---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Wednesday, May 8, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 90

                           Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: UT Court Awards Financial Analysts $14.1M in Suit
CALIFORNIA: San Francisco Airport Faces Access Suit For Deaf People
COMPAQ CORPORATION: Stance on One-Cent Computer Ad May Foster Suit       
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: NC Court Refuses To Certify Suit Over Fastrak Product
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Statewide Suit Over EIFS in TN Court

GENERAL CHEMICAL: CA Residents Sue Over Alleged Chemical Damage
IBP INC.: Court Declines To Block Workers' Overtime Program Suit
INSURANCE INDUSTRY: Rev. Jesse Jackson Seeks Slave Insurance Probe
OKLAHOMA: Police Union Seeks Intervention In Racial Bias Settlement
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Memos Show Founder Advocated "Deceptive" Practices

*AT&T Contracts Suit To Be Examined Under WI Consumer Protection Laws

                          Securities Fraud  

ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Reaches $217 M Settlement in Baptist Foundation Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE: CA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
CONCORD CAMERA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in FL

DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
DYNEGY INC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
DYNEGY INC.: Berger Montague Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
ENRON CORPORATION: OH Attorney General Testifies On Pension Losses

FRUIT OF THE LOOM: KY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CT
GILAT SATELLITE: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
GSV INC.: NJ Federal Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations
JDS UNIPHASE: Gold Bennett Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

JDS UNIPHASE: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
JDS UNIPHASE: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
L90 INC.: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
LUMENIS LTD.: The Emerson Firm Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: The Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Suit in NJ

MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Suits in S.D. NY
METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in W.D. WA
NTL INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NTL INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
PRESIDENT CASINOS: Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Denied  

RAYTHEON CORPORATION: ID Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
SEITEL INC.: Wolf Popper Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
SEITEL INC.: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
STILLWATER MINING: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in NY
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in NY

VIADOR INC.: Shareholders Sue For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
YBM MAGNEX: Reaches CAD$110M Settlement of Ontario Securities Suit
                              
                           *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: UT Court Awards Financial Analysts $14.1 M in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action launched two years ago against American Express
Financial Advisors Inc. (AEFA) by nine Utah financial analysts has
culminated in a $14.1 million award by a 3rd District Court jury, The
Salt Lake Tribune recently reported

Filed in Salt Lake City in June 2000, the case was certified as a class
action in March 2001.  A jury awarded the payout on April 30 of this
year, after a judge ruled that AEFA breached its contract with nearly
4,000 financial advisers nationwide.

The Company's sales-based contributions to the individual Advisers'
benefits plans under a bonus program known as "Star Quest" was at
issue.  Once earned, the contributions were deferred to the following
year, according to the analysts' attorneys, Prince Yeates & Geldzahler
of Salt Lake City.

AEFA changed its legal relationship with the advisers from independent
contractors to franchisees, in March 2000, and allegedly refused to pay
the outstanding benefit contributions earned in 1998 and 1999 by
thousands of the analysts, the plaintiffs said.

The Court ruled that AEFA could not arbitrarily take away already
earned contributions.  AEFA attorneys reportedly plan to appeal.


CALIFORNIA: San Francisco Airport Faces Access Suit For Deaf People
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco International Airport faces a class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, by advocates for the deaf and hearing impaired, the East
Bay Business Times reports.  The suit alleges that the world's ninth
busiest airport has multiple access, communication and training
problems.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) the San Francisco Airport Commission,

     (2) John Martin, the airport director, and

     (3) the city of San Francisco

The suit alleges that, despite the new $840 million international
terminal which opened in late 2000, the airport offers no printed
questions or pictographs at check-in counters, no television monitors
announcing changes in flight or paging information, no screens at
boarding gates, few working text telephones for the deaf, and
inadequate training for security, airport and airline staff, the East
Bay Business Times reports.

"It's poor planning and there's no excuse for poor planning," Rob Roth,
chief executive officer of the Deaf Counseling, Advocacy and Referral
Agency, told the Times.

The alleged deficiencies are even more striking with increased security
measures put in place after the September 11 terrorist attacks, said
Sid Wolinsky, an attorney with Disability Rights Advocates.  "[The
solutions] are all doable. They're all practical," he said.

Airport attorney Mara Rosales declined to comment on the suit, saying
she was still reviewing it, the Times reported.


COMPAQ CORPORATION: Stance on One-Cent Computer Ad May Foster Suit       
------------------------------------------------------------------
A supposed glitch in Compaq Australia's web site, leading to an
advertising promotion of Presario laptop computers for just one cent,
may lead to a class action from consumers who were allegedly duped by
the offer, ZDNet Australia reports.

Customers rushed to buy Presario models 711 and 1722, which usually
sell for AU$2799 and $3999, respectively.  Matt Cust, managing director
of Victorian Web development company, AKN Media, told ZDNET he was one
of the first to spot the incredible offer and immediately posted a
notification on a popular Internet news group. This posting, he said,
led to a flood of people seeking to take advantage of the offer.

The Company has refused to honor the transactions, saying the error was
a system glitch.  Manpal Jagpal, Compaq Australia's Presario product
manager, told ZDNet that an "intermittent" system anomaly led to
incorrect pricing details being displayed on its Web site, but said the
mistake was quickly spotted and corrected.  He added that "less than
200" customers attempted to buy the laptops.

Mr. Cust refuted this saying, "Five hundred people bought those
laptops. I was the first person to discover the offer. I posted it in
(a chat room) and I've got a list of everyone who bought one. You can
see by the order number on the product. I was the first person to get
one and I was person number (in the chat room) number 738 and the last
person was number 1102 or something like that."

Mr. Jagpal says the Company was not duty-bound to honor any of the one-
cent deals because it didn't process any payments.  "We sent e-mails
saying `thank you for your interest and we've received your inquiry'.
But we only send receipts once the money has been transacted. In this
case, none of the money has been transacted and none of the credit
cards or any other payment details were taken through."

Mr. Cust however told ZDNet that the Company's own sales policy clearly
indicates the customers' entitlements to the one-cent deal regardless
of whether or not it was intentionally offered. "We've printed out the
receipt and looked at the terms and conditions on (Compaq's) Web site
which say that all sales are final and binding as soon as you push the
`sale' button," he said.

