CAR_Public/020515.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                Wednesday, May 15, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 95

                            Headlines

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Columbine Suit Dismissal Spurs Appeal in CO
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Employees File Overtime Wage Suit in CA State Courts
CALIFORNIA: LA Court Dismisses Minor Part of Suit V. Claremont School
CALIFORNIA: Maranatha Prison Construction Workers Sue For Unpaid Wages
CANADA: Veterans Group asks For Review Procedure on Pension Lawsuits

FLORIDA: Plaintiffs To Appeal Ruling in Marion County Assessments Suit
INDONESIA: High Court Allows Environmental, Forestry, Consumer Suits
JEWEL FOOD: Faces Suit Alleging Milk Price Fixing in IL State Court
LIFE INSURANCE: Life Insurance Suit Summary Judgment Denied in GA
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Recalls 18T Automotive Chargers Due to Fire Hazard

NORDSTROM INC.: Faces Suit Over Cosmetics Price-Fixing in CA Court
PENNSYLVANIA: Western PA Cyber School Sued Over Charter School Status
PROVELL INC.: Summary Judgment Ruling Pending in MN State Court
PROVELL INC.: Former Employees of Closed Subsidiary Files Suit in MN
STANDING ROCK: Members Sue To Participate in Tribe Decisions, Benefits

US CUSTOMS: Hispanic Special Agents File Racial Bias Suit in DC Court
WEYERHAUSER COMPANY: Agrees To Settle Investigations Over Wood Sidings

                            Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
AQUILA INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. MO
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in Oregon
CONCORD CAMERA: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ENRON CORPORATION: Lawyers for Defendants Request Suits' Dismissal

EXELON CORPORATION: Much Shelist Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Two Derivative Suits
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
L90 INC.: Cauley Geller Expands Class Period in Securities Suit in CA

MERRILL LYNCH: Emerson Firm Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
NIKU CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
OFFICEMAX INC.: OH Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit

PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
SAF T LOK: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SEITEL INC.: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
SEITEL INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
SEITEL INC.: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
SEITEL INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit

STILLWATER MINING: Preparing for Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
TEXTRON INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in RI Court
UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Patton Haltom Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
US LIQUIDS: NY Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
VERISIGN INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA

VERISIGN INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
VIROPHARMA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
WORLDCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
                             
                            *********

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Columbine Suit Dismissal Spurs Appeal in CO
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action suit against Acclaim Entertainment, Inc.
and other videogame and computer game companies have noted an appeal of
a Colorado federal court's decision dismissing the suit. Originally,
the suit was filed on behalf of all persons killed or injured by the
shootings, which occurred at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999.

The complaint alleges that the defendants negligently caused injury to
the plaintiffs as a result of their distribution of unidentified
"violent" video games, which induced two minors to kill a teacher
related to the plaintiff and to kill or harm their high school
classmates, thereby causing damages to plaintiffs.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed
the suit on March 4, 2002. Following dismissal, the plaintiffs moved
for relief, but the Court denied the relief sought by plaintiffs.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit and is confident that
the litigation will not have a material adverse effect on its finances
or operations.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Employees File Overtime Wage Suit in CA State Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Retail store chain Albertson's, Inc. and some of its wholly owned
subsidiaries faces two class actions filed in two California state
courts alleging violations of California wage laws.  The suits name as
defendants the Company and subsidiaries:

     (1) American Stores Company,  

     (2) American Drug Stores, Inc.,

     (3) Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc., and

     (4) Lucky Stores, Inc.

The first suit was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, California, by Mario Gardner seeking recovery of overtime due
to plaintiffs' allegation that they were improperly classified as
exempt under California law.  The court later certified the suit with
respect to Sav-on Drug assistant managers.

A case with very similar claims, also involving the assistant drug
managers and operating managers, was filed against the Company's
subsidiary Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. in Los Angeles Superior Court
entitled Rocher, Dahlin et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and was also
certified as a class action.  

Subsequent to year-end, the Court of Appeals of the State of
California, Second Appellate District reversed the Rocher class
certification, leaving only two plaintiffs.  The Company will now seek
decertification of the Gardner class action.  

The Company has strong defenses against these lawsuits and is
vigorously defending them.  Although these lawsuits are subject to the
uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the
information presently available to the Company, management does not
expect the ultimate resolution of these actions to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.


CALIFORNIA: LA Court Dismisses Minor Part of Suit V. Claremont School
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court threw out portions of a suit against
Claremont Unified School District, but kept most of the suit's
components intact, the Los Angeles Times reports.  Catherine Banker,
whose child is a student in the district, filed the suit alleging the
school illegally charged for instruction- or education-related
activities in violation of the California Constitution's guarantee of a
free public education.

The suit further alleges that the school district collected money
through various ways, such as a $50 transportation fee or requiring $30
for a student government card to participate in school activities.  Ms.
Banker told the Times, "The whole thing was crazy when you started
adding up all the fees."

The district has denied the allegations, saying that the alleged fees
are either donations or payments for items unrelated to education, such
as parking permits.  "If the plaintiff's true concern is that we're not
charging fees, let's together examine what `fees' are charged," the
school district's attorney, Fram Virjee, said.

Judge Wendell Mortimer did not issue a ruling, but dismissed several
key parts of the suit. He dismissed the Claremont Parent Faculty Assn.
as a co-defendant.  He also threw out claims that donations toward an
earthquake safety kit and money for a parking permit were not closely
related to the education of children.  He further ruled that any
monetary award in the suit could not go beyond one year's time.

"I though it was fair to both sides," Ms. Banker's attorney, Richard
Ackerman, told the Times.  "Neither side can claim victory."


CALIFORNIA: Maranatha Prison Construction Workers Sue For Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The California Department of Corrections faces a class action filed by
more than 40 construction workers who built the Victor Valley Medium
Correctional Facility in Adelanto, California, alleging that they were
underpaid by millions of dollars, the Daily Press reports.  The suit
also names as defendants the Maranatha Production Co., Moreland
Corporation and Moreland and Sons Construction, who built and operate
the prison.

The project, commonly known as Maranatha Prison, was built under a
contract with the state that required the payment of prevailing wages.
Prevailing wages are set by the state and vary typically from $26 to
$35 an hour, including benefits.  However, the suit alleges that some
workers were paid a fraction of that, according to the suit.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Richard Donahoo told the Daily Press, "The
state realized at an early point that prevailing wages were not being
paid, and that's why they are being sued in this case."  He added that
they are also engaged in private settlement discussion with the
Moreland entities, and estimates that a settlement could amount to
around US$10 million.  "We hope they'll do the right thing," Mr.
Donahoo stated.

In turn, the Moreