CAR_Public/020501.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                Wednesday, May 1, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 85

                            Headlines

BANKERS TRUST: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Suits Over Stanwich Default
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Priest's Prior Statement Supports Sexual Abuse Charges
FUNERAL HOMES: Senator Seeks Stricter Federal Regulation Due To Suits
TIVO INC.: NY Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Over Subscription Service
TIVO INC.: Faces Consumer Suit Over Digital Television Recorders in CA

WR GRACE: Knew Zonolite Insulation Contained Asbestos, Suit Alleges

                          Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in PA
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Global Partners Aim For Limited Liability in Suits
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Retired Partners Reactivate Pension Suit in Illinois
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Countering Bankrupt Church Foundation's Charges

BELL CANADA: Faces Suit Over Subordinated Debentures Issuance in Canada
DOLLAR GENERAL: Amends $162M Settlement To Securities Suit in M.D. TN
DYNEGY INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Mark McNair Considers Possible Suit For Securities Fraud
FLAG TELECOMS: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

INVESTMENT FIRMS: NationsBanc, Dean Witter to Pay Investors $8.1M
JDS UNIPHASE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in NJ
MERILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MERILL LYNCH: Shapiro Haber Considers Filing Securities Fraud Suit
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in WA
MTI TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
MUSICMAKER.COM: Parties Agree To Mediation Session in Securities Suit
NEOPHARM INC.: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL

NEOPHARM INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
PENN TREATY: Requests Securities Fraud Suit's Dismissal in E.D. PA
STILLWATER MINING: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TEXTRON INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in RI
TEXTRON INC.: Mark McNair Commences Securities Suit in Rhode Island

TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Dismisses IPO Claims in Securities Suits
TIVO INC.: Intends To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in S.D. NY
THOMAS & BETTS: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
US TIMBERLAND: Faces Suit For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in DE Court

                           *********

BANKERS TRUST: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Suits Over Stanwich Default
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the States of California, County of Los Angeles
refused to dismiss a purported class action and an individual suit
pending against Bankers Trust Company.  The Court also granted
certification to the class action.

The suit arose from more than a dozen actions filed since January 2001
relating to the default of Stanwich Financial Services Corporation in
connection with certain structured settlement agreements entered into
principally in the early 1980s.  Stanwich is presently in
reorganization proceedings under the United States Bankruptcy Code. The
Company is alleged to have served as "trustee" under certain trust
agreements in the mid 1990s.

The suits were later consolidated.  Pursuant to the Court's orders,
plaintiffs have served two amended model complaints, one denominated as
a class action and the other denominated as an individual action.

In July 2001, the Court sustained demurrers by the Company to the model
class and individual complaints in these actions.  The plaintiffs then
filed second amended model complaints alleging claims of:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of trust,

     (3) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (4) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing,

     (5) intentional interference with contract,

     (6) negligence,

     (7) bad faith denial of contract,

     (8) constructive fraud,

     (9) reformation,

    (10) unfair business practices and declaratory relief,

The Court then denied the Company's demurrers to the second amended
model complaints and certified the class in the second amended model
class action.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses in these actions
and intends to defend these matters vigorously.  Management, after
discussions with counsel, does not anticipate that losses, if any,
resulting from such actions and proceedings would be material to the
Company's financial condition.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Priest's Prior Statement Supports Sexual Abuse Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A priest's earlier statement relating to sexual abuse offenses in the
Catholic Church could prove to be a strong support to the lawsuits
against the Church.

In 1998, Monsignor Salvatore Adamo, a retired priest in his late 70s
and ailing, decided to reveal a secret, The Newark Star Ledger reports.
Monsignor Adamo, a former journalist with some unorthodox views, had
often tangled with his bishop, so "taking a stand" was not foreign to
his character.

He called up a lawyer who had filed a class action against the Diocese
of Camden for allegedly covering up child sex abuse and protecting
pedophile priests for decades, and volunteered his thoughts, and then
put them into a sworn statement filed in the case.

Monsignor Adamo wrote, "As the years of my earthly journey are ebbing,
I am compelled to speak the truth as to the germination of tragic
incidents of pedophilia and sexual abuse that is known to have become
incessantly rampant in the diocese, incidents which remain disclaimed
as part of a concerted cover-up to avoid moral responsibility and
financial culpability."

Monsignor Adamo, who died last year at 81, went on to offer other
opinions.  He claimed that his Bishop, James T. McHugh, a defendant in
the 1998 case and who is now deceased, had threatened to take away his
job and pension if he opened his mouth on the subject.  He noted that
Bishop McHugh's predecessor, the late Bishop George Guilfoyle, also a
defendant, and involved in conversations of alleged urging of cover up
with defendants in the case now before the court was derisively known
as "Queen of the Fairies."

Monsignor Adamo asserted that the Camden Diocese historically denied
reports of sexual abuse in order to avoid scandal and taking a hit in
the collection box.  "The silence of the decades must come to an end,"
he said.

That silence ended explosively this month amid intense media coverage
of the long-running class action against the Camden Diocese, now in
pretrial hearings before state Superior Court Judge John G.
Himmelberger, in Atlantic City.

Two Delaware brothers, now in their late 30s, Philip and Robert Young,
have provided graphic and sometimes tearful testimony about prolonged
sexual abuse they said they suffered as boys from Philip Rigney, a
former priest of the Camden Diocese.  Mr. Rigney, now 85 and living in
Florida, has vigorously denied the assaults took place.

The Young brothers and 17 other male and female plaintiffs in the case
allege the Diocese concealed their molestation and should be held
responsible and pay for damages.

Because all the plaintiffs waited so long to sue, they must persuade
Judge Himmelberger to set aside the statute of limitations in order for
their lawsuit to proceed.  Thus, a trial on the claims is, at this
point, by no means assured.  The law does allow exceptions, however,
when the Statute of Limitations limits have been passed, if the
plaintiff/victim can show that duress or mental instability delayed the
filing of a claim.

