---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                 Thursday, May 9, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 91

                            Headlines

ALCOA WORLD: Australians Consider Suit Over Wagerup Facility Pollution
ARKANSAS: Judge Says State Wrongly Treated Mentally Ill Crime Suspects
CANADA: Quebec Court Allows Video Lottery Terminals Suit To Proceed
ENTERPRISE LEASING: Agrees To Settle Racial Bias Suit For $2.3 Million
EUGENIO SERAFIN: Recalls 32,500 Hot Water Heaters For Shock Hazard

KANSAS: Settling Suit by People Jailed for Not Paying Wichita Fines
MEDICAL RESIDENTS: DC Wage Antitrust Suit Launched V. Matching Program
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Antitrust Suit Over California Electric Prices
NASA LITIGATION: $3.75M Racial Discrimination Suit Settlement Reached
NATIONAL SERVICE: Customers File Suit Over Surcharges, Sales Taxes

TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Hearing Date For Desecration Suit Set August 2002

*English Warm Up to Using Suits to Recoup Losses, Gain Compensation

                         Securities Fraud

AAVID THERMAL: DE Court Dismisses Suit Over Heat Merger Corp. Merger
DIGITAL ORIGIN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits
DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Vows Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits
DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

FIDELITY HOLDINGS: Settles For $4.45M Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
FIDELITY HOLDINGS: Settles For $120T Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Weiss & Yourman Commences CT Securities Fraud Suit
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
GILAT SATELLITE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA

GUESS? INC.: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
GUESS? INC.: CA, DE Courts Dismiss Two Shareholder Derivative Suits
HAYES LEMMERZ: Grant & Eisenhofer Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
L90 INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Sued For Breaches of Fiduciary Duty, Contract in DE

MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit for Alleged IPO Allocations Fraud in DE
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Investors File Suit For Securities Act Violations
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA

PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SAF T LOK: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
SEITEL INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX

SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set For April 2003
TRANSFINANCIAL HOLDINGS: Asks KS Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TRANSFINANCIAL HOLDINGS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
VIROPHARMA INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA

WORLDCOM INC.: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
WORLDCOM INC.: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
WORLDCOM INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
                              
                            *********

ALCOA WORLD: Australians Consider Suit Over Wagerup Facility Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents living near Alcoa World Alumina's Wagerup refinery are
considering the filing of a class action that would claim damages from
the Company for the effects of pollution from the plant, The West
Australian reports.  The residents were advised by lawyers that such a
move is likely to succeed.

However, even as this plan develops, the Company is trying to negotiate
a possible $3 million settlement with nine workers from the plant, who
filed suit over damage to their health, which they blame on exposure to
toxic refinery fumes.  The Company's Australian President, Wayne
Osborne, also apologized to Wagerup workers and residents recently.  
"We are sorry that the refinery has intruded on people's lives, and we
are working to rectify that through a most comprehensive emissions
reduction program," Mr. Osborne said.

More than 40 families from Yarloop and Hamel are behind plans for a
damages action based on a claim that the Company's operations have
damaged their health and quality of life.  The local residents say they
have been exposed repeatedly to plumes of noxious and toxic chemical
emissions from the refinery, which drift across their homes.

Gary Murrihy, of the Yarloop and Districts Concerned Residents'
Committee, said the group has been advised by lawyers that a class
action against the Company has a good chance of success.  Individual
residents who have sought legal advice have been given similar
assurances.  Mr. Murrihy added, "The emissions have damaged people's
health, they also have destroyed the quality of life here."

The Company has offered to buy properties in an expanded buffer zone
around the refinery, offering market value plus 35 percent and $7000
for relocation.  Wagerup Community Health Awareness Group spokeswoman
Cheryl Boserio said this was inadequate, because the market value of
the properties had slumped more than the 35 percent above market value
offered due to the pollution.

A State Government-sponsored forum of health experts has found an
association between emissions from the Wagerup refinery and outbreaks
of sickness among nearby residents, including respiratory irritation,
bloody noses, headaches and nausea.

Company spokesman Brian Doy said the Company has accepted
responsibility for complete and effective resolution of the
environmental and health issues at Wagerup.  "We have reinforced this
with company employees, the community, government agencies and
ministers," Mr. Doy said.

"Alcoa has committed $2 million to help build a sustainable local
community, in consultation with Harloop community representatives and
the Harvey Shire Council," said Mr. Doy.  He also said that this action
is part of the Company's implementation of the Wagerup land management
strategy and the recommendation of the report by Dr. Mark Cullen on
health issues associated with the Wagerup refinery.

The Company also has established a rehabilitation program to return,
where possible, injured employees to work, either in or external to
the Company.


ARKANSAS: Judge Says State Wrongly Treated Mentally Ill Crime Suspects
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge ruled recently that the state of Arkansas' treatment of
mentally ill crime suspects is unconstitutional and must be corrected,
during a class action filed against the state, charging it with
allowing mentally ill inmates to languish in local jails for months
without treatment despite court-ordered evaluations, the Associated
Press reports.

US District Judge Stephen Reasoner also ordered a June 10 hearing for
the court to look at ways to ease the overcrowding and lack of beds at
the State Hospital.  Something must be done to address the problem,
Judge Reasoner declared in his written opinion.  "Indeed, a veritable
cavalcade of human tragedy marched through the record at trial," he
wrote.

"The court finds that inmates who have been court-ordered for
evaluations or treatment are languishing in jail, causing them to
suffer from lack of basic treatment," the Judge added.  "The severity
of that suffering amounts to punishment."  Judge Reasoner also
concluded that the lengthy waiting list for evaluations deprives
defendants of any hope of a speedy trial.

The Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed
the suit on behalf of several mentally ill criminal suspects.  The
state contends in its response that jails and judges also are
responsible for the treatment of people being held locally.

Joseph Quinn, spokesman for the Department of Human Services, was not
happy with the ruling.  "This is the latest in a series of court
rulings that seem to ignore some of the harsh budget realities we are
dealing with right now," Mr. Quinn said, referring to the $171 million
in cuts from this year's state budget.

"We have 202 beds and a community mental health system that we spend
millions and millions on, and obviously there are legislative issues
here if the court is saying we need to expand that," said Mr. Quinn.


CANADA: Quebec Court Allows Video Lottery Terminals Suit To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court allowed a class action against Loto-Quebec,
which operates video lottery terminals in the Quebec province, to
proceed.  The suit alleges that the provincial gaming corporation knew
or should have known that its video lottery terminals (VLT) created
dangerous addictions, the National Post Online reports.