He further said, "We saved all the copies of everything - screen shots
everything - because we knew that (Compaq) was going to claim it was a
mistake. We saved everything. When we first saw it we thought it was
some sort of promotion because it was merger day."


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: NC Court Refuses To Certify Suit Over Fastrak Product
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina denied plaintiffs' supplemental motion for class certification
of the class action against Dryvit Systems, Inc., involving its Fastrak
System 4000 product.

On December 18, 2000, the Court certified a class of "homes,
condominiums, apartment complexes or commercial buildings which have
been constructed after January 1, 1992, using an exterior cladding
system knows as Fastrak System 4000," according to an earlier Class
Action Reporter story.

On June 26, 2001, the 4th Circuit US Court of Appeals vacated the
district court's December 18, 2000 class certification order ruling
that certification was not appropriate because it is likely that
individual issues necessary to adjudicate the Company's liability will
predominate over class issues.  The Court of Appeals then remanded the
suit to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with
its order.

On March 25, 2002, the District Court denied plaintiffs' supplemental
motion for class certification finding that common issues did not
predominate over individual issues.

The Company intends to continue their vigorous defense against the
suit.


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Statewide Suit Over EIFS in TN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dryvit Systems, Inc. agreed to settle an attempted statewide class
action pending in Jefferson County Court, Tennessee, which seeks
various types of damages on behalf of all similarly situated persons
who paid for the purchase of a structure clad with the Company's
exterior insulating finish system (EIFS) in the State of Tennessee
during the period beginning November 14, 1990 to the date of the
complaint.

On April 8, 2002, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving
a nationwide class action settlement of a substantial portion of the
Company's residential EIFS litigation.  The proposed settlement
encompasses all persons or entities who own a one- or two-family
residential dwelling or townhouse clad with Dryvit EIFS installed after
January 1, 1989 except persons who:

     (1) prior to the notice date (which is expected to be on June 1,
         2002) have settled with the Company, providing a release of
         claims relating to Dryvit EIFS; or

     (2) have obtained a judgment against the Company for a Dryvit EIFS
         claim, or had a final judgment entered against them on such
         claim in the Company's favor.

A fairness hearing is set for on or about October 1, 2002 to seek final
court approval of the proposed settlement.  Subject to the limited
right of claimants to opt out of the proposed settlement class and the
Company's right to terminate the settlement if, in its opinion, such
opt outs are excessive, all of the pending individual EIFS lawsuits and
attempted state class actions will be dismissed upon entry by the court
of a final order approving the settlement.

As previously reported, the Company is a defendant in various attempted
state class actions including cases filed in Madison County, Illinois
and in Mobile County, Alabama.  The Company is also a defendant or
co-defendant in numerous individual EIFS lawsuits seeking damages.

As of February 28, 2002, the Company was a defendant or co-defendant in
approximately 780 single family residential EIFS cases, the vast
majority of which are pending in North Carolina, South Carolina and
Alabama.  The Company is also defending EIFS lawsuits involving office
buildings or other commercial structures.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: CA Residents Sue Over Alleged Chemical Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------
About 2,000 people in Richmond, California are suing General Chemical
over a release of chemicals, the Contra Costa Times reports.  Five
lawsuits, seeking unspecified compensation for damages including
medical expenses and emotional distress, among other things, were filed
in Contra Costa Superior Court, and one of these lawsuits is requesting
class action status.

Sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide were released as workers tried to
restart operations after the plant lost power.  According to the
Company, which, in turn, is suing a trucking company for negligence,
the loss of power occurred due to an accident that took out a utility
line, knocking out power to the plant.  Donald Reeve, owner of Reeve
Trucking of Stockton, said he was unaware of the complaint against his
Company, but said none of his trucks was involved in any accident in
Richmond in May of last year, when the release of the chemicals took
place.

When Mr. Reeve was asked why his Company would be the target of a
lawsuit related to the accident, Mr. Reeve said, "probably because they
are looking for a place to lay blame, but I have no idea.  I have never
talked to anyone from General Chemical."

All the suits against General Chemical allege that its negligent
actions caused the chemical release.  They are asking for compensation
and damages for medical expenses, false imprisonment for being forced
to stay indoors, lost wages, property damage and emotional distress.

"These are the typical damages that come from exposure to toxic
chemicals," said attorney Alan Freedman, who represents 522 residents
from the neighborhoods around the plant.

Oakland attorney Kelechi Charles Emeziem is representing 925 plaintiffs
in the lawsuit that seeks class action status.  This lawsuit also
targets an unnamed trucking company.

The release of more than 420 pounds of sulfur dioxide and sulfur
trioxide prompted official calls for people to stay indoors for several
hours and sent more than 150 people to hospitals complaining of
headaches and eye and throat irritations.  There was another release
the following day, but not big enough to warrant a "shelter-in-place"
order from emergency officials.

Mr. Freedman's complaint alleges damages due to both releases.  When
asked to comment on the Company's lawsuit contending that some blame
for the accident should be traced to those responsible for the utility
pole accident, Mr. Freedman called the claim a stretch.  He said the
negligence was not in the plant's shutdown, but occurred in the efforts
to start the plant up again.  Mr. Freedman also said he is considering
filing a separate complaint against the Company for a November release.

The Castro Street plant refines and recycles sulfuric acid from the
nearby Chevron refinery for resale for a number of uses.


IBP INC.: Court Declines To Block Workers' Overtime Program Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court refused to put on hold a class action against meat
packer IBP, Inc., challenging the Company's overtime pay program, the
Tri-City Herald reports.  Federal Judge Edward Shea said the Court
refused a stay in the proceedings because it ".would not be the fairest
course for the parties.The (workers) here have a definite interest in
proceeding to trial as soon as possible."

The suit, filed by IBP-Wallula workers on behalf of 700 current and
former employees of the Company, alleged that the Company violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and state law by not paying employees
adequately for the time it takes to dress in safety gear and to clean
and store tools.

