CAR_Public/020506.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                  Monday, May 6, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 88

                              Headlines

                              *********

AMTRAK LITIGATION: Suits Over Crescent City Derailment Gain Ground
CAREMARK RX: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties in CA Court
DIMON INC.: Named as Defendant in Tobacco Growers Antitrust Suit in NC
ECR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 8T Boilers Over Potential Monoxide Poisoning
EUROPA CRUISES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act in Nevada

GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.: Faces Potential Suit Due to "Addictive" Paxil
MOVIE GALLERY: Faces Suit Over Extended Viewing Fees in Various Courts
NEBRASKA: Residents File Suit for "Illegal" Monthly Phone Surcharge
NEW YORK: Court Upholds Hearing Rights of Cabbies Who Refuse Minorities
NEXTEL PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Health Defects From Wireless Phones

SLAVE REPARATIONS: NJ African-American Files Suit for Compensation
UNITRIN INC.: Settles For US$33M Race-Based Premiums Suit in Alabama
VALUEVISION INTERNATIONAL: Customers Sue Over Computer Purchase in MN

                                 *********

3COM CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Amend Shareholder Derivative Suit in CA
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Rabin Peckel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Fails to Reach Settlement in Mediation of Enron Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DEL GLOBAL: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York

DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
INTERNET CAPITAL: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
JDS UNIPHASE: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

MCAFEE.COM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suits, Others Still Pending
MERILL LYNCH: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MERILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NEWMARK HOMES: Agrees to Settle Suits Over Merger With Engle Holding

                              *********

AMTRAK LITIGATION: Suits Over Crescent City Derailment Gain Ground
------------------------------------------------------------------
When the National Transportation Safety Board, after a number of
months, wraps up its investigation of the recent Amtrak derailment, in
Crescent City, Florida, which killed four, it will not be the end of
the story, The Florida Times-Union reported recently.

For victims of the derailment and the companies involved, lawsuits mean
the process - a long legal process - is just beginning.  Many attorneys
have said that railroad accidents generally take years to resolve.  
This legal process already has started with a class action filed in
federal court in Jacksonville, Florida.  Another is planned on behalf
of passengers in Crescent City.

A team of law firms, led by Hallandale Beach attorney Brian Rodier,
filed a class action the day after the accident against Amtrak.  The
suit was later changed to include Jacksonville's CSX Transportation
(CSXT) and its parent company, CSX Corporation, and the manufacturers
of the train tracks.  Mr. Rodier's team includes Little, Arkansas-based
attorney Gene Cauley and New Orleans attorney Paul Brannon.  Mr. Rodier
declined to say how many passengers his team is representing.

Jacksonville attorney Scott Parks, who has represented plaintiffs in
nearly 100 cases involving railroads, said he plans to file within 14
days and has three clients from the Crescent City disaster.

Four people were killed and more than 150 injured in the derailment of
Amtrak's Auto Train.  The Transportation Board is focusing its
investigation on misaligned tracks as the possible cause.  Board
spokesman Keith Holloway said that nothing has been ruled out.  The
40-car train was going 56 mph in a 60-mph zone while traveling from
Sanford to Lorton, Virginia.  The train carried 418 passengers and 34
crew members, as well as 200 automobiles.

Personal injury cases normally are time consuming when there is only
one defendant.  Multiple defendants are sure to make this case slower
than usual as each party tries to shift the blame, said Mr. Rodier.  
"They will have their engineers (as witnesses) and the engineers will
battle it out."

Jacksonville attorney Robert Beckham, who has dealt with railroad cases
for 45 years, said the delay in resolving such cases is typically
caused by money rather than determination of responsibility.  "The
transportation company is usually the first to know the cause of the
accident, and the injured people are the last to know," he said.  "They
have the opportunity to gather and make tentative appraisal of the
long-term handling of the situation.  If it was their fault, they save
a lot of money and time if they can make a fair and quick settlement."


CAREMARK RX: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, Inc. faces a purported private class action pending in the
United State District Court for the Central District of California,
similar to pending litigation recently filed against other pharmacy
benefit management companies.

The suit alleges that the Company acts as a fiduciary as that term is
defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and
that the Company has breached certain purported fiduciary duties under
ERISA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit,
and intends to vigorously defend these claims.


DIMON INC.: Named as Defendant in Tobacco Growers Antitrust Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimon, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of US tobacco
growers and quota holders.  The suit also names as defendants cigarette
manufacturers and other leaf tobacco merchants.

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.  
In April 2002, the court certified the suit as a class action.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the suit.  Because the suit is
still in its initial stages, the Company cannot estimate the amount or
range of loss that could result if the suit is resolved in a manner
unfavorable to it.