The landmark ruling marks the first time the pros and cons of gambling
will be discussed in a legal venue.  The suit is spearheaded by Jean
Brochu, a lawyer who says he gambled away tens of thousands of dollars
playing VLTs, and stole $50,000 from his professional association to
cover his debts.  The suit mainly asserts that up to 119,000 Quebecers
are pathological gamblers, although only about 240 have joined the
class action so far.

"I see it as having national significance, if not global significance,"
Nancy Langille of the group Gambling Watch told the Post.  "No matter
how the suit proceeds, governments and the gambling industry can't
distance themselves (now) from the fact that they are promoting for
profit a product . that has known hazards."

The decision will pave the way for a flood of lawsuits against
government-run gambling facilities, lawyers and activists predicted.  
Sol Buxembaum, a problem-gambling counselor who is advising the class-
action lawyers, said he believes the early success of the suit will
prompt similar cases in other provinces.

Jim Hillyer, a Toronto lawyer, told the Post that there are already
anecdotal reports of individual suits being filed in Ontario, then
settled out of court with clauses preventing the release of details.  
He said, "It's not going to be long before victims start coming
forward. They will have nowhere to turn but the courts."

Jean-Pierre Roy, a spokesman for government-owned Loto-Quebec, played
down yesterday's decision, calling it a technical ruling that says
nothing about the merits of the case, which are to be decided at trial.  
"When the time comes, we are very confident that our point of view will
be retained by the court," Mr. Roy said.


ENTERPRISE LEASING: Agrees To Settle Racial Bias Suit For $2.3 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Car subsidiary Enterprise Leasing Co. agreed to settle for US
$2.3 million a racial discrimination class action pending in the United
States District Court in St. Louis, charging the Company with
discriminating against minorities in hiring and promotion.

Eight African-American employees initiated the suit, which alleges that
black employees were denied promotions or transfers in favor of less-
qualified or less-experienced white employees.  The suit also asserted
that jobs went to workers that the black employees had trained,
according to an Associated Press report.  The workers also alleged that
they were subjected to unwelcome and offensive racial remarks,
including racial slurs.  The suit further alleges that the Company did
nothing to prevent or to correct such actions after being told of the
problems.

Under the settlement, the Company also promised to "refine certain
employment practices," such as job postings, development of job
qualifications and career-counseling services, "in an effort to better
ensure equal hiring and promotional opportunities for qualified
African-Americans," AP reports.  The settlement also resolves all
claims against the Company, who admitted no wrongdoing.

"It was clear that in a limited number of instances, we had not met our
high standards in how we treat our employees and applicants," Christy
Conrad, a company spokeswoman, told AP.  "We're pleased that Enterprise
Leasing has resolved (the suit), but we're very disappointed that the
lawsuit was brought, as well."


EUGENIO SERAFIN: Recalls 32,500 Hot Water Heaters For Shock Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Serafin, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 32,500
electric showerhead hot water heaters.  The showerhead hot water
heaters are attached to the shower's water supply piping and connected
to the household electrical supply source when central hot water is not
available. The nozzle can be easily unscrewed, exposing the uninsulated
heater coil.  The heater coil's grounding screw does not sufficiently
reduce the current through the water, posing an electrocution and shock
hazard to the bather.
        
The Company has not received any reports of injuries or incidents
associated with these showerhead water heaters. This recall is being
conducted to prevent the possibility of injury.
        
The recalled showerhead hot water heaters were sold under the Corona,
Corona Maxi, and Fammy model names.  They are packaged in a clear
plastic bag with a card that reads in part, "ducha," "HECHO EN
VENEZUELA POR: TECHNI" and "MIRANDA, VENEZUELA."
        
Hardware stores and home improvement centers sold the recalled hot
water heater components in Puerto Rico from January 1999 to March 2002
for about $18.
        
For more information, contact the Company by Phone: 800-981-4029
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
           

KANSAS: Settling Suit by People Jailed for Not Paying Wichita Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Wichita agreed to settle out-of-court a class action filed
on behalf of more than 7,000 people who were jailed for not paying
Wichita Municipal Court fines.

The suit alleges that 7,351 people were locked up for a total of
148,537 days over a three-year period on Wichita's "time to pay"
docket, the Wichita Eagle reports.  The suit further contends that
Municipal Court judges routinely jailed indigent defendants without
holding hearings to determine their ability to pay.

In June 1998, a state judge ordered the release of more than 70 jail
inmates who owed city fines because he thought the practice was
unconstitutional.  The Kansas Supreme Court later ruled that the judge
did not have the authority to release the inmates but did not address
the issues of whether the practice was constitutional.  Lawyers for the
city countered that the calculations were flawed and did not offer a
realistic figure for the wages lost by the defendants while sitting in
jail.

The Wichita City Council will meet this week to decide whether they
will approve the settlement.  Lawyer Jack Focht, who represents the
city in the case, told the Eagle terms of the agreement will not be
released until it has been approved by the council. He said the city
admits no wrongdoing in the settlement.

Gary White of Topeka, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs,
also declined to provide details.  "There isn't anything I can talk to
you about today," he said. "We're basically in agreement that we're not
going to discuss this with the press at this point."


MEDICAL RESIDENTS: DC Wage Antitrust Suit Launched V. Matching Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Medical Resident Matching Program faces a class action
filed by thousands of medical residents in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the health care system
allowed hospitals and others to keep wages low and workweeks long.

According to the Washington Post, the system matches residents and
hospitals based on lists submitted by both sides, which agree in
advance to accept the match without negotiations on wages and hours.  
Residents typically make salaries of less than $40,000 and work more
than 100-hour weeks.

In a statement, plaintiffs in the suit said, "Resident physicians must
accept these conditions because they have no alternative.No other
employer will hire them and completing residency is required for
specialty certification, a necessity in the practice of modern
medicine."

As a result, the plaintiffs are suing on antitrust grounds. They say
the arrangement allows hospitals to share salary information and to
force residents to accept below-market compensation, the Washington
Post reports.  The suit states, "Defendants and others have illegally
contracted, combined and conspired among themselves to displace
competition in the recruitment, hiring, employment and compensation of
resident physicians."

If the plaintiffs prevail, the health care system could be ordered to
pay substantial damages and be forced to change the way it trains
doctors.  Lawyers for the National Resident Matching Program declined
comment, the Washington Post reports.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Antitrust Suit Over California Electric Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (MCSG) faces a consolidated class
action filed in the California Superior Court for San Diego County on
behalf of electricity consumers in the State of California against
several power marketers and generators.  The Company is a wholesale
power marketer.

The suit alleges that during the summer of 2000, defendants fixed
electricity prices in violation of California's unfair competition
statutes. The actions seek reimbursement of alleged overcharges and
punitive damages.