The Youngs and their mother, Joan Dougherty, as well as other
plaintiffs in the action, are arguing that "religious duress" prevented
them from suing the church earlier.  As devout Catholics, they say they
had been raised to revere priests as "direct messengers of God."
Therefore, they were reluctant to challenge them.  Additional religious
duress was imposed, the Youngs contend, when Camden Diocese Bishop
Guilfoyle told them in 1984 not to report the molestations and not to
contact the authorities because the allegations would be damaging for
them and the church.

Another issue central to the lawsuit goes beyond individual allegations
of abuse, and that is the charge of conspiracy.  The lawsuit charges
that numerous priests and officials in the Camden Diocese conspired to
suppress reports of sexual misconduct, in violation of civil and
criminal law and the rules of their church, the very condition of
cover-up of which Monsignor Adamo was speaking in his sworn statement.
Ten of the 15 accused priests are still living.  The claims of
conspiracy to create a cover-up are detailed in hundreds of pages filed
by plaintiffs' attorney, Steven Rubino of Margate.

In the Diocese of Camden lawsuit, the conspiracy allegation has been
strenously denied.  "We feel there is no credible evidence of any
conspiracy," Jay Devine said last week.  Mr. Devine is a public
relations consultant hired by Kenney and Kearney of Cherry Hill, the
law firm representing the Diocese.

Judge Himmelberger will decide on Friday whether the Young brothers can
proceed with their case.  Identical hearings on the Statute of
Limitations issue will take place for the other plaintiffs in the
months to come.


FUNERAL HOMES: Senator Seeks Stricter Federal Regulation Due To Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A Senate Democrat is urging stricter federal regulation of the funeral
industry in response to the gruesome discovery of hundreds of rotting
corpses in Georgia, a situation which also has resulted in the bringing
of class actions by the injured families of the deceased, the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch has reported.

"One of the reasons why we have seen so many recent incidents of
concern is that our laws are inadequate," said Senator Christopher
Dodd, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee's panel on children and families.  Sen. Dodd is proposing
legislation to expand an 18-year-old federal regulation on accurate
pricing, which current applies to funeral homes, to make it also cover
cemeteries, crematoriums, casket stores and related businesses.

The Senator also called for:

     (1) a new federal grant program to help states hire and train more
         funeral inspectors,

     (2) a price information clearinghouse to be maintained by the
         Federal Trade Commission (FTC),

     (3) stronger FTC enforcement powers so the agency can quickly
         close facilities posing a public risk,

     (4) more protection for consumers in contracts with funeral
         service providers

Senator Dodd's hearing was prompted by reports of improper burials and
fraudulent practices, including the discovery of more than 300 corpses
that were dumped in pits, left in sheds and stacked in vaults at Tri-
State Crematory in northwest Georgia.  The operator is charged with
theft by deception.

The incidence of similar occurrences has been almost shockingly
numerous.  In Riverside, California, a funeral home operator was
arrested for allegedly selling to research institutions body parts from
cadavers that were supposed to have been cremated.  He faces 156 felony
counts of unlawful mutilation of human remains and embezzlement.

In still another example, Representative Mark Foley, R-Fla., said, "The
callous profiteers . have perverted the very essence of morality and
decency," as he referred to Menorah Gardens, a West Palm Beach cemetery
in his district.  The cemetery owners have been accused in a class
action of jamming corpses together in unmarked graves, removing bodies
and creating space by other means to allow more burial plots to be
sold.

The Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., which monitors the industry,
wants Congress to go even further than the changes suggested by Senator
Dodd.  It has called for full refunds or transfers of prepaid funerals
for consumers who move or change their minds, a ban on intrastate
telemarketing of funerals and a guarantee that families can watch
burials and cremations and even handle burial arrangements for loved
ones on their own, if they choose.

With more family involvement, "perhaps there would have been no cutting
up of bodies in California or the stacking of bodies in Georgia," said
Lisa Carlson, the group's executive director.


TIVO INC.: NY Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Over Subscription Service
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York, King's County granted Tivo,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the consumer class action filed
against them, therefore dismissing the suit in its entirety.  New York
resident Ezra Birnbaum commenced the suit in March 2001 on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, alleging:

     (1) violation of New York's consumer protection act,

     (2) breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness,

     (3) breach of contract and

     (4) fraud

The suit alleges that Mr. Birnbaum's personal video recorder used with
the TiVo subscription service "does not function properly because the
picture freezes and preprogrammed channels are lost."  Mr. Birnbaum
alleges that the Company knew or should have known of these alleged
defects and that, the Company, therefore misrepresented or failed to
disclose material information regarding its product to consumers.

In August 2001, Mr. Birnbaum served a motion for class certification.
That same month, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment.  On
January 10, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the complaint on all counts.  The summary
judgment win became conclusive on March 1, 2002.


TIVO INC.: Faces Consumer Suit Over Digital Television Recorders in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tivo, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of State of
California, Santa Clara County alleging violations of several of the
state's consumer laws.  New York resident Alan Federbush and Illinois
resident Mitchell Brink filed the suit on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated purchasers of Sony or Philips digital television
recorders and the Company's subscription service.

The suit alleges violations of California's Consumers' Legal Remedies
Act, California's Unfair Practices Act, and fraudulent concealment.
The suit states that Mr. Federbush and Mr. Brink each experienced
problems with the modem contained in the digital television recorders.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company knew or had
reason to know of these malfunctions and therefore misrepresented or
failed to disclose material information about the digital television
recorders to consumers.

Discovery, through which the Company would seek to investigate the
plaintiff's claims, has not commenced.  Based on the information
available, the Company is unable to form a conclusion regarding the
amount, materiality or range of potential loss, if any, which might
result if the outcome of this matter were unfavorable.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend this action
vigorously.