ECR INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 8T Boilers Over Potential Monoxide Poisoning
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ECR International is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 8,000
gas-fired boilers.  The burners on these boilers could produce excess
carbon monoxide in the flue, due to improper combustion, posing a risk
of monoxide poisoning to consumers.  The Company has not received any
reports of injuries or incidents relating to these boilers. This recall
is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries. The firm
discovered the problem with these boilers during routine testing.

The recalled boilers have the Dunkirk, Sears Kenmore, Bryant, Carrier,
Payne, Lennox and Pennco brand names, which is written on the front of
the boilers. The model and serial number are located on the data plate
located on the right side of the boiler. The following models and
serial numbers are included in the recall:

     (1) Brand: Dunkirk/Sears, Kenmore, Model Numbers: PVWB-4 through
         PVWB-9, PWB4 through PWB9, PWB-4 through PWB-9, PWX-4 through
         PWX-9, Serial Numbers: 320100007S - 520100299S, 010200098S -
         090200182S,

     (2) Brand: Lennox, Model Numbers:GWB8-105E through GWB8-280E,
         GWB8-105S through GWB8-280S, Serial Numbers: 340100148S -
         500100600S, 010200199S - 050200279S

     (3) Brand: Carrier/Bryant/Payne, Model Numbers: BW1AAN000105 -
         BW1AAN000280, BW1AAP000105 - BW1AAP000280, BW2AAP000105 -
         BW2AAP000280, Serial Numbers: 3601V04044S - 5201V08708S,
         0102V000015S - 0902V01118S

     (4) Brand: Pennco, Model Numbers: 1504HWID and 1509HWID(natural
         gas), 1504HWD and 1509HWD(natural gas), 1502HWID -
         1509HWID(LPgas only), 1502HWD - 1509HWD (LP gas only), Serial
         Numbers: 90131-0924 through 90152-0424, 90201-0421 through
         90208-0424,

Independent heating contractors sold and installed these boilers
nationwide from August 2001 through March 2002 for between $1,200 and
$3,000.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 241-5501
between 8 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday, or go to the firm's Web
site: http://www.boilerrecall.com.
        

EUROPA CRUISES: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of RICO Act in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Europa Cruises of Florida 1, Inc. intends to vigorously oppose the
class action filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada, Southern Division.  The suit names thirty other companies
who are owners, operators and distributors of cruise ship casinos which
utilized casino video poker machines and electronic slot machines.

The suit, which was originally commenced in the US District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, alleges violation of the federal civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, common law
fraud and deceit, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.  

Lead plaintiff William Poulos also filed a similar action against most
major, land-based casino operators in the United States, in the United
States District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada.  The suits similarly
contend that the defendant owners and operators of casinos, including
cruise ship casinos, along with the distributors and manufacturers of
video poker machines and electronic slot machines have engaged in a
course of fraudulent and misleading conduct intended to induce people
to play their machines based on a false understanding that the machines
operate in a truly random fashion.

The suits allege that these machines actually follow fixed, preordained
sequences that are not random, but rather are both predictable and
subject to manipulation by defendants and others.

The Florida federal court later transferred the suit to the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada, Southern Division.  
Accordingly, the case against the Company and the other defendants in
the cruise ship industry will be litigated and perhaps tried together
with those cases now pending against the land-based casino operators
and the manufacturers, assemblers and distributors of gaming equipment
previously sued in the United States District Court in Nevada.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE INC.: Faces Potential Suit Due to "Addictive" Paxil
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. faces a potential class action initiated by Iyana
Goyette, 23, a law student at the University of Ottawa, alleging that
she suffered serious withdrawal problems after having used during a
period of 18 months the drug PAXIL prescribed by her physician in order
to control anxiety attacks.

Mrs. Goyette alleges in the motion to have suffered serious withdrawal
problems the minute she attempted to reduce her daily dose.
Furthermore, when she attempted to stop completely, she had to stay in
bed for at least 4 days without moving, without eating, at the
slightest movement.  She had nausea, dizziness, jolting electric "zaps"
in the head.  She had to drag herself on the floor to go to the
bathroom and was incapable to go about her usual occupations.  She
allegedly suffered from insomnia, nightmares, excessive fatigue,
shaking, irritability, irritability, concentration difficulties and
lethargy.

The medication introduced in Canada in 1993 was prescribed to thousands
of persons in Quebec and in Canada since being marketed. After
consulting the internet site www.quitpaxil.org, the petitioner realized
that many other persons where experiencing the same withdrawal problems
as she was from the medication PAXIL.