The Company is cooperating fully with federal investigators in this
matter, and believes it will prevail in the suit.


NASA LITIGATION: $3.75M Racial Discrimination Suit Settlement Reached
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) agreed to
settle for US$3.75 million a discrimination class action filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by a group of African
American workers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt and
Wallops Island Flight Center in Virginia.  The suit alleges that the
workers were systematically denied promotions under the agency's
Manpower Utilization Review Council (MURC).  

In addition to the monetary settlement, NASA will give retroactive
promotions to 22 African-American workers and retirees, increasing
their wages and pensions, attorney for the plaintiffs Maia Caplan.  
According to a Washington Post report, the agency will also spend
$500,000 on independent experts to evaluate its performance review
system and analyze how promotions and bonuses are granted.

"This is a huge victory," Ms. Caplan told the Washington Post.  "The
relief that was granted is far-reaching, economically and in terms of
injunctive relief."  

NASA is hoping to replace MURC by the end of the year.  "We settled
this case in acknowledgment that our promotions system had flaws that
affected everybody," said NASA attorney Dorothy Kerr.  "Part of our
settlement was to resolve it. We have a very diverse workforce; we
wanted to acknowledge our differences and get it behind us."


NATIONAL SERVICE: Customers File Suit Over Surcharges, Sales Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------------
National Service Industries, Inc. faces two putative class actions
relating to the collection from customers of National Linen Service of
energy surcharges, environmental charges and sales taxes.

The first suit is pending in the Circuit Court of Barbour County,
Alabama and subsequently has been removed to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The Federal Court denied the
plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court.

The second case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit, County of Horry, South Carolina, and has now been
removed to the United States District Court for South Carolina,
Florence Division.  The plaintiff has filed a motion to remand, which
has not been ruled on by the court.

As of April 11, 2002, no substantive discovery has occurred in either
case.  Based on information currently available, it is the opinion of
management that these claims are without merit and that the ultimate
resolution of these legal proceedings will not have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Hearing Date For Desecration Suit Set August 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Hamilton County, Georgia, judge heard testimony recently on whether
to allow a class action against Tri-state Crematory, where more than
330 discarded corpses were found, and funeral homes that did business
with it, The Associated Press reported

State Judge Neil Thomas listened to dozens of attorneys during a five-
hour preliminary hearing.   He also allowed the attorneys to begin
taking depositions and preparing arguments about whether a class action
should be allowed.

Nashville attorney David Randolph Smith is representing about 40
clients who had loved ones' bodies sent to the Tri-State Crematory in
Noble, Georgia.  He said cement and limestone were mixed in with the
human remains returned from the crematory as early as 1987.  Mr. Smith
said Dr. William Bass of the University of Tennessee analyzed the
remains of his clients' loved ones and "in all samples the remains were
adulterated."

Defense lawyers argued that Georgia detectives discovered at least one
case cremated remains being tampered with by family members "in hopes
of jimmying up a claim."

"I understand we are going to have some difficult issues in this case,"
said Judge Thomas, as he set an August 22 hearing date.  Further, Judge
Thomas denied an order that would have allowed crematory operator Ray
Brent Marsh to testify in the civil suit without having it used against
him in the criminal case.  Mr. Marsh remains in the Walker County Jail
in LaFayette, Georgia, facing 266 counts of theft by deception.  He is
accused of taking money for cremations and then discarding the bodies
on his property.


*English Warm Up to Using Suits to Recoup Losses, Gain Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The recent tendency of English investors to rush to litigation in their
unwillingness to accept financial losses, may court even worse
disaster, according to the Financial Times.  Customers of Sotheby's and
Christie's, for example, who claim to have lost thousands of pounds
because of price-fixing by the world's top two auction houses, stand
ready to launch legal proceedings.

The Financial Times points out that it is more than a "me too" response
to the $512 million payment gained by the auctioneers' US customers.  
They are, instead, "part of a growing band of private investors,
employees and creditors who will no longer accept such losses."

Many are responding to share price collapses by calling their lawyers,
raising suggestions that "Britain is moving towards a US-style of
litigation culture."  Investors, in still another example, join groups
threatening to go to court over losses sustained through investing in
Railtrack, Independent Insurance, Equitable Life and British Biotech.

It is not only company directors and advisers who find themselves in
the firing line.  The government is being threatened with legal action
over its handling of foot-and-mouth-disease, while the Financial
Services Authority may face its first lawsuit, alleging negligence,
concerning its actions over Independent Insurance.

The surge in proposed class actions has attracted a large amount of
publicity.  Class Law, the small four-partner law firm which is co-
ordinating most of the actions, was mentioned 323 times in the national
and regional UK press in the past year, only 20 fewer name checks than
Clifford Chance, the world's biggest law firm, according to the
Financial Times.

This saturation coverage simply may be a demonstration of Class Law's
ability to exploit the press.  However, it also could indicate a
genuine shift towards individuals using the legal system to exert
greater accountability from companies and others.

There are, however, concerns that claimants may be pouring good money
after bad.  Investors, caution the concerned, have to weigh the cost of
court action against what they might win.  Class Law, in the case of
split trusts, is collecting an upfront fee per investor.  However, the
costs will build up, If Class Law wins a case, it will charge double
its hourly fee rate.  If investors lose a court action, they may be
liable for court costs.

In addition, explains the Financial Times, legal action may jeopardize
Investors' claims to the Financial Services Authority's ombudsman and
compensation schemes.  The ombudsman has the power to demand redress
from regulated financial advisers for investors unless they have taken
their case to court.

Stephen Alexander, co-founder of Class Law, dismisses claims that the
firm is issuing knee-jerk legal threats to every financial disaster.
"We have refused requests to start lots of shareholder actions," he
says.  Mr. Alexander says the firm always tries to settle claims by
mediation or arbitration.

The concerned critics of the recent rush toward litigation caution that
unlike the US where each side usually bears its own costs, the English
courts system of winner-takes-all means the losing party can be handed
a seven-figure legal bill.

However, the financial incentive for English law firms is far less.  In
contrast to the US system of allowing the lawyers to take a generous
slug of multi-million dollar damages, the English no-win, no-fee
agreements place a tight cap on the maximum that can be paid to the
winning firm.

Critics treat claims that the UK is moving to a US compensation culture
with caution.  They point out that no threatened class action has got
near the courts.  An enormous amount of public noise has been made
making allegations of liability, when the case subsequently has
collapsed in class action situations, says Christopher Hodges, a
partner at CMS Cameron McKenna, the law firm, and chair of the
Confederation of British Industry's product liability committee.

