CAR_Public/020502.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

                 Thursday, May 2, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 86

                            Headlines

AIRLINE LITIGATION: Faces Suit Over Air Conditioner Fumes in Utah Court
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Sued For Breach of Contract in FL Insurance Suit
GRAND VOYAGER: Customers File Suit Over June 12 Bus Collision in Italy
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit For Misstating DVD100i Drive Capabilities
MONTANA RESOURCES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Mine Workers' Suits

PENNSYLVANIA: Parties Move To Resolve Rights Suits V. Pittsburgh Police
ROYAL BANK: Sued For Back-Dating Credit Card Interest in Canada
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Suit For Failing To Pay Crew Members in S.D. NY
SHERWOOD SCUBA: Recalls 14,000 Scuba Regulators Due To Faulty Orifices
UNIVERSAL CORPORATION: Subsidiaries Face Tobacco Antitrust Suit in NC

* NY Attorney General Reveals Findings on Fraudulent Stock Analysis

                          Securities Fraud

ALLIED IRISH: Stull Stull Lodges Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Trial Begins in Suit Over Failed Church Foundation
CIBC WORLD: Faces Possible Securities Suit Over DOV Pharmaceuticals IPO
DICK CLARK: Faces Suit Opposing Merger With DCPI Investco in CA Court
DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Slotnick Shapiro Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
DYNEGY INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
DYNEGY INC.: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

DYNEGY INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
DYNEGY INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
DYNEGY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Texas
EAGLE BUILDING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
ECOMETRY CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Suit Opposing Merger With SG

EDISON INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
FIRST VIRTUAL: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suits Dismissal in CA
FIRST VIRTUAL: Officers Face Derivative Shareholder Suit in CA Court
IMMUNEX CORPORATION: Settles Securities Suits Over Amgen, Inc. Merger
JDS UNIPHASE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

KASHNER DAVIDSON: Sued For Securities Violations in Streamedia IPO
KINROSS GOLD: Berger Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
LIBERTY MEDIA: Suits Opposing Merger Dismissed After Company Withdraws
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NEOPHARM INC.: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in IL

NTL INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
NYACK HOSPITAL: Schoengold & Sporn Commences Securities Fraud Suit
SELECT COMFORT: MN Court Grants Class Certification To Securities Suit
STILLWATER MINING: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SWISS HELVETIA: Bylaw Claims Labeled "Moot," Dismissed in DE Court

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in NY
WORLDCOM INC.: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                              *********

AIRLINE LITIGATION: Faces Suit Over Air Conditioner Fumes in Utah Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A former passenger on a Delta Airlines flight, from Salt Lake City to
Missoula, has filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court, in
Salt Lake City, alleging that toxic gas spewed on her and other passengers
from an air conditioner on the plane, The Associated Press
reported recently.

The lawsuit alleges that more than 100 passengers on Delta Flight 1267,
bound from Salt Lake City to Missoula, on March 8, 1998, were exposed to
gases that contained toxic materials such as mercury and copper.  The suit
further alleges that passengers suffered severe burning and
discomfort in their eyes, nose, throat, skin and lungs.

The suit related that passengers coughed, choked and gasped for air before
the pilot turned the plane around and landed back in Salt Lake City, about
45 minutes after takeoff.  Flight attendants reportedly distributed wet
paper napkins to passengers, instructing them to breathe through the
napkins.

The plaintiff, Patrice Butler, 55, said that over the last four years
she has suffered greatly from mercury poisoning, for which she has been
diagnosed.  She believes other passengers on the flight may have suffered
from the same illness.  Mercury poisoning is very subtle, she
said.  "One of the reasons we filed the (class action) lawsuit was that
we would like to know if other people on the plane got sick."

William Rossbach, a Missoula attorney representing Ms. Butler, filed the
lawsuit in conjunction with attorneys from Utah and Colorado.  He said Ms.
Butler decided to go ahead with litigation because Delta declined to resolve
the matter otherwise.  Mr. Rossbach also said that Boeing, the builder of
the 737 aircraft, was named as a defendant because Delta would not disclose
what happened on board the plane.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Sued For Breach of Contract in FL Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Medical Securities Group of Wisconsin has been found guilty of
breaching its contract with Florida residents after it charged them as much
as US$4,800 for insurance premiums.

Palm Beach County Circuit Court Judge Jorge Labarga, found the Company
liable for deceiving Florida residents who bought health insurance from the
Company and later received cancellation notices. Attorney Jeffrey M. Liggio,
who represented the residents, told PalmBeachPost.com the Company did not
treat them as a group and instead treated them as individuals, which was
against Florida law regarding group rates.  He filed the breach of contract
lawsuit as a class action, since as many as 11,000 people could be affected
by the ruling. "This is about real people getting real financial relief,"
Mr. Liggio said Monday.

The Company argued that it had fully complied with state law and that the
plaintiffs had no right to sue them.   According to court documents, the
Company created a plan called Med One and targeted it to people who didn't
have health insurance, such as residents who were self-employed or did not
yet qualify for Medicare. In 1998, however, the company automatically
underwrote the policy on an individual basis and jacked up the premiums when
its members got sick, Mr. Liggio told PalmBeachPost.com.

The Company has not commented on the suit, but it intends to appeal the
ruling at the end of the damages portion of the case, which is set for July.


GRAND VOYAGER: Customers File Suit Over June 12 Bus Collision in Italy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado-based travel agent Grand Voyagers, Inc. faces a class action filed
by a group of international tourists whose European vacation ended with a
bus crash in Italy, Rocky Mountain News reports.

One of the Company's luxury motor coaches collided with a stalled truck
crane while it was heading for Venice last June 12. According to Italian
newspaper accounts, rescuers had to cut the bus in half to reach the trapped
passengers, five of them US citizens.

According to the suit, the coach's driver fell asleep and was "groggy and
lethargic" from a night of drinking and chauffeuring Cosmos vacationers to a
concert the previous day, according to the Rocky Mountain News.  The suit
also alleged that although about 20 passengers were treated at area
hospitals, those without visible injuries were forced to wait in a "broken
down coach for three hours before finally being driven to see a physician
for a mere 10-minute cursory visit."

The suit said unnamed executives dispatched to the crisis locked some
passengers in their hotel rooms and attempted to ply others with free
alcoholic drinks before approaching them with release forms.  "Defendant
Cosmos repeatedly insisted that the plaintiffs sign various release forms
whenever (they) asked for medical attention or a plane ticket home," the
complaint states.