Mrs. Goyette's is claiming damages in the amount of $25,000, for
damages to her physical and mental health. Her motion is scheduled to
be presented in the Montreal Superior Court, May 15, 2002.

For more details, contact Carmen Campeau, director, client members'
service, Lauzon Belanger by Mail: (514) 287-1000 or 1-800-287-8587 or
by E-mail: serviceauxmembres@lauzonbelanger.qc.ca


MOVIE GALLERY: Faces Suit Over Extended Viewing Fees in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Movie Gallery, Inc. faces several class actions in Alabama, Texas and
Tennessee state courts, regarding the extended viewing fees that the
Company charges its customers in those states.  The suits allege that
the extended viewing fees the Company charges for keeping its rental
products beyond the initial rental period are penalties in violation of
common law and equitable theories.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Company
noted that similar lawsuits have been filed against the two largest
chains in the video rental industry.  The Company believes that its
extended viewing fees do not violate any laws.  As a result, the
Company intends to vigorously oppose the suits.  However, the Company
cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of these proceedings.


NEBRASKA: Residents File Suit for "Illegal" Monthly Phone Surcharge
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of citizens is asking Nebraska's Supreme Court to declare that
a monthly fee charged to telephone customers is an illegal tax, The
Associated Press reports.  The class action alleges that a monthly
seven percent surcharge on telephone service, set by the state Public
Service Commission in 1999, is unconstitutional because it was not
approved by the Legislature.  

"They call it a surcharge, but it is a tax," said attorney David
Domina, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of three citizens.

The suit also alleges that the fees are wrongly being used by telephone
companies to build and upgrade their systems.  "We feel that this is
not a very good way to raise revenue for a private phone company," Mr.
Domina said.

The fees paid into the Universal Service Fund have totaled more than
$105 million, including $56 million in the last fiscal year.  The fees
were brought about by the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, and
are meant to help subsidize rural telephone service.  The fees also
came after a failed 1998 petition drive that was aimed at reducing
long-distance rates in Nebraska.   

Supporters of the petition drive wanted to force local telephone
companies to lower access charges they charge AT&T and other long-
distance companies to originate and terminate calls.

"Long distance rates were kept artificially high to keep local rates
affordable," said Jeff Pursley, who heads the Public Service
Commission's Universal Service Department.  "Without the Universal
Service Fund, you would continue to have access rates five to ten times
higher than what you have today," Mr. Pursley said.  He stressed that
it is expensive to provide phone service in sparsely populated areas.

The Universal Service Fund fee is placed on customers' monthly bills.  
The seven percent surcharge applies to basic telephone rates and any
additional services, such as call waiting, pagers and wireless phones.
It also applies to all in-state long-distance calls, but not to
Internet service or long-distance calls outside the state.

Of the 50 companies that provide local phone service in Nebraska, 26
have tapped into the Universal Service Fund to help subsidize service
in rural areas, Mr. Pursley said.  If not for the Universal Service
Fund, rates would probably exceed $50 a month in some areas.


NEW YORK: Court Upholds Hearing Rights of Cabbies Who Refuse Minorities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has ruled that taxi drivers must be granted a hearing
before their licenses can be suspended for illegally refusing to pick
up minority passengers, The Associated Press wrote in a recent report.  
The ruling came in a class action filed against the Taxi and Limousine
Commission by a group of cab drivers who claimed that suspending their
licenses before a hearing deprived them of the chance to defend
themselves.

The lawsuit arose out of a program called "Operation Refusal," in which
undercover police and taxi commission inspectors posing as passengers
attempted to identify discriminatory drivers.  Cabdrivers caught
bypassing minorities were issued citations and had their licenses
suspended and their cabs temporarily confiscated, pending a later
hearing.

However, US District Court Judge Raymond Dearie, in Brooklyn, recently
ruled that the accused cabbies must have a right to a hearing first,
before such actions are taken against them.  The judge, however, sided
with the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) on whether it had the
power - after a hearing - to suspend or revoke taxi licenses after only
the first or second offense.  The city laws, "at least arguably," said
Judge Dearie, give it the authority to do so.

"Operation Refusal" came about after actor Danny Glover, who is black,
filed a complaint with the TLC, in which he complained that several
taxis drove past him.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Health Defects From Wireless Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Nextel Partners, Inc. faces a purported class action pending in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia.  The suit also names
as defendants several other wireless carries and manufacturers of
wireless telephones.

The suit alleges that the defendants, among other things, manufactured
and distributed wireless telephones that cause adverse health affects.  
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, reimbursement for certain
costs including reasonable legal fees, punitive damages and injunctive
relief.

The Company disputes the allegations of the suit and intends to
vigorously defend against the action.


