CAR_Public/020430.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Tuesday, April 30, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 84

                            Headlines

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Insurance Suit Parties Ordered to Enter Mediation
CABLEVISION: YES Network Dropped From Suit Over Yankee Games Broadcast
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Faces Suit Over Stanwich Settlement Payments in CA
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Talks With Plaintiffs To Settle Antitrust Suit in NY
GOODRICH PETROLEUM: Land Royalties Suit in Alabama in Discovery Phase

HMO LITIGATION: Tennessee Physicians Commence Suit Over Billing Abuses
METROLINK: Lawsuits Expected Over Burlington Northern Train Wreck
SECURITY INDUSTRIAL: Court Approves Race-Based Premiums Suit Settlement

*Employers Test Supreme Court Ruling On Undocumented Immigrant Labor

                         Securities Fraud

A.D.A.M. INC.: Motion to Dismiss Will be Discussed at May 15 Conference
AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Underwriters' Actions, Disclosure Suit's Focus
AMFM OPERATING: Labels Capstar Merger Suit in DE "Without Merit"
AQUILA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. MO
AT HOME CORPORATION: Lovell & Stewart Launches Securities Suit in NY

BROADVISION INC.: Will Request Dismissal of Securities Suit in CA Court
CINAR CORPORATION: US$25 Million Settlement Agreement Seems Likely
CONCORD CAMERA: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CONCORD CAMERA: Paskowitz & Associates Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CYBERCARE INC.: Resolves Securities Suit Through $3.1 Million MOU

DATAWORKS INC.: CA Court Dismisses Suit for Securities Act Violations
DOLLAR GENERAL: Fairness Hearing in Suit Settlement Set For May 2002
DYNEGY INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EPRESENCE INC.: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
FIRST NATIONAL: Former Keystone Bank Employees Sued Over Stock Dumping

FIRST VIRTUAL: Appeals Court Asked For Suit Dismissal Rehearing
FIRST VIRTUAL: Officers Face Shareholder Derivative Suit in CA Court
GLIATECH INC.: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Suit for Securities Violations
HEWLETT PACKARD: Shareholder Suit Filed As Compaq Merger Trial Ends
HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits in MD

JDS UNIPHASE: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
JENNY CRAIG: Reaches J. Holdings Merger Suit Settlement Agreement
KONOVER PROPERTY: Sued Over Relationship With Prometheus Retail Trust
MERRILL LYNCH: Chief Executive Apologizes For Fallen Research Standards
MERILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
METASOLV SOFTWARE: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
NEOPHARM INC.: Schoengold & Sporn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
P-COM INC.: California Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
PTEK HOLDINGS: Parties' Mediation of GA Securities Suit Ongoing

RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Motions Filed, Trial Pending
STILLWATER MINING: Lowey Dannenberg Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STILLWATER MINING: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TEXTRON INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in RI
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Iowa Court Rejects Suit Seeking Settlement Share
WORLDPORT COMMUNICATIONS: GA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement

                            *********

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Insurance Suit Parties Ordered to Enter Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action against American Medical Securities Group,
Inc. have agreed to enter mediation on the issue of damages in the suit
against the Company, whose practice of raising individuals' health-
insurance premiums when they become ill or file claims has come under
increased scrutiny, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The legal cases involved re-underwriting, a rating system for
individual health insurance pioneered by the Green Bay, Wisconsin-based
Company.  Its rating practices and the potential expansion of the
practice among other insurers was the subject of a page one article in
The Wall Street Journal this month.  The suit was brought on behalf of
11,000 American Medical customers.

Florida Circuit Court Judge Jorge Labarga, in West Palm Beach, ruled
that American Medical violated state law and thus breached customers'
contracts by taking their health into account when it canceled their
coverage and issued new policies and also when it raised their rates at
renewal.  Normally companies that sell individual policies evaluate a
person's medical history just once, at the outset, and not every year
at renewal.

Judge Labarga ordered the plaintiffs and American Medical to mediate on
the issue of damages within 15 days.  If the parties are unsuccessful,
a separate trial on damages is scheduled for July.  Jeffrey Liggio,
lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said they are seeking an undetermined
amount of damages to cover what customers were overcharged plus out-of-
pocket medical expenses incurred by customers who could not afford
significant rate increases and became uninsured.

A Florida administrative-law judge, however, recently recommended that
all counts be dismissed against the Company in a similar case brought
by the Florida Department of Insurance.  Florida's insurance
commissioner has sought to ban American Medical from issuing policies
in that state and can overrule the administrative law judge.

Meanwhile, proposed legislation to ban re-underwriting based on
individual health appears likely at both the state and federal levels.
Senator Robert Graham (D., Fla.), who has characterized individual
underwriting as an "outrage," said that he plans to introduce
legislation that could include a ban on the practice.  Nothing in
federal law currently prohibits the practice, and most state insurance
laws do not address it explicitly.

The National Conference of State Legislatures said that it is concerned
about the issue, and plans to explore legislation to limit re-
underwriting that could be passed at the state level.

A spokesman for American Medical said the Company was taking additional
time to review the two Florida rulings and declined to comment.
Previously, the Company said it violated no Florida laws and defended
re-underwriting as a way to limit overall rate increases among the sick
and healthy.


CABLEVISION: YES Network Dropped From Suit Over Yankee Games Broadcast
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Angry Yankee fans who filed a class action accusing Cablevision and the
Yankees Entertainment and Sports television network (YES) of conspiring
to prevent the broadcast of Bomber games recently, dropped YES from the
lawsuit, the New York Post reported.  However, the fans are continuing
to seek damages from Cablevision and are asking the Federal Court in
Central Islip to force the cable giant to start carrying the Yankee
games.

"YES has indicated that they are ready to negotiate immediately with
the best interests of our fans in mind, while Cablevision has stated
they will not permit the fans to be heard and will not utilize any
judicial assistance offered by the court," the plaintiffs' lawyer,
Leonard Leeds said.

However, the Company insisted, according to a report by the New York
Daily News, that it has made "fair and reasonable offers" to YES,
including one that would allow the network to set the price to
subscribers and keep the profits for a spot with the Company.  "We
continue to believe that this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit,
and we hope the Yankees will reconsider their position and allow fans
to see the games," the Company said in a statement.

The fans sued both billion-dollar corporations in an attempt to force
the games onto the air.  Except for a few games carried on Channel 2,
Bronx Bombers have been blacked out to more than three million
Cablevision subscribers in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Westchester, Long
Island and New Jersey.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Faces Suit Over Stanwich Settlement Payments in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. faces a class action pending in the
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, filed on behalf of
persons entitled to receive regular payments under out-of-court
settlements reached with third party defendants.

Stanwich Financial Services Corporation, an affiliate of the Company's
former Chairman of the Board of Directors is the entity that is
obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich has defaulted on its
payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed for
reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal Bankruptcy
Court of Connecticut.

The Company has entered into a "standstill agreement," pursuant to
which the plaintiffs have agreed that they will refrain from
prosecuting their case against the Company.  The standstill agreement
may be terminated at will on 60 days' notice.  No such notice has been
given.

In August 2001, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which narrow
the claims against the Company from eight to two, alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and intentional interference with contract.  The Company
is also a defendant in certain cross-claims brought by other defendants
in the case, which assert claims of equitable and/or contractual
indemnity against the Company.

The outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and there is the
possibility that damages could be awarded against the Company in
amounts that could be material.  It is management's opinion, based on
the advice of counsel, that all litigation of which it is aware,
including the matters discussed above, will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial position or operations.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Talks With Plaintiffs To Settle Antitrust Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement negotiations have commenced in a consolidated class action
pending against Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of the subscribers of TV Guide magazine.

The suit alleges that TV Guide, the Magazine Publishers Association
(MPA), and 12 other publishers of consumer magazines have violated
federal antitrust laws by conspiring to limit the discounting of
magazine subscription prices by means of rules adopted by the MPA and
the Audit Bureau of Circulation.


Plaintiffs have filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which is
pending before the Court.  After the Court heard oral argument on the
matter, the parties entered into settlement discussions.  Settlement
negotiations are continuing.


GOODRICH PETROLEUM: Land Royalties Suit in Alabama in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodrich Petroleum Corporation faces a class action pending in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Southern
Division, on behalf of the represent the heirs and assigns of the
lessors under a 1949 mineral lease to Humble Oil and Refining Company.
The suit names as defendants the Company and other petroleum producers.

The suit claims that the lease covers 46.5 acres of land, but that the
various defendants have paid royalties to the lessors as though the
lease covers only 15.5 acres.  The defendants are purportedly the
parties who operated various wells affecting the lease.

The Company says the plaintiffs' claims are quite old and it is
anticipated that the statute of limitations has expired. The case is
currently in the discovery stage, and management intends to defend this
action vigorously.


HMO LITIGATION: Tennessee Physicians Commence Suit Over Billing Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee physicians are taking their case against four major insurers
to the state courts, alleging a systematic bilking of doctors and
patients filing claims, The Commercial Appeal reported recently.

The Tennessee Medical Association (TMA), which represents 6,600
members, filed civil lawsuits in Chancery Court in Nashville against
the state's four largest health insurers, charging them with "unfair
and deceptive policies and business practices that harm physicians."
TMA filed the lawsuits against:

     (1) Cigna Corporation,

     (2) Aetna Corporation,

     (3) Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, and

     (4) United Healthcare

The TMA, meeting in Memphis, announced details of the actions during a
press conference at the Adam's Mark Hotel.  "We regret we must go to
court to improve the abusive managed care practices, but our action is
a result of having no other alternative," said Dr. David K. Garriott,
TMA president.

Dr. Garriott said unfair practices alleged against each of the insurers
include:

     (i) denying claims for "medically necessary" care without adequate
         justification;

    (ii) automatically down-coding (that is, changing the codes to
         reflect lower costing procedures) with the use of software
         that is geared to reduce costs to the insurance companies;

   (iii) bundling coded claims automatically with software, which means
         not paying for some procedures;

    (iv) engaging in improper claims review by using software programs
         to automatically reduce or deny claims without a review by a
         person.

The TMA is following the lead of several other state medical
associations, including Connecticut, New York and South Carolina, that
have filed similar lawsuits in state courts.  Medical associations in
California, Florida, Georgia and Texas have filed similar suits in
federal courts.

Dr. Michael A. McAdoo, president-elect of TMA, and a family physician
in Milan, in West Tennessee, said the insurance companies have created
"a shell game to avoid contract obligations.  Our members fight daily
on the behalf of patients, and rarely with success," he said.

The doctor said that one of the largest problems is called "bundling,"
where insurance companies routinely and unjustifiably refuse to pay for
more than one type of service per visit.  Doctors are sometimes forced
to schedule multiple visits to treat a person with various illnesses to
assure insurance coverage, Dr. McAdoo said.

The lawsuits filed by the TMA do not seek monetary damages, but ask the
court to halt the billing practices alleged against the insurers.

Wendell Potter, a spokesman for Cigna in Philadelphia, when asked about
the bundling or down coding software allegations, said "It is software
to make sure they are reimbursed appropriately. We take our claims
processing and payment responsibilities very seriously."

Wendy Morphew, a spokesperson for Aetna said that the Company is
disappointed with TMA's actions and strongly disagrees with the
allegations.  "We have made significant changes in our business
practices, including changes that address many of the charges voiced
today," Ms. Morphew said.


METROLINK: Lawsuits Expected Over Burlington Northern Train Wreck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
One thing seems clear in the wake of the recent deadly train wreck in
Placentia, CA. involving Metrolink and Burlington Northern Santa Fe
trains. Both companies will face a wave of litigation, The Press
Enterprise of Riverside, CA. reported recently.

Although authorities have said the Burlington Northern freight train
involved in last Tuesday's crash failed to stop at a red signal, it is
too early to assess fault, because the National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) is still investigating the wreck, insurance and legal
experts said.

Burlington Northern officials said the NTSB ordered that they could not
comment on the wreck. Officials at mass-transit provider, Metrolink,
did not return repeated calls on this matter.  NTSB officials did not
return calls seeking comment, either, according to the Press
Enterprise.

Gordon Klein, law faculty member at the University of California in Los
Angeles' (UCLA) Anderson School of Business, said that when liability
is being determined, the court battle will likely be not just between
plaintiffs and defendants.  It also will be among those named as
defendants.

Plaintiffs will have to show how much damage and injury the rail
operators caused, but as long as those suing, mostly passengers and
their families, can prove they did not contribute to the accident,
they are essentially guaranteed a win if they can demonstrate that
someone, at some time was careless, Mr. Klein said.

The burden then shifts to the defendants to see how much each
contributed to the accident, he added.  For example, Burlington
Northern may argue that the Company shares some blame because the
commuter railroad did not have any seat belts.

William C. Vantuono, editor of Railway Age, said that another element
complicates the matter.  Transit agencies such as Metrolink typically
have liability agreements in their contracts with companies that own
the rails they use, he said.  Burlington Northern owns the track on
which the crash occurred.

Lawsuits do have their limits.  While the wreck may generate millions
of dollars in legal fees, federal law limits overall liability in rail
accidents to $200 million.  That means that Metrolink, Burlington
Northern and their insurers combined would not have to pay out more
than that amount.

Tony Hatch, an independent New York-based financial consultant, who
follows the railroad industry, said that since Burlington Northern is
self-insured, meaning it sets aside money to cover problems such as the
recent crash, it is unlikely that this wreck will have a major effect
on the Company's financial situation or on investor confidence.

The only way the accident would shake investor confidence is if
Burlington Northern was found to have a system-wide problem or if it
led to a management change. These scenarios are unlikely, said Mr.
Hatch.


SECURITY INDUSTRIAL: Court Approves Race-Based Premiums Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted final approval to a settlement
proposed by Security Industrial Insurance Company, subsequently renamed
Security Plan Life Insurance Company to settle a consolidated class
action against the Company and other unrelated life insurance
Companies.