"That is not to say that with the right case, when the facts and the
law come together, this type of action won't succeed . but the track
record is not good," according to the Financial Times Money, Separate
Section.

                         Securities Fraud

AAVID THERMAL: DE Court Dismisses Suit Over Heat Merger Corp. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware dismissed without
prejudice the securities class action pending against AAvid Thermal
Technologies, Inc. relating to its merger with Heat Merger Corporation.  
The suit was filed against the Company, Willis Stein, the Company's
directors, and one former director.

The suit alleged that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties and sought to enjoin, preliminarily and permanently, the merger
and also sought compensatory damages.  

The Company welcomed the dismissal and is confident that the litigation
will not have a materially adverse effect on its financial condition.


DIGITAL ORIGIN: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Origin, Inc. and one of its former directors, Charles Berger,
were named as defendants in two shareholder class action lawsuits
against Splash Technology Holdings, Inc.  The suit was recently
dismissed by a federal court, and plaintiffs have filed an appeal of
the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suits, which also name Splash Technology, certain of Splash's
directors and executives and certain of Splash's selling shareholders
as defendants, allege, among other things, that the defendants made or
were responsible for material misstatements, and failed to disclose
information concerning Splash's business, finances and future business
prospects in order to artificially inflate the price of Splash common
stock.

The suits further allege that the Company engaged in a scheme to
artificially inflate the price of Splash common stock to reap an
artificially large return on the sale of the common stock in order to
pay off its debt.

The defendants' two initial motions to dismiss the action were granted
with leave to amend, and plaintiffs have again amended the suits.  The
defendants then filed their third motion to dismiss, which the Court
granted.

The Company and its former director vigorously deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and intend to aggressively defend themselves in these
matters.


DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action against DOV
Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Nasdaq:DOVP) in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the Company's common stock in or traceable to its initial
public offering.

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

The suit alleges that the Company issued approximately five million
shares in its IPO on April 25, 2002 at $13 per share, but failed to
timely inform the class of revisions in its financial results.  On
April 25, 2002 when Company shares began trading, public trading
investors learned that the Company's previously issued financial
statements had been materially false and misleading.  As a result,
Company shares lost approximately 33% of their value in one day,
falling from their offering price of $13.00 to close trading at $8.70
per share.

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


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Vows Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacq International, Inc. labeled "without merit" several securities
class actions pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, charging the Company and two of its
officers with violations of federal securities laws and regulations.  
The virtually identical suits were filed on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's stock from November 29, 1999 through January 16, 2002.  

The suits claim that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
and SEC Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange act of 1934, by virtue of
statements that the plaintiffs claim were materially false or
misleading.  In substance, the complaints allege that, throughout the
class period, senior management of the Company knew that:

     (1) the Company's balance sheet was eroding;

     (2) it was in violation of federal laws governing maintenance of
         facilities;

     (3) it improperly cared for its patients; and

     (4) the Company did not adequately disclose those problems until
         the end of the class period.  

The defendants' time to respond to the complaints has not yet expired,
and it is likely that this response will not be due for several months,
after certain procedural issues are resolved.  The Company intends to
defend against the claims vigorously.


DYNACQ INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District ourt for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of Dynacq International Inc. (Nasdaq: DYII)
publicly traded securities during the period between Nov. 29, 1999 and
Jan. 16, 2002.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
Company is engaged in the ownership and management of an acute care
hospital, the operation of two outpatient surgical facilities, the
operation of a medical office complex, the management of physician
practices (all located in the Vista medical center campus in Pasadena,
Texas) and the business of providing home infusion healthcare services
to patients in their homes.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
represented that the Company's favorable financial results were due to
its commitment to quality and cost-effective care.  Throughout the
class period, defendants repeatedly stated that the Company's
financials were strong and that it was consistently achieving "record
results."

Defendants actually knew that the quality of the Company's balance
sheet was eroding, that it was violating federal law in the maintenance
of its facilities and that it improperly cared for patients.

On Jan. 16, 2002, TheStreet.com ran an article on the Company entitled,
"Dynacq's Doubtful Accounts Send Distress Signals."  Essentially, the
article exposed many of the Company's problems, which, in the days that
followed, caused the Company's share price to crumble. These
disclosures shocked the market, causing the Company's stock to decline
to less than $15 per share before closing at $15.20 per share on Jan.
17, 2002, on volume of more than 2.6 million shares, and later
plummeting to less than $12 per share.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182       


FIDELITY HOLDINGS: Settles For $4.45M Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
has yet to approve the US$4.45 million settlement proposed by Fidelity
Holdings, Inc. to settle the securities class action brought on behalf
of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between June 24, 1999 and April 17, 2000.   The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Doron Cohen,

     (2) Richard L. Feinstein, and

     (3) Bruce Bendell

The suit alleges, among other things, that plaintiffs and other members
of the putative class were damaged when they acquired shares of the
Company's common stock because defendants allegedly issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information which purportedly cause such stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.

The suit also alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The defendants
allegedly misstated and omitted information concerns primarily the
prospects for the Company's technology business.

In September 2001, the Company moved to dismiss the suit for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for failure to plead
with the legally required factual particularity.  They later reached an
agreement with lead plaintiffs to settle the suit for $4.45 million,
subject to the consent thereto by the Company's insurance company and
court approval.


FIDELITY HOLDINGS: Settles For $120T Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Holdings, Inc. agreed to settle for US$120,00 an amended and
consolidated securities class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of
certain persons who acquired an unstated number of shares of the
Company's common stock between December 1999 and May 2000.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Doron Cohen,

     (2) Richard L. Feinstein and

     (3) Bruce Bendell

The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs sustained
damages when they acquired shares of the Company's common stock because
the Company allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information which purportedly caused
such stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Company
allegedly misstated and omitted information concerns our reported
income for the first three quarters of 1999 and the prospects for its
technology business.

The Company, Mr. Bendell and Mr. Feinstein then filed a motion to
dismiss the suit for failure to plead with the legally required factual
particularity.  The defendants later agreed with the plaintiffs to
settle this action for $120,000.  The settlement has yet to be approved
by the court.


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Weiss & Yourman Commences CT Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against Gerber
Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:GRB) and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 27, 1999
and April 12, 2002.

The suit charges the defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that defendants issued false
and misleading statements, which artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact David C. Katz, James E. Tullman and/or Mark
D. Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600,
New York NY 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Gerber Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: GRB) common
stock during the period between May 27, 1999 and 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 (SEC).

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 its 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 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


GILAT SATELLITE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock, options or
other publicly traded securities of Gilat Satellite Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq: GILTF) between August 14, 2000 and March 9, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, an Israeli company that provides
products and services for satellite-based communications networks, and
two members of its senior management violated the federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading statements during the class
period.