SLAVE REPARATIONS: NJ African-American Files Suit for Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
An insurance company, railroad and bank have been targeted in the
latest class action seeking compensation for the unpaid labor of black
slaves, The Associated Press reported recently.  The suit has been
filed in the United States District Court on behalf of a Somerset
County, New Jersey man, Richard E. Barber, Jr., whose grandfather was a
slave, and an unknown number of others with similar backgrounds,
according to lawyers in the case.

The lawsuits maintain that:

     (1) there is no time limit on justice for crimes against humanity;

     (2) "equity has no statute of limitations;" and

     (3) since the companies named as defendants profited from unpaid
         labor, the descendants of African slaves should receive
         compensation.  

It is the second in a promised series of class actions that could test
the limits of corporate responsibility for activities that occurred
over a century ago.

Mr. Barber will accuse New York Life Insurance Co., Brown Brothers
Harriman & Co., and Norfolk Southern Corp. of profiting directly or
indirectly from the work of slaves, the lawyers said.

"It is finally time for them to account for these historical injustices
and to pay back the monies unjustly acquired by their actions," said
Mr. Barber, who was a regional administrator of the Small Business
Administration under President Jimmy Carter.  He said his father had
been a share cropper, but his great-grandfather, grandfather and five
great-aunts and great-uncles were slaves.

The Barber case is built on the precedent established in the class
action Holocaust claims, that banks, insurers and industrials cannot
benefit from slavery, Mr. Barber's lawyer, Roger S. Wareham, said.  The
Holocaust claims resulted in multibillion settlements, and Mr. Wareham
said that the African slavery plaintiffs are prepared to negotiate.  

In addition to unspecified monetary compensation, they seek the
creation of a trust fund to address inequities in health care, housing
and education, he said. The ancestors of slavery continue to suffer
from slavery's legacy of discrimination - they "lag behind whites
according to every social yardstick: literacy, life expectancy, income
and education," the lawsuit says, thus laying the foundation of damages
suffered that would be addressed by such a trust.

The lawsuit explains the choice of defendants.  It charges that the New
York bank's founders, James and William Brown, "built their merchant
bank by lending to Southern planters, brokering slave-grown cotton and
acting as a clearinghouse for the South's complex financial system."  

A Brown Brothers partner, Donald Murphy, acknowledged that some of
their business early in the 19th century included "those involved in
the cotton trade."  He declined to comment on the allegation that the
bank loaned money to plantation owners to buy slaves.

The lawsuit says that the predecessor company of New York-based New
York Life, Nautilus Insurance, earned premiums from insuring the lives
of slaves in policies sold to slave owners.  Company spokesman William
Werfelman said its records show Nautilus wrote policies on the lives of
slaves in 1846 and 1847, adding, "The trustees of Nautilus properly
voted to end the practice in 1848, more than a dozen years before the
Civil War."  Mr. Werfelman also said that "Any lawsuits about events
150 years ago face huge legal hurdles, and we fully expect to prevail
in court."

The lawsuit says Norfolk Southern of Norfolk, Virginia, was built from
"numerous railroad lines that were constructed or run, in part, by
slave labor."  Railroad spokesman Frank Brown said the Company would
defend itself.  "We think the courts are not the appropriate place, 140
years after the abolition of slavery, to try to attribute the wrongs of
what was a regretful legal and political system to individuals,
industries or institutions."


UNITRIN INC.: Settles For US$33M Race-Based Premiums Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Unitrin, Inc. reached a settlement in the class action relating to the
use of race decades ago as a factor in the underwriting and pricing of
life insurance by certain Company subsidiaries.  The agreement will
provide additional benefits to African-American and other minority
policyholders with racially-underwritten policies and will resolve all
pending class action lawsuits on this issue, as well as other issues in
the litigation unrelated to race-based underwriting.  

The settlement provides a minimum of $33 million in benefits to class
members. The agreement was reached with attorneys representing affected
policyholders and is subject to approval by an Alabama state court. The
Unitrin subsidiaries covered by the settlement are United Insurance
Company of America, The Reliable Life Insurance Company and Union
National Life Insurance Company.

At the same time, the Company has completed a regulatory agreement with
Illinois Director of Insurance Nathaniel S. Shapo on behalf of
insurance regulators nationwide. This agreement provides for an
additional $1 million of cash relief to certain policyholders and a
fine of $1.25 million to be apportioned among participating states.

The long-abandoned industry practice of using race as an underwriting
factor meant that African Americans and other minorities with affected
policies paid higher premium rates than whites. This practice was based
on decades-old actuarial tables that indicated a shorter life
expectancy for African Americans as a group.