The consolidated suits arose from ten suits commenced in July 2000:

     (1) ALEXANDER, ET AL. V. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL, filed in the United
         States District Court, Western District of Louisiana,
         Lafayette-Opelousas Division,

     (2) BEVERLY, ET AL. V. UNION NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO., ET AL.,
         filed in the United States District Court, Western District of
         Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division,

     (3) COTHRAN, ET AL. V. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL, ET AL., filed in the
         United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana,
         Shreveport Division,

     (4) FLETCHER, ET AL. V. UNITED INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
         filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
         Louisiana,

     (5) FRANK ET AL. V. UNION NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. AND SECURITY
         INDUSTRIAL, originally filed in the 13th Judicial District
         Court for the Parish of Evangeline, State of Louisiana,

     (6) HALL, ET AL. V. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL, filed in the 23rd
         Judicial Court for the Parish of Baton Rouge, State of
         Louisiana,

     (7) JACKSON, ET AL. V. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL AND SECURITY INDUSTRIAL
         LIFE INSURANCE CO., filed in the United States District Court,
         Northern District of Georgia,

     (8) PRINCE V. UNITED INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, UNION NATIONAL LIFE
         INSURANCE COMPANY AND SECURITY INDUSTRIAL, filed in the United
         States District Court, Western District of Louisiana,
         Lafayette-Opelousas Division,

     (9) SMITH V. SECURITY INDUSTRIAL, filed in the United States
         District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana,

    (10) SUTHERLAND, ET AL. V. UNITED INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, ET AL.,
         filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
         Louisiana

The suits similarly allege that the defendants sold life insurance
products to plaintiffs and other African Americans without disclosing
that premiums paid would likely exceed the face value of the policies,
and that plaintiffs paid higher premiums than Caucasian policyholders
and received proportionately lower death benefits.

In several of the cases, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims for failure to state a cause of action and/or for summary
judgment.  In December 2000, nine of the cases were transferred to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for consolidation for
administrative purposes, where they were assigned to Judge Martin L.C.
Feldman.

On January 9, 2002, the Louisiana State Court gave final approval to a
class action with respect to the claims in the ten lawsuits.  The
High Court's final approval determined such settlement to be fair,
reasonable and adequate for the class, which was certified by such
court for settlement purposes only.  The settlement provides agreed-
upon amounts of compensation to class members in exchange for a release
of all pending and future claims they may have against the Company and
certain of its affiliates.


*Employers Test Supreme Court Ruling On Undocumented Immigrant Labor
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Employers across the nation are testing the limits of a recent Supreme
Court decision to deny back pay to an undocumented worker, seeking to
use the ruling to avoid minimum wage and workers' compensation awards,
the Los Angeles Times reports.  The employers are even asking for the
documents of a worker who complained of sexual harassment, according to
advocates for low-wage workers.

The swift employer response, along with widespread misunderstanding of
the Court's intent, has heightened a sense of distress building in
immigrant communities through months of recession and the war on
terrorism, the advocates have said.

Della Bahan, a Pasadena attorney representing immigrant janitors in a
class action alleging wage and hour violations, says that the
employers' response to the Supreme Court's decision has created a lot
of confusion and fear, fear that "you (the worker) complain at your
peril."

On March 27, 2002, the high Court ruled 5 to 4 that because he was
undocumented, a worker at a chemical plant in Paramount could not
collect thousands of dollars in back pay after he was illegally fired
for union-organizing activities.  The Court determined that the
worker's violation of immigration law overrode the employer's violation
of labor laws.

In the written decision and during oral arguments, the majority made it
clear that they did not intend to abolish all workplace rights for
illegal immigrants.  However, dissenters on the Court, along with labor
unions, immigrant-rights groups and a coalition of business groups who
filed briefs on behalf of the worker, argued that such a ruling would
increase exploitation by unscrupulous employers.

Some say that already has happened.  "It is amazing, the quickness of
the employer response to this," said Ana Avendano Denier, an attorney
with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which represents
thousands of immigrant workers in meat and poultry plants.  "Some are
intentionally reading it (the decision) too broadly, but there also is
a lot of misunderstanding about what the court said."

In recent weeks, for example, she said, a worker filing a sexual
harassment complaint at a Kentucky poultry plant, was allegedly asked
for her immigration documents, as was a meatpacking worker in Nebraska
who filed a workers' compensation claim after a 30-foot fall.

Additionally, in New York, the owner of a Manhattan meat market who is
accused of paying his immigrant work force less than the minimum wage,
warned an advocacy group not to demonstrate in front of his store.  "I
am sure you are aware of the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United
States that illegal immigrants do not have the same rights as US
citizens," the owner's attorney Frederick Margolin, told the group in a
letter.

It will probably be years before the ruling is fully interpreted by
lower courts, attorneys said, although judges in California State and
Federal Courts, have taken a narrow view of the decision.

In Los Angeles, a US District Court judge decided the immigrant status
of supermarket janitors was not relevant in a class action that seeks
to collect minimum wages for years of work.  A San Diego Superior Court
judge decided a taco stand worker who was paid $2 an hour for seven
years was entitled to $32,000 for the missing minimum wage.  In both
cases, employers unsuccessfully cited the Supreme Court decision.

In the meantime, however, federal and state agencies are struggling to
understand how the decision affects their ability to protect
undocumented workers, if at all.  For years, state and federal agencies
have wrestled with the sometimes conflicting goals of protecting
workers while ensuring a legal work force.

This is particularly tricky when an undocumented worker is fired
illegally in retaliation for asserting rights on a job.  Typically,
employers in such cases are ordered to reinstate the worker and provide
back pay for the time not worked.  However, if the employee is
undocumented, an order of reinstatement essentially forces the employer
to break the law.

In the late 1990s as more such cases surfaced, federal agencies
including the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission adopted a policy that seemed to resolve the
Dilemma.  Illegal immigrant workers would not be reinstated, but would
receive back pay from the time they were fired to the point at which
employers learned of the employees' illegal status.

The case that reached the Supreme Court was unusual because the
employer did not learn of the worker's illegal status until years into
the litigation.  It was 1989 when the worker, known as Jose Castro, was
fired from his job at Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc.  After years of
hearings and appeals, Mr. Castro admitted he used false documents to
obtain his job.  By then, the wages and penalties amounted to $67,000.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote, "Allowing the Board to award
back pay to illegal aliens would unduly tread upon explicit statutory
prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy.  It would
encourage the successful evasion of apprehension by immigration
authorities, condone prior violations of the immigration laws, and
encourage future violations."

The Labor Department recently announced that wage, hour and safety
regulations would be enforced "vigorously" for all workers, regardless
of immigration status.  Yet the statement, issued in Washington and
Mexico City, failed to address the question of what remedies
undocumented workers have if they are fired for asserting those
protections.

A spokeswoman said Labor Department attorney could only say they
"intend to protect employees from retaliatory discharge to the extent
possible."  A similar guarded statement was issued by the NLRB, which
said it will soon "be issuing guidance to the Agency's field offices
regarding how to handle legal and investigative issues arising from the
Hoffman decision."

In California, the Labor Commissioner's office said it would continue
to investigate claims without regard to immigration status.  However,
Commission attorney Miles Locker noted if employers raise the question
of an employee's legal standing, it could affect the state's ability to
collect back pay in certain cases.

More troubling, say worker advocates, is the widespread belief among
illegal immigrants that they no longer are protected under state and
federal labor laws, which has discouraged them from filing complaints.
"They are afraid if they step forward now, they will be fired," said
Liz Sunwoo, an outreach worker with the Korean Immigrant Workers
Association.

That misunderstanding has also affected the unions.  It has led many
union workers to drop contract grievances and walk away from union-
organizing campaigns, which increasingly are targeting immigrant
workers, say several union activists.  Yet several organizers in
industries that employ large numbers of immigrants say the undocumented
have long understood they take greater risks when asserting their
rights.