Company employees who use knives are required to wear, in addition to
standard gear such as a hard hat, a medieval-looking outfit of chain
mail that includes aprons, leggings, vests, sleeves and gloves, the
Herald reports.  Dressing and removing gear can take several minutes
before work, after work and at lunch. Some employees arrive at work 40
minutes early to don required equipment, and some are required to clean
and store equipment at the end of their shifts.

The suit is similar to another case, which resulted in a judgment of
US$3.1 million for the workers.  Federal Judge Robert Whaley ruled in
September that more than 800 workers were owed $3.1 million for unpaid
overtime. The judgment has been appealed and Judge Shea acknowledged
the appeal will have a substantial impact on the case before him.

The Company has denied the charges, calling its pay program "entirely
legal."


INSURANCE INDUSTRY: Rev. Jesse Jackson Seeks Slave Insurance Probe
------------------------------------------------------------------
After Chicago insurance giant Unitrin agreed to pay $35 million,
exclusive of legal fees,  for overcharging blacks, the Rev. Jesse
Jackson called for hearings in Springfield, Illinois, and in other
states, to investigate similar practices by other insurance companies,
the Chicago Sun-Times has reported

Rev. Jackson also said he wants state officials to follow in
California's footsteps.  California recently released records from six
insurance companies that insured slaves' lives, a move that could
increase the class action push for reparations to the descendants of
slaves.

"We want all the states, Illinois included, to conduct hearings on
slave-era policies and race-based premiums," Rev. Jackson said at a
recent news conference, adding that he has asked Illinois Director of
Insurance Nat Shapo to release the names of companies licensed in
Illinois that may have held policies on slaves.   Mr. Shapo, who played
a key role in the Unitrin settlement, said he is willing to open a
dialogue with Rev. Jackson.

Companies that insured slaves share the blame for the oppression of
African American, said Rev. Jackson.  "These companies had an interest
in slaves not getting away, because they would have had to pay if they
escaped," he said.  "But even when slavery was outlawed, the same
companies began race-based premiums, where blacks paid more than the
policy was worth."

Rev. Jackson said some form of compensation is due from companies that
exploited slavery and the government that condoned it.  "Research has
revealed robbery, we seek recovery from robbery," he said.  
"Reparations are a step beyond, we have to all think through what that
means."

As was reported earlier in the Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago insurance
conglomerate, Unitrin, has made a deal to settle a class-action suit
that accused subsidiaries of illegally charging blacks more than
whites.  The settlement, which involves 469,000 policy-holders, totals
$48.8 million, including legal fees - $27 million in compensation for
race-based premiums, $6 million for people who did not receive death
benefits to which they were entitled and another $2.25 million in fines
and benefit enhancements for policy-holders.

Unitrin also said it was sorry in a statement from Richard C. Vie, its
chairman and chief executive officer.


OKLAHOMA: Police Union Seeks Intervention In Racial Bias Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tulsa, Oklahoma's police union, represented by a law firm that has
waged a three-year battle with the United States Justice Department on
behalf of Columbus, Ohio police, has filed a motion to intervene in a
proposed settlement of a federal class action filed against the city in
1994 by a group of black police officers, alleging racial
discrimination, the Associated Press reports.

The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge (FOP) No. 93 wants to be added as a
defendant in the suit that alleges its department practiced racism in
its hiring and promotional practices.  "It is our belief that we are
not a racist police department, and we believe that at the end of the
day all the evidence that has already been developed in this case will
substantiate our position," said FOP President, Robert Jackson.

Mr. Jackson added, "We feel strongly about it because a very broad-
stroked assertion has been raised that is just not true.  This has
come down to what is right and what is wrong, what is true and what is
false."

The FOP tripled their membership dues from $25 to $75 a month so they
could afford to pay the attorneys' fees in the case.  In the motion
recently filed in the United States District Court in Tulsa, the union
says it is an interested party, but was denied representation in the
settlement negotiations.  The union says the proposed settlement
violates its collective bargaining agreement with the city by changing
policies, assignments to specific units and departmental structure and
training.

The motion provides examples of why the union believes the settlement
infringes on the collective bargaining agreement. It is not an
exhaustive list, Mr. Jackson said.  In an affidavit included with the
motion, he said the union has approximately 710 members and that it has
been the exclusive bargaining unit for the Tulsa police since 1972.  

He also wrote that he has been repeatedly told by city representatives
that the plaintiffs in the black officers' suit have a very weak case,
and that "there was a very remote likelihood that the city would enter
into a settlement agreement in the case, and that in the very unlikely
event, the FOP was `guaranteed a seat at the table.'"

The proposed settlement was signed by a federal judge on April 5, after
newly-installed Mayor Bill LaFortune let that deadline pass without
objection to the settlement, which had been signed by Mayor Susan
Savage just before she left office.

A judge has set a May 22 deadline for any "substantive legal"
objections to be filed.  The FOP has hired the firm of Vorys, Sater,
Seymour and Pease LLP to represent it.  Mr. Jackson said that Jim
Phillips from the Vorys firm, is also the trial attorney for the
Columbus, Ohio's police union in its fight against the Justice
Department's claims that their department engaged in a "pattern and
practice" of civil rights violations.

Columbus was the first city to refuse to sign a Justice Department
consent decree that would make changes to police department policies
and procedures as a result of accusations of civil rights abuses.  City
officials approved the decree, but the Columbus Police Department's FOP
and some members of the City Council refused.  A Justice Department
lawsuit against the city is now pending in federal court.

The Justice Department also launched a "pattern and practice"
investigation into the Tulsa Police Department last year, in part due
to the class action brought by the black police officers.  Mr. Jackson
said the FOP sought out Mr. Phillips because of the success he had on
behalf of the Columbus lodge.

Mr. Jackson said that the settlement consent decree proposed in the
Tulsa lawsuit is consistent with the consent decrees imposed on other
cities by the Justice Department.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Memos Show Founder Advocated "Deceptive" Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
After a year long dispute, the San Francisco Chronicle has obtained
access to court documents showing that Providian Financial Corporation
founder, Andrew Khar, advocated questionable practices designed to
mislead consumers, The Associated Press reported recently

The San Francisco Chronicle reviewed 12 internal company documents that
were part of a 1999 cardholder class action against the Company.  The
documents include 10 memos from Mr. Khar, as well as strategy and
training materials dating from the late 1990s.