Specifically, the suit alleges that while the defendants made public
statements reporting impressive financial results and predicting future
growth, they were improperly delaying the write-down of tens of
millions of dollars of inventory and investments which were impaired
and of diminishing value.

In addition, while making these predictions of future growth, the
Company failed to disclose that its consumer internet satellite
division, StarBand, was experiencing significant difficulties
attracting customers and was not generating the revenues that
defendants had caused the market to expect.

On October 2, 2001, the last day of the class period, the Company
issued a press release announcing that its financial results for the
third quarter of 2001 would be below previously announced guidance,
that it would report a loss of $267 million or approximately $11.40 per
share, and that it was taking additional charges.

Following this announcement, the price of Company shares dropped from
$5.38 per share to $3.32 per share, a decline of more than 38% on heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman, Wayne
T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


GUESS? INC.: CA Court Dismisses With Prejudice Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of California dismissed with prejudice
the consolidated securities class action pending against clothing
company Guess?, Inc. and:

     (1) Maurice Marciano,

     (2) Armand Marciano,

     (3) Paul Marciano, and

     (4) Brian Fleming

The consolidated suit arose from eight substantially similar suits,
which purported to state claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to
the Company's inventory and financial condition during the class
period.  The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from February 14, 2000 through January 26, 2001.

In April 2001, the Court entered an order consolidating all of the
eight class actions, and appointed the Policeman and Fireman's
Retirement System of the City of Detroit as lead plaintiff.  In July
2001, the plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint.  The Company then moved to dismiss the suit, which the Court
granted in November 2001.  On March 14, 2002, the Court issued orders
dismissing the suit without prejudice.


GUESS? INC.: CA, DE Courts Dismiss Two Shareholder Derivative Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder derivative suits against Guess?, Inc. and its Board of
Directors were dismissed by Delaware and California courts.  The suits
also named as defendants:

     (1) Bryan Isaacs,

     (2) Alice Kane,

     (3) Robert Davis,

     (4) Armand Marciano,

     (5) Paul Marciano,

     (6) Maurice Marciano, and  

     (7) Howard Socol

The first suit was commenced in March 2001 by Susan Goldman,
derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Guess?, Inc. against the
Company's directors and officers in the Court of Chancery for the State
of Delaware. The suit alleges misappropriation of corporate
information, insider trading and other purported breaches of fiduciary
duty.  On February 12, 2002, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
dismiss this action without prejudice.

The other derivative suit was commenced in May 2001 against the same
defendants and making substantially similar allegations in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On July
5, 2001, the court stayed the action pursuant to stipulation of the
parties pending the outcome of the first derivative action.  As a
result of the dismissal of the first derivative action on February 12,
2002, the stay expired. The parties subsequently stipulated to a
dismissal, which was approved by the Court on March 28, 2002.


HAYES LEMMERZ: Grant & Eisenhofer Commences Securities Suit in E.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant & Eisenhofer, PA initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
against defendants:

     (1) Ranko Cucuz,

     (2) William Shovers,

     (3) DN Vermilya,

     (4) David Ying,

     (5) Anthony Grillo,

     (6) Paul Levy,

     (7) Jeffrey Lightcap,

     (8) Cleveland Christophe,

     (9) Andrew Heyer,

    (10) Horst Kukwa-Lemmerz,

    (11) Wienand Meilicke,

    (12) John Rodewig,

    (13) Ray Witt, and

    914) KPMG LLP

The suit was filed on on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased certain bonds of Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. between
June 3, 1999 and September 5, 2001 and who have suffered a loss.  The
Hayes bonds that are the subject of the lawsuit are:

     (i) 11-7/8% senior notes due 2006 (the Senior Bonds);

    (ii) 11% senior subordinated notes due 2006;

   (iii) 9-1/8% senior subordinated notes due 2007; and

    (iv) 8-1/4% senior subordinated notes due 2008

The suit alleges that the defendants made material false or misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material information, in offering
memoranda, prospectuses, SEC filings, and other public statements
during the class period.

On September 5, 2001, and in subsequent press releases, the Company
announced that it would be restating its financial statements for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and the related quarterly periods, and for
the first quarter of fiscal 2001. These financial statements had been
contained in the offering memorandum for the Senior Bonds and had been
relied upon by plaintiffs and class members when deciding to purchase
Company Bonds during the class period, both in the initial offering
(with respect to the Senior Bonds) and in the secondary market (with
respect to all of the Bonds).

According to a Company press release, the restatements would "correct
errors that the Company and its auditors, KPMG LLP, have identified in
the accounting for certain items, and write down the value of certain
impaired assets."  The Chairman of the Company's audit committee was
quoted as saying that "(t)hese accounting errors occurred because of a
failure within certain parts of the Company to comply with sound and
well-established accounting policies."

After the Company announced that it would restate its financial
statements, the market value of the bonds purchased by the class
members plunged dramatically.

The suit asserts claims under:

     (a) Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 USC section
         77l;

     (b) Section 15 of the Securities Act, 15 USC section 77o;

     (c) Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 USC
         section 78j(b) and Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR 240.10b-5, promulgated
         thereunder;

     (d) Section 18 of the Exchange Act, 15 USC section 78r; and

     (e) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 USC section 78t(a).

For more details, contact Megan D. McIntyre by Mail: 1220 N. Market
Street, Suite 500, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 by Phone: 302-622-7000 or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.gelaw.com


L90 INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------=--------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP 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 Oct. 26, 2000 and March 12, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company is a
provider of marketing services.  The suit alleges that as part of their
effort to boost the price of Company stock, defendants misrepresented
L90's true prospects in an effort to conceal the Company's improper
acts until they were able to conceal their fraud by selling the Company
to a third party prior to filing its 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 Feb. 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 detaisl, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-
mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.milberg.com


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Sued For Breaches of Fiduciary Duty, Contract in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Brothers, Inc. was named as a defendant along with two other
underwriters in a class action suit filed in April 2002 in the Delaware
Chancery Court by Breakaway Solutions Inc.  The suit complaint purports
to be brought on behalf of a class of issuers who issued securities in
initial public offerings (IPOs) through at least one of the defendants
during the period of January 1998 through October 2000 and whose
securities increased in value 15% or more above the original price
within 30 days after the IPO.

The suit alleges that the defendants under-priced IPO securities and
allocated those under-priced securities to certain favored customers in
return for alleged arrangements with the customers for increased
commissions on other transactions and alleged tie-in arrangements. The
suit asserts claims for:

     (1) breaches of contract,

     (2) breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing, and

     (3) breaches of fiduciary duty

The Company intends to vigorously oppose this litigation.


