February 2002.  However, the Court allowed the
plaintiffs to file a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint.  On
March 22, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting additional
time to amend their complaint. That motion is pending.

The Company maintains that it does not believe that this lawsuit has
any merit, and intends to continue to defend it vigorously.  The
Company does not believe that the lawsuit is reasonably likely to have
a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Cornell Companies, Inc. (NYSE:CRN) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of all investors who
purchased Company securities between March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Texas-based Company's stock traded as high as
$18.40. Defendants took advantage of this artificial inflation, selling
3.4 million shares of Cornell stock for proceeds of over $48 million in
a November 2001 secondary offering.

On February 6, 2002, Bloomberg ran an article on the Company which
stated in part, "Cornell Cos., which operates 69 prisons in 13 states
and the District of Columbia, said it will review the accounting of an
August real estate transaction involving 11 properties. Its shares fell
as much as 63 percent. The company received a letter Thursday from
auditor Arthur Andersen LLP that raised concern about the transaction,
said Larry Stein of FRB Weber Shandwick, a firm that handles public
relations for Cornell. The Andersen review was part of a year-end
audit."

Upon these disclosures, the Company's stock dropped to as low as $6.50
before closing at $9.96 on February 6, 2002, some 45% below the class
period high of $18.40.

For more information, contact the Shareholder Relations Manager by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free), 610-822-2221 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


CRITICAL PATH: Agrees To Settle Securities, Derivative Suits in CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Path, Inc. has reached agreements to settle the consolidated
securities class action and the shareholder derivative suits pending
against it and certain of the Company's officers and directors in
California Federal and State Courts.

The federal suits were filed starting February 2001 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors on behalf of purchasers of varying class periods.  The suits
were later consolidated and filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock from September 26,2000 to February 1, 2001.

The consolidated suit alleged that the defendants made false or
misleading statements of material fact about the Company's financial
statements, including its revenues, revenue recognition policies,
business operations and prospects for the year 2000 and beyond.

In addition, in September 2001, certain former shareholders of
PeerLogic, Inc. filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of
the State of California alleging that the Company breached
representations and warranties made in connection with the acquisition
of PeerLogic.  The suit was subsequently moved to the US District Court
for the Northern District of California.

In November 2001, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle to settle these cases.  In February 2002, the
Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement of the suit and set a
hearing date for final approval of the settlement agreement for May 23,
2002.

The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in a number of
derivative actions, purportedly brought on the Company's behalf, filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California and in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The derivative complaints alleged that certain of the Company's current
and former officers and directors:

     (1) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company;

     (2) engaged in abuses of their control of the Company;

     (3) were unjustly enriched by their sales of the Company's common
         stock;

     (4) engaged in insider trading in violation of California law; and

     (5) published false financial information in violation of
         California law.

Because of the nature of derivative litigation, any recovery in the
action would inure to the Company's benefit.  Contemporaneously with
settlement of the securities class action described above, an agreement
in principle has been reached to settle the derivative action.


DIGITAL RIVER: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital River, Inc. labeled "without merit" the securities class
actions pending against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The suits, which are similar to more than 300 suits against other
public companies that conducted their initial public offerings in the
late 1990s, alleges that the defendants and the Company's IPO
underwriters violated the federal securities laws because the Company's
IPO registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements
of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation
to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

In August 2001, the suits were consolidated for pretrial purposes
before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of
New York.  Judge Scheindlin held an initial case management conference
on September 7, 2001, at which time she ordered, among other things,
that the time for all defendants in the IPO Lawsuits to respond to any
complaint be postponed until further order of the Court. Thus, the
Company has not been required to answer any of the complaints, and no
discovery has been served on the Company.

At a further status conference on March 11, 2002, Judge Scheindlin
stated that she would appoint lead plaintiffs counsel in the IPO
Lawsuits by the end of March 2002, and that she would require the
appointed lead plaintiffs counsel to file amended, consolidated
complaints in the IPO Lawsuits by April 17, 2002.  Judge Scheindlin
further stated that she did not expect the defendants to file motions
to dismiss the amended, consolidated complaints until the summer of
2002.

The Company intends to defend against the suit vigorously.  However,
this litigation, as well as any other litigation that might be
instituted, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of
management's attention and resources.