"We deeply regret that years ago, some of our companies followed the
industry practice of using race as one of several factors in
determining insurance rates and we apologize to our former and current
customers for the time it took to address this issue," said Richard C.
Vie, Company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.  "Race-based pricing
is not our practice today and has not been practiced by our companies
for decades, so we are pleased to have resolved this historic pricing
issue and renew our mission to provide basic, affordable and fairly
priced insurance for all our customers."

The proposed settlement provides relief for racially-underwritten
insurance policies by either increasing the death benefit of affected
policies that are still in force or allowing class members the option
of receiving a cash refund instead of the increased death benefit, and
reducing the future premiums, if any, that may become due on these
policies.

Beneficiaries or heirs of racially-underwritten policies on which a
death claim or endowment was paid will receive a supplemental cash
payment. Persons who owned racially-underwritten policies that were
premium-paying after 1960 but have since lapsed or terminated are also
eligible to make a claim for benefits.

For more information, contact Scott Renwick or Stacey Brown by Phone:
312/240-2624 or 312/240-2719


VALUEVISION INTERNATIONAL: Customers Sue Over Computer Purchase in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuevision International, Inc. faces a class action pending in the
Hennepin County District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Florida
resident Vincent Buonomo commenced the suit, alleging that he purchased
a computer system from the Company in September 2000 in response to a
television program broadcast by the Company that promised that Internet
access with certain terms would accompany the computer system, and that
such promise was broken.  Mr. Buonomo asserts claims for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of warranty,

     (3) violation of fraud and

     (4) deceptive trade practices

The Company denied all the allegations in the suit and intends to
vigorously defend against this action.  The Company is also seeking
contribution and indemnity from appropriate third party vendors as
well.  This action is in its early stages and discovery has only
recently commenced.

                           *************


3COM CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Amend Shareholder Derivative Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
3Com Corporation faces an amended shareholder derivative and class
action lawsuit, pending in the California Superior Court, relating to
the separation of Palm, Inc. from the Company.  The suit names the
Company's directors and officers as defendants, and the Company as a
nominal defendant.

The suit alleges that the Company's directors and officers made
misrepresentations and/or omissions and breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company in connection with the adjustment of employee and
director stock options in connection with the separation of the two
Companies.

The defendants removed this action to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, but the case was later
remanded to the California Superior Court.  The defendants then asked
the court to dismiss the suit, which the court granted, with leave to
amend.  The plaintiffs then filed the amended suit, to which defendants
again demurred.  The demurrer will be heard on June 11, 2002.


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Rabin Peckel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Adelphia Communications
Corporation common stock (Nasdaq:ADLAE) between March 30, 2000 and
April 1, 2002, both dates inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) John F. Rigas,

     (2) Timothy J. Rigas,

     (3) James P. Rigas,

     (4) Michael J. Rigas,

     (5) James R. Brown, and

     (6) Deloitte & Touche LLP

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
by the Securities and Exchange Commission by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements and omissions of material
fact concerning billions of dollars in undisclosed off-balance sheet
debt.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose billions of dollars in off-balance sheet debt arising from
credit facilities for certain closely-held partnerships controlled by
the Rigas Family, the controlling shareholder of the Company, co-
guaranteed by the Company.

The suit alleges that as a result of these false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact the price of the Company's
common stock was artificially inflated throughout the class period
causing plaintiffs and the other members of the class to suffer
damages.

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, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.  


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Fails to Reach Settlement in Mediation of Enron Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mediator Eric Green, appointed to help broker a settlement in the class
action litigation between Arthur Andersen LLP and the various parties
suing the firm over its audits for Enron Corporation, said "the
mediation has been officially terminated," but declined to comment
further, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

The declaration by mediator Eric Green had been expected following a
breakdown in the talks' progress last month.  Mr. Green has notified
Houston's US District Court Judge Melinda Harmon of the impasse in the
talks.

The talks had been going on for several weeks, but "cracked" last month
over a host of issues.  Among the key sticking points had been how to
allocate the $300 million that the firm had been willing to pay among
the creditors and shareholders of Enron.  Enron creditors, which
include large investment banks that are being sued by Enron
shareholders in the same action, had been demanding as much as $150
million.  Shareholders in the case had countered that creditors should
get no more than about $50 million.  

Additionally, the parties could not agree on how the size of any future
judgments against Enron's banks and other defendants in the case should
be affected by any prospective settlement with Andersen.

Trey Davis, a spokesman for the University of California Regents, the
lead shareholder plaintiff in the case, said the major stumbling blocks
in the end "simply could not be worked out.  Without their resolution,
any settlement would have worked to the detriment of the class."