WR GRACE: Knew Zonolite Insulation Contained Asbestos, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WR Grace & Company, of Woburn, Massachusetts, producer of a widely used
brand of attic insulation, Zonolite insulation, knew for more than
three decades that its product contained asbestos fibers that could
sicken and kill people, The Columbus Dispatch reported recently.

Faced with thousands of lawsuits claiming death or disease caused by
exposure to asbestos-contaminated vermiculite, as the shiny, pinkish-
tan ore was called as it came from the mine in Libby, Montana, Grace
closed the Libby mine in 1990, the Company declared bankruptcy last
April as a class action was being put together on behalf of Americans
exposed to Zonolite insulation.

The asbestos fibers contaminated the ore that was used in Zonolite
insulation, which was poured into at least one million homes across
America from the 1930s to the 1980s, the newspaper said.  At least 200
miners, family members and residents in the town of Libby have died of
exposure to the fibers and hundreds more have sickened.

The Company and government health and safety agencies knew about the
asbestos contamination when the Company bought the Libby mine in 1963,
the newspaper said, citing court records and other documents it had
obtained.  The newspaper said further that in 1956, Montana inspectors
concluded that asbestos dust at the mine "is of considerable toxicity."
They marked their report "confidential" and limited distribution to
mine officials.

Records show that the Company shipped the asbestos-contaminated ore to
more than 250 processing plants across the nation, the newspaper
reported, including 18 just in Ohio.  The Scotts Company, the nation's
largest maker of lawn and garden products, was the largest non-Grace
recipient of the ore from the Libby mine, according to US Environmental
Protection Agency officials, who have reviewed a database of the
Company's sales records and shipping invoices.  Scotts used the ore in
lawn fertilizers, herbicides and potting soil.

The Columbus Dispatch reported last June that asbestos-contaminated
vermiculite contributed to the deaths of at least five workers at the
Scotts plant.  Tests conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration in the late 1970s found that one in four workers at the
plant had lung abnormalities.

Medical exams conducted by the Company during the 1960s showed that
many Libby miners had lung abnormalities consistent with asbestosis, an
incurable lung disease caused by exposure to asbestos.

Maryland Casualty, the Company's insurer, advised the Company to keep
the test results secret, but also said that failure to respond to
concerns of state and federal regulators could be costly.  "It has even
occurred to me that (Grace's) inability to curb the problem . might be
alleged at least to have constituted willful and wanton conduct," said
a November 25, 1967 memo from the insurer to Company executives.

Throughout the 1970s, according to internal memos and letters recorded
in court records, Company executives debated whether consumers should
be warned about the asbestos contamination in vermiculite products, and
decided that affixing warning labels on the products would lead to
sales losses.

Medical studies documenting the health hazards posed by airborne
asbestos fibers led the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health to conclude in 1976 that exposure to the material is unsafe at
any level.

                           Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Dannenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Adelphia Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLAE)
(formerly ADLAC) between April 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive.
The suits names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Timothy Rigas, Chairman, President and CEO and/or

     (2) John J. Rigas, CFO

It has been alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of l934. More specifically, it has been
alleged that defendants failed to disclose billions of dollars of off-
balance sheet debt.

Unbeknownst to investors, the Company guaranteed loans for certain
entities controlled by the Rigas Family (the Company's controlling
shareholder), who used the money, in substantial part, to purchase
Company securities.

Defendants first disclosed the existence of the off-balance sheet debt
during an earnings conference call on March 27, 2002. Then, on April 1,
2002, the Company announced that it was requesting an extension to file
its Annual Report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC).

The Company reported that the extension was being sought to allow the
Company and its outside auditors additional time to review certain
accounting matters relating to co-borrowing credit facilities to which
the Company is party.

In response to these negative announcements, the price of Company
common stock dropped from $20.39 per share on March 26, 2002, to $13.12
per share on April 1, 2002.  The price of Company common stock has
continued to slide, closing yesterday at $7.25 per share.

On April 17, the Company reported that the SEC has issued a formal
order of investigation "in connection with the matters that are the
subject of Adelphia's previously disclosed SEC inquiry."

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden or Michael E. Moskovitz
by Phone: 800-470-6824, or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com.  E-mail
should refer to Adelphia.


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Adelphia Communications Corporation
(Nasdaq:ADLAC), alleging the Company failed to publicly reveal its
exposure to over $2 billion of off-balance-sheet debt.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all investors who bought the
Company's common stock and/or sold put options from April 2, 2001
through March 27, 2002.

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

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

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

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


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Global Partners Aim For Limited Liability in Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Andersen LLP, the US member firm of Andersen WorldWide, has
legal problems that seem to worsen every passing day, reported The Wall
Street Journal recently.  Now an Andersen attorney, Nancy Temple is
under investigation by the United States Justice Department, while the
firm has been indicted on obstruction of justice charges.

Outside the US, Andersen WorldWide member firms are rapidly peeling off
to join former rivals.  However, partners worry that escaping the
global network will not necessarily mean escaping legal troubles.  As a
result, they and the firms that acquire them are taking careful steps
to minimize fallout ranging from liability to protecting capital and
benefits.

The merits of their concerns are difficult to measure.  Like the other
Big Five accounting firms, Andersen is not publicly listed and does not
publish accounts.  Information about how much capital a partnership
has, or revenue, or even sometimes just the number of employees, can be
hard to come by.

So far, it appears that non-US Andersen partners may be able to salvage
most, if not all, of their capital.  Some legal experts do say that
liability concerning the way the US practice handled Enron
Corporation's accounts could leap to other shores.  However, suing non-
US partners or their new firms would be a prolonged, messy affair.

Potential liability relating to Enron is at the top of everyone's list
of concerns, nonetheless, partners say.  The Justice Department's
criminal suit against Andersen's US practice reaches the Court on May
6.  The firm also is facing a host of civil suits, including a class-
action lawsuit brought by Enron shareholders.  In the worst-case
scenario, the US partnership could be liable for millions of dollars in
damages.