The Chronicle reported recently that Mr. Khar advocated lending to
high-risk customers and to "squeeze out enough revenue and get
customers to sit still for the squeeze."  Mr. Khar resigned from the
Company in 1998 and moved to France but continued to guide the Company
as a consultant.  He wrote a series of memos to top Company executives
between 1996 and 1999 and gave detailed advice on many aspects of
credit card marketing.

"Making people pay for access to credit is a lucrative business
wherever it is practiced," he wrote in a March 1999 memo to Executive
Vice President David Alvarez.  "Is any bit of food too small to grab
when you are starving and when there is nothing else in sight?  The
trick is charging a lot, repeatedly, for small doses of incremental
credit."  Mr. Khar, recognized as a cold but brilliant marketer, used
penalty fees for late payments or going over credit limits as a prime
revenue builder.

Several large US corporations have settled class actions over consumer
deception in recent years, including AT&T, Sprint, Citibank and Chase
Manhattan, for practices ranging from hidden long distance fees to
unfair late-payment credit card charges.

As the credit card market grew competitive in the 1990s, card issuers
became more aggressive to find revenue and began using late fees,
penalty charges for exceeding credit limits and fees for add-on
products such as credit insurance.

The Company now claims it never deliberately misled its customers and
that it cleaned up its marketing practices.  Mr. Khar's consulting
contract ended in 2000, and top executives left the Company last year.

"Khar and his memos are simply irrelevant to today's Providian,"
spokesman Konrad Alt said.  "Our current management is committed to
clear disclosure and customer satisfaction.  We totally reject and
would never tolerate the attitudes these memos display."

Mr. Khar told the newspaper that the Company did not adopt most of his
recommendations, some of which he still defends.  "I want results.  If
I thought more disclosure sold the product, I would do more disclosure.
If I thought less disclosure would do it, I would do less," he told the
San Francisco Chronicle.  "If disclosure tended to distract from
marketing and reduce the response rate, then to heck with disclosure."

Industry representatives say that they believe Mr. Khar's tactics are
rare.  "You just don't have that mentality in the business conference
room," said Randy Lively, President of the American Financial Services
Association, a trade group representing non-bank leaders.  "If it
creeps in somewhere, it is usually an aberration, and it is something
to be decried."


*AT&T Contracts Suit To Be Examined Under WI Consumer Protection Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers, mostly unwittingly, frequently negotiate consumer contracts
with large companies, The Capital Times noted recently.  Some large
companies offer consumers "take it or leave it" types of contracts.  
Credit card agreements are an example of that kind of contract as are
rental car contracts, cable television subscriptions and some housing
rental leases.

Last year, says The Capital Times, it reported in its Consumer Watch
section, that the major long distance telephone companies also had
started mailing similar agreements to its consumers that said, among
other things, that the consumer was agreeing to all the terms in the
agreement if he or she continued to use their long distance service
past a given date.

The Capital Times therefore posed an important question in language
related to Wisconsin law, "Can a business or company force you to give
up the rights you possess under Wisconsin law?"  State officials say
that AT&T's standard contract attempts to do exactly that.  There is a
likelihood that this scenario is repeated many times over in other
states, in the fine print of AT&T's agreement sections.

What other provisions do these agreements actually contain?  Among
other items, the AT&T agreement indicates that consumers must submit
any disputes that arise to binding arbitration for which the consumer
would be charged at least $20.  The agreement also indicates that New
York law, rather than Wisconsin law, governs the agreement, and allows
the Company to increase the price of service without the 25 days
written notice to consumers required by Wisconsin law.

All three provisions, according to the recent lawsuit against AT&T
filed by the state's Justice Department, are contrary to a provision of
Wisconsin law that indicates a telecommunications subscription may not
contain provisions which violate existing state law.  Therefore,
consumers would be well advised to rush to find out what protections
are afforded them by the state in which they reside.

Wisconsin's Secretary of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
James Harsdorf calls the Justice Department's lawsuit an important test
of state's rights.  Depending on where the court comes down, the case
provides a potential support for consumer rights to be actively
vindicated by class action.

Secretary Harsdorf told the Capital Times, "It is a prime example that
needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent."  He added that if the
terms of the AT&T contract are permitted, "you could have literally
every company writing their agreement to exclude our consumer
protection laws."

When the Secretary's agency sent a letter to all companies registered
to provide long distance service in Wisconsin, the letter, signed by
former Consumer Protection administrator, William Oemichen, referred to
a recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision ruling that a landlord's
lease agreement could not be enforced because it contained terms
prohibited under state law.

"We believe the Supreme Court's holding is directly applicable to
potential disputes between a telecommunications service provider and
its Wisconsin telecommunications customers," Mr. Oemichen wrote.  AT&T
responded that it believed Wisconsin's laws were not applicable to the
situation.

"If we are not tough on that law," Mr. Harsdor says, "we could have
language in agreements saying that we lose all consumer protection in
Wisconsin if you don't read the fine print."

The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its deregulation of
telecommunications services, no longer requires companies such as AT&T
to submit a "tariff," but instead requires companies to send service
agreements to the customers.

What is at issue, says The Capital Times, is how changes in a
consumer's service agreement, such as price increases, add-on fees or
charges will be communicated and how disputes will be handled.   
Wisconsin law, for example, allows a consumer to file a lawsuit or join
a class action against a large company.  Agreeing to a contract, in the
way defined by the company as agreement in fine print, which contains
binding arbitration language, means you waive the rights given by
Wisconsin law.  Also to be considered are the weight and effect to be
given the provision in Wisconsin law that a telecommunications
subscription agreement may not contain provisions violative of existing
state law.  

Wisconsin's law also requires specific written notice of changes to be
delivered to a consumer.  AT&T's notice says rate increases would be
effective "no sooner than 15 days after we post them on our Web site."  
Wisconsin law, approved in 1997, was designed to allow the consumer
adequate time to switch companies if they did not agree with the
changes.