In a statement, the firm said it regretted that the talks had ended.  
"We worked in good faith over the last several months to resolve these
matters to the benefit of all parties.During these discussions,
considerable progress was made, but unfortunately, the plaintiffs could
not resolve several differences among themselves and with defendants
other than Arthur Andersen."

One of JP Morgan's attorneys, Richard Mithoff in Houston, said recently
that one of the sticking points was that plaintiffs' lawyers wanted the
banks, added as defendants in the suit on April 8, to agree to waive  
their rights under federal law to use a settlement with Andersen to
reduce whatever liability they may be found to have in Enron's
collapse.

However, the banks, whose lawyers were not directly involved in the
talks, would not agree to that, Mr. Mithoff said.  "We have not been a
party to the negotiations," he said.  "We have been presented with
unilateral demands."

He added, "The overreaching demands," by the lead plaintiffs' lawyer,
William Lerach of San Diego, "may have cost his own clients an
important opportunity to reach a significant settlement."

Other plaintiffs in the case also include several state pension funds,
Amalgamated Bank and some individual investors


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased securities of
Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) between September 19, 2001,
and March 19, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of federal securities laws.  Among other things,
plaintiff claims that defendants permitted its drug development partner
to make, without correction, materially false and misleading statements
regarding the nature of the progress of its Erbitux cancer treatment
drug's application for FDA approval.

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

These revelations caused the Company's stock price to plummet,
inflicting damages on investors.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg by Mail:
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by
Phone: 310/201-9150 or 888/773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.  


DEL GLOBAL: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Del Global Technologies Corporation settled the consolidated securities
class action pending against the Company, certain of its former
officers and directors and its auditors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit alleged
violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the class period November 6, 1997
to November 6, 2000.


Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will provide the
plaintiffs:

    (1) a $2,000 subordinated note due five years from the date of
        issuance with interest accrued at 6% per annum;

    (2) 2.5 million shares of the Company's common stock; and

    (3) 1 million warrants to purchase the Company's Common Stock at $2
        per share.

The Warrants are callable by the Company at $0.25 per share if the
Company stock trades at a price in excess of $4 for 10 days or more.

The court later approved the settlement on January 29, 2002.  
Opportunities for appeal expired on March 21, 2002, therefore, all
uncertainty regarding the final value of the securities issued by the
Company in the settlement has been eliminated.


DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of DOV
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (NASDAQ: DOVP) who purchased DOV shares pursuant
and/or traceable to its initial public offering on April 25, 2002.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against the Company and:

     (1) Arnold S. Lippa,

     (2) Bernard Beer,

     (3) Barbara G. Duncan,

     (4) CIBC World Markets Corporation and

     (5) Lehman Brothers Inc.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading prospectus in connection with the offering because the
prospectus failed to adequately and timely disclose the Company's
correct financial results.

As alleged in the suit, just before the offering priced, the Company
made a last-minute change to its Offering documents to reflect a
revision of its 1999 financial results for a joint venture in Bermuda
with Elan Corporation.  The accounting change widened the Company's net
loss at the venture, known as DOV Bermuda Ltd., to $11.9 million in
1999, from a previously-reported loss of $10.2 million.  

The suit alleges that this change was deeply buried in the revised
documents where it was very difficult, if not impossible, for investors
to see and evaluate prior to the commencement of the trading.

As a result, the complaint alleges, investors were deprived of the
opportunity to rely on the Company's new financial information, causing
a steep decline in the price of the Company's shares once they began to
be publicly traded and its true financial information became known.

When Company shares finally opened for trading for the first time, the
price of Company shares began trading at $11.25 per share (after having
been priced at $13 per share) and reached an intra-day high of $12 per
share.  By the end of the day, the stock had closed at $8.70 per share,
or 33% below the offering price, making it one of the worst-performing
IPOs of the past two years.

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


DYNEGY INC.: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of
all persons who purchased common stock of Dynegy, Inc. (NYSE:DYN)
during the period between April 17, 2001 and April 24, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its top executives
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit charges that
during the class period, defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Company securities in order to pursue an accelerated
securities sale program.

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants used a practice, which
the Company called "Project Alpha," to create cash flow and bolster its
perception in the financial community.  The suit further alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme that:

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

     (2) deceived the investing public into acquiring the Company's
         securities at artificially inflated prices;

     (3) allowed the individual defendants to extract millions of
         dollars in bonuses by creating the appearance that the
         Company's phenomenal cash flow was a result of 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 Jennifer Haas or Nancy Kaboolian by Mail: 212
East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 889-3701 or
by E-mail: Jhaas@abbeygardy.com or NKaboolian@abbeygardy.com


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of all open market purchasers of the common stock
of Gemstar TV Guide International Inc. during the period August 11,
1999, and April 4, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company, Henry C. Yuen and Elsie Ma Leung.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.  The Company is a global media and
technology company that develops television aides and other media
products to facilitate the use of entertainment products.