FUNDTECH LTD.: NJ Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed without prejudice a securities class action filed against
Fundtech Ltd., on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock on
October 6,1999.

The suit alleges violations of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company
allegedly made statements at an analysts conference before the opening
of the market on October 6, 1999 that did not reveal that later that
day the Company would announce an earnings decrease.


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: GRB)
between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants 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 between May 27, 1999 and April 12, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Company further stated that its investigation is ongoing and once
it has been completed, the Company will likely restate its financial
results for the appropriate periods.

In response to the Company's announcements, the price of the Company's
common stock declined to $6.99 per share, a decline of more than 71%
from a class period high of $24.50 per share, reached on July 6, 1999.

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


INSURANCE MANAGEMENT: Discovery Proceeds In Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Active discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action pending against Insurance Management Solutions Group, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the Company's common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement for the
Company's February 1999 initial public offering.  

The consolidated suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Bankers Insurance Group, Inc. (BIG),

     (2) Venture Capital Corporation, a selling shareholder in the IPO,

     (3) the five inside directors of the Company at the time of the
         IPO,

     (4) Raymond James & Associates, Inc. and

     (5) Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making certain false and misleading statements in the road-show
presentations, registration statement and prospectus relating to the
IPO.  

More specifically, the suit alleges that, in connection with the IPO,
the defendants made various material misrepresentations and/or
omissions relating to:

     (i) the Company's ability to integrate Geotrac's flood zone
         determination business with its own flood zone determination
         business and with its insurance outsourcing services business;

    (ii) actual and anticipated synergies between the Company's flood
         zone determination and outsourcing services business lines;
         and

   (iii) the Company's use of the IPO proceeds.

In March 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit for
failure to allege material misstatements and/or omissions in the
roadshow presentations, registration statement and/or prospectus
relating to the IPO, but the court denied these motions in July 2001.

The case has been set for trial during the trial term commencing May 5,
2003. Management of the Company believes the material allegations of
the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit.  No assurances can be given, however, with respect to the
outcome of the litigation, and an adverse result could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition and
results of operations.


INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Vigorously Opposes Securities Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Information Systems, Inc. labeled without merit four
securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters
involved in the Company's initial public offering.

The suits generally allege that:

     (1) the underwriter defendants allocated shares of the Company's
         initial public offering to their customers in exchange for
         higher than standard commissions on transactions in other
         securities;

     (2) the underwriter defendants allocated shares of the Company's
         initial public offering to their customers in exchange for the
         customers' agreement to purchase additional shares of our
         common stock in the after-market at pre-determined prices;

     (3) the Company and the individual defendants violated section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 11
         of the Securities Act of 1933; and

     (4) the individual defendants violated section 20 of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 15 of the
         Securities Act of 1933.

The Company believes that the claims against it are unfounded and
intends to vigorously defend itself against this matter.  All four
lawsuits have been transferred to Judge Schira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York for coordination with more than 300
similar cases.  Judge Scheindlin has adjourned the time to respond to
the complaints pending resolution of major issues in the consolidated
cases so the Company has not responded to the complaints.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, its officers and directors and the underwriters:

     (1) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (3) Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels),

     (5) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC),

     (7) Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC),

     (8) JP Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (9) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (10) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., and

    (11) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated

The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock in the Company's initial public offering in June 1999 and its
secondary offering in September 1999.

Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that the
prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the
Company's initial public offering and its subsequent secondary offering
contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding the practices of the Company's underwriters with respect to
their allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their
receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations.

The Company labeled the suit without merit and intends to mount a
vigorous defense against the suit.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Denies Securities Suits' Allegations in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc. intends to vigorously oppose several securities
class actions pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers and former officers. The lawsuits are essentially identical
and purport to bring suit on behalf of those who purchased the
Company's publicly traded securities between April 12, 2001 and June 7,
2001.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements, assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws
and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company denied the allegations and believes the claims are without
merit.


L90 INC.: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
L90, Inc. (Nasdaq: LNTYE, formerly LNTY) for possible securities fraud
committed during the period starting July 26, 2001 and ending March 12,
2002.

Much Shelist is investigating whether the Company and certain of its
officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing the
Company's improper acts until they were able to conceal their fraud by
selling the Company to a third party prior to filing the Company's 10-K
(due March 31, 2002).