The case launched by the state's Justice Department against AT&T is
being closely watched because Wisconsin's telecommunications billing
law contains language indicating that subscription billing agreements
cannot be contrary to state law.  It is one of the most specifically
worded consumer protection laws in the country.


                           Securities Fraud  


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Reaches $217M Settlement in Baptist Foundation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Beleaguered accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP agreed to settle for
$217 million the class action it faced relating to the collapse of the
Baptist Foundation of Arizona, the largest non-profit bankruptcy in
history, USA Today reports.

Arizona Superior Court Judge Edward Burke approved the settlement,
after a one-week trial.  The settlement released the firm from claims
in the class actions filed by the bankruptcy trust and shareholders,
the Arizona Attorney General's Office and the Arizona State Board of
Accountancy.  The firm also agreed to pay $640,000 in legal fees to
Arizona accounting regulators.

So far, Andersen has paid $11 million toward the settlement and will
cover the remaining $206 million by June 4. If it misses the payment,
Andersen will pony up $10 million a month starting June 14, with
monthly interest of 6% to 10%, attorney for the plaintiffs, Alan
Schulman, told USA Today.

"It's been a real roller-coaster ride," he said.  "This is the best
outcome for investors, given the circumstances."  Andersen spokesman
Patrick Dorton says the firm settles the case "without admitting or
denying any fault. We believe this resolution is fair and reasonable to
investors and to our firm."


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action against
Bristol-Myers Squibb (NYSE: BMY) and certain of its 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 January 24, 2001 and April 24, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its principal officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities
Exchange Commission regulations.  As alleged in the suit, during the
class period, the defendants boasted that the Company

     (1) had moved from single-digit growth rates to "an accelerated
         growth rate of 15%'s;

     (2) had achieved very good "double-digit pharmaceutical sales
         growth," "with especially good growth of 13% in the US;" and

     (3) had enjoyed "significant volume increases of several key
         products."

In fact:

     (i) the Company's reported income was overstated by $262 million
         due to the failure to deduct from income rebates owed by the
         Company, in that amount, principally to the US government for
         payments by Medicaid for the Company's drugs;

    (ii) more than 25% of the Company's reported earnings growth was
         the result of a material change in the Company's sales
         policies, from restricting drug wholesalers' purchases of the
         Company's drugs before price increases to providing
         inducements to wholesalers to sharply increase the amount of
         their inventories;

   (iii) $1.8 billion of the Company's reported increases in US
         pharmaceutical sales were due to increases in wholesaler
         inventories; and

    (iv) because as a consequence of wholesalers' inventories of the
         Company's drugs, in 2002 the Company's earnings would and did
         plummet as drug wholesalers reduced their inventories of its
         products and the Company belatedly revealed the $262 million
         of Medicaid and other rebates in its financial statements.

Indeed, defendants admitted that these factors caused and would cause
subsequent earnings decline of almost $.50 per share, and the Company
reported double-digit earnings decline, rather than earnings growth.  
When these facts were revealed, the market price of Company stock fell
from a high of $65 25/32 per share to as low as $28.50 per share.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick,
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


CALIFORNIA SOFTWARE: CA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of California
approved the settlement proposed by California Software Corporation to
settle the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
two of its officers and directors, Bruce Acacio and Carol Conway
DeWees.

The consolidated suit arose from four suits filed on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the Company during the period February 9,
2000 through August 6, 2000, charging the defendants with violations of
federal securities laws:

The stipulation of settlement provides for a release of all claims in
exchange for:

     (1) the issuance of 2,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock
         to open market purchasers;

     (2) the issuance of 650,000 shares to the subscribers;

     (3) the issuance of 1.8 million warrants to open market
         purchasers;

     (4) the issuance of 650,000 warrants to the subscribers; and

     (5) payment of the costs of administration, not to exceed $12,000.

The Court approved the settlement on March 11, 2002, and the case will
be dismissed upon full performance by the parties of their respective
obligations under the terms of the settlement.


CONCORD CAMERA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division on behalf of purchasers of Concord Camera Corp.
(Nasdaq: LENS) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 18, 2001 and June 22, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, Harlan Press and Ira B. Lampert
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 Concord securities.

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

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

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

     (3) due to KB Gear's inability to pay for merchandise, the Company
         was stuck with a large quantity of customized higher-cost
         specialty components which had no alternative use and were
         non-salable.

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, 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 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.classlawyer.com


CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Concord Camera
Corporation (Nasdaq:LENS) from January 18, 2001 through June 22, 2001,
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 the
defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements, which failed to disclose that:

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

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

     (3) due to KB Gear's inability to pay for merchandise, the Company
         was stuck with a large quantity of customized higher-cost
         specialty components which had no alternative use and were
         non-salable.

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706 toll free, 610-667-7706 by  E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Brian Felgoise Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action has been commenced on behalf of shareholders who acquired DOV
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (NASDAQ:DOVP) securities on April 25, 2002,
inclusive, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the Company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad
Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 0r by E-mail: BrianFLaw@yahoo.com


DYNEGY INC.: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 complaint 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 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 Frederic S. Fox or Shelley Thompson 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


DYNEGY INC: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 complaint
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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave,
Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: 888-643-6735 or
610-660-8000 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


DYNEGY INC.: Berger Montague Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC commenced a securities class action suit against
Dynegy (NYSE: DYN) and certain of its principal officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities 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 sell almost $500 million in stock to the
investing public.

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 it 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 flow.  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 Sherrie R. Savett, Stuart J. Guber 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


ENRON CORPORATION: OH Attorney General Testifies On Pension Losses
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio's Attorney General Betty Montgomery recently told a congressional
panel that Ohio is one of several states pursuing a class action
lawsuit against Enron Corporation.  She added that the state is also
seeking lead plaintiff status in the class action filed against Global
Crossing and its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, according to The
Associated Press.

Ms. Montgomery has explained that although the losses to the Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement
System are just a small percentage of the programs' total balance, the
kind of legal action being taken against the companies will protect
Ohio investors.  

She emphasized that the class-action lawsuits will serve to protect the
investors because they send a message that investors demand and will
exact integrity from companies in the way they do business.  She
stated, "It is very important that there is integrity in the financial
reporting system; that there is integrity in the way companies do their
business."