In 1997, the Company (then known as Gemstar International Group) and
another company, Scientific Atlanta, entered into a licensing agreement
in which a programming guide made by the Company was incorporated into
Scientific-Atlanta's television set-top boxes.

In 1998 and 1999, the Company filed a series of patent-infringement
suits in federal court and with the International Trade Commission
against Scientific Atlanta.  The Company claimed Scientific Atlanta
continued to ship its product after the expiration of the contract. The
Company sought to prevent further shipments of the Box Top Products and
to recover money.

In response, on or about June 1999, Scientific Atlanta sued the Company
in federal court seeking judgment that the Box Top Products did not
infringe its patent, or in the alternative, that the Company's patent
was illegal.

Despite the on-going and unresolved patent litigation, the Company
recorded as revenue the money it claimed it was owed by Scientific
Atlanta.  There is a high risk the Company could be unsuccessful in the
patent litigation and the $58.9 million it recorded as revenue for 2001
and the $36.5 million recorded as revenue for 2000 will have to be
"backed out."

The recording by the Company of "revenue" that was dependant on the
successful outcome of the patent litigation constituted a violation of
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) because, given the on-
going patent litigation, the money was not certain enough to be
"realizable" under GAAP.

The Company's violation of GAAP was material to its finances and
therefore misleading to plaintiff and other members of the class.  The
recorded revenue constituted 18% of the Company's accrued revenue in
2001 and 15% in 2000 for the Tech & Licensing segment.

When news of the Company's GAAP violations was disseminated into the
market the price of its shares fell $5.35 to $9.01, or 37%, on very
heavy trading.

For more details, contact Emily C. Komlossy or Henry J. Young by Mail:
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, New York 10017-5563 by Phone:
(212) 907-0700 by E-mail: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com or hyoung@glrslaw.com
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com  


INTERNET CAPITAL: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Internet Capital Group, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ICGE) from August 30, 1999 through November 8, 2000,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by the issuance of analyst reports regarding the Company's
which recommended the purchase of its common stock and which set price
targets for the common stock without any reasonable factual basis.

Furthermore, when issuing their Company reports, defendants failed to
disclose significant, material conflicts of interest which they had, in
light of their use of Mr. Blodget's reputation and his Internet Capital
analyst reports, to obtain investment banking business for Merrill
Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their reports, in which they were recommending
the purchase of Company stock, defendants failed to disclose material,
non-public, adverse information, which they possessed about the Company
as well as their true opinion about the Company.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


JDS UNIPHASE: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against JDS
Uniphase Corporation (Nasdaq: JDSU) and certain of its principal
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the Company's common stock between July 27, 1999 and July
26, 2001.

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

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

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

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

As a result of these positive statements, Company stock traded as high
as $146.32.  The individual defendants 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 the restatement of its
3rdQ F01 results, the write-off of $44 billion in goodwill associated
with its acquisitions, inventory write-downs and that F01 EPS would be
only $0.16 and that it would incur a loss of $0.15 in F02. On this
news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90 - or more than 94%
lower than the class period high of $146.32.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Barbara A. Podell 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


MCAFEE.COM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suits, Others Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------------
McAfee.com Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss a securities class action
charging the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of federal securities laws.

The suit is just one of the eight securities suits pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, the California Superior Court and the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of the Company's stockholders in connection with the offer of
Network Associates, Inc. to exchange the Company's stock for 0.78 of a
share of Network Associates common stock.

The suits purport to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the defendants and seek injunctive relief and other relief, including
damages in an unspecified amount.

The suits pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery have been
consolidated and plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The defendants have not answered or otherwise responded to
the complaints in the other suits.

Although the class actions are in the preliminary stages and it is too
soon to predict with any certainty the outcome of the proceedings
described above, based on its current understanding of the facts, the
Company believes that the suits have no merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously.


MERILL LYNCH: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Merrill
Lynch and other affiliated parties alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The suit is filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased Merrill Lynch's Internet Strategies Fund (MANTX, MBNTX,
MCNTX, and MDNTX) during the period March 14, 2000 through October 15,
2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants manipulated the market price of the
internet companies comprising the Internet Strategies Fund through the
issuance of inflated ratings and biased research reports.  This scheme
was part of a larger undisclosed scheme whereby the Company research
analysts in the internet group, under pressure from its investment
bankers, initiated and/or manipulated research coverage to maintain and
attract investment banking clients, even when the analysts internally
harbored doubts about the valuation of the internet stocks that they
covered.