In order to overstate revenues and assets in its second and third
quarters of 2001, the Company violated generally accepted accounting
principles and Securities and Exchange Commission rules by engaging in
improper "roundtrip" transactions with HomeStore.com and its customers.
These transactions had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues
and assets.

On February 4, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "L90
Reports Regulatory Inquiries."  The press release stated in part, "L90,
Inc., an online media and direct marketing company, today announced
that the Company has received notice from the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the Commission is conducting an investigation into the
Company. In connection with this investigation, the Commission has
issued the Company and one of its directors subpoenas requesting
documents related primarily to the Company's financial records."

On this news the Company's shares plummeted by more than 50% the
following trading day and continued to drop further in the weeks that
followed as defendants revealed further incriminating facts.

On March 12, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "L90
Provides Additional Information on Internal Investigation."  The press
release stated in part, "L90, Inc., an online media and direct
marketing company, today provided additional information on the status
of the ongoing internal investigation by the Company and the Audit
Committee of its board of directors in response to the previously
announced Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of the
Company, and the request for information from Nasdaq Listing
Investigations."

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


MARKETWATCH.COM: Denies Accusations in Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marketwatch.com, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and a number of investment banks, including some of the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from January 14, 1999 to April 21, 2001, alleges that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock
in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The suit further alleges that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

The consolidated suit is being coordinated with approximately three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other companies
and no date has been set for any response to the complaints.

The Company vigorously denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends
to vigorously defend the actions.  However, due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot accurately predict the
ultimate outcome of the litigation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former star
Internet research analyst, Henry M. Blodget on behalf of purchasers of
the stock of Excite@Home during the period from August 18,1999 through
June 20, 2001, inclusive.

The defendants are charged with issuing misleading analyst reports
about At Home Corporation, doing business as Excite@Home. The suit,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that to maintain and enhance Merrill Lynch's
investment banking relationships with Excite, defendants issued
positive ratings on the Company, which were materially misleading as
they were inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private adverse
assessments of Excite.

For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short-term
accumulate, long-term buy rating on Excite despite Mr. Blodget's
internal conclusion that Excite stock had a "flat" outlook, was without
any "real catalysts" for improvement, and was a "piece of crap."

On April 8, 2002, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
announced that a ten-month investigation had revealed that Merrill
Lynch's "supposedly independent and objective investment advice was
tainted and biased by the desire to aid Merrill Lynch's investment
banking business."  Merrill Lynch's ratings on Excite were among those
challenged by the Attorney General.

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


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Metawave Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:MTWV)
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common
stock from April 24, 2001 through March 14, 2002.

The lawsuit alleges that the Washington-based communications company
engaged in improper accounting and issued false and misleading
financial statements to the public.  According to the suit, the Company
and some of its top officers highly touted customer demand and revenues
for its Spotlight GSM line of cellular phone antenna systems throughout
the class period.  However, the Company's later actions showed those
statements to be false, the complaint states.

On March 14, 2002, the Company announced a restructuring plan that
included discontinuing the Spotlight GSM line due to lack of demand.  
The Company took a $23 million charge against first quarter 2002
earnings as a result, according to the complaint.

Investors were further stunned, the complaint says, when the Company
revealed it had inflated its 2001 revenue by $5 to $7 million, or 11 to
16 percent of its total annual revenue, because of side-letters that
allowed customers to return the Spotlight GSM product at no charge.
According to the suit, the Company admitted that recognizing that
revenue violated generally accepted accounting principles and that the
Company would have to restate its financial results for 2001.

The revelations prompted a 71% decline of Company stock price, which
fell from a closing price of $1.10 on March 14, 2002 to $0.32 on March
15, 2002.

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


MULTEX.COM: Sued For Federal Securities Laws Violations in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Multex.com is vigorously defending against a consolidated securities
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and a number of investment
banks, including some of the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.  

The suit asserts claims against the Company pursuant to Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.   

The suit alleges that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate
stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  

The suit alleges that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  

The suit is being coordinated with over three hundred other nearly
identical actions filed against other companies before one judge.  No
date has been set for any response to the complaints.