The key question is how much of that could spill over to overseas
practices.  Because Andersen WorldWide's deeds of partnership with its
member firms are not public, it is hard to know whether member firms
are contractually obliged to assist each other with financial
obligations or contingencies.  Andersen managing partners say they are
not.

However, even if the member firms are not contractually bound, it will
not stop any plaintiffs who are awarded damages from going after them,
some lawyers say.

"I would expect various plaintiffs to seek to recover moneys from all
the Arthur Andersen world-wide entities under . an argument that Arthur
Andersen was really run as a global operation, and they should be held
responsible for the liabilities of the US entity," says Kevin Cramer, a
Hong Kong-based lawyer with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Retired Partners Reactivate Pension Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of retired partners of beleaguered accounting firm Arthur
Andersen LLP filed a request for a restraining order on March 22 in the
United States District Court in Chicago against the firm and its parent
Andersen Worldwide, SC to force the Andersen organizations to stop
their efforts to divest practice units and member firms to competitors
at nominal prices.  The group also reactivated a class action filed
against the firm late last week.

The livelihoods of several hundred retired partners and spouses of
deceased partners depend on retirement and medical benefits funded out
of Andersen's revenues.  Dissolving Andersen without securing these
benefits would exert an extreme hardship on these elderly people, most
of whom devoted their entire working lives to building an extraordinary
organization of impeccable worldwide stature and who had no association
whatsoever with Enron audits.

At the request of Andersen management, the group deferred the scheduled
March 26 emergency court hearing in consideration of promises to
provide information about the terms of proposed divestitures as well as
financial and retirement benefits information, all relevant to the
retired partners as a major creditor.

The retired partners are by far the largest creditor of Andersen in the
US and also globally because of reciprocal income guarantees under
member firm contracts.

The group amended its class action on Friday and scheduled the
emergency court hearing for this week because the promises made by
Andersen management on March 26 have not been kept. It is now apparent
that the Andersen leaders and partners in many countries are acting as
both sellers and buyers and therefore have irreconcilable conflicts of
interest in negotiating arms-length divestiture terms with successor
firms. For example, the Chicago Tribune reported on April 25, "As
another part of the Andersen accounting firm agreed Wednesday to
defect, many of the beleaguered firm's partners are trying to strike
lucrative deals to join rivals."

The suit states that as sellers, these partners must set divestiture
terms fairly and fund pensions properly to meet their fiduciary
obligations to the retired partners and spouses of deceased partners
who depend on the payment and security of retirement plan benefits
under ERISA laws and contracts.

Additionally, as buyers, these partners are colluding with their future
partners in the successor firms to set divestiture prices below fair
value and to unethically waive valuable contracts with partners and
member firms throughout the world. They are also failing to arrange for
the successor firms to take on a fair share of the liability to retired
partners as is normal and customary in accounting and law firm mergers
and acquisitions in virtually every country in which Andersen has
member firms.

"We seek nothing more and nothing less than what is justly due us by
law and by contract. We cannot fathom why the current leaders in the
U.S. and other countries think they can replace their own income and
pensions by joining successor firms while they walk away from paying
our retirement pay and medical benefits," said David Buchholz, one of
the plaintiffs and a retired leader of the Andersen global tax
practice.

Another plaintiff, Duane Kullberg, an Andersen chief executive who
retired in the 1980's, said, "It is reprehensible that the leaders to
whom we passed a proud legacy of stewardship and integrity would behave
in such a dishonorable way."

Among other relief, the retired partners are asking the Court to order
both Arthur Andersen LLP and Andersen Worldwide, SC to undertake
emergency arbitration for enforcement of non-compete and member firm
contracts, and for payment and securing retirement and other benefits
that they paid for by deductions from their income during their
employment years at Andersen.

For more details, contact Tom Mulroy of Mulroy Scandaglia Marrinson &
Ryan by Phone: 312-580-2020


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Countering Bankrupt Church Foundation's Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Embattled accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP is heading to court to
counter charges that it could have helped prevent the largest nonprofit
bankruptcy in US history, The Associated Press reports.  Jury selection
began Monday in the case focusing on Andersen's alleged role
contributing to the bankruptcy of the Baptist Foundation of America.
Lawyers say the case is expected to last up to three months.

About 13,000 mostly elder investors lost $570 million when the
foundation, which was founded in 1948 as a nonprofit religious group to
raise money for Southern Baptist causes, filed for bankruptcy in 1999.
Andersen was the foundation's auditor.

In March, Andersen reached a $217 million settlement with the
foundation's investors in the class action brought by them.  However,
the settlement fell through four weeks later when Andersen said its
insurance carrier was unable to pay.  The March settlement also would
have resolved a civil suit by state regulators and disciplinary
proceedings brought by the Arizona Board of Accountancy.  Because the
settlement fell through, all these cases, including the investors'
class action, will be heard in court, along with the attorney general's
case.

During the 1980s, the foundation and its related companies began
raising money through the sale of securities and the management of
individual retirement accounts.  Arizona officials claim the foundation
used a web of related companies to siphon off hundreds of millions of
dollars in investment funds before filing for bankruptcy.

The lawsuit claims that Andersen ignored warning signs of foundation
fraud, including reports by whistle blowers and a series of newspaper
articles that appeared as early as four years before the foundation
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 1999.  The suit also
alleges Andersen destroyed missing records relating to the foundation
and ignored advice that it should investigate companies that were
controlled by the foundation but not listed on its balance sheets.

Court records show that from 1984 to 1997, Andersen approved audits on
Baptist Foundation financial statements.  Arizona Attorney General
Janet Napolitano has said she wants to revoke the licenses of Andersen
accountants responsible for the Baptist Foundation audits.

Arizona's attorney general contends that Andersen concealed huge losses
from financial statements that otherwise would have alerted investors
to the foundation's troubles.  Ed Novak, Andersen's attorney, said the
Company is looking forward to presenting its case, but declined further
comment.

In a motion to dismiss state charges filed last year, Andersen's
attorneys argued that Arizona officials knew as early as 1992 of
possible fraud at the foundation, but took no action.


BELL CANADA: Faces Suit Over Subordinated Debentures Issuance in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Canada International Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice by certain former holders of the
Company's $250,000,000 6.75% convertible unsecured subordinated
debentures.  The suit, filed on behalf of all holders of the debentures
on December 3, 2001, names as defendants the Company and its directors,
BCE Inc. and BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. up to an amount of $250,000,000
plus punitive damages and other amounts totaling $35,000,000 in
connection with the settlement, on February 15, 2002, of the debentures
through the issuance of common shares, in accordance with the Company's
recapitalization plan announced on December 3, 2001.

The Company is of the view that the allegations contained in the
lawsuit are without merit and intends to take all appropriate actions
to vigorously defend its position.

The recapitalization plan was implemented in order to enable the
Corporation to meet its short-term financial obligations and improve
its financial position.  As previously indicated, the Company believes
the recapitalization plan is fair from a financial point of view to the
Corporation's common shareholders and other stakeholders, including the
former holders of the Debentures.

For more information, Marie-Lise Gauthier, Director, Finance by Phone:
514-392-2318 or by E-mail: marie-lise.gauthier@bci.ca


DOLLAR GENERAL: Amends $162M Settlement To Securities Suit in M.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation amended the US$162 million settlement
agreement it forged with plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action pending against it and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee.

The consolidated suit arose from twenty purported class actions filed
following the Company's April 30, 2001 announcement, saying it would
restate its audited financial statements for fiscal years 1999 and
1998, and the unaudited financial information for fiscal year 2000, due
to several accounting issues.  These lawsuits were later consolidated
into a single action.

In July 2001, the Court entered an order appointing the Florida State
Board of Administration and the Teachers' Retirement System of
Louisiana as lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Entwistle & Cappucci
LLP, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP and Grant & Eisenhofer,
P.A. as co-lead counsel.

In January 2002, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
class action purporting to name as plaintiffs a class of persons who
held or purchased the Company's securities and related derivative
securities between May 12, 1998, and September 21, 2001.

The suit alleged that the defendants made misrepresentations concerning
the Company's financial results in its filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and in various press releases and other public
statements.

On January 3, 2002, the Company reached a settlement agreement with the
putative class action plaintiffs, pursuant to which the Company agreed
to pay at least $140 million to such plaintiffs in settlement for their
claims and to implement certain enhancements to its corporate
governance and internal control procedures.  Such agreement was subject
to confirmatory discovery, to the final approval of the Company's Board
of Directors, and to court approval.

Under such settlement agreement, the plaintiffs had the right,
following the completion of confirmatory discovery, to amend their
complaint to increase the size of the class and to negotiate with the
Company for additional damages, the aggregate amount of all damages to
be paid in settlement of plaintiffs' claims not to exceed $162 million.

On April 1, 2002, following the completion of such confirmatory
discovery, the Company and the putative class action plaintiffs amended
their settlement agreement.  Pursuant to such amended settlement
agreement, the Company has agreed to pay $162 million to such
plaintiffs in settlement for their claims and to implement certain
enhancements to its corporate governance and internal control
procedures.  Such amended agreement is subject to the final approval of
the Company's Board of Directors and to Court approval.


DYNEGY INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN) publicly
traded securities during the period between April 17, 2001 and April
24, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges that the Company and its top officers inflated the price of the
Company stock in order to pursue an accelerated securities sale
program.

Defendants knew that concealing the Company's true vehicle, Project
Alpha, for creating cash flow from operations and the true impact it
would have on the Company provided the only way that they could foster
the perception in the business community that the Company was not
"Enron Corp.," i.e., the only way the Company could post the revenue
and earnings per share growth claimed by defendants.

Prior to the class period, the individual defendants realized that many
of their complicated deals to generate reported net income did not
generate cash flows.  The defendants knew that investors would
eventually discover this discrepancy and the Company's stock price
would collapse.

To prevent this, the Company classified what was essentially a loan
from CitiGroup Inc. as an operating activity rather than as a financing
activity as required by generally accepted accounting principles.  The
defendants' wrongful course of business:

     (1) artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock during
         the class period;

     (2) deceived the investing public, including plaintiff and other
         class members, into acquiring the Company's securities at
         artificially inflated prices;

     (3) allowed the individual defendants to extract millions of
         dollars in bonuses for creating the appearance of the
         Company's phenomenal cash flow from operations growth; and

     (4) allowed the Company to sell nearly half a billion dollars of
         its own securities to the unsuspecting public.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-
mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.milberg.com


DYNEGY INC.: Mark McNair Considers Possible Suit For Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair is investigating Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN)
for possible securities violations on behalf of shareholders who
acquired the Company's securities between August 14, 2001 and April 24,
2002.

A suit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against defendants the Company and
certain of its officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th St. N.W. Suite
500, Washington, D.C. 20007 by Phone: 877-511-4717 by E-mail:
mcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.justice4investors.com


FLAG TELECOMS: 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 FLAG Telecom Holdings, Ltd.
(NASDAQ: FTHLQ) securities between March 23, 2001 and February 13,
2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

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

During the class period, the Company accounted for strong year-over-
year revenue growth.  The suit alleges that the Company was actually
experiencing decreasing revenue growth.  The Company undertook a series
of mutual transactions labeled the dark-fiber swap.  Dark fiber was
fiber optic cable installed in the earth in multiple places, yet the
cable was not used by customers, and therefore not able to provide
revenues.  Instead of generating revenues from customers, the dark-
fibers were utilized in a series of reciprocal transactions with
competitors for the purchase and sale of fiber optic cable.

As a result of these transactions, the Company was able to mask the
eroding growth it was experiencing.  Generally, these mutual
transactions occurred in late quarter swap transactions. The Company
would exchange capacity and/or use commitments (IRUs or Indefeasible
Rights of Use) with its supposed rivals, nearly simultaneously and for
identical, though undisclosed, sums of money, which would allow
defendants to reach their financial goals.  However, the dark-fiber
swap materially misled investors about the operating performance of the
Company.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Thomas Burt, 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 correspondence should make reference to
FLAG.


INVESTMENT FIRMS: NationsBanc, Dean Witter to Pay Investors $8.1M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Investment firms NationsBanc Enterprises, Inc. and Dean Witter Venture
agreed to compensate nearly 2,800 investors who lost millions of
dollars in the mid-1990s in the two funds with US$8.1 million, the
Associated Press reports.  Investors lost money in 1994, when interest
rates in the two funds rose sharply and the funds' performance was
affected.

Under the settlement, the investors will be refunded their initial
investment with interest.  The two firms are also paying nearly $6.4
million to the government as a penalty.

The settlement covers losses for investors in Nations Government Income
Term Trust 2003, Inc. and Nations Government Income Trust 2004, Inc.
The funds were marketed in the Tampa area and in south Florida, and
many of the investors were elderly people whose life savings were
damaged in the funds, prosecutors said, according to an AP report.


JDS UNIPHASE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class acton against JDS Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq:JDSU) and 10 of
its top officers, alleging they used false and misleading statements to
artificially inflate stock price.  The suit is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all investors who bought the Company's common stock from July 27,
1999 through July 26, 2001.

The suit claims that the San Jose-based fiber optics Company issued
false and misleading financial statements to the public.  According to
the suit, the defendants stated throughout the class period that demand
for JDS' products was accelerating, and that the Company's only problem
was its ability to manufacture enough to meet demand.  The suit also
maintains that the Company misrepresented the success of several major
acquisitions and downplayed its dependence on its two largest
customers.

However, JDS falsely informed investors that demand was as strong as
claimed, the complaint alleges.  On July 26, 2001, the Company restated
its third quarter 2001 financial results and took massive fourth-
quarter charges to account for a total of $44 billion in write-offs
associated with its acquisitions and excess inventory.  Those revisions
and write-offs increased the Company's losses for fiscal year 2001 to
$56.1 billion.

According to the complaint, JDS executives knew of a slowdown in demand
because the Company employed 80 engineers to monitor customers and
inventory levels.  After the revised numbers were announced, Company
stock fell to as low as $7.90 per share after trading at a class period
high of $146.32, a 94% decline.

The lawsuit also alleges that the artificially inflated stock price
enabled certain Company officers to sell $2.1 billion of their own
holdings before the Company's true financial state became public.

For more details, contact Jennifer Abrams or Joseph J. Tabacco Jr. by
Mail: 425 California Street, Suite 2025, San Francisco, CA 94104 by
Phone: 415-433-3200 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX:MSS), claiming
the Company's publicly reported financial results were misleading.  The
suit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common
stock from August 1, 2001 through February 14, 2002 or acquired shares
in or traceable to the company's August 1, 2001 public stock offering.

According to the suit, the Company's financial results were falsely
enhanced by, among other things, improperly recognized revenues and
overstated inventories.  The truth about the state of the electronics
Company's finances began to emerge on February 15, 2002, when the
Company issued a press release before the market opened stating that
the Company:

     (1) would delay filing its financial report for the third fiscal
         quarter ended December 31, 2001 because it was in the process
         of verifying its earnings and inventory valuation;

     (2) expected a significant third quarter 2001 loss;

     (3) was in default under its loan agreements;

     (4) expected to restate its financial statements for the second
         fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2001 and possibly for other
         periods; and

     (5) had terminated its chief financial officer.

After the announcement, trading of Company stock was abruptly halted.
It has not yet resumed. The shares had traded as high as $16 during the
class period.

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


MERILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities
class action against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER) and its
former star Internet research analyst Henry M. Blodget, charging them
with issuing misleading analyst reports about At Home Corporation,
doing business as Excite@Home (OTCBB:ATHMQ.OB).

The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of Excite during the period from August 18, 1999 through June 20,
2001, inclusive in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Defendants are charged with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

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

In the last few days, the US Justice Department and other states have
expressed interest in joining the Attorney General's investigation.  In
addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission said it will open a
formal inquiry with the New York Stock Exchange and the National
Association of Securities Dealers.

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


MERILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and the
firm's first Vice President, Henry Blodget. The suit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPWV) between
October 16, 2000 and August 13, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by issuing analyst reports regarding Openwave that recommended the
purchase of Openwave common stock and which set price targets for
Openwave common stock, which were materially false and misleading and
lacked any reasonable factual basis.

The suit further alleges that, when issuing their Openwave analyst
reports, the defendants failed to disclose significant, material
conflicts of interest, which resulted from their use of Mr. Blodget's
reputation and his ability to issue favorable analyst reports, to
obtain investment banking business for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Openwave analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Openwave stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information, which they
possessed about Openwave.

Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained "ACCUMULATE/BUY"
or "BUY/BUY" recommendations on Openwave in order to obtain and support
lucrative financial deals for Merrill Lynch.

As a result of the defendants' false and misleading analyst reports,
Openwave's common stock traded at artificially inflated levels during
the class period.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine or Donald
R. Hall by Mail: Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 805 Third Avenue, 22nd
Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by
Fax: 212-687-7714 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.kaplanfox.com


MERILL LYNCH: Shapiro Haber Considers Filing Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP plans to bring additional claims against
investment firm Merrill Lynch and its chief internet analyst, Henry
Blodget, on behalf of holders of securities of various companies.

Shapiro Haber & Urmy has been appointed lead plaintiff in a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, which alleges that Merrill Lynch and Mr. Blodget violated the
federal securities laws because their analyst reports regarding
internet companies, including their analyst reports regarding
InfoSpace, Inc. (Nasdaq: INSP), were false and deceptive.

The additional charges are to be filed on behalf of purchasers of
common stock from February 1999 through December 2001 in these
companies:

     (1) Aether Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: AETH),

     (2) Excite@home (Nasdaq: ATHM),

     (3) GoTo.com (Nasdaq: OVER),

     (4) InfoSpace, Inc. (Nasdaq: INSP),

     (5) Internet Capital Group (Nasdaq: ICGE),

     (6) Lifeminders (Nasdaq: LFMN), and

     (7) 24/7 Media (Nasdaq: TFSM)

For more details, contact Elizabeth Hutton by Mail: 75 State Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02109 by Phone: 800-287-8119 or 617-439-3939 by
Fax: 617-439-0134 by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.shulaw.com


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Metawave Communications Corp. (Nasdaq:MTWV),
alleging the Company used improper accounting to artificially inflate
its stock price.  The suit is pending in the US District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of all investors who bought
the Company's common stock from April 24, 2001 through March 14, 2002.

The suit alleges that the Washington-based communications Company
engaged in improper accounting and issued false and misleading
financial statements to the public.  According to the suit, the Company
and some of its top officers highly touted customer demand and revenues
for its Spotlight GSM line of cellular phone antenna systems throughout
the class period.

However, the Company's later actions showed those statements to be
false, the complaint states.  On March 14, 2002, the Company announced
a restructuring plan that included discontinuing the Spotlight GSM line
due to lack of demand, the complaint says.  The Company took a $23
million charge against first quarter 2002 earnings as a result,
according to the complaint.

Investors were further stunned, the complaint says, when the Company
revealed it had inflated its 2001 revenue by $5 to $7 million, or 11 to
16 percent of its total annual revenue, because of side-letters that
allowed customers to return the Spotlight GSM product at no charge.

According to the complaint, the Company admitted that recognizing that
revenue violated generally accepted accounting principles and that it
would have to restate its financial results for 2001.

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

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


MTI TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
refused to dismiss the second amended securities class action pending
against MTI Technology Corporation and several of its officers.

The consolidated suit arose from several class actions filed in July
through September 2000 alleging that the defendants were aware of
adverse information that they failed to disclose primarily during
fiscal 2000.  The suits asserted that the defendants violated specified
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs then filed a consolidated amended complaint, making
similar allegations.  The Company moved for the dismissal of the suit,
which the Court granted in December 2000.  However, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, which the Company again asked the Court to
dismiss.  The Court denied this motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

The Company believes the alleged claims in the suit are without merit
and is defending the lawsuit vigorously.  However, due to the inherent
uncertainties of the litigation process and the judicial system, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation.


MUSICMAKER.COM: Parties Agree To Mediation Session in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated and amended securities class action against
musicmaker.com, Inc. have agreed to enter another mediation session,
which will commence on May 14, 2002, after prior mediation failed to
reach a settlement in the suit, alleging federal securities violations.

The consolidated amended suit arose from five nearly identical
complaints commenced in February 2000 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company and:

     (1) EMI Group, PLC,

     (2) EMI Recorded Music,

     (3) EMI Recorded Music North America,

     (4) Virgin Holdings, Inc.,

     (5) Robert P. Bernardi,

     (6) Devarajan S. Puthukarai,

     (7) Irwin H. Steinberg,

     (8) Jay A. Samit,

     (9) Jonathan A.B. Smith, and

    (10) John A. Skolas.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock from July 7,1999 through November 15,1999, alleges that the
Company violated Sections 11 and 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, by making false and misleading statements in
the Company's filings with the SEC and in press releases concerning the
Company's access to recordings pursuant to certain licensing
agreements.

In September 2000, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit,
but the Court denied the motion to dismiss in part, granted it in part,
and in August 2001 denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration with
respect to the motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs again filed a third consolidated amended and
supplemental suit, asserting the same causes of action against the
Company as were alleged in the first suit.  In April 2001, several
plaintiffs filed a purported non-class action complaint against the
same defendants named in the amended class action (including the
Company).

The plaintiffs in this action subsequently filed an amended complaint
[called the Butler Complaint], which alleges claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5, as well as common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation
claims relating to the same general types of purported
misrepresentations set forth in the class action.  However, the alleged
misrepresentations set forth in the Butler Complaint allegedly occurred
during the period from November 15, 1999 through at least April of
2000.

On January 21, 2002, the parties participated in a mediation in an
attempt to settle matters set forth in all the suits, but that
mediation failed to yield a settlement.  However, the parties have
agreed to participate in another mediation session on May 14, 2002.  In
the interim, the parties have agreed to pursue limited non-party
discovery.

The Company believes the allegations contained in the suits are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.  However, these
lawsuits could materially and adversely affect the Company's financial
condition and results of operations based on a number of factors,
including legal expenses, diversion of management's time and attention,
and payment of judgments or settlements in excess of available
insurance.


NEOPHARM INC.: Much Shelist Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action, pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of NeoPharm, Inc. (Nasdaq:NEOL) between September 25, 2000
and April 19, 2002, inclusive.

It has been alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock.

Specifically, it has been alleged that the Company issued a series of
statements concerning its Liposome Encapsulated Praclitaxel (LEP)
product, and that the defendants:

     (1) made materially false statements to Pharmacia Corp., the
         Company's partner in the development and commercialization of
         LEP, in order to induce Pharmacia to participate and invest in
         LEP clinical trials;

     (2) failed to disclose to the investing public that Pharmacia was
         studying a different formulation of LEP such that Pharmacia's
         study results would not be applicable to the Company's LEP
         approval; and

     (3) failed to disclose that all of Pharmacia's clinical trials
         failed to produce any positive benefits to patients, i.e., LEP
         was not effective in reducing the size of tumors or halting
         their growth and there was no evidence that LEP reduced the
         incidence and severity of certain side effects associated with
         paclitextl, the drug the Company sought to improve with LEP.