Plaintiffs' co-counsel, Alexander Anolik, said the Company's insurers were
more concerned about saving money than providing medical care.  "Rather than
rush in with a trauma team, they brought in a risk- management team," he
said.  He added that 25 of the 33 bus passengers have agreed to join in the
lawsuit, which seeks economic and punitive damages for negligence, breach of
contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The Company has not commented on the suit.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit For Misstating DVD100i Drive Capabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer firm Hewlett-Packard Corporation faces a class action filed in
Clark County court in Nevada over alleged misrepresentations of the
capabilities of its DVD100i drive, The Register reports.

The suit alleges that the Company initially represented that it
"manufactured, marketed and/or sold these drives with the representation
that they would be able to write the less expensive DVD+R discs."  However,
such representations subsequently 'disappeared.'  For example, a press
release by the Company in May 2001 promising the drive's capability was
deleted from the Company site.

The Company said in its FAQ on its sit that, "The upgrade program interface
will be intuitive and easy to use. With a few simple clicks, consumers will
be able to add DVD+R capabilities to their DVD+RW drives. Philips and HP
will make the DVD+R software upgrade DVD+ available this fall."   The
Company's FAQ now says that the 100i won't write DVD+R.

The suit said the "defendants simply and quietly purged the false
representations as to the universal compatibility of the product."  It
further states "prior to launching sales of the product, Defendants realized
that the product would never be compatible with the DVD+R format," according
to The Register.


MONTANA RESOURCES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Mine Workers' Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Employees at Montana Resources have reached tentative agreements to end
two class actions against the Company and its parent company, an attorney
for the employees says, according to an Associated Press
report.

One lawsuit accused Montana Resources of failing to give proper notice
to employees of its Butte mine when it closed indefinitely in 2000.  The
second lawsuit was filed over a change in the Washington Corporation
retirement plan, that employees said cost them money when the stock market
declined.  Montana Resources is part of Washington Corporation.

Attorney for the employees, Robert McCarthy, said the first settlement,
if approved, would divide $1.7 million among 315 employees.  After attorney
fees are paid, the average payment to mine workers would be
$3,740, Mr. McCarthy said.  The mine ceased operations in July 2000
because of low copper prices and high electricity contracts.  Workers
claimed mine officials did not give the required notice that a temporary
layoff could extend past the six-month mark.

The second settlement, if approved, would provide about $975,000 to some
4,000 Washington Corp. employees, including employees of the Butte
mine.  The lawsuit, filed in January 2001, charged that a record-keeping
change by Washington Corporation prevented employees from making changes in
their retirement investments from October 23 to December 21 of 2000.

While the Company mailed notices of the restrictions, some employees did not
receive them, the lawsuit said.

Under the proposed second settlement, those who did not get the notice
will receive 18.08 percent of what they lost in their retirement fund
during that period.  Other employees will receive 3.6 percent of their
net decline.


PENNSYLVANIA: Parties Move To Resolve Rights Suits V. Pittsburgh Police
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil rights activists, city officials and police are squaring off in
federal court to resolve dozens of lawsuits alleging abuse and misconduct by
Pittsburgh police officers as the city seeks court consent to the lifting of
five years of federal oversight.

A federal jury began hearing the first of 43 cases that were part of a
1996 class action filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which
accused the city, its highest officials and 75 officers of condoning a
pervasive pattern of abuse.

The allegations made by the lawsuit were forwarded to the US Department of
Justice, and, a year later, the city consented to federal oversight and
certain mandated reforms.

The 43 trials now before US District Court Judge Robert Cindrich, some
of which involve more than one plaintiff, are to determine whether 53
people were victims of what the Justice Department called a "pattern and
practice" of civil rights abuses by Pittsburgh officers and, if so,
whether they deserve any damages.  The cases are being heard back-to-back,
and lawyers expect all to be completed by year's end.

"You have 60-plus courageous people who filed this lawsuit to reform an
out-of-control Pittsburgh police department, and, with the assistance of the
Department of Justice, have largely succeeded in bringing some
accountability to the force," said Witold Walczak, executive director of the
Pittsburgh ACLU.  "Now, seven, eight years after the incidents, they will
get their day in court."

City officials and police view the lawsuits as one of two steps, along
with getting the consent decree lifted, to restore the department's
reputation and resolve the old misconduct allegations.  "We believe that we
are going to win the cases, and we are taking these on a case-by-case
basis," said Eugene Grattan, president of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Regardless of the outcome of the lawsuits, the ACLU, city officials and
police say the department has improved during the operation of the five-year
consent decree.  "There were cops with more than 30 complaints against them.
It was an environment where officers knew they could violate people's rights
with impunity," Mr. Walczak said.  "The results are mixed, but by and large
they are positive.  The police department of 2002 is not the same that our
plaintiffs sued."

City officials and police say the consent decree and accompanying federal
oversight should be lifted because they have complied with the
terms of the agreement for the past two years, a requirement for its
being lifted by Judge Cindrich.

Civil rights and community activists have criticized the city's attempts to
lift the decree, primarily because a city office, which handles complaints
against the police, has had a backlog of 409 cases as of November of last
year.


ROYAL BANK: Sued For Back-Dating Credit Card Interest in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Canada faces a class action filed in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia, charging the Bank and others with back-dating interest
charges.

The suit relates that if bank customers have the bank's credit card, some
extra money may have mysteriously appeared on their most recent credit card
statement. This credit was, according to the bank, repaid to cardholders for
improper interest charges. The new suit asserts the 17 million dollars paid
back to cardholders does not represent all the money that they are owed.

According to the suit,  if the customer doesn't pay his credit card
statement on time, the Bank charges him interest on the outstanding balance
as it appears on his last statement.  At the same time, if the customer
makes any new purchases that would normally be on next month's statement,
the Bank also charges him interest on those new purchases, even though the
statement is not yet overdue.

The suit asserts that, in fact, the customer hasn't even received a
statement that lets him know that he are being charged interest on these new
purchases. The $17 million repaid by the Bank was an acknowledgment that
prior to October 1, 2001, this practice was improper.