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

The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of Excite during the period from August 18, 1999 through June 20,
2001, inclusive in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants' research
reports and ratings on Excite were neither independent not objective,
but instead were biased and improperly influenced by the firm's
lucrative investment banking business relationships with this important
client.  Also, unbeknownst to the investing public, the firm's research
analysts' compensation was tied to, in part, on their contributions to
the firm's investment banking business.

The suit further charges that the firm issued positive ratings and
coverage about Excite, while concealing defendants' contemporaneous,
private negative assessments about this client.  For example,
defendants repeatedly issued an Accumulate/Buy rating on Excite despite
Mr. Blodget's internal conclusion that this stock was a "piece of
crap," had a "flat" outlook and was without any "real catalysts" for
improvement.

Similarly, when defendants were publicly rating Excite an
Accumulate/Accumulate, Mr. Blodget was privately telling his colleagues
that the Company was "falling apart" and he "doesn't think there's any
reason to buy more."

The suit additionally asserts that defendants failed to disclose that
although the firm technically had five ratings, it had a policy and
practice of issuing only its top three ratings (buy, accumulate, and
neutral) to Internet companies.  During the relevant time herein,
defendants never issued its two lowest ratings "reduce" or "sell" on
such companies, including Excite.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market
price of Excite common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or
stabilized during the class period.

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

Since then, the Attorney General has reportedly reached an interim
settlement with Merrill Lynch requiring it to make more meaningful
disclosures of its investment banking relationships with companies on
which it issues research reports, but larger issues relating to
possible payment of restitution and even criminal charges are still
unresolved. The Securities and Exchange Commission and certain states
have now announced their own investigations against Merrill Lynch.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Pomerantz Haudek Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP lodged a securities class
action charging Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER), its former
Internet research analyst Henry M. Blodget and its research analyst
Virginia Syer Genereux with issuing false and misleading research
reports about Aether Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:AETH) in violation of
Sections 10(b)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit was filed in the United States District for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of Aether during the period from November 15, 1999 through
February 20, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges that, during the class period, defendants' research
reports and ratings on Aether were neither independent nor objective,
but instead were biased and improperly influenced by Merrill Lynch's
lucrative investment banking relationships with this important client.

It is also alleged that at the time defendants were issuing positive
ratings and coverage about Aether, they were concealing their
contemporaneous, private negative assessments of the Company.  Indeed,
Merrill Lynch's research reports on Aether were so tainted that Mr.
Blodget internally acknowledged, in a December 1, 2000 e-mail, the need
to, "just start calling the stocks.including AETH (Aether) like we see
them, no matter what the ancillary business consequences are."  The
suit asserts that despite this telling concession, neither Mr. Blodget
nor the other defendants started calling Aether stock as they saw it.

The suit further alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
although Merrill Lynch technically had five ratings, it had a policy
and practice of assigning only its top three ratings (buy, accumulate,
and neutral) to Internet companies.  During the relevant time herein,
defendants not once issued Merrill Lynch's two lowest ratings, "reduce"
or "sell" on such companies, including Aether.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the market
price of Aether common stock was artificially inflated, maintained or
stabilized during the class period.

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

Since then, the Attorney General has reportedly reached an interim
settlement with Merrill Lynch requiring it to make more meaningful
disclosures of its investment banking relationships with companies on
which it issues research reports, but larger issues relating to
possible payment of restitution and even criminal charges are still
unresolved. The Securities and Exchange Commission and certain states
have now announced their own investigations of Merrill Lynch.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Excite@Home (OTCBB:ATHMQ.OB)
between August 18, 1999 and June 20, 2001, inclusive against Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former star Internet research analyst, Henry
M. Blodget, who are charged with issuing misleading analyst reports
about At Home Corporation, doing business as Excite@Home.

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

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Internet Capital Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ICGE) between August 30, 1999 and November 8, 2000, inclusive
against defendants Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and its Internet analyst
analyst, Henry M. Blodget.

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

For example, defendants were repeatedly issuing a short-term
"accumulate", long-term "buy" rating on ICGE despite their internal e-
mails that there was no hopeful news to relate and that they saw
nothing that would turn this around near-term.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District or New York against
the:

     (1) Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. (MANTX; MBNTX;
         MCNTX; MDNTX; MANTXEMP; MANTXFEE),

     (2) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

     (3) Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor (MLFD),

     (4) Henry Blodget,

     (6) Paul G. Meeks, and

     (7) several directors of the Internet Strategies Fund

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit for Alleged IPO Allocations Fraud in DE
------------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. faces a securities class action filed by
Breakaway Solutions, Inc. in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the
Company and two other underwriters.  The suit was brought on behalf of
a class of issuers who, during the period January 1, 1998 to October
31, 2000, issued IPO securities pursuant to underwriting agreements
with defendants, which securities increased in value by 15 percent or
more within 30 days following the IPO.

The suit alleges that defendants allocated under-priced stock to
certain of defendants' favored clients and, directly or indirectly,
shared in portions of the profits of such favored clients pursuant to
side agreements or understandings, with the alleged effect of depriving
issuers of millions of dollars in IPO proceeds.

The Company intends to mount a vigorous defense against the above suit.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Investors File Suit For Securities Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Investors in Peregrine Systems filed several class actions against the
Company, alleging the Company violated federal securities laws.  The
suits arose after the Company announced it was initiating an internal
investigation into potential accounting inaccuracies that may total
$100 million, SignOnSanDiego reports.  

Two of its officers, Chief Executive Officer, Stephen Gardner, and
Chief Financial Officer, Matthew Gless, also resigned from their posts,
with San Diego Padres owner, John Moores, stepping in as chairman of
the board.  The Company also revealed that it might restate its
previously reported earnings.

The lawsuits were commenced last Tuesday, alleging that management
insiders schemed to artificially inflate the Company's stock price.  
The Company's stock price reached a high of $79.50 in March 2000.
However, it closed at 85 cents this week.

Securities suits are often filed when a company restates earnings or
comes under investigation by the SEC.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, PA lodged a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Peregrine Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq:PRGN) securities between July 24, 2001 through and including
May 3, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

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

On May 6, 2002, the Company announced that its board of directors had
authorized an internal investigation into accounting inaccuracies
involving revenue recognition irregularities totaling as much as $100
million.  The Company disclosed that these transactions and other
accounting matters to be investigated may impact financial results for
periods in fiscal 2002 and prior.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-332-0030 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRGN) and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased Company
securities during the period July 24, 2001 through May 3, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there
under, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding Peregrine and its audit
activities.

Before the market opened on Monday, May 6, 2002, the Company shocked
the market by announcing that its board of directors had authorized an
internal investigation into accounting inaccuracies, totaling as much
as $100 million.  The Company disclosed that these transactions and
other accounting matters to be investigated may impact financial
results for periods in fiscal 2002 and prior.

Simultaneously the board of directors announced that the Company's
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer had both resigned all of their positions with the
Company.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan or Liz Hutton by Mail: 75
State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: 800-287-8119 by Fax:
617-439-0134 or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.  


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Peregrine Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PRGN) shares between July 19, 2000 and May 3, 2002, inclusive,
against defendants the Company and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal securities
laws by fraudulently recognizing approximately $100,000,000 in revenue
during fiscal 2001 and 2002.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the class period defendants:

     (1) improperly recognized approximately $100,000,000 in revenue
         from sales through indirect channels, when, in fact, those
         revenues were not properly recognizable under GAAP;

     (2) improperly wrote-off revenue that should have never been
         recognized, instead of restating its previously reported
         earnings; and

     (3) failed to disclose that revenues were overstated in fiscal
         2001 and 2002.

These revelations caused the stock to plummet from $8.31 on April 24,
2002 to below one dollar at the end of the class period.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole, David
L. Wales, 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. All e-mail correspondence should make  
reference to PEREGRINE SYSTEMS.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Peregrine Systems Inc. (Nasdaq:PRGN)
during the period from July 20, 2000 through May 3, 2002.  The action
includes claims on behalf of those investors who, during the class
period, acquired Company stock as a result of the Company's
acquisitions of Extricity Inc., Remedy Corp, and Loran Technologies.

The action charges the Company, as well as its Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The violations, as the
complaint alleges, stem from the issuance of allegedly false financial
statements during the class period, which had the effect during the
class period of artificially inflating the price of the Company's
shares.

On April 30, 2002, the Company announced that it would delay issuing
its financial results for fiscal 2002, and on May 6, 2002, the Company
disclosed that its board had formed a committee to investigate "certain
transactions involving revenue recognition irregularities, totaling as
much as $100 million" during fiscal 2001 and 2002.

In reaction to such news, Company shares fell from $6.80 on April 30,
2002 to less than $1.00 per share on May 6, 2002.

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Peregrine Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRGN) securities
between April 4, 2001 and May 3, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer violated the federal securities laws by
deliberately inflating the price of the Company's stock through a
series of false and misleading public statements concerning the Company
and its financial results in press releases, reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and statements to securities
analysts.  The Company's former outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP,
is also named as a defendant.

On May 6, 2002, the Company disclosed that its Board of Directors
authorized an internal investigation of accounting inaccuracies
involving as much as $100 million in revenue recognized in transactions
with the Company's indirect channels in fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

The Company further disclosed that these channel transactions and other
accounting issues under investigation may impact its financial results
for periods in fiscal years 2001 and 2002. At the same time, the
Company disclosed that its CEO and CFO had both resigned their
positions with the Company.

For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman by Phone: 800-437-7918 by E-
mail:  info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.wyca.com


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Finkelstein & Krinsk Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk initiated a securities class action against
Peregrine Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: PRGN) for violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   

The suit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
or acquired Company securities between April 1, 2000 through May 6,
2002.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its management
insiders participated in a scheme to artificially inflate the Company's
stock price by misrepresenting the amount of sales and revenues during
the class period.  This was done in an effort to perpetrate benefits
enjoyed by certain of the individual defendants and that include the
Company's current and former officers.  The suit also names John J.
Moores, Steve Gardner (CEO) and Matt Glass (CFO) as defendants.  

The Company, purportedly a key provider of software offering business
organizations an integrated suite of packaged infra structure
management application software, is alleged by this action to have
issued a series of false and misleading statements during the class
period that failed to reveal that business revenue was not as
represented and an intentional decision was made by certain management
to compensate for deteriorating business by falsifying sales.

In truth, as alleged in the complaint, the decision by the Company to
enhance its publicly disclosed business model through improper revenue
recognition was largely successful as analysts continued to follow and
recommend the stock in a declining market.

For more details, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk or Walter F. Spath by Mail:
501 West Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone:
877-493-5366 by Fax: 619-238-5425 or by E-mail: fk@class-action-
law.com.


SAF T LOK: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities,
including common stock, of Saf T Lok, Inc. (formerly Nasdaq: LOCK; now
OTC BB: LOCK.OB) between April 14, 2000 and April 16, 2001, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, which designs, manufactures, and
sells its own patented safety locks for handguns, together with five
members of its senior management and its auditor, violated the federal
securities laws during the class period.  The suit alleges that, as a
result of a previous SEC enforcement action, the Company was subject to
a cease and desist order prohibiting it from violating the federal
securities laws.

Nonetheless, it is alleged that because the Company's financial
statements that were filed with the SEC during the class period were
false and misleading, the Company not only violated the federal
securities laws, but also the SEC's cease and desist order.

Specifically, among the allegations asserted against the Company and
the other defendants is the failure to disclose and properly account
for the fact that a catalog retailer had previously obtained twenty
years worth of Company products from a former distributor at sharply
reduced prices and was now selling these products at extremely low
prices, thereby limiting the market opportunity for the Company.

As a result of this and other reasons, the Company's earnings, assets
and shareholder equity were overstated by at least $3.2 million and its
inventories were not stated at the lower of cost or market, as
represented in said financial reports.

When this information was ultimately revealed on April 16, 2001, the
price per share of Company stock fell under $0.30 per share. On May 15,
2001, its securities were delisted from the NASDAQ.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Patrick A. Klingman,
Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone: 800-797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


SEITEL INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI)
securities between July 13, 2000 through April 1, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
against the Company and certain of its senior officers.

The suit charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing 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.  
The complaint alleges that the Company improperly recognized revenue
and net income during fiscal years 2000 and 2001.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-332-0030 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Specialty Laboratories, Inc.
(NYSE:SP) publicly traded securities pursuant to the Company's
registration statement/prospectus together with those who purchased
their shares in the open market during the period between December 8,
2000 and April 10, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933.  The Company, a research-based clinical
laboratory, develops and performs esoteric clinical laboratory tests,
went public in December 2000 selling five million shares at $16.00 per
share.

The suit alleges that in June and October of 2001, California
Department of Health Services representing the State of California and
acting as agent of the Centers for Medicare and Medical Services (CMS)
inspected the Company and were mortified by their findings.  As a
result of the inspections, the Company was initially cited by the State
of California with 20 deficiencies, and then in a separate statement in
February 2002 for 12 overlapping deficiencies by CMS.

The Company was notified that if it failed to correct six of the
issues, relating primarily to personnel licensing and the enforcement
of regulatory requirements, the Company would face monetary and other
penalties, including the possible revocation of its license. The
Company's deficiencies in question relate to two broad areas, both of
which focus on the number of licensed personnel in the lab.  

First, historically there have been required ratios for labs in terms
of the number of licensed supervisors per the number of testing
personnel. Second, California implemented a requirement for labs
performing testing in the areas of cytogenetics and molecular genetics.
Specifically, directors of such operations must now be at least at the
M.D. or Ph.D. level and must also be Board certified in their area of
focus. However, defendants sought to avoid compliance with California's
laboratory requirements in order to inflate the Company's revenue and
EPS.

On April 11, 2002, before the market opened, the Company issued a press
release, which provided a more comprehensive explanation and discussion
of the compliance problems. On this news, the Company's shares plunged
to an all time low of $10-1/4, more than an 80% drop from the class
period high.

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


TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set For April 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action against Teraforce Technology
Corporation has been preliminarily set for April 7, 2003 by the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The suit was commenced in November 1999 on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased the Company's common stock during the period
between February 24, 1998 and November 17, 1998.  The named defendants
include the Company and certain former and present officers and
directors of the Company.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's reported financial results during the period, primarily
relating to revenue recognition, asset impairment and capitalization
issues.

The Company moved to dismiss the case, but the Court denied the motion
in March 2001 and allowed discovery to begin.  The Company believes the
case is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously in all
respects.


TRANSFINANCIAL HOLDINGS: Asks KS Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfinancial Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas to dismiss a portion of securities class
action against it and its directors.

The suit alleges that the transfer of the assets of Crouse Cartage
Company (a subsidiary of TransFinancial Holdings, Inc.) violated
Section 271 of the Delaware Code insofar as the transfer constituted a
sale of substantially all the assets of the Company without shareholder
approval.  The suit further alleges that the Company only obtained
approximately one-half the fair market value of the assets for no valid
business reason, when 90% could have been achieved.  

The Company intends to vigorously defend the suit and believes this
suit will not have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition, liquidity or results of operations of the Company.


TRANSFINANCIAL HOLDINGS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfinancial Holdings, Inc. has moved to dismiss a securities class
action pending against it and its directors in the Chancery Court in
New Castle County, Delaware.  The suit seeks declaratory, injunctive
and other relief relating to a proposed management buyout of the
Company.  

The suit alleges that the Company's directors:

     (1) failed to seek bidders for its subsidiary Crouse Cartage
         Company;

     (2) failed to seek bidders for its subsidiary Universal Premium
         Acceptance Corporation (UPAC);

     (3) failed to actively solicit offers for the Company;

     (4) imposed arbitrary time constraints on those making offers;

     (5) favored a management buyout group's proposal; and

     (6) failed to obtain approval of the Company's shareholders for
         the sale of certain Crouse assets.

The proposed management buyout was terminated on February 18, 2000.  
The plaintiff filed an amended class action on August 9, 2000, seeking
damages in excess of $4.50 per share for the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  

The Company believes this suit will not have a material adverse effect
on the financial condition, liquidity or results of operations of the
Company.


VIROPHARMA INC.: Milberg Weiss Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of ViroPharma, Inc.
(Nasdaq: VPHM) between July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002, inclusive.  
The suit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against the Company, Claude H. Nash and Michel
de Rosen.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
defendants issued multiple statements which highlighted the successful
clinical trials of Picovir (pleconaril), a drug the Company had
developed to cure the common cold, and led investors to believe that
pleconaril faced minimal, if any, hurdles prior to being approved by
the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing and production.

As alleged in the suit, these statements, however, were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (1) pleconaril might produce resistant strains of the cold virus,
         especially in patients who take the drug incorrectly;

     (2) pleconaril shows evidence of reducing the effectiveness of
         oral contraceptives, raising the risk of unwanted pregnancies;

     (3) some female users of pleconaril experienced excessive
         bleeding;

     (4) pleconaril had not proved to be successful with smokers with
         colds; and

     (5) as a result of all of these safety concerns, it was very
         unlikely that pleconaril would be approved by the FDA for
         marketing and production.

On March 19, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company issued
a press release announcing that the Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee
of the FDA voted against recommending pleconaril for approval.  
According to the press release, the committee requested that the
Company provide additional data, which had not been included in the
pivotal trials, before the drug could be recommended for approval.

Following this announcement, shares of the Company were halted for
trading.  On March 20, 2002, when the stock reopened for trading,
Company shares declined significantly, falling almost $8 per share to
close at $5.50 per share, an incredible 60% decline from its previous
close of $13.41.

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


WORLDCOM INC.: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased WorldCom, Inc. common stock
(Nasdaq:WCOM) between January 3, 2000 and April 29, 2002, both dates
inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Bernard J. Ebbers,

     (2) James C. Allen,

     (3) Max E. Bobbitt,

     (4) Francesco Galesi and

     (5) Arthur Andersen, LLP

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning its business and
financial condition.  Particularly, defendants misrepresented the
Company's earnings in its public filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and elsewhere as a result of failing to record
write-downs of goodwill and other intangible assets associated with the
Company's acquisition of numerous telecommunications companies at
premium prices.

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

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

For further details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee by Mail: 275
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.  


WORLDCOM INC.: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased securities of
WorldCom, Inc. (Nasdaq:WCOM) between January 3, 2000 and April 29,
2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors,
together with its auditors, Arthur Andersen, LLP, violated the federal
securities laws.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants
misrepresented the Company's earnings in its public filings with the
SEC and elsewhere as a result of failing to record write-downs of
goodwill and other intangible assets associated with the Company's
acquisition of numerous telecommunications companies at premium prices
and carrying such assets on the Company's balance sheet at the cost of
acquiring them long after it had become apparent that the Company had
overpaid to acquire such assets.

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

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


WORLDCOM INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired
the common stock of WorldCom, Inc. (NASDAQ:WCOM) between January 3,
2000 and April 29, 2002, inclusive against the Company and:

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

     (2) James C. Allen, director,

     (3) Max E. Bobbitt, director,

     (4) Francisco Galesi, director, and

     (5) Arthur Andersen, LLP.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC
thereunder, as well as pendant state law claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and intentional deceit and seeks to recover damages.

The suit alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with false
and/or misleading financial statements.

The complaint specifically alleges that defendants misrepresented the
Company's earnings in its public filings with the SEC and elsewhere as
a result of failing to record write-downs of goodwill and other
intangible assets associated with the Company's acquisition of numerous
telecommunications companies at premium prices.

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

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

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


                              *********


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  * * *