Shares of the Internet Strategies Fund, which were first issued on
March 17, 2000 at $10.00 a share, plummeted over 80% to $1.77 per share
on October 12, 2001, at which time it was merged into Merrill Lynch's
Global Technology Fund. Defendants' misconduct was first revealed on
April 8, 2002, after the New York Attorney General issued a scathing
report on the firm's analysts' practices.

For more information, contact Robert C. Finkel or  Abigail Kowaloff by
Mail: 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212/451-9620
or 877/370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-Mail:
IRRep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


MERILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Internet Capital Group (Nasdaq: ICGE)
common stock during the period between August 30, 1999 and November 8,
2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.
and its former star Internet analyst Henry Blodget for violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by the issuance of analyst reports regarding Internet
Capital which recommended the purchase of Internet Capital common stock
and which set price targets for Internet Capital common stock without
any reasonable factual basis.

Furthermore, when issuing their Internet Capital reports, defendants
failed to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest which
they had, in light of their use of Mr. Blodget's reputation and his
Internet Capital analyst reports, to obtain investment banking business
for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Internet Capital reports, in which they
were recommending the purchase of Internet Capital stock, defendants
failed to disclose material, non-public adverse information which they
possessed about Internet Capital as well as their true opinion about
Internet Capital.

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson
by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-
551-9944 or by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com


MERILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. (MANTX, MBNTX, MCNTX,
MDNTX, MANTXEMP, MANTXFEE) and:

     (1) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor,

     (3) Henry Blodget,

     (4) Paul G. Meeks, and

     (5) several directors of the Internet Strategies Fund

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
shares of the Internet Strategies Fund during the period from March 14,
2000 through October 15, 2001, inclusive.

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

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

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian or Jennifer Haas by Phone:
(800) 889-3701 or by E-mail: jhaas@abbeygardy.com or
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com.


MERILL 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 Excite@Home Corporation (NASDAQ:ATHMQ) between June 7, 1999
and April 26, 2001, inclusive.

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

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

Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained an
"ACCUMULATE/BUY" or "ACCUMULATE/ACCUMULATE" recommendation on
Excite@Home in order to obtain and support lucrative financial deals
for Merrill Lynch.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
analyst reports, Excite@Home'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: 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 address: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


MERILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Excite@Home Corporation (NASDQ:
ATHMQ) common stock between May 5, 1999 and April 8, 2002 (the "Class
Period"), inclusive, against Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., and its former
star Internet analyst Henry Blodget for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by the issuance of analyst reports regarding Excite@Home
which recommended the purchase of Excite@Home common stock and which
set price targets for Excite@Home common stock without any reasonable
factual basis.

Furthermore, when issuing their Excite@Home reports, defendants failed
to disclose significant, material conflicts of interest in their use of
Mr. Blodget's reputation and his Excite@Home analyst reports to obtain
investment banking business for Merrill Lynch.

Furthermore, in issuing their Excite@Home reports, in which they were
recommending the purchase of Excite@Home stock, defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information which they possessed
about Excite@Home as well as their true opinion about the valuation of
Excite@Home.

For more details, contact Fred T. Isquith, Robert Abrams, 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 Excite@Home.  


NEWMARK HOMES: Agrees to Settle Suits Over Merger With Engle Holdings
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newmark Homes Corporation agreed to settle two class actions filed in
Nevada and Texas State Courts alleging the Company breached its
fiduciary duty in considering the possible merger with Engle Holdings
Corporation.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Michael J. Poulos,

     (2) Yannis Delikanakis,

     (3) Michael S. Stevens,

     (4) Constantinos Stengos,

     (5) Georgios Stengos,

     (6) Andreas Stengos,

     (7) James M. Carr,

     (8) William A. Hasler,

     (9) Larry D. Horner,

    (10) Lonnie M. Fedrick, and

    (11) Engle Holdings Corporation

The first case is pending in the District Court, Clark County,
Nevada while the second case is pending in the 80th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.

Subsequent to the filing of the Texas suit, two plaintiffs, Barry
Feldman and William F. Ring, filed two separate interventions in the
suit, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.  The
Nevada suit was also stayed pending the results of the Texas suit.  

In March 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle with
representatives for the plaintiffs for the proposed settlement of the
two suits, as well as the interventions.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses in an amount not to exceed $350,000 in the aggregate.  The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including the closing
of the merger, providing notice to the class, conducting confirmatory
discovery, executing a definitive settlement agreement and obtaining
final approval by the court.

                                      **********

         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  * * *