In October 2001, the Bank amended its agreement with cardholders in an
attempt to charge this interest.  According to lawyer, David Rosenberg,
"charging interest on new purchases without giving advanced notice violates
the Consumer Protection Act. The Bank must give consumers 10 days after
receiving a statement of account to make payment before interest can be
charged. A consumer has a right to reduce or avoid the cost of borrowing."

This action is brought on behalf of all persons who have incurred interest
in the use of credit cards for new purchases and it seeks reimbursement for
the interest the Bank has collected. If successful, the suit could force the
Bank to continue to repay millions of dollars to their credit card customers
from October 1, 2001 onward.

For more information, contact David Rosenberg of Rosenberg & Rosenberg by
Phone: 604-879-4505 by Fax: 604-879-4934 or by E-mail:
rosenberg-law@telus.net


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Suit For Failing To Pay Crew Members in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. faces two class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of its
current and former crew members, alleging that the Company failed to pay
them their full wages. The suit seeks payment of:

     (1) the wages alleged to be owed,

     (2) penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. Section 10313 of U.S. law and

     (3) punitive damages.

The Company is not able at this time to estimate the proceedings' effects,
and there can be no assurance that such proceedings, if decided adversely,
would not have a material adverse effect on its results of operations.


SHERWOOD SCUBA: Recalls 14,000 Scuba Regulators Due To Faulty Orifices
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwood SCUBA LLC is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 14,000 Maximus SCUBA
regulators. The second stage orifices on these regulators can be cracked,
bent or broken. This can result in a loss of breathing air underwater.

The Company has received seven reports of broken second stage orifices on
these regulators. Two of the regulators broke during dives underwater. No
injuries were reported.

The Maximus regulators included in this recall have the following
model, serial numbers and connection types:

     (1) Model Number: SRB5600, Serial Number Range: K600001 through
         K611834, Description: Yoke Connection

     (2) Model Number:SRB5600D2, Serial Number Range: DK60000 through
         DK62000, Description: Din-Style Connection

     (3) Model Number: SRB5600CE, Serial Number Range: EK60001 through
         EK62000, Description: Yoke Connection

The serial numbers are laser marked on the top of the second stage case
next to the mouthpiece.

Authorized Sherwood SCUBA distributors and dealers nationwide sold
these regulators from January 1998 through November 2000 for about $580.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-469-9929
between 8 am and 5 pm PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.sherwoodscuba.com


UNIVERSAL CORPORATION: Subsidiaries Face Tobacco Antitrust Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Several Universal Corporation subsidiaries face an amended class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina alleging violations of antitrust laws in the tobacco market.  The
subsidiaries named in the suit are:

     (1) Universal Leaf Tobacco Company, Incorporated,

     (2) JP Taylor Company, Incorporated and

     (3) Southwestern Tobacco Company, Incorporated

The suit, which also names other tobacco leaf merchants as defendants,
is a purported class action brought on behalf of US tobacco growers and
quota holders.  The suit alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
by bid-rigging at tobacco auctions and by conspiring to undermine the
tobacco quota and price support program administered by the federal
government.

On April 3, 2002, the Court certified the suit as a class action.  The
Company's subsidiaries intend to petition the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit for appeal of the class certification pursuant to
Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Regardless of the outcome of such petition and any consequent appeal,
the defendants intend to vigorously defend the Suit.  The suit is still in
its initial stages, and at this time no estimate of the impact on the
Company that could result from an unfavorable outcome at trial can be made.


* NY Attorney General Reveals Findings on Fraudulent Stock Analysis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer testified on Capitol Hill recently,
revealing the findings of his investigations into the dysfunctional
relationship between the stock-research analysts and the investment-banking
divisions of their firms.  Mr. Spitzer states, "It is an issue that I think
is shaking the foundation of Wall Street."

With Mr. Spitzer, leading the way, a number of additional investigations are
beginning, due to the Attorney General's initial startling findings that the
analysts routinely promoted companies their firms had brought public or
coveted as clients, even though their research revealed these companies were
unreliable, and some built on little more than "hope and hype," according to
a recent Boston Globe report.

That reluctance to issue unvarnished calls on the stocks of fledgling
companies is at the heart of the probes.  Mr. Spitzer and now others
charge the analysts never disclosed that, in many cases, they were
touting companies their firms had brought public.  It was this IPO
(initial public offering) work that generated hundreds of millions of
dollars in fees for the firms and paid the sky-high salaries commanded
by Wall Street's celebrity stock-research analysts like Henry Blodget at
Merrill Lynch, Mary Meeker at Morgan Stanley and Jack Grubman at Salomon
Smith Barney.

Simply put, Mr. Spitzer has charged that the analysts issued biased
stock recommendations to protect a rich vein of new economy business.
Wall Street pros may have realized how the game was being played, he
says, but many small investors were lured into the market by the buzz
surrounding technology company stocks.  They relied on the analysts to
their detriment, often following their advice to hang on to stocks whose
value was plummeting.

Mr. Spitzer's probes have unearthed thousands of pages of Merrill Lynch
documents, including e-mails in which Mr. Blodget and others on his
research team privately savaged dot-com stocks while touting them to the
public.

Several other states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and California
have said they would join the 10-month investigation.  A day after meeting
with Mr. Spitzer, Harvey Pitt, chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, announced that the SEC would launch a formal
probe.  The Justice Department has said it is considering an investigation
of the stock analysts.

While it took the better part of a year for Mr. Spitzer's probe to gain
altitude, a wholesale review of how analysts issue their stock
recommendations was probably inevitable in an atmosphere of growing
distrust of financial information.  The collapse of Enron and its auditor
Arthur Andersen has raised questions about whether accounting
firms ignored specious financial reporting by some of the companies they
monitored in order to protect lucrative consulting fees they earned from
those firms.

However, it has been Mr. Spitzer's probe that has opened the door to what
has overnight become a far-reaching criminal and civil inquiry into the
practices of stock-research analysts, several of whom became as well known
as rock stars.

The conflict-of-interest charges are not new - they were leveled at Mr.
Blodget and other analysts from practically the moment the dot-com boom
went bust starting in spring 2000.  In the time it took to conduct a
trade, the analysts went from heroes to villains, pilloried for pushing
the stocks of Internet companies that turned out to be built on illusions.

The analysts have argued that their recommendations were based on a sincere
belief that fundamental economic changes had occurred that rendered standard
measures like price/earnings ratios, revenues and
profits less important.  The near limitless growth of the Internet, they
believed, would propel start-ups into the ranks of established
companies.

However, the stunning Merrill Lynch e-mails subpoenaed by Mr. Spitzer have
undermined such arguments.  In some of the e-mails, Mr. Blodget and his team
members described some of the Internet companies they were
recommending to investors as "a piece of junk," "such a piece of crap," or a
"dog."   One e-mail, about GoTo.com, stated that there was nothing
interesting about the company "except banking fees."

One e-mail, written by Kristen Campbell, who reported to Mr. Blodget,
openly discussed the conflict that arose from pushing the start-ups that
were clients of the investment banking operation.  "The whole idea that we
are independent from banking is a big lie," she wrote.

The e-mails are a gift from heaven, ready-made to support shareholders class
actions.  Thomas Shapiro, a Boston attorney who specializes in investor
lawsuits, had his own characterization of the e-mails, "These e-mails are
really the smoking gun we have been looking for...Spitzer's investigation
could lead to major structural changes in the way analysts do business."

In reality, according to Mr. Spitzer, the stock analyst have been acting as
"quasi" investment bankers, who wooed new companies to the firm and then,
after the companies were taken public, continued to promote their stock in
order to keep them as clients.  In an affidavit, filed with a state court,
Mr. Spitzer said the analysts produced "misleading ratings that were neither
objective nor independent, as they purported to be."

The independence of the analysts was also eroded by the fact that, in
large part, their salaries were tied to the revenues earned by the
investment-banking operations.  Mr. Blodget, for example, who earned $3
million in 1999, saw his salary jump to $12 million in 2001.  By then,
he had become a regular on CNBC, the financial cable TV channel.  His
comments had a dramatic effect on stock prices.

His counterparts did just as well.  Mary Meeker, for example, the Morgan
Stanley analyst, earned $15 million in 1999, the peak of the boom.  Ms.
Meeker, called the "Queen of the Net," by Barron's, brought millions of
dollars of investment business to Morgan Stanley, as fledgling companies
sought to associate themselves with her star power.  Last week, Mr. Spitzer,
issued a subpoena to Salomon Smith Barney, asking for all documents related
to research conducted by Jack Grubman's team, which continued to recommend
telecom stocks even when they began to decline dramatically after 2000.

These three star analysts all became targets of investor lawsuits.  The
Boston law firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy, for example, filed a class action
against Merrill Lynch on behalf of InfoSpace shareholders.  However,
according to Thomas Shapiro, a principal in the firm, proving that Mr.
Blodget knowingly misled investors looked like it would be a significant
challenge.  Then Mr. Spitzer released his affidavit containing the damning
e-mails.

"That was like a long pass in a football game," recalled Mr. Shapiro.
"Suddenly, we were on the five-yard line."

The class actions may be the least of the firms' worries, as the
investigations expand.  Last week, Merrill Lynch hired the former mayor
of New York, Rudy Giuliani, as an adviser to help it negotiate with Attorney
General Spitzer to avoid criminal charges based on its past
actions.

Voluntary, industry-wide remedies are also being proposed as firms seek
to avoid criminal prosecutions.  Among the suggestions are a ban on direct
payments to stock analysts from their investment-banking colleagues, and
limits on promoting the stocks of companies the investment bankers are
taking public.

Israel Shaked, professor of finance and economics at Boston University's
School of Management, said there already are rules governing the behavior of
stock analysts. The problem, he said, "...is
that everybody ignores them.  We have always known that those alleged
walls between the research and the investment side were fake.  As an
analyst, the last thing you want to do is screw things up for your
company."

Mr. Shaked added that investors are partly to blame for creating the
inflated reputations of stock analysts.  "No one was questioning the
analysts when the market was going up.  All the analysts looked like
geniuses."  He said it was too early to predict what kinds of changes
will result from the probes of the securities firms.  However, he said he
believes the the future of reliable stock research lies not with a new
regulatory structure but with analysts who operate outside the
firms.

                          Securities Fraud

ALLIED IRISH: Stull Stull Lodges Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated an amended securities class action against
Allied Irish Banks, PLC (NYSE:AIB) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who acquired AIB
American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) between February 6, 1999 and February 6,
2002, inclusive.  This amended complaint extends the class period back to
February 6, 1999 and provides further details of the fraud.

The suit alleges that the Company's financial statements for the years 1999
through 2001 fraudulently failed to reflect at least $691 million of
currency trading losses associated with its AllFirst Financial, Inc.
subsidiary.  On February 6, 2002, the Company shocked the investment markets
by disclosing for the first time that its AllFirst subsidiary had concealed
massive losses from foreign exchange trading, and that it had halted all
currency trading at AllFirst.

Following this announcement, the Company's ADR price fell to $19.77, down
16% from the previous day's close of $23.55.  The Company has since admitted
that its 2001 financial reports alone overstated net income by as much as
$449 million.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East, 45th Street, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Trial Begins in Suit Over Failed Church Foundation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP recently told a pool of jurors in
Maricopa County Superior Court, in Arizona, that it was not responsible
for the failure of a church foundation that cost about 13,000 investors
$70 million when it filed for bankruptcy, according to an Associated
Press report.

The liquidation trust for the foundation has filed a lawsuit seeking $150
million in compensatory damages and more in punitive damages.  The court
proceedings are expected to last through mid-July.

The lawsuit accuses Andersen of ignoring warnings of fraud from both
inside and outside the Baptist Foundation of Arizona, when it issued
clean audits of the religious organization for 14 years.  However, Andersen
attorney Donald Martin told the pool of 47 jurors that Andersen was not at
fault because fraud within the foundation was hidden from the firm.

"What those auditors at Andersen could never do ... despite their best
efforts, was to penetrate a conspiracy of silence that was taking place
within the Baptist Foundation of Arizona beginning way back in the
1980s," Mr. Martin said.

The liquidation trust for the foundation claims Andersen should have
caught the fraud and could have helped prevent the largest nonprofit
bankruptcy in US history.  The foundation, which was created in 1948
as a nonprofit religious group to raise money for Southern Baptist
causes, filed for bankruptcy in 1999.

The trial begins two months after a $217 million settlement was reached
that would have resolved the trust's case, along with a class action
by former foundation investors, as well as a civil suit by state regulators
and disciplinary proceedings brought by the Arizona Board of
Accountancy.  The settlement fell through when Andersen said its
insurance carrier was unable to pay.  Lawyers say all those cases will
now be heard in court.

A jury of 12 was selected, and Andersen is expected to take four to five
weeks to present its evidence.  The Company plans to show that state
agencies such as the Attorney General's office and the Corporation
Commission share the blame for failing to act on complaints made in the
1990s about the foundation, Mr. Martin said.

Five former foundation officials have been indicted by an Arizona grand
jury on fraud, racketeering and theft.  Three others have pleaded guilty to
fraud charges and agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation and
testify against the others if necessary, officials said.


CIBC WORLD: Faces Possible Securities Suit Over DOV Pharmaceuticals IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment bank CIBC World Markets faces a potential securities class action
relating to the initial public offering of drug developer DOV
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  Investors reportedly lost money after news broke out
that the US Securities and Exchange Commissions mandated changes in DOV's
financial statements.

The SEC asked for changes relating to the Company's Bermuda-based joint
venture with Elan Corporation.  Elan Corporation has also come under fire
for fraudulent accounting practices in several class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Investors assert that they should have been given time to digest the
Securities and Exchange Commission-mandated changes.  Some said they weren't
informed until late Thursday, almost a full day after the shares had been
allotted and launched on the Nasdaq stock market, iWon.com reports.  Several
investment funds threatened to withhold payment because they weren't
informed about accounting changes reported on the afternoon of the IPO, said
investors who asked not to be named.

"People feel like they got speared," David Menlow, president of
IPOfinancial.com told iWon.com. "In this market no one wants to be
surprised."  Officials at CIBC and DOV didn't return calls.


DICK CLARK: Faces Suit Opposing Merger With DCPI Investco in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Clark Productions, Inc. faces a shareholder class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles opposing a
merger agreement between the Company and DCPI Investco., Inc.  The suit
names the Company and its directors as defendants.

The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in acts of self-dealing
and have violated fiduciary duties of "care, loyalty, candor and
independence" owed to its unaffiliated stockholders in connection with the
merger.  The complaint further alleges that the $14.50 price per share is
inadequate.

The Company has yet to respond to the suit.


DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Slotnick Shapiro Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slotnick, Shapiro & Crocker, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of DOV Pharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: DOVP) common stock in its
Initial Public Offering (IPO) or in the aftermarket.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors, and
the lead underwriters of the Company's IPO, CIBC World Markets and Lehman
Brothers, with violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The Company issued five million shares in its IPO on April 25, 2002 at $13 a
share, but failed to timely inform the class of a revision of its 1999
financial results to properly include a Joint Venture in Bermuda with Elan
Corporation. The class of purchasers of the shares in the IPO or in the
aftermarket were not promptly made aware of the restatement, and as a
result, suffered losses on the first day of trading or thereafter, when the
shares of the Company fell from $13 to $8.70 per share.

For more details, contact Stephen D. Oestreich by Mail: 100 Park Avenue,
35th Floor, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 212-687-5000 or
888-367-5291 by Fax: 212-687-3080 or by E-Mail: soestreich@sscny.com


DOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP launched a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of DOV Pharmaceutical (Nasdaq:DOVP) common stock in or
traceable to its initial public offering.

The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the
lead underwriters of the Company's IPO, with violations of Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The violations, as the complaint alleges,
stem from the issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements
contained in the Company's IPO-related registration statement and prospectus
that understated expenses arising from joint venture in Bermuda (DOV Bermuda
Ltd.).

The suit alleges that the Company issued five million shares in its IPO on
April 25, 2002 at $13 per share, but failed to timely inform the class of
the revision in its financial results. Consequently, as the complaint
alleges, Company investors experienced a two-fold surprise on April 25, 2002
when Company shares began public trading:

     (1) investors discovered that the Company's previously-issued
         financial statements had been misleading; and

     (2) investors witnessed Company shares lose approximately 33% of
         their value in one day, falling from their offering price of
         $13.00 to close trading at $8.70 per share.

For more information, contact Ira M. Press or Orie Braun by Mail: 830 Third
Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
212-317-2300 or 888-529-4787 by E-Mail: obraun@kmslaw.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com


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 suit 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 the Company 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 tradin
g 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 the Company attributed largely
to a $300 million write-down of its telecommunications ventures.

For more details, 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.


DYNEGY INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer initiated a securities class action against
Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN) and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between April 17, 2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges, among other
things, that during the class period, the defendants:

     (1) made false and misleading public disclosures regarding its
         cash flows from operations, and

     (2) failed to disclose information material to investors,
         including the details of its "Project Alpha," a transaction
         involving two special purpose entities and a partnership the
         Company created for the purposes of increasing cash flow from
         operations and decreasing tax costs.

As a result of the defendants' misleading statements and omissions during
the class period, the price of the Company's common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Laurence D. King by Mail: 601 Montgomery Street,
San Francisco, CA 94111 by Mail: 415-772-4700 by Fax:
415-772-4707 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


DYNEGY INC.: Scott + Scott Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC 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's 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 an "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 Company 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 Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by Phone:
800-404-7770 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
drscott@scott-scott.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com


DYNEGY INC.: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action suit against DYNEGY,
Inc. (NYSE: DYN) and certain officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased Company securities during the period between April
17, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive.

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

For more information, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N. Robinson,
Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone: 405-235-1560 by Fax:
405-239-2112 or by E-mail: wfederman@aol.com


DYNEGY INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard and Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN)
securities between April 17, 2001 and April 24, 2002 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

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's 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 Company 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 Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations
by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
800-217-1522 or 212-779-1414 by E-mail: DYN@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com.


DYNEGY INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division on behalf of purchasers of Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN) common stock
during the period between April 17, 2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the federal securities laws.  The suit alleges, among other
things, that during the class period defendants:

     (1) made false and misleading public disclosures regarding its
         cash flows from operations, and

     (2) failed to disclose information material to investors,
         including the details of its "Project Alpha," a transaction
         involving two special purpose entities and a partnership the
         Company created for the purposes of increasing cash flow from
         operations and decreasing tax costs.

As a result of defendants' misleading statements and omissions during the
class period, the price of the Company's common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices.

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


DYNEGY INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE: DYN) from April 17,
2001 through April 25, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
issuing false and misleading statements.  Specifically, the suit alleges,
among other things, that during the class period, the defendants:

     (1) made false and misleading public disclosures regarding its
         cash flows from operations, and

     (2) failed to disclose information material to investors,
         including the details of its "Project Alpha," a transaction
         involving two special purpose entities and a partnership the
         Company created for the purposes of increasing cash flow from
         operations and decreasing tax costs.

As a result of the defendants' misleading statements and omissions during
the class period, the price of the Company's common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.

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


EAGLE BUILDING: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer initiated a securities class action against Eagle
Building Technologies, Inc. (OTC: EGBT) and Anthony M. D'Amato in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between April 18, 2001 and February 14, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and Anthony M. D'Amato with violations of the
federal securities laws.  The suit alleges, among other things, that during
the class period the Company:

     (1) improperly recorded revenue from its construction business in
         India and made false and misleading statements regarding its
         India operations, and

     (2) made false and misleading statements regarding its post-
         September 11 business endeavors, including an airport baggage
         security system, mail sterilization technology, and money
         laundering detection software.

As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, Company stock price was
artificially inflated during the class period, trading as high as $12.30.
On the Company's February 14 announcement, its stock fell 68% to $1.44 on
heavy trading.

For more information, contact Laurence D. King by Mail: 601 Montgomery
Street, San Francisco, CA 94111 by Phone: 415-772-4700 by Fax:
415-772-4707 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


ECOMETRY CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Suit Opposing Merger With SG
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ecometry Corporation reached an agreement to settle the securities class
action pending against it and certain of its officers and directors in the
Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, relating to the proposed
merger between the Company and SG Merger Corporation.

The suit alleges that the proposed transaction between SG and the Company is
unfair to the Company's common shareholders.  Among other things, the
complaint alleged that the defendants breached duties
owed to the common shareholders to maximize the value received by the
shareholders.

The complaint sought a court order stopping the merger from going forward
and requiring the Company to follow other procedures allegedly
designed to elicit other potential bidders and obtain the highest possible
price for the Company.

The Company labeled the complaint "without merit" because:

     (1) the merger had been negotiated by the special committee; and

     (2) because the special committee had bargained for and obtained
         from SG a variety of shareholder protections that enabled the
         special committee to negotiate and consummate a transaction
         superior to the SG Merger if one or more other parties
         expressed interest in acquiring the company after public
         announcement of the SG Merger.

Following the Company's public announcement of the proposed Merger on
October 26, 2001, the Company received a merger proposal from Syngistix,
Inc.  Over a period of several weeks the special committee and the Company
negotiated with Syngistix and ultimately agreed to the Syngistix merger
announced publicly on January 28, 2002.

During those negotiations, the Company and the special committee were at all
times mindful of the pending class action litigation and its allegations
questioning the vigorousness and reasonableness of the Company's efforts in
negotiating the SG Merger. The special committee's negotiating efforts
resulted in an offer from Syngistix of $2.90 per share of the Company's
common stock (an increase of $0.20 per share as compared to the price
offered pursuant to the SG Merger Agreement).

After the announcement that the Company had agreed to the Syngistix
merger, the Company and the plaintiff in the litigation reached an agreement
in principle on February 11, 2002, to settle the litigation. That agreement
in principle is conditioned on the execution, filing, and final court
approval of a definitive settlement agreement, among other conditions.

Under the agreement in principle, among other terms, the plaintiff and the
class will dismiss with prejudice any and all claims that were brought or
could have been brought in the class action and will unconditionally release
such claims as against the defendants.

In addition, plaintiff's counsel will receive a payment from the company in
the amount of $100,000 in respect of counsel's fees and
expenses incurred in connection with prosecuting the suit, which
will be paid upon a court order finally approving the settlement becoming
non-appealable and otherwise final.

Although the Company continues to believe that the litigation was without
merit, it also believes that resolving the litigation now, and thereby
avoiding the uncertainties and additional expenses of the litigation
process, including any appeals, is in the Company's best
interests.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Los Angeles, California dismissed a
consolidated securities class action against Edison International Inc. for
failure to state a claim.

Two suits were originally commenced in October 2000 and March 2001 against
the Company, South California Edison Company (SCE) and certain of the two
Companies' officers.  The actions involve securities fraud claims arising
from alleged improper accounting by the two Companies for undercollections
in SCE's Transition Revenue Account (TRA undercollections).

On August 3, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's stock between July 21, 2000, and April 17,
2001. The suit alleged that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by
misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose material facts concerning the
financial condition of the Company and SCE, including that the defendants
allegedly overreported income and improperly accounted for the TRA
undercollections.

The TRA is a California Public Utilities Commission-authorized regulatory
asset account in which SCE records the difference
between the revenues received from customers through currently frozen rates
and the costs of providing service to customers, including power procurement
costs.


FIRST VIRTUAL: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suits Dismissal in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California federal court's
dismissal of several securities class actions pending against First Virtual
Communications, Inc. and certain of its officers in connection
with the Company's reporting of its financial results for the period
ended December 31, 1998.

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.

The Court dismissed these actions without leave to amend on February 14,
2000, and the plaintiffs promptly filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Appellate Court.  The appeal was taken under submission, following the
filing of briefs by the parties and the presentation of oral argument on
July 11, 2001.  On March 15, 2002, the Court of appeals affirmed the lower
court's judgment, dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing in the Ninth Circuit.


FIRST VIRTUAL: Officers Face Derivative Shareholder Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of the directors and officers of First Virtual Communications, Inc.
face an amended shareholder derivative action filed in California Superior
Court in the County of Santa Clara, alleging that they 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 denied the allegations in the
suit, 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 plaintiffs moved for leave to take certain third-party
discovery, which was denied by the court. 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.


IMMUNEX CORPORATION: Settles Securities Suits Over Amgen, Inc. Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology company, Immunex Corporation, settled three securities suits,
including class actions, filed over its pending merger with Amgen, Inc.,
Reuters Securities reports.

The suits, filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders, charged the
Company with failing to act in their best interests.  Amgen is acquiring the
Company for about US$16 billion in cash and stock.

Under the agreement, the Company reduced the termination fee associated with
the deal by US$20 million, resulting in a final tally of US$455 million.
The Company said it had obtained an updated opinion from Merrill Lynch about
the fairness of the merger from a financial point of view and agreed to
provide additional merger-related disclosures in regulatory filings, Reuters
reports.  The Company also agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.