Ms. Montgomery also told members of the House Financial Services
subcommittee on capital markets that more public scrutiny is needed to
protect states' pension funds from being gouged.  Two of Ohio's public
employee pension funds suffered a combined loss of more than $114
million with the collapse of Enron.  An additional $116 million was
lost by the two pension funds when Global Crossing Ltd. collapsed.

"Unfortunately, Enron was not an isolated incident," Ms. Montgomery
said.  "We believe it is clear that Global also used false accounting
methods to essentially defraud investors."  She told the subcommittee
that additional oversight is needed in the financial services industry
to keep companies from using questionable accounting methods and so-
called "swap" tactics, which is trading same-value goods and reporting
it as income.


FRUIT OF THE LOOM: KY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
refused to dismiss several securities class actions filed on behalf of
all those who purchased Fruit of the Loom, Inc. Class A Common Stock
and publicly traded options between July 24, 1996 and September 5, 1997
against the Company and:

     (1) William F. Farley,

     (2) Bernhard Hansen,

     (3) Richard C. Lappin,

     (4) G. William Newton,

     (5) Burgess D. Ridge,

     (6) Larry K. Switzer and

     (7) John D. Wigodsky

The suits uniformly claim that the defendants engaged in conduct
violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and that the Company and Mr. Farley are also liable under
Section 20(a) of the Act.

The defendants moved to dismiss the suits, but the court denied the
motion.  The Company believes that the suits are without merit, and
management and intends to defend them vigorously.  The Company is
confident, based on information currently available, that the ultimate
resolution of this litigation will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition or results of the operations.


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Gerber Scientific, Inc.
(NYSE:GRB) from May 27, 1999 through April 12, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that,
throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

The Company further stated that its investigation is ongoing and once
it has been completed, the Company will likely restate its financial
results for the appropriate periods. In response to the Company's
announcements, the price of the Company's common stock declined to
$6.99 per share, a decline of more than 71% from a class period high of
$24.50 per share, reached on July 6, 1999.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Phone:
888-299-7706 toll free, 610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com


GILAT SATELLITE: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Gilat Satellite Networks, Ltd. (Nasdaq:GILTF) common
stock during the period between November 13, 2000 and October 2, 2001,
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
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, yet covered up the fact,
that:

     (1) the demand for and acceptance of the Company's products and
         the products of its subsidiary, StarBand Communications, Inc.,
         were greatly overstated;

     (2) the Company was having difficulty manufacturing and selling
         its chief product, Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT)
         profitably;

     (3) the Company purported gross profit margins were false;

     (4) the Company was materially understating its costs and
         expenses; and

     (5) the Company, accordingly, would have to take massive charge-
         offs, numbering in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the
         future.

The suit claims that defendants' material omissions and the
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting
enormous damages on investors.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


GSV INC.: NJ Federal Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class action
pending against GSV, Inc.'s predecessor, Cybershop International, Inc.

The consolidated suit arose from twelve suits commenced in March and
April 2000 against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  The consolidated suit alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making or causing the Company to make materially false and
misleading statements about the Company.

In May 2001, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Company
and all other defendants.  The court granted this motion on March 18,
2002.  The plaintiffs have 30 days to appeal the decision.  However,
the Company has not been advised as to whether or not the plaintiffs
plan to appeal.  The Company says it will vigorously defend against any
appeal of the decision.


JDS UNIPHASE: Gold Bennett Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of JDS Uniphase Corporation (NASDAQ:
JDSU) common stock during the period of July 27, 1999 through July 26,
2001.  The suit charges the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and its controlling shareholder with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company designs, manufactures, and distributes fiber optic
components for the fiber optic communications industry.  The suit
alleges that the defendants represented that demand for its products
was increasing and that the Company had controls in place to monitor
any change in demand. The Company also made positive representations
about the success of several acquisitions it recently had made.

As a result of these and other representations made by the Company, its
stock traded as high as $146.32.  However, on July 26, 2001, the
Company announced that it would have to restate its financial results
for the Third Quarter of Fiscal 2001 and write-off $44 billion in
goodwill associated with the acquisitions.

The Company also revealed that earnings per share for Fiscal 2001 would
be just $0.16 and that it would incur a loss of $0.15 per share in
Fiscal 2002.  On this news, Company shares dropped to as low as $7.90.

The suit alleges that, while the price of Company stock was
artificially inflated, certain defendants unlawfully sold $2.1 billion
in Company stock based on inside information.

For further information, contact Joseph M. Barton by Mail: 595 Market
Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, California 94105 by Phone:
800-778-1822 or 415-777-2230 by Fax: 415-777-5189 or by E-mail:
JDS@gbcsf.com.  


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 the
Company's publicly traded securities between July 27, 1999 and July 26,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint 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 the Company's 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.

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 new, Company shares dropped to as low
as $7.90, more than 94% lower than the class period high of $146.32.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine, Hae Sung
Nam by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
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


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

The suit claims that the San Jose-based fiber-optics company issued
false and misleading financial statements to the public.  According to
the suit, the Company and 10 of its top officers stated throughout the
class period that demand for the company's products was accelerating,
and that the Company's only problem was its ability to manufacture
enough to meet demand.  The suit also maintains that the Company
misrepresented the success of several major acquisitions and downplayed
its dependence on its two largest customers.

However, the Company falsely informed investors that demand was as
strong as claimed, the complaint alleges.  On July 26, 2001, the
Company restated its third quarter 2001 financial results and took
massive fourth-quarter charges to account for a total of $44 billion in
write-offs associated with its acquisitions and excess inventory. Those
revisions and write-offs increased the Company's losses for fiscal year
2001 to $56.1 billion.  According to the complaint, Company executives
knew of a slowdown in demand because the Company employed 80 engineers
to monitor customers and inventory levels.

After the revised numbers were announced, Company stock fell to as low
as $7.90 per share after trading at a class period high of $146.32, a
94% decline.

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

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


L90 INC.: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of L90, Inc. (Nasdaq:LNTY) common stock during the period
between July 26, 2001 and March 12, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. L90 is a
provider of marketing services.  The suit alleges that as part of their
effort to boost the price of the Company's stock, defendants
misrepresented the Company's true prospects in an effort to conceal its
improper acts until they were able to conceal their fraud by selling
the Company to a third party prior to filing the Company's 10-K (due
March 31, 2002).

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Tanya R. Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or
by E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


LUMENIS LTD.: The Emerson Firm Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm lodged a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Lumenis Ltd. (Nasdaq:LUME) common stock during the period
between January 7, 2002 through February 28, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements throughout the class period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint also alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
discounted and disputed marketplace rumors about its operations even as
it knew it was being investigated by the SEC and that its distributors
had been contacted by the SEC.  Additionally, even after announcing in
a press release that it was subject to an SEC investigation, the
Company continued to hide the fact that it had been aware of the SEC
investigation and had been providing information to the SEC for several
weeks.

On February 28, 2002, the Company revealed the facts concerning the SEC
investigation in a conference call.  These shocking revelations caused
the stock to plummet 30% in one day and more than 69% from its class
period high, resulting in damages to plaintiff and members of the
class.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: The Emerson Firm Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm launched a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Measurement Specialties, Inc. (AMEX:MSS) common stock
during the period August 1, 2001 and February 14, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
offering misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning the
Company's financial results.

Furthermore, during the class period, and in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles, defendants caused the Company to
falsely report favorable financial results by, among other things,
improperly recognizing revenues and overstating inventories.

As a result, Company stock traded at artificially inflated levels
during the class period.

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & 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 Aether Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: AETH) between November 15, 1999
and February 20, 2002 inclusive.

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

The suit further alleges that, when issuing their Aether 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.

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

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

For more information, 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 by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com


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 Excite@Home Corporation (Excite@Home or the Company)
(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 information, contact Laurence D. King by Phone: 415-772-4700
by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com
            

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 Openwave Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPWV) between October 16, 2000
and August 13, 2001, inclusive.

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

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

Furthermore, in issuing their Openwave analyst reports, in which they
recommended the purchase of Openwave stock, the defendants failed to
disclose material, non-public, adverse information, which they
possessed about Openwave.  Throughout the class period, the defendants
maintained "ACCUMULATE/BUY" or "BUY/BUY" recommendations on Openwave in
order to obtain and support lucrative financial deals for Merrill
Lynch.

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

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Jonathan K. Levine or Donald
R. Hall by Mail: 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


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and 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 complaint 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 the defendants' false and misleading analyst reports,
ICGE'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:
mail@kaplanfox.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com


MERRILL LYNCH: 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 Internet Capital Group, Inc.
(Internet Capital or the Company) (NASDAQ: ICGE) common stock between
August 30, 1999 and November 8, 2000, 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 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 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 Internet Capital.  


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Metawave Communications Corporation intends to vigorously oppose a
securities class action pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company, several of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters who handled its April 26,
2000 initial public offering of common stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during the time period beginning on April 26, 2000 and ending on
December 6, 2000, alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the assertion
that there was undisclosed compensation received by the Company's
underwriters in connection with its initial public offering.

The Company labels the suit "without merit."  However, the Company is
unable to provide any assurance as to the result of the litigations,
saying the results of litigation proceedings are inherently
unpredictable.


METAWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Metawave Communications Corporation faces several class actions filed
against it and several of its current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington, on behalf
of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between April 2001
and March 2002.

The suits allege that the Company made false and misleading statements
or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The Company said that additional purchasers of its securities may
assert claims similar to these in the future.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these complaints.  The results of litigation
proceedings are inherently unpredictable, however, and the Company is
unable to provide assurance regarding the outcome of these complaints
or possible damages that may be incurred.


NTL INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Fraud 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 NTL, Inc. ("NTL" or the "Company")
securities between May 6, 1999 and April 15, 2002, inclusive, against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements concerning the Company's financial condition and
ability to service its debt load.  Moreover, the Company omitted to
state material information necessary to be issued in order to make
prior statements not misleading.

On April 16, 2002, before the market opened, the Company shocked the
investing community by announcing that, contrary to previous denials of
a liquidity crisis and assertions of financial vigor, the Company would
in fact file a Chapter 11 case and convert $10.6 billion of debt into
equity.  During the class period, the price of Company stock plummeted
from a $109 class period high to just pennies a share.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
Michael Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to NTL.  


NTL INC.: 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 NTL, Inc. (NYSE: NLI) publicly traded
securities during the period 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 defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between August 9, 2000 and November 29, 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

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 write-down 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 results, which would
result in an astounding loss per share for the fourth quarter 2001 of
$46.46 per share.

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


PRESIDENT CASINOS: Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Denied  
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery denied defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment seeking to limit recovery to nominal damages in the
shareholder derivative action against the board of directors of
President Casinos, Inc. (OTCBB:PREZ). The action is now in the final
stages of trial preparation, with the trial expected to commence in
July 2002.

The suit was originally brought in September 1998 against the Company
Board after it was disclosed that the Board of Directors had authorized
the purchase of certain property located in Biloxi, Mississippi
directly from the Company's Chairman of the Board for approximately $40
million.  The suit contends that the purchase price was significantly
overvalued and exposed the Company to substantial damages through the
continuing ownership of the Biloxi property.

For more information, contact Wechsler, Harwood, Halebian and Feffer
LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by
Phone: 877-935-7400 or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.whhf.com


RAYTHEON CORPORATION: ID Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Idaho refused to
dismiss a securities class action against Raytheon Corp (NYSE:RTN)  
filed by shareholders of Washington Group International, Inc., who
claim the Company's allegedly fraudulent financial statements cost them
hundreds of millions of dollars in investment losses.

Finding the Company's arguments "unpersuasive," Chief Justice B. Lynn
Winmill denied the Company's motion to dismiss the suit, validating the
claims of Washington Group stockholders and allowing the suit to move
forward.

The suit charges that the Company deliberately misrepresented the true
financial condition of its Raytheon Engineers & Constructors (RE&C)
division in order to sell this division to the Washington Group at an
artificially inflated price.  According to the suit, RE&C failed to
disclose massive cost overruns of approximately $700 million to
investors.