"We don't see it (the Hoffman decision) affecting our organizing
efforts," said Mike Garcia, president of Service Employees
International Union Local 1877, a statewide janitors' organization
based in Los Angeles.  "There are very few instances where we have won
back pay awards anyway . What is more concerning to us is the overall
increase of immigrant hysteria that seems to be developing in this
country."

Dionisio Gonzalez, an organizer with the United Steelworkers Union, who
filed the original case against Hoffman in 1989, said the ruling
undoubtedly will make it harder to persuade workers to join a union,
which he said could affect all workers regardless of status.  "It makes
it real difficult to convince someone to sign a union card," he said.
"At Hoffman, I told them they were protected under the law.  I guess I
was wrong."

                           Securities Fraud

A.D.A.M. INC.: Motion to Dismiss Will be Discussed at May 15 Conference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A.D.A.M., Inc. (formerly A.D.A.M. Software, Inc.) has asked the Fulton
County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia to dismiss the securities
class action pending against the Company and certain of its prior
officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, violations of the Georgia Securities Act and
negligent misrepresentation arising out of alleged disclosure
deficiencies in connection with the Company's initial public offering
of common stock, which was completed on November 10, 1995.

The Company and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the claim, which is pending.  A notice of status conference has been
scheduled for May 15, 2002 where the Company intends to ask the Court
to take up its motion to dismiss.


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Underwriters' Actions, Disclosure Suit's Focus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Airnet Communications Corporation faces a securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York against the Company, two of its former officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws
and seeks unspecified monetary damages and certification of a plaintiff
class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired shares of our common stock between
December 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with violations of
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In substance, the allegations
are that the Company's initial public offering underwriters charged
commissions in excess of those disclosed in the initial public offering
materials.

The Company does not know whether the claims of misconduct by the
underwriters have merit, but at this time the Company believes the
claims against it are without merit and intends to defend itself when
appropriate.


AMFM OPERATING: Labels Capstar Merger Suit in DE "Without Merit"
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMFM Operating, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of all persons, other than
defendants, who own Company securities.  The suit names as defendants
the Company and:

     (1) Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Incorporated,

     (2) Thomas O. Hicks,

     (3) Jeffrey A. Marcus,

     (4) James E. de Castro,

     (5) Eric C. Neuman,

     (6) Lawrence D. Stuart, Jr.,

     (7) Steven Dinetz,

     (8) Thomas J. Hodson,

     (9) Perry Lewis,

    (10) John H. Massey and

    (11) Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, gross
negligence or recklessness, and other matters relating to the
defendants' actions in connection with the Capstar Broadcasting
Corporation merger.  The suit is aimed at enjoining consummation of the
Capstar Broadcasting Corporation merger, ordering defendants to account
to plaintiff and other alleged class members for damages, and awarding
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the action.


AQUILA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Securities Suit in W.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
behalf of all purchasers of the Class A common stock of Aquila, Inc.
from April 25, 2001 through December 3, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and UtiliCorp United Inc. (UtiliCorp), its controlling shareholder,
with making material misstatements and omissions concerning the
Company's planned formation of an Audit Committee consisting of
independent directors to, among other things, monitor transactions
between UtiliCorp and the Company.

The defendants' failure to timely appoint an independent Audit
Committee ultimately permitted UtiliCorp to commence a tender offer
pursuant to which it bought back all of the outstanding Company Class A
common stock at an non-negotiated and less than optimum price per
share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


AT HOME CORPORATION: Lovell & Stewart Launches Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP filed an amended securities class action alleging
misstatements and omissions of material fact that artificially inflated
the market price of the common stock of At Home Corp., d/b/a
Excite@Home (OTCBB:ATHMQ.OB).  The new complaint includes as class
members all persons that held the company's common stock as of March
28, 2000 and/or purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired
At Home stock between March 28, 2000 and August 28, 2001, inclusive.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder and is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of Excite@Home violated the federal securities
laws by making misstatements regarding, and by failing to disclose
adverse material facts regarding, Excite@Home's business and financial
condition and AT&T's true intentions with respect to the Company and
the Excite@Home broadband network during the class period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
that Excite@Home was burning through its cash at a substantially higher
rate than indicated in its filings with the SEC and in other public
statements.  The suit further alleges that defendants affirmatively
misrepresented the amount of cash that At Home would need to finance
its ongoing operations for the calendar year 2001 by falsely stating in
April 2001 that an additional $85 million in financing would be
sufficient to meet Excite@Home's needs for cash during 2001.

Despite obtaining a total of $185 million in new financing, the
complaint alleges, on September 29, 2001, the Company announced that it
would seek bankruptcy protection, and on October 23, 2001, its share
price hit a 52-week low of four cents per share.

The complaint further alleges that defendants AT&T Corp., Cox
Communications, Inc. and Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. are liable
for the foregoing under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on their status as a control persons of Excite@Home.

For more information, contact Christopher Lovell or Christopher J. Gray
by Phone: 212-608-1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.lovellstewart.com


BROADVISION INC.: Will Request Dismissal of Securities Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadvision, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court in
California to dismiss the second amended securities class action
pending against the Company and certain of our officers and directors,
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between
January 26, 2001 and April 2, 2001.

The suit arose from several class actions alleging that the Company and
the individual defendants violated federal securities laws in
connection with its reporting of financial results during such period.
The suits were later consolidated into a single action, as is customary
in such cases.

In November 2001, the Company and the individual defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court granted
in February 2002.  The court dismissed the consolidated complaint
without prejudice and ordered the lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint within 30 days.

On March 25, 2002, the plaintiff filed its second amended consolidated
complaint, which added claims for breach of fiduciary duty and named
members of our board of directors as additional defendants.  The
Company plans to file a motion to dismiss the second amended suit in
May 2002.  A hearing on this motion to dismiss has yet to be scheduled.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and continue
to defend itself vigorously.


CINAR CORPORATION: US$25 Million Settlement Agreement Seems Likely
------------------------------------------------------------------
Children's TV-show producer, Cinar Corporation has reached a tentative
deal to settle the class actions it faces for payments totaling US$25
million, according to a recent report by The Globe and Mail.

The Montreal-based Company, once a stock market star, issued a brief
statement recently, saying that other defendants in the suit would
provide part of the money.  The Company did not name these defendants
and gave no breakdown of the amounts.

The Company's troubles began in 1999 with allegations that it
fraudulently qualified for Canadian-content tax credits by putting the
names of Canadians on scripts actually written by Americans.  Then came
news of unauthorized offshore investments of Company cash. Chief
Financial Officer, Hasanain Panju, was then fired, followed by the
ouster of co-founders, Micheline Charest and Ronald Weinberg.

Shareholder lawsuits resulted from these troubling scenarios, and the
plaintiffs charged that they were misled about the state of the
Company's financial affairs.  The plaintiffs have agreed in principle
to accept the settlement, which requires American and Quebec courts'
approval.

The current Company President, Barrie Usher, was quoted as calling the
deal "a major achievement in our efforts to put the affairs of Cinar in
order and put past problems behind the company."

At its peak, before the scandals hit, Cinar had stock market
capitalization of CAD$1.5 billion.


CONCORD CAMERA: Charles Piven Commences 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 Concord Camera Corp.
(Nasdaq:LENS) securities between January 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Harlan Press and Ira B.
Lampert.

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 Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CONCORD CAMERA: Paskowitz & Associates Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Concord Camera, Corp. (Nasdaq: LENS)
between January 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001, inclusive, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida against the
Company, Harlan Press and Ira B. Lampert.