"We are basically agreeing to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees, but the
those fees still have to be approved by the court," Company spokesman Josh
Schroeter told Reuters.  "We are pleased to eliminate the burden and expense
and the possibility of more lawsuits,"

The Company expects the merger to be completed as early as June, pending
required shareholder and regulatory approvals.


JDS UNIPHASE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer initiated a securities class action against JDS
Uniphase Corporation (NASDAQ: JDSU) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased publicly
traded securities of the Company 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 federal securities laws.  The suit alleges, among other
things, that during the class period, defendants were motivated to inflate
the value of Company stock so that it could make acquisitions using stock
and so the individual defendants, who are the top officers and directors of
the Company, could sell their shares.

The Company also misrepresented the success of its largest acquisitions,
including Optical Coating Labs, Cronos Integrated Microsystems, E-Tek
Dynamics, and SDL, Inc.

As a result of these positive statements, Company stock traded as high as
$146.32.

The Individual Defendants, all top officers and directors of the Company,
and its controlling shareholder took advantage of the inflation, selling or
disposing of 25.2 million shares of their stock for proceeds of $2.1
billion.

Then, on July 26, 2001, the Company announced a restatement of March 31,
2001 results, the write-off of $44 billion in goodwill associated with its
acquisitions, inventory write-downs and that EPS for the 2001 fiscal year
would be only $0.16 and that it would incur a loss of $0.15 in its 2002
fiscal year. On this news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90 - or
more than 94% lower than the class period high of $146.32.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine or Hae Sung
Nam by Mail: 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


KASHNER DAVIDSON: Sued For Securities Violations in Streamedia IPO
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kashner Davidson Securities Group, Inc. was named as defendant in the
securities class action pending in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Streamedia
Communications, Inc. common stock.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws, including the
issuance of materially false and misleading information.  The Company was a
selling group participant in the offering.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the suit for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  It is difficult, however,
at this time to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and
estimate the amount or range of potential loss at this time.  The Company
will vigorously defend this matter.


KINROSS GOLD: Berger Montague Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC and attorney Reginald H. Howe, through the Nevada law
firm of Kummer Kaempfer Bonner & Renshaw commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for Nevada against:

     (1) Kinross Gold Corporation (Amex: KGC),

     (2) Kinross Gold USA Inc.,

     (3) Kinam Gold Inc. (Amex: KGC.pb) and

     (4) Robert M. Buchan, Company Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities unrelated to Kinross
who now hold Kinam Preferred Stock or who tendered Kinam Preferred Stock to
the issuer tender offer by Kinross USA effected February to March 2002.

The suit alleges that defendants, over an extended time frame and in
numerous separate steps:

     (i) breached the terms of the Kinam Preferred Stock;

    (ii) breached the fiduciary duties owed by control persons and
         major shareholders to other shareholders;

   (iii) violated the "best price rule" promulgated under Section 13(e)
         of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

    (iv) violated anti-fraud provisions of rules promulgated under
         Sections 10(b), 13(e) and 14(c) of the Exchange Act;

     (v) violated the anti-racketeering law set forth in Section 207 of
         the Nevada Revised Statutes;

    (vi) committed common law fraud and

   (vii) violated New York Stock Exchange Rule 311.03.

Since the 1998 merger pursuant to which the Company acquired control of
Kinam, as alleged in the complaint, the Company has consistently and
repeatedly acted to impair the value of Kinam Preferred Stock in order to
facilitate a subsequent purchase at an unfair price, culminating in the
coercive and illegal tender offer of February-March 2002.

For more information, contact Merrill G. Davidoff, Jacob A. Goldberg or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.com


LIBERTY MEDIA: Suits Opposing Merger Dismissed After Company Withdraws
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All but one of the class actions opposing the merger between Liberty
Satellite & Technology, Inc. and Liberty Media Corporation have been
dismissed after Liberty Media withdrew its proposal to acquire by merger all
the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock that it did not already
own.

Liberty Media proposed in October 2001, to exchange each share of Company's
common stock would for 0.09 of a share of Liberty Media Series A common
stock.

After the announcement, eight class actions were commenced in on behalf of
the stockholders of the Company in the Court of Chancery in New Castle
County, Delaware.  Another two suits were initiated on behalf of Company
stockholders in the United States District Court in Arapahoe County,
Colorado.  The suits generally named as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Gary Howard,

     (2) John W. Goddard,

     (3) J. Curt Hockemeier,

     (4) Alan M. Angelich,

     (5) Williams H. Berkman,

     (6) Robert R. Bennett, and

     (7) William R. Fitzgerald, an officer of Liberty Media who had
         been nominated, but not elected, to fill a vacancy on the
         board.

Certain of the Company's officers were named as defendants in one of the
Delaware Actions, and Carl Vogel, a former officer and director of the
Company, was named as a defendant in one of the Delaware Actions.

The suits asserted that the offer made by Liberty Media:

     (i) was the product of unfair dealing by Liberty Media and its
         affiliates on the Company's board of directors;

    (ii) did not offer the public stockholders of the Company fair
         value for their shares; and

   (iii) was timed to take advantage of drop in the trading price of
         the Company's stock.

On December 3, 2001, Liberty Media announced the withdrawal of the October
12, 2001 proposal.  All of the suits except one pending in Delaware have
been subsequently dismissed without prejudice.  The Company believes that
the claims in the remaining suit are unripe and without merit, and will be
dismissed as well.


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer initiated a securities class action against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and First Vice
President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, 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 Internet
Capital Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ICGE) between August 30, 1999 and November 8,
2000, inclusive.

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

The suit further alleges that, when issuing their ICGE 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 ICGE analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of ICGE stock, the defendants failed to disclose
material, non-public, adverse information, which they possessed about ICGE.

Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained an "ACCUMULATE/BUY"
recommendation on ICGE in order to obtain and support lucrative financial
deals for Merrill Lynch.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
analyst reports, the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated
levels during the class period.

For more information, contact Frederick S. Fox or Jonathan K. Levine by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.kaplanfox.com


NEOPHARM INC.: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased NeoPharm, Inc. common stock
(Nasdaq:NEOL) between September 25, 2000 and April 19, 2002, both dates
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) John N. Kapoor,

     (2) James M. Hussey, and

     (3) Aquilur Rahman

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements about the Company's experimental drug Liposome
Encapsulated Paclitaxel (LEP).  In particular, it is alleged that defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning LEP's efficacy and clinical
trials for FDA approval.