On March 2, 2001, the Company refused to honor its previously disclosed
contractual commitments to reimburse Washington Group for RE&C's cost
overruns, the suit claims.  Following this announcement, the price of
Washington Group stock plummeted 80 percent, from $8.00 per share to
$1.65 per share, a market capitalization loss of more than $400 million
to stockholders, and more than $200 million to bondholders. Ultimately,
these cash shortages forced Washington Group to seek protection under
the bankruptcy laws on March 14, 2001.

"We join the thousands of Washington Group shareholders in applauding
the court's ruling," said Steve Berman, of Hagens Berman, attorney for
the plaintiffs. "We are looking forward to pressing ahead and proving
our case in the court system."

The Company asked the Court to dismiss the suit, citing a number of
legal objections, including a claim that the plaintiffs lacked standing
and were acting on Washington Group's behalf. The Court rejected every
claim brought by the Company.

For more details, contact Steve Berman by Phone: 206-623-7292 by E-
mail: steve@hagens-berman.com or Mark Firmani of Firmani & Associates
by Phone: 206-443-9357 or by E-mail: mark@firmani.com


SEITEL INC.: Wolf Popper Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP charged Seitel, Inc. (NYSE: SEI) and certain of its
senior officers with violations of the federal securities laws, in a
securities class action brought in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the Company's common stock on the open market during the period July
13, 2000 through April 1, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants improperly recognized revenue and net
income during fiscal years 2000 and 2001 by recording revenue on data
licensing contracts, prior to specific data being selected by and
delivered to its customers.

The suit further alleges that top insiders profited illegally from
insider trading in the Company's common stock and earned exorbitant
commissions and bonuses that were tied to reported revenue and
earnings.  During the class period and as a result of defendants'
misrepresentations, shares of the Company's common stock traded as high
as $23.03 per share.  The Company currently trades, after having
restated its false financial statements, at approximately $8.00 per
share.

On May 3, 2002, the Company issued a press release acknowledging that
the financial statements it issued during the class period were not
prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
The Company also acknowledged that the May 3, 2002 disclosures were a
result of its conversations with the SEC.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel 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 Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com  


SEITEL INC.: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI)
securities between July 13, 2000 and April 1, 2002, inclusive, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
against the Company and certain key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 230 South Broad
Street, Suite 404, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102 by Phone:
215-735-6810 or by E-mail: BrianFLaw@yahoo.com.


STILLWATER MINING: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Stillwater Mining Company (NYSE:SWC) common stock
during the period between April 20, 2001 through April 1, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
these statements were materially false and misleading because, among
other things:

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

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

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

Furthermore, defendants filed to disclose that the SEC had advised
Stillwater 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 volume 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 Tanya R. Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: The Emerson Firm Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:SBL) common stock during
the period between October 19, 2000 and February 13, 2002, inclusive.

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

Specifically, the suit alleges that defendants engaged in the following
conduct, which effectively increased the Company's reported revenue and
profits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tanya R. Autry by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by
E-mail: tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


VIADOR INC.: Shareholders Sue For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Viador, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York against the
Company and defendants:

     (1) Stan X. Wang, CEO, President and director,

     (2) Raja H. Venkatesh, CFO,

     (3) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.,

     (4) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between October 25, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive, alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Last October 25, 1999, the Company commenced an initial public offering
of 4,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price of $9
per share.

In connection therewith, the Company filed a registration statement,
which incorporated a prospectus with the SEC, which was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
that:

     (i) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive and
         undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which they allocated to those investors material portions of
         the restricted number of shares issued in connection with the
         IPO; and

    (ii) the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
         whereby the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate Company
         shares to those customers in the IPO in exchange for which the
         customers agreed to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The Company states that the proceeding is at a very early stage and
that it is unable to speculate as to ultimate outcome.  However, the
Company is confident that the suit will not have an adverse effect on
its finances and operations.


YBM MAGNEX: Reaches CAD$110M Settlement of Ontario Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Peter Cumming of Ontario Superior Court recently endorsed a
class action settlement that allow investors in YBM Magnex
International Inc. to recoup up to CAD$110 million of their losses,
from executives, directors, underwriters and advisers of the defunct
magnet maker, the Globe and Mail reported recently

The settlement, first announced in February, received the final
approval from Justice Cumming, which ends two huge class actions.  The
lawsuits, on behalf of institutional and retail shareholders, alleged
fraud, misrepresentation and conspiracy among the Company's principals
and advisers.

As part of the agreement, the defendants have made no admission of
wrongdoing or liability, and they have not revealed how much each
individual will pay into the settlement pool.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will pay out CAD$85
million.  Another CAD$33.5 million will come from what is left of the
Company's assets.  Out of the CAD$118.5 million total, about CAD$8.5
million will go to legal fees and other expenses, an amount the Judge
described as "very reasonable and well deserved."  The group that
agreed to pay the groundbreaking settlement includes the Company's
accountants, Parente Randolph, of Philadelphia, and Deloitte & Touche.


Other members of the group agreeing to pay the settlement are:

     (1) Cassels Brock & Blackwell, a Toronto law firm,

     (2) Griffiths McBurney and Partners, a Bay Street brokerage,

     (3) First Marathon Securities Ltd. (now part of National Bank
         Financial Inc.), a Bay Street brokerage, and

     (4).  directors including former Ontario premier David Peterson

The payments from the settlement will amount to about 25 cents for each
dollar of losses.  That payout is a big victory for shareholders, said
Harvey Strosberg, who represented investors in one of the lawsuits.
Successful US class actions generally have returned only seven to 12
cents on the dollar, he said.

Most of the defendants are still involved in the Ontario Securities
Commission's administrative hearing, which alleges that the directors,
officers and underwriters misled the Commission when the Company filed
the prospectus for the 1997 share issue.

The Company had been a stock market darling until the Federal Bureau of
Investigations raided its head office in Pennsylvania in May 1998.  
Trading of its shares was halted and has never resumed, leaving
investors with about $360 million in losses, until final approval of
the settlement took place.  So far, no shareholders have opted out of
the landmark settlement. The deadline for opting out is July 15.  

                              *********


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  * * *