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 the Company, thereby artificially inflating the price of Concord
securities.

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

     (1) no less than $15,777,000, more than 45% of the Company's
         receivables, represented an unsecured and delinquent balance
         due from a single customer, KB Gear;

     (2) this delinquent $15,777,000 receivable balance was
          not collectible; and

     (3) due to KB Gear's inability to pay for merchandise, the Company
         was stuck with a large quantity of customized higher-cost
         specialty components which had no alternative use and were
         not marketable.

On June 22, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company issued
a press release revising its fourth quarter guidance and disclosing for
the first time that:

     (i) excess inventory positions at many of the Company's customers
         and the resulting changes in their purchasing patterns
         adversely affected inventory sales;

    (ii) the Company would record the following one-time charges
         against income in the quarter: $15.8 million accounts
         receivable provision, $4.3 million inventory provision, $1.4
         million restructuring charge; and

   (iii) the accounts receivable provision and $2.0 million of the
         inventory provision relate to a financially troubled former
         customer of the Company with respect to which management
         concluded that workout efforts are not likely to be
         successful.

In response to these disclosures, the price of Concord stock plummeted
over 20% to close at $6.02.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz by Phone: 800-705-9529 or
by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com


CYBERCARE INC.: Resolves Securities Suit Through $3.1 Million MOU
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberCare, Inc. (Nasdaq:CYBR) has resolved at mediation the
consolidated securities class action litigation pending in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of Florida, with a
memorandum of understanding being executed by the parties' counsel.

The memorandum of understanding provides for a settlement amount of
$3.1 million in cash, payable under an insurance policy, and issuance
of 5 million shares of Company common stock.  The resolution is subject
to definitive settlement documents to be prepared and executed in the
near future, and court approval.

The Company has been vigorously defending the consolidated action, and
has admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The settlement
also applies to the management personnel named as defendants in the
litigation.

"We are pleased that the mediation was successful and to put this
action behind us," said Joseph Forte, President and CEO.  "This
litigation unfortunately has required us to divert certain of our
attention and resources to defend ourselves; now we can return to our
primary focus of strengthening the Company's business operations and
financial resources. Resolving this litigation will allow us greater
opportunity to pursue funding opportunities while minimally impacting
the Company's existing financial resources and dilution to
shareholders. We view this as a major step in our planned path forward,
resolving the legacy issues facing the Company."

For more details, contact Arthur Kobrin by Phone: 561-742-5000 or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.cybercare.net


DATAWORKS INC.: CA Court Dismisses Suit for Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California dismissed a securities class action pending against
Dataworks, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between
October 30,1997 and July 16, 1998.

The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its current and
former officers and directors and its predecessor, Epicor Software,
Inc.  The suit alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's acquisition
of Interactive Group, Inc. and demand for Company products.

In January 2002, the Court issued an order granting the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to all claims and
defendants.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.

The Company believes there is no merit to this lawsuit or to the appeal
and intends to continue to defend against it vigorously. The ultimate
outcome of this suit or any potential loss is not presently
determinable.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Fairness Hearing in Suit Settlement Set For May 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
will hold a fairness hearing on May 24,2002, to determine whether to
give approval to a settlement proposed by Dollar General Corporation to
settle a securities class action pending against it.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
acquired Company securities or sold put options on Company securities
during the period starting March 5,1997 through January 14,2002,
alleges violations of federal securities laws.

The hearing will determine:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the above-captioned
         litigation should be approved by the court as fair, just,
         reasonable and adequate;

     (2) whether the plaintiff class should be certified;

     (3) whether the proposed plan of allocation of settlement proceeds
         is fair, just, and adequate;

     (4) whether the application of lead counsel for an award of
         attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in
         connection with this litigation, together with interest
         thereon, should be approved; and

     (5) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.


DYNEGY INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN) securities
between August 14, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive, against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements concerning the Company's publicly reported
revenues, earnings and cash flow.  Moreover, the Company omitted to
state material information necessary to be issued in order to make
prior statements not misleading.

On April 25, 2002, before the market opened, the Company shocked the
investing community by announcing that it would revise 2001 financial
statements as the Securities and Exchange Commission probes its
accounting of certain natural gas contracts.  These disclosures
concerning the true nature of the transactions referred to by Company
executives as "Project Alpha," contradicted much of the information
provided by defendants to the market during the class period concerning
its reported revenues and caused the Company's common stock to plummet
nearly 30% by the end of trading on April 25, 2002, on inordinately
heavy volume.

Also on April 25, 2002, the Company reported a net loss of $140 million
dollars for the first quarter of 2002, which it attributed largely to a
$300 million write-down of its telecommunications ventures.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Katherine B. Dubose,
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 Dynegy.


EPRESENCE INC.: Faces Suit For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EPresence, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The suit names as defendants
the Company, the managing underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering, and officers:

     (1) Douglas J. Greenlaw,

     (2) Dean Polnerow, and

     (3) John P. Jewett

The suit alleges that the registration statement and final prospectus
relating to the Company's initial public offering contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions related, in part, to excessive and
undisclosed commissions allegedly received by the underwriters from
investors to whom the underwriters allegedly allocated shares of the
initial public offering.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suit is similar to over 300 others filed recently
against companies that went public between 1998 and 2000.  The Company
believes the claims against it and its officers, former officers and
directors are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


FIRST NATIONAL: Former Keystone Bank Employees Sued Over Stock Dumping
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen plaintiffs recently filed a class action, seeking jury trial,
in Colorado Federal Court, against several former bank employees or
family members of the failed First National Bank of Keystone over the
alleged dumping of $9.6 million in worthless bank stock, The Associated
Press reported recently.

The plaintiffs, in short, are seeking to recover losses from buying
"worthless securities," according to the suit filed by lawyers
DiTrapano, Barrett & DiPero PLLC, and Heller, Horowitz & Feit, P.C.,
and the defendants are accused of selling $9.6 million of worthless
stock to the plaintiffs from about September 28, 1998, to September 1,
1999, the complaint says.

Each defendant listed in the lawsuit "either was actively participating
in the fraud at Keystone, knew of the massive fraud occurring at
Keystone, or, at a minimum, was aware of material adverse inside
information regarding Keystone's condition and/or the investigation of
Keystone by federal banking regulators and/or the scheme to dump
worthless Keystone stock," when the bank stock was sold, the complaint
alleges.

The defendants are several former bank employees or family members,
some holding officer positions, others holding positions such
as loan officer, bank manager, compliance officer, vice president of
bookkeeping and electronic data, down to teller.  Several other
defendants are listed as John Doe 1 through 100.

City National Bank and United National Bank also are named as
defendants because proceeds of the stock sales may be held in accounts
at the banks, the complaint says.

The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency closed the McDowell
County Bank on September 1, 1999.  Bank regulators took the action
after being unable to account for $515 million of the Bank's reported
$1.1 billion in assets.

Two of the defendants named in the lawsuit were sentenced last month on
criminal charges stemming from the Keystone's failure.  Chairwoman
Billie Jean Cherry, 77, was sentenced to more than 16 years in prison,
while Senior Executive Vice President Terry Lee Church, 48, received a
22.5-year sentence, to be served consecutively with a previous federal
sentence, also arising out of the bank's failure, of four years, nine
months.