While the outcome of the claims against the Company cannot be predicted
with certainty, management does not believe that the outcome of these
legal matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
results of operations or financial condition.


NTL INC.: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired NTL, Inc. (NYSE:NLI)
securities between August 9, 2000 and November 29, 2001, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
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 details, 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


NTL INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired NTL, Inc. (NYSE:NLI)
securities between August 9, 2000 and November 29, 2001, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the 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 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 thereby artificially inflating
the price of Company securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-332-0030 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pivenlaw.com


QUANTA SERVICES: Denies Allegations in Securities Derivative Suit in DE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. faces a securities derivative complaint commenced
in Delaware Chancery Court relating to the proposed offer of Aquila to
acquire the Company.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Vincent D. Foster,

     (2) Jerry J. Langdon,

     (3) Louis C. Golm,

     (4) James R. Ball,

     (5) John R. Colson,

     (6) John R. Wilson and

     (7) Gary A. Tucci.

The suit alleges that the named directors breached their fiduciary
duties by taking certain actions, including the stockholder rights plan
amendment, in response to the announcement by Aquila that it intended
to acquire control of the Company through open market purchases of its
shares.  The suit seeks an order rescinding any actions taken by the
named directors in response to the announcement by Aquila and requiring
the directors to take steps necessary to maximize the value of the
Company.  The suit further seeks damages from the named directors on
behalf of a class of stockholders and purportedly on behalf of the
Company for the alleged harm inflicted by the actions of the named
directors.

On January 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
stockholder complaint.  It is anticipated that briefing on the motion
to dismiss will begin shortly. Although the ultimate outcome and
liability, if any, cannot be determined, management, after consultation
and review with counsel, believes that the facts do not support the
plaintiff's claims and that the Company and the named directors have
meritorious defenses.


SAF T LOK: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
Saf T Lok, Inc. (OTCBB:LOCK) for possible securities violations in the
period beginning April 14, 2000 and ending April 16, 2001

Much Shelist is investigating whether the Company and certain of 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 a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001.

Specifically, Much Shelist believes that the Company filed materially
false and misleading financial statements with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, which, among other things, did not comply with
generally accepted accounting principles.

In April 2000, the Company disclosed that it had terminated its
exclusive consumer market distribution agreement with United Safety
Action, Inc. (USA) and that it would now be permitted to market its
products to retail customers.  Much Shelist further believes that the
financial statements filed by the Company failed to disclose, among
other things, that:

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

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

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

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

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


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Hearing For Dismissal of Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California is set to hear the motion filed by Sagent Technology, Inc.
to dismiss the amended consolidated securities class action pending
against it on May 6,2002.

The suit, filed on behalf of the individual investors who purchased the
Company's common stock between October 21, 1999 and April 18, 2000,
alleges that the Company misrepresented its prospects for 1999 and the
first quarter of 2000.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the initial consolidated suit,
which the court granted but gave the plaintiffs leave to amend the
suit. On December 28, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a second amended suit.  
The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss that suit on February 15,
2002.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the securities suit.


SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA State Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara
dismissed without prejudice one of the two derivative lawsuits pending
against certain officers and directors of Sagent Technology, Inc,
alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duty to the Company.

The first suit, called the Fanucci complaint was commenced in November
2000 in Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, while
the second derivative suit, called the Hu complaint, was commenced in
February 2001 in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Santa Clara.


In July 2001, the two cases were coordinated for pretrial purposes in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Fanucci complaint, on the ground
that, among other things, the plaintiff had failed to make a pre-suit
demand on the board of directors as required by Delaware law.  The
officer and director defendants joined in that motion, and also moved
to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint fails to allege the
asserted causes of action against the individual defendants.  Similar
motions were filed concerning the Hu complaint.

The parties agreed to defer the Hu proceeding indefinitely, pending the
outcome of the Fanucci matter,  and the court entered an order
deferring the Hu complaint on January 11, 2002.  Thereafter, on January
16, 2002, the Fanucci plaintiff filed a motion to transfer and/or
remand that case back to the Superior Court for San Mateo County
where it was originally filed.

The Court heard oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the
Fanucci complaint, and the plaintiffs' transfer motion on January 28,
2002.  On March 1, 2002, the Court issued an order dismissing the
Fanucci suit, but granting the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.  
The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to transfer an/or remand
the Fanucci case to San Mateo County, and ordering the Company to
produce a limited quantity of documents to the plaintiff.


SOUNDVIEW TECHNOLOGY: Vows To Vigorously Oppose Securities Suits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Soundview Technology Group, Inc. faces several securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suits
name as defendants the Company and:

     (1) SoundView Technology Corporation,

     (2) Wit Capital Corporation and

     (3) E*OFFERING Corporation, (which has been merged into SoundView
         Technology Corporation

The suit involves at least thirty issuers of IPO shares in which one or
more of the Company's subsidiaries served as an underwriter in the
offering.  The suits generally allege, in relevant part, that the
underwriter defendants received excessive and undisclosed commissions
in exchange for directing IPO share allocations to brokerage customers
willing to pay such commissions.

In addition, the suits allege that underwriter defendants also
allocated shares to the same, or other, brokerage customers that agreed
to purchase shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  As a
result, the allegations continue, each issuer's offering prospectus
misstated underwriting compensation paid to the bankers in the form of
undisclosed commissions and the opportunity to profit from holding or
disposing of shares from underwriting allotment purchases in an
artificial aftermarket price environment.

The lawsuits typically allege violations by the underwriter defendants
of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Although the Company has been named in some instances in more than one
lawsuit relating to a single issuer, it is anticipated that the
lawsuits will be consolidated into a single matter for each issuer
after the courts have selected lead class counsel.  

The Company intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously and is confident
that the suits will not have a material adverse effect on its
operations.


STILLWATER MINING: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE: SWC)
common stock during the period between April 20, 2001 through April 1,
2002, 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.  Specifically, the suit alleges that these
statements were materially false and misleading because, among other
things:

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly
Nicholson by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone:
888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.classlawyer.com/pr/stillwater.pdf


STILLWATER MINING: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE:SWC) for possible securities act
violations during the period beginning April 20, 2001 and ending April
1, 2002.

Much Shelist is investigating whether the Company and certain of 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 a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between April 20, 2001 and April 1, 2002.

Much Shelist believes that the Company issued a series of materially
false and misleading statements regarding its financial performance and
filed reports confirming such performance with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Specifically, Much Shelist
believes that the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

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

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

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

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

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

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all investors
who bought Symbol Technologies, Inc. securities between October 19,2000
through February 13, 2002.

The suit alleges that the New York-based Company engaged in the
following conduct, which had the effect of increasing its reported
revenue and profits:

     (1) the Company booked as profit in the third quarter 2000 a one-
         time royalty payment in excess of $10 million, enabling the
         Company to make its third quarter projections;

     (2) the Company used expenses associated with its acquisition of
         Telxon to mask the fact that its sales were declining; and

     (3) the Company booked as having shipped in the first quarter of
         2001 more than $40 million in inventory that included side
         provisions allowing customers to delay payments or return
         merchandise, or included products that "never left the
         warehouse."

The Company subsequently had a second-quarter 2001 inventory write-down
of $67.1 million after tax.

On February 13, 2002, Newsday, Inc. reported that the Company had
engaged in the above-described accounting practices, received an
inquiry letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission, and had
hired accounting and consulting firm KPMG to review its sales process.
The next day, the Company announced it was lowering its outlook for
2002 earnings and that its Chief Executive Officer would retire in May
2002.

In response to the Newsday article and the Company's announcements, the
price of Company stock plunged more than 53% from an opening price of
$14.15 on February 14, 2002 to a low of $6.60 on February 15, 2002 on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact the Shareholder Relations Manager by
Phone: 888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-822-2221 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit Pending in CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has yet to decide on the motion filed by Terayon
Communication Systems, Inc. to dismiss the amended securities class
action pending against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit arose from several suits commenced in August 2000, on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2000 and
April 11, 2000.  The suits were later consolidated and amended to
include a class of purchasers of the Company's stock from November 15,
1999 and April 11,2000.  

The consolidated amended suit alleges that the defendants had violated
the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material information regarding the
Company's technology.

In October 2000, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint, which the court granted in March 2001.  The
plaintiffs then filed an amended suit, which the defendants again moved
to dismiss in June 2001.  Oral argument on the motion occurred in
December 2001, but as of March 28, 2002, the court has not yet ruled on
the suit.

The Company considers the suit to be without merit and intends to
defend vigorously against these allegations.  However, the litigation
could prove to be costly and time consuming to defend, and there can be
no assurances about the eventual outcome.


TICKETS.COM: Faces Suits For Securities Fraud Violations in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tickets.com faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
charging the Company and its current and former directors and officers
of federal securities violations.  

The suits allege that the Company's underwriters engaged in unlawful
stock allocation and commission practices concerning the Company's
initial public offering, including alleged tie-in arrangements with
their customers.

The suits also allege that the prospectus and registration statement in
the Company's initial public offering contained materially false and
misleading statements related to underwriting fees, commissions and
other economic benefits arising from the alleged underwriter
activities.

The suits allege causes of action under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suits are similar to hundreds of cases filed
against a number of other companies and their underwriters in the same
court. There has been limited activity in these cases to date.  The
Company, however, is confident that the suits will not have a material
adverse effect on its finances or business operations.


TRILOGY SOFTWARE: NY Court Allows Securities Fraud Suit To Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Trilogy Software Inc. has failed in its effort to have the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismiss a
shareholder class action over its pcOrder.com subsidiary, the Austin
American-Statesman reports.

Federal Court Judge Samuel Sparks recently denied the Company's motion
to dismiss the securities suit, which alleges the Company and pcOrder
violated securities disclosure laws.  The suit alleges the Company and
pcOrder executives misled investors about pcOrder's independence from
the Company as well as its lack of business plan when pcOrder went
public in 1999.

Although no rulings were made on the merits of the allegations, Judge
Sparks said the shareholders had proven they have a factual basis on
which to continue the lawsuit.  The ruling is significant because many
securities suits do not survive a Company's attempt to dismiss the
suit.  A 1995 federal law has made it more difficult to prove
securities violations to the extent that would enable lawsuits to go
forward.

Company officials could not be reached for comment on the ruling, the
Austin-American Stateman reports.


VIANT CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Viant Corporation denied the allegations in several securities class
actions pending against the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and its underwriters in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.

The suits similarly allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 involving undisclosed compensation
to the underwriters, and improper practices by the underwriters and
seek unspecified damages.

Similar suits were filed in the same court against numerous public
companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock
since the mid-1990s.  All of these lawsuits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the United Sates
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Judge Scheindlin
has ordered that the time for all defendants to respond to any
complaint be postponed until further order of the Court.  Thus, the
Company has not been required to answer the complaint, and no discovery
has been served.

The Company believes the suits are without merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously.


VIROPHARMA INC.: Much Shelist Probes For Possible Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC is investigating
ViroPharma (Nasdaq:VPHM) for possible securities violations during the
period starting July 13, 1999 and ending March 19, 2002.

Much Shelist is investigating whether the Company and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements.  Specifically, Much Shelist
believes that the Company made highly positive statements regarding its
drug Picovir.

The Company represented that its growth was contingent on U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Picovir (pleconaril) as a cure
for the common cold.  The Company informed the investing public of
every positive part of the Picovir studies and sent numerous press
releases praising the effectiveness of Picovir. The Company, however,
minimized or concealed potential obstacles to FDA approval.

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

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

The Company faced tremendous obstacles before it could receive
regulatory approval for Picovir.  However, the Company did not disclose
these obstacles even though they were well known to it by virtue of
their testing and trials of this drug on thousands of people for
several years.

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


WESTMINSTER CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Offer To Purchase Own Shares in DE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Westminster Capital, Inc. (AMEX:WI) faces a class action filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County, which also names each
member of its Board of Directors as defendants.  The lawsuit was filed
in response to the Company's tender offer to purchase any and all
outstanding shares of its common stock at a price of $2.80 per share.
The tender offer commenced on April 18, 2002, and will expire at 5:00
pm, New York City time, on May 17, 2002, unless extended.

The plaintiff brought this action individually and as a class action on
behalf of all stockholders of the Company. The suit alleges that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders.  The suit seeks, among other things, preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the Company from proceeding and
implementing the tender offer, and if the tender offer is completed, an
order rescinding the tender offer and awarding damages to the purported
class.

The Company and the other defendants believe that the allegations
raised in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against them.


                              *********


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  * * *