The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements
the price of Company common stock was artificially inflated throughout the
class period causing plaintiff and the other members of the class to suffer
damages and enabling certain of the individual defendants to sell their
shares at artificially inflated prices for proceeds in excess of $7 million.

For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or 212-682-1818 by Fax:
212-682-1892 by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.rabinlaw.com.


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

     (1) George S. Blumenthal,

     (2) J. Barclay Knapp,

     (3) Steven Carter and

     (4) John F. Gregg

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
class period, thereby artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East, 45th Street, New
York NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com


NYACK HOSPITAL: Schoengold & Sporn Commences Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Schoengold & Sporn, PC initiated a securities fraud class action on behalf
of all persons or institutions who acquired $28 million Nyack Hospital
revenue bonds issued by the New York State Dormitory Authority in 1996
between May 1, 1999 and February 14, 2002, the date the Hospital announced
that its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 2000
were materially overstated and that its auditor KPMG LLP failed to conduct
proper audits in 1999 and 2000 in order to detect material errors.

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its directors and officers and
KPMG 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 Hospital bonds.

Specifically, the suit alleges that with respect to the 1999 financial
statements, net assets were overstated between $12,500,000 and $12,800,000
as of December 31, 1999, and with respect to the 2000 financial statements,
net assets were overstated between $10,900,000 and $12,500,000 as of
December 31, 2000.

On February 12, 2002, the Hospital issue a "notice of event" to its bond
holders, detailing and quantifying the misrepresentations in its 1999 and
2000 financial statements.  After the Hospital released the notice of event,
the Hospital bonds traded at $741.50 per bond on March 14, 2002, and, in
March 2002, the Hospital commenced an action against KPMG for damages
arising from its improper audits of its 1999-2000 financial statements.

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


SELECT COMFORT: MN Court Grants Class Certification To Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota conditionally
certified as a class action the securities suit pending against Select
Comfort Corporation, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The class includes all persons and entities, other than defendants and their
heirs, successors, and assigns and the members of individual defendants'
immediate families, who:

     (1) purchased Company stock issued under and/or traceable to the
         Company's registration statement/prospectus dated December 4,
         1998, which was declared effective by the SEC on December 3,
         1998 and filed in connection with the Company's IPO; or

     (2) purchased the Company's common stock in the open market during
         the period December 4, 1998 through June 7, 1999, and who were
         damaged by defendants' violations of the federal securities
         laws.

For more details, contact the case administrator by Mail: PO Box 683, Old
Chelsea Station, New York, NY 10113-0955.


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 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 during the
class period, 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.

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, defendants 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, George
Peters, Michael Miske 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.


SWISS HELVETIA: Bylaw Claims Labeled "Moot," Dismissed in DE Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the claims in the securities class actions pending against Swiss
Helvetia Fund, Inc. in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware have
been dismissed, as they were deemed "moot" by stipulation of the parties in
the suits.

The suits were commenced in April 2001 on behalf of the Fund's stockholders
against the Fund, each of its directors and its investment advisor,
Hottinger Capital Corporation.  The suits allege that the defendants have:

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

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

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

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


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Symbol Technologies,
Inc. (NYSE:SBL) during the period from October 20, 2000 through February 13,
2002, inclusive in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

The suit names as defendants the Company and three of its senior officers.
CVS Corporation and Federal Express have been identified as two companies
from which, the Company prematurely booked orders as revenue in order to
artificially boost its fourth quarter 2000 sales.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  As alleged in the suit, the Company, a
provider of wireless networking and information systems, engaged in various
improper revenue recognition practices that had the effect of increasing its
reported revenue and profits.

Along with its premature booking of revenue from CVS and Federal Express,
the Company:

     (1) booked an unusually large one-time royalty payment from a
         company in which it had invested $50 million, thereby
         essentially paying itself to inflate third quarter 2000
         results;

     (2) used expenses associated with its December 2000 acquisition of
         troubled Telxon Corp. to mask declining sales; and

     (3) booked more than $40 million in revenue in the first quarter
         of 2001 from orders, which included side provisions allowing
         customers to delay payments or return merchandise, and from
         orders that were never shipped.

In May 2001, around the time the Company reported its inflated first quarter
2001 results, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began an inquiry
into the Company's financial reports.  In response, the Company commissioned
an independent review of its sales practices by the accounting and
consulting firm KPMG.

The public became aware of the Company's activities when on February 13,
2002, Newsday.com published an expose regarding many of the aforementioned
financial machinations.  The next day, the Company announced it was lowering
its sales and earnings projections for 2002 and that its Chief Executive
Officer had unexpectedly resigned.

Following the report made in the Newsday article and the Company's
announcements, the price of Company stock fell more than 77% from a class
period high price of $37.29 to close at $8.40 on February 15, 2002.

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.pomerantzlaw.com


WORLDCOM INC.: Lovell & Stewart Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell & Stewart, LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the common stock of WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq:WCOM) between January 3,
2000, and April 29, 2002, inclusive in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Bernard J. Ebbers, its President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) James C. Allen, director,

     (3) Max E. Bobbitt, director,

     (4) Francesco Galesi, director, and

     (5) Arthur Anderson, LLP

The lawsuit 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, as
well as pendant state law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
intentional deceit/ and seeks to recover damages.

The complaint alleges that violated the federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with false and/or
misleading financial statements. Particularly, the defendants misrepresented
the Company's earnings in its public filings with the SEC and elsewhere as a
result of failing to record write-downs of goodwill and other intangible
assets associated with its acquisition of numerous telecommunications
companies at premium prices.

The suit further alleges that the defendants affirmatively misstating the
value of goodwill and other intangible assets associated with the Company's
acquisition of numerous telecommunications companies at premium prices and
carrying such assets on the Company's balance sheet at the cost of acquiring
them long after it had become apparent that the Company had overpaid to
acquire such assets.

Additionally, the defendants failed to disclose that the Company's goodwill
and other intangible assets associated with its acquisitions of numerous
telecommunications companies at premium prices were being carried at
unrealistically and misleadingly high values on its balance sheet.

For more details, contact Christopher Lovell, Victor E. Stewart or
Christopher J. Gray by Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110 by
Phone: 212-608-1900 by E-mail: sklovell@aol.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.lovellstewart.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  * * *