Both Ms. Cherry and Ms. Church were convicted in October of last year
of four counts of mail fraud and one count of conspiracy.  Ms. Cherry
alone was convicted of an additional 16 counts of money laundering.


FIRST VIRTUAL: Appeals Court Asked For Suit Dismissal Rehearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in several class actions against First Virtual
Communications, Inc. asked the United States Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals for a rehearing of its decision upholding the dismissal of the
suits.

The suits were commenced in April 1999 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of
the federal securities laws against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in connection with the Company's reporting of
its financial results for the period ended December 31, 1998.

The Court dismissed these actions without leave to amend on February
14, 2000 and the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal was taken under submission
by the Appeals Court following the filing of briefs by the parties and
the presentation of oral argument in July 2001.  In March 2002, the
Appellate Court affirmed the District Court's judgment, dismissing the
complaint without leave to amend.

The Company intends to mount a vigorous defense against the suits.


FIRST VIRTUAL: Officers Face Shareholder Derivative Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------------
First Virtual Communications, Inc. faces a shareholder derivative
action pending in the California Superior Court in the County of Santa
Clara, alleging that certain of the Company's directors and officers
sold shares of the Company's common stock between January 21, 1999 and
April 6, 1999, while in possession of material non-public information
pertaining to the Company.

The Company and the individual defendants demurred to the complaint,
and moved to dismiss the action, or in the alternative to stay the
action pending the outcome of the appeal in the related federal court
class action or, if necessary, the investigation of the claims by the
Company.

The Court granted the demurrer in part and denied it in part, granting
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, and stayed the action
pending the outcome of the appeal in the Federal Court class action.
The Court also ordered that certain limited discovery of documents
could take place with respect to the filing of the amended complaint.

In December 2001, the plaintiff moved for leave to take certain third-
party discovery, but the Court denied the motion. The plaintiffs then
filed an amended complaint on February 22, 2002.  A hearing on the
defendants' demurrer to the amended complaint is scheduled to take
place on April 23, 2002.


GLIATECH INC.: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Suit for Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gliatech, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio to dismiss a consolidated class action pending against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

The suit, the goal of which is to represent a class of all purchasers
of Company stock during the period between April 9, 1998 and August 29,
2000, sets forth claims against the Company and certain of its officers
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section
20(a) as to the individuals under Section 20(a).

The suit alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements during the class period and failed to disclose material
facts in connection with, among other things, the termination of the
merger agreement that had been entered into with Guilford
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain inspectional observations by the FDA
contained in its Form 483 relating to matters during the class period.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Shareholder Suit Filed As Compaq Merger Trial Ends
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Hewlett Packard (HP) shareholder recently sued the Company, its two
top officials, an investment bank and its affiliate, over the proposed
merger with Compaq Computer Corporation, alleging a breach of duties
owed to shareholders, Agence France-Presse reported.  Shareholder Donna
Schneider requests class-action status for the lawsuit.

The shareholder lawsuit comes a day after conclusion of a trial
prompted by a private lawsuit filed by Hewlett Packard family heir,
Walter Hewlett, in which he contested the HP-Compaq merger. The Court
papers say the shareholder action was brought "for the improper and
undisclosed actions" of the defendants.  "These undisclosed acts
tainted the March 19, 2002 shareholders' meeting," alleges the lawsuit.
The complete details of the complaint have yet to be made public.

The defendants in the shareholder lawsuit are:

     (1) Carly Fiorina, chief executive officer,

     (2) Robert Wayman, chief financial officer,

     (3) Deutsche Bank, an institutional shareholder, and

     (4) Deutsche Asset Management, an affiliate of Deutsche Bank

During the preceding week's trial, plaintiff Walter Hewlett alleged
that Company officials improperly influenced Deutsche Bank to vote a
large block of its Company shares for the Compaq merger.  The judge
hearing the Hewlett case was expected to render a decision anytime
after midnight of Friday last week.

The Company could not be reached for immediate comment, Agence France-
Presse reports.


HUMPHREY HOSPITALITY: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits in MD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Humphrey Hospitality Trust, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland to dismiss the consolidated securities
suit pending against the Company and certain of its executive officers
and directors on behalf of purchases of the Company's common stock from
November 14,2000 through March 29,2001.

The suit arose from five lawsuits originally initiated from April
through June 2001 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  The suits alleged violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
The suits were later transferred and consolidated in Maryland federal
court.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's financial condition and
operations and artificially inflated the market price of the Company's
securities during the class period.  In November 2001, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The
plaintiffs have responded to such motion and the Company has since
filed a reply memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint.

The Company denies the allegations in the suit and will vigorously
defend this and any related actions.


JDS UNIPHASE: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action against JDS
Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq: JDSU) and certain officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Company
securities during the period between July 27, 1999 and July 26, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N. Robinson,
Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: 405-235-1560 or by Fax:
405-239-2112.


JENNY CRAIG: Reaches J. Holdings Merger Suit Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weight control firm Jenny Craig, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
shareholder class action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery for
New Castle County, challenging the Company's merger with J. Holdings
Corporation, a company formed precisely for the merger under the
direction of ACI Capital Company, Inc. The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Sidney Craig,

     (2) Jenny Craig,

     (3) Scott Bice,

     (4) Marvin Sears,

     (5) Andrea van de Kamp,

     (6) Robert Wolf,

     (7) Patricia Larchet,

     (8) Duayne Weinger,

     (9) SJF Enterprises, Inc.,

    (10) Craig Enterprises, Inc., and

    (11) DB Capital, Inc.

The suit alleges that:

     (i) the $5.30 price per share of the Company's common stock is
         inadequate;

    (ii) the members of the Company's board of directors breached their
         fiduciary duties to its stockholders in connection with the
         merger; and

   (iii) the Craigs, together with ACI and DB Capital, are engaging in
         the merger transaction to capture the future market potential
         of the Company for themselves without regard for the Company's
         public stockholders.


In March 2002, all parties reached an agreement in principle, subject
to adequate confirmatory discovery, for the proposed settlement of all
the actions pursuant to which the Company has included certain
information in its proxy statement.  If the Court approves the proposed
settlement, plaintiffs' counsel intends to apply to the Court for an
award of fees and expenses to be paid by the Company in the amount
awarded by the court.  If the Court does not approve the settlement,
the Company will mount a vigorous defense to the actions.

It is anticipated that the merger will close prior to the settlement
hearing, and so it is not expected that the hearing's outcome will
affect the consummation of the merger.


KONOVER PROPERTY: Sued Over Relationship With Prometheus Retail Trust
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Konover Property Trust, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, and Prometheus Southeast Retail Trust.  The
suit was filed on behalf of all shareholders of the Company not
affiliated with any of the defendants.

The suit alleges, among other things, that in connection with a non-
binding offer by Prometheus to acquire all of the remaining shares of
the Company that it does not already own:

     (1) Prometheus, as majority shareholder of the Company, is
         engaging in self-dealing, acting in bad faith, and breaching
         its fiduciary duties toward the Company's other public
         shareholders; and

     (2) the named officers and directors of the Company, who
         Prometheus controls, are breaching their fiduciary duties to
         the Company's other public shareholders.

The Company believes that the defendants have meritorious defenses to
the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to vigorously defend this
litigation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Chief Executive Apologizes For Fallen Research Standards
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Chief Executive, David Komansky, publicly
apologized recently for the Company falling short of its professional
standards in research, according to an Associated Press report.  Mr.
Komansky made his remarks at the annual shareholder meeting in
Plainsboro, New Jersey, as he referred to the e-mails that had come to
light as "very distressing and disappointing to us." The messages
relate researchers' doubts about stocks that subsequently received
bullish investment ratings from the firm.

Mr. Komansky's apology and accompanying remarks come as the firm
continues to negotiate with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,
who investigated its research practices and discovered that the Company
hyped stocks about which its own research analysts harbored doubts, in
an effort to win lucrative investment banking business.

These findings spilled over into the civil arena, with investors'
lawyers in a number of cases requesting Mr. Spitzer's findings to
bolster their contentions in ongoing class actions that the firm misled
the investors.  One example of this is the class action brought by the
firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, in which the Washington law
firm is co-lead counsel for five plaintiffs who sued the Company and
its former star analyst Henry Blodget, alleging that they violated
federal securities laws by pumping up the stock of InfoSpace Inc.

"It appears to be very powerful information supporting our case," said
Steven J. Toll, managing partner of the Cohen, Milstein law firm.
Legal specialists say the immediate benefit for plaintiffs in class
actions is that the Spitzer material is likely to help them survive a
motion to dismiss, a key hurdle in any shareholder action.  "This [the
e-mails and other documents unearthed by Mr. Spitzer and his team] is
the kind of gift from heaven that very few plaintiffs' lawyers receive
...specific hard evidence that shows analysts contradicting their own
public statements," said John Coffee, a securities and corporate-
litigation specialist at Columbia University Law School.

Mr. Komansky assured shareholders that the firm plans to take
"meaningful and significant actions to restore investor confidence."
That includes redoubling enforcement of existing policies and taking
"strong actions against anyone who violates them."



MERILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased shares of the Merrill Lynch
Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. during the period from March 14, 2000
through October 15, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

     (3) Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor,

     (4) Henry Blodget,

     (5) Paul G. Meeks and

     (6) several of the fund's directors.

On October 15, 2001, the Internet Strategies Fund merged with The
Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and alleges, among other things, that
throughout the class period defendants knowingly or recklessly
disseminated materially false and misleading statements regarding,
among other things, the risk factors and investment strategies of the
Internet Strategies Fund.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme
that was intended to use Mr. Blodget's strong reputation and bullish
ratings on Internet stocks to market the Internet Strategies Fund to
unsuspecting investors.  In fact, as a result of defendants' scheme,
over one billion dollars was invested in the Internet Strategies Fund
by investors. The suit alleges that defendants failed to disclose:

     (i) that at the same time Mr. Blodget was recommending Internet
         stocks he held unpublished negative views regarding those same
         stocks;

    (ii) that considerable conflicts of interest existed within Merrill
         Lynch which compromised the objectivity of Merrill Lynch
         Internet analysts; and

   (iii) that Mr. Blodget's favorable ratings on Internet companies
         were influenced by Merrill Lynch's desire to generate
         investment banking fees.

The suit further alleges that the Fund's registration statement/
prospectus was materially false and misleading because, among other
things, it:

     (a) omitted to state that the Internet Strategies Fund was being
         marketed at a time when Merrill Lynch Internet analysts
         published strong investment ratings on all Internet companies
         followed by Merrill Lynch even though those analysts,
         including Mr. Blodget, held negative personal views on those
         same stocks;

     (b) omitted to state that Mr. Blodget and the Internet Group
         published strong ratings on Internet stocks in order to secure
         investment banking business; and

     (c) omitted to state that substantial conflicts of interest
         existed within Merrill Lynch that compromised the objectivity
         of Mr. Blodget and the Internet Group.

For more information, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by
Phone: 800-889-3701 by E-mail: JHaas@abbeygardy.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of
24/7 Real Media, Inc. during the period from February 18, 2000 through
November 9, 2000, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and charges
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former star Internet research analyst
Henry M. Blodget with issuing misleading analyst reports about 24/7 in
violation 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 24/7, defendants issued positive
ratings on the Company which were materially misleading as they were
inconsistent with their own contemporaneous, private adverse
assessments of 24/7.

For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short and long-term
accumulate rating on 24/7 despite Mr. Blodget's internal description of
24/7 as a "piece of ----."

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 24/7 were among those
challenged by the Attorney General.

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


METASOLV SOFTWARE: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Metasolv Software, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.,

     (2) BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (3) Jeffries & Company, Inc.,

     (4) James P. Janicki, and

     (5) Glenn A. Etherington

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and alleging violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Morgan Stanley Dean
Witter, Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., and Jeffries &
Company, Inc.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages as a result of various alleged
securities law violations arising from activities purportedly engaged
in by the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.  The plaintiffs allege 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 Company intends to vigorously defend the action, which is being
coordinated with over three hundred nearly identical actions filed
against other companies before one judge in New York federal court.
The Company believes that the suit is without merit and that the
defendants have fully complied with applicable laws and regulations.
The Company does not expect this action will impact its operations,
financial results, or public perception in any material way.


NEOPHARM INC.: Schoengold & Sporn Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of
all persons or institutions who acquired the securities of NeoPharm,
Inc. (NASDAQ:NEOL) between September 25, 2000 and April 19, 2002,
inclusive, at artificially inflated prices due to the defendants'
materially false and misleading statements concerning its net income
and inventories.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges that the Company and certain of its
directors and officers 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 the
Company's common stock.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company:

     (1) issued a series of statements concerning its Liposome
         Encapsulated Praclitaxel (LEP) product, and that the
         defendants made materially false positive statements to
         Pharmacia in order to induce their participation in clinical
         trials of LEP;

     (2) failed to disclose that Pharmacia was studying a different
         formulation of LEP that would not necessarily support the
         approval of the Company's LEP product; and

     (3) failed to disclose that all of Pharmacia's clinical trials
         failed to produce any positive benefits to patients.

In addition, certain individual defendants wrongfully sold shares of
the Company on the open market at artificially inflated prices, reaping
proceeds of over $7 million.

When, on April 19, 2002, the Company announced that it filed for
arbitration to resolve a dispute with Pharmacia, and, in response,
Pharmacia counter-claimed for breach of its agreement with the Company
concerning the nature of the Company's initial disclosures, the market
reacted accordingly.

The Company's stock price dropped from $20.41 per share on April 19,
2002 to $15.43 on April 22, 2002 on volume of 2,863,000, over seventeen
times the prior day's volume.

For more information, contact Jay P. Saltzman or Ashley Kim by Mail: 19
Fulton Street, Suite 406, New York, New York 10038 by Phone:
212-964-0046 or 866-348-7700 by Fax: 212-267-8137 or by E-mail:
Shareholderrelations@spornlaw.com


P-COM INC.: California Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara granted final
approval to a settlement proposed by P-Com, Inc. to settle a
consolidated securities class action against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

The suit arose from several lawsuits commenced in September and October
1998 on behalf of the Company's stockholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired its common stock between April 1997 and September 11, 1998.
The suits alleged various state securities laws violations by the
defendants.

In December 1998, the Court entered an order consolidating all of the
above complaints.  On June 30, 2000, the Superior Court issued a notice
of ruling certifying this matter as a class action.

The Company reached an agreement in principle on October 25, 2001 to
settle the consolidated securities suit.  On February 8, 2002, pursuant
to that agreement in principle, the court entered final judgment
approving the settlement.  Under the terms of the settlement, all
claims against the Company and all other defendants will be dismissed
without admission of liability or wrong doing by any party.


PTEK HOLDINGS: Parties' Mediation of GA Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action against Ptek
Holdings, Inc. have entered into a mediation process as ordered by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit arose from several suits filed against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors in Georgia, on behalf of a class of
individuals (including a subclass of former Voice-Tel Enterprises, Inc.
franchisees and a subclass of former Xpedite Systems, Inc.
shareholders) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock from as early as February 11, 1997 through June 10, 1998.

The suits contend that the Company admitted it had experienced
difficulty in achieving its anticipated revenue and earnings from voice
messaging services due to difficulties in consolidating and integrating
its sales function.  The suits asserted violations of Sections 10(b),
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  These suits were later
consolidated.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit complaint
in April 1999.  In December 1999, the court issued an order that
dismissed the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act
without prejudice, and dismissed the claims under Section 12(a)(1) of
the Securities Act with prejudice.  The effect of this order was to
dismiss from this lawsuit all open-market purchases by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint in February 2000.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 14, 2000, which was
granted in part and denied in part on December 8, 2000.

In January 22, 2002, the Court ordered the parties to mediate.  The
parties did so on February 8, 2002, and the mediation process is
continuing.


RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS: Summary Judgment Motions Filed, Trial Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial in the consolidated securities class action pending against
Ribozyme Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado has been set for September 9, 2002.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock on November 16 and 17, 1999, alleges that the Company violated
certain federal securities laws based upon its having made an allegedly
misleading announcement on November 15, 1999.

The discovery phase has been completed and the parties have filed
motions for summary judgment.  Although the ultimate outcome of these
lawsuits cannot be ascertained, on the basis of present information,
the Company does not believe that these legal proceedings will have a
material adverse effect on its operations or financial position.


STILLWATER MINING: Lowey Dannenberg Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, PC initiated a securities class
action against Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE: SWC) and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock from April 20, 2001 through April
1, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with federal securities violations arising from allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding its financial performance.  The suit
alleges that:

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

     (2) defendants' improper manipulation of probable reserves
         resulted in the overstatement of the Company's class period
         net income because the defendants depreciated the Company's
         plant and equipment costs according to the life of these
         reserves, resulting in a slower depreciation; and

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

Furthermore, defendants failed to disclose that the SEC had advised the
Company by mid-December 2001/early January 2002 that its methodology
for the calculation of probable ore reserves was improper and would
have to be changed.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, the price of the Company's common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period.

The truth was belatedly disclosed on April 2, 2002 when the Company
announced that the SEC condemned these improper accounting practices.
As a result of this announcement, the price of the Company's stock
dropped by 24% in one day on an extraordinarily high volume of
4,743,600 shares traded.  The Company's average trading volume is
approximately 400,000 shares per day.

Furthermore, because the revision to reserves could adversely impact
2001 net income and result in a downward financial restatement of prior
quarters, the full extent of the Company's losses is not yet known.

For more information, contact Richard Bemporad or Jeanne D'Esposito by
Phone: 877-777-3581 (toll-free) or by E-mail: ldbs@westnet.com


STILLWATER MINING: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP initiated a securities class
action against Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE: SWC) and certain
principal officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the Company's common stock between April 20,
2001 and April 1, 2002.

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

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the Company
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding
its financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The
complaint 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 failed to disclose that the SEC had advised the
Company by mid-December 2001/early January 2002 that its methodology
for the calculation of probable ore reserves was improper and would
have to be changed.

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

For more 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 Stillwater Mining
Company.


TEXTRON INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in RI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Textron, Inc.
(NYSE:TXT) between October 19, 2000 and September 26, 2001, inclusive,
in in the United States District Court, District of Rhode Island,
against the Company and:

     (1) Lewis B. Campbell,

     (2) John A. Janitz,

     (3) Theodore R. French and

     (4) Terry D. Stinson

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, the Company failed
to disclose that the V-22 Osprey, a military aircraft that it was
manufacturing, suffered from structural defects that required that it
be substantially redesigned which would delay full-scale production of
the Osprey for years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in excess
of the costs allocated to the project for the purpose of calculating
profit and loss.

On September 26, 2001, as alleged in the complaint, the Company issued
a press release over the Business Wire in which it reduced its guidance
for the third and fourth quarters of 2001, and announced that it
expected a third-quarter loss of $0.25 per share, compared to the
consensus forecast of earnings of $0.71 cents per share.

The suit alleges that the Company attempted to blame its poor
performance on "the slowdown in the US economy" and "the impact of
events on September 11."  However, as alleged in the complaint, the
Company was also forced to admit that its reduced earnings were
resulting from "a number of significant adjustments at Bell Helicopter
and other Textron businesses," including a special charge of
approximately $0.52 per share resulting from "stretched out production
schedules and additional costs to make design changes in the V-22 and
H-1 government programs."

In the same press release, the Company announced the abrupt departures
of Mr. Janitz, the Company's chief operating officer, and Mr. Stinson,
chief executive officer of Bell Helicopter.

On this news, Company shares dropped to a year-low price of $33.04 per
share, down 23% from the previous day's closing price of $43, on
relatively heavy trading volume of 4,393,200 shares traded.

For more details, 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: textroncase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Iowa Court Rejects Suit Seeking Settlement Share
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iowa Court of Appeals recently threw out a lawsuit seeking class
action filed by a group of Iowans who have smoking-related illnesses.
The suit claimed they were entitled to a share of the state's $2
billion tobacco settlement, the Des Moines Register reported.

The Court said its decision was based on the details of the 1998
settlement agreement between the state and the tobacco industry.  It
noted, however, that the agreement did not stop individuals from suing
the tobacco companies on their own.

Records show that the plaintiffs purported they were entitled to
portions of the settlement payments above the state's recovery of
smoking- related damages.  Mike Novak, a Cedar Rapids lawyer who
represented the group, said the lawsuit sought, among other goals, an
accounting of Medicaid money spent by the state to combat smoking-
related illnesses.

Robert Brammer, spokesman for the Iowa attorney general's office, said
the decision was in line with rulings in other states.  "We are very
pleased that the court rejected the claim, as courts have uniformly
done elsewhere, since millions of dollars were at stake," he said.

"Individual citizens certainly can pursue private or class action
lawsuits against the tobacco industry," Mr. Brammer said, "but the law
does not allow them to claim a direct share of settlement funds coming
from lawsuits filed directly by Iowa and other states."


WORLDPORT COMMUNICATIONS: GA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
approved the settlement proposed by Worldport Communications, Inc. to
end a consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock from January 4,1999 through June 28,
1999.

The suit, which names the Company, certain of its former officers, and
Heico Companies LLC as defendants, alleged that the defendants spoke
positively about the Heico financing without disclosing the risk that
non-compliance with certain Nasdaq rules in connection with the
financing might cause the Company to be delisted from Nasdaq.

The suit further alleged the subsequent disclosure that the Company
might be delisted from Nasdaq adversely affected the value of its
common stock.  The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The parties forged a proposed settlement in July 2001.  The settlement
has been entirely funded by insurance. No appeal was made, but there
can be no assurance that additional claims will not be asserted by any
class member who opted out of the settlement. However, the outcome of
this matter is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the
consolidated financial position or results of operations of the
Company.


                              *********


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  * * *