Additionally, it is believed that certain individual defendants
wrongfully sold shares of the Company on the open market at
artificially inflated prices, reaping proceeds of over $7 million.

After the markets closed on April 19, 2002, the Company announced that
it filed for arbitration to resolve a dispute with Pharmacia, and that
in response, Pharmacia counter-claimed for breach of its agreement with
the Company concerning the nature of its initial disclosures.

The markets reacted adversely to the news.  The Company's stock price
dropped from $20.41 per share on Friday, April 19, 2002 to $15.43 on
Monday, April 22, 2002 on volume of 2,863,000 which was more than
seventeen times Friday's volume.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden or Michael E. Moskovitz by
Phone: 800-470-6824, or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com.  E-mail
should refer to NeoPharm.


NEOPHARM INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired NeoPharm, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NEOL) securities between September 25, 2000 and April 19,
2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors.

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

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA 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


PENN TREATY: Requests Securities Fraud Suit's Dismissal in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Penn Treaty American Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss a consolidated
class action pending against it and certain of its key executive
officers.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between July 23, 2000 through and including March 29,
2001, seeks damages in an unspecified amount for losses allegedly
incurred as a result of misstatements and omissions allegedly contained
in the Company's periodic reports filed with the SEC, certain press
releases issued by them, and in other statements made by its officials.
The alleged misstatements and omissions relate, among other matters, to
the statutory capital and surplus position of the Company's largest
subsidiary, Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and it and
its executives will continue to vigorously defend the matter.


STILLWATER MINING: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood Halebian & Feffer LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE:SWC) during the period
from April 20, 2001 through and including 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 during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's common stock.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the suit, 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 suit alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

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

     (2) defendants' improper manipulation of probable reserves
         overstated the Company's class period net income because
         defendants depreciated the Company's plant and equipment costs
         according to 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 Ramon Pi¤on IV by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: 877-935-7400 by E-mail:
rpinoniv@whhf.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.whhf.com


TEXTRON INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in RI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT)
securities between October 19, 2000 and September 26, 2001, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the 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 charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pivenlaw.com


TEXTRON INC.: Mark McNair Commences Securities Suit in Rhode Island
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark McNair initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of Textron, Inc. (NYSE:TXT) securities between
October 19, 2000 and September 26, 2001, in the United States District
Court for the 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 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 Mark McNair by Mail: 1101 30th St. N.W. Suite
500, Washington, D.C. 20007 by Phone: 877-511-4717 by E-mail:
mcnair@justice4investors.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.justice4investors.com.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Dismisses IPO Claims in Securities Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed without prejudice the claims in several securities class
actions against Tibco Software, Inc. relating to the Company's initial
public offering.

The suits were commenced between July 6, 2001 and December 6, 2001
against the Company, several of its current and former officers and
directors and the underwriters of its July 1999 initial public offering
and March 2000 follow on offering.

The complaints generally alleged that the named defendants violated
federal securities laws because the prospectuses related to the
Company's offerings failed to disclose, and contained false and
misleading statements regarding, certain commissions purported to have
been received by the underwriters in connection with their allocation
of shares in the Company's offerings.

On March 1, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice claims relating
to the Company's initial public offering and consolidated into one suit
the remaining claims relating to the Company's follow on offering.

The Company believes that the remaining claims against it are without
merit and intends to defend against the complaint vigorously.


TIVO INC.: Intends To Seek Dismissal of Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tivo, Inc. will likely ask the United State District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss a securities class action
pending against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and
several of the underwriters involved in the Company's initial public
offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from September 30, 1999, the time of our initial public offering,
through December 6, 2000, alleges that the underwriters in the initial
public offering solicited and received undisclosed commissions from,
and entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who
purchased the Company's common stock in the initial public offering and
the aftermarket.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose in the initial public offering
prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these allegedly
undisclosed arrangements.

The Company states that more than 300 issuers have been named in
similar lawsuits in the same court.  The defendants' time to respond to
the complaint has not yet expired, and it is likely that this response
will not be due for several months, after certain procedural issues
are resolved.  At the appropriate time, the Company intends to move to
dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intend to defend
this action vigorously.  However, it could be forced to incur material
expenses in the litigation, and in the event there is an adverse
outcome, its business could be harmed.


THOMAS & BETTS: Asks For Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas & Betts Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action against the Company and:

     (1) Clyde R. Moore, former Chief Executive Officer and

     (2) Fred R. Jones, former Chief Financial Officer

The consolidated suit alleges fraud and violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder.  The suit alleges that purchasers of the Company's common
stock between April 28, 1999 and August 21, 2000, were damaged when the
market value of the stock dropped by nearly 29% on December 15, 1999,
dropped by nearly 26% on June 20, 2000 and fell another 8% on August
22, 2000.

The Company intends to contest the litigation vigorously.  However, at
this stage, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation and its ultimate effect, if any, on its financial condition.
However, management believes that there are meritorious defenses to the
claims.


US TIMBERLAND: Faces Suit For Breach of Fiduciary Duty in DE Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
US Timberlands Company, LP, (Nasdaq: TIMBZ) its general partner and the
partner's Board of Directors faces several class actions pending in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for New Castle County. The
suits allege breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing by the general
partner and the Board in connection with the Company's receipt of a
revised offer, dated April 23, 2002, from a group led by senior
management of the Company to take the Company private.

The lawsuits were filed by purported unitholders of the Company, on
behalf of all other similarly situated unitholders, and seek to have
the class certified and the purported unitholders bringing the action
named as a representative of the class.

In addition, the lawsuits seek to enjoin the going private transaction,
to rescind the going private transaction if it is consummated, and to
recover damages and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits also name the Company
as a defendant.

For more details, contact Thomas C. Ludlow, Chief Financial Officer of
US Timberlands Company, LP by Phone: 212-755-1100 or visit the firm's
web site: http://www.ustimberlands.com


                              *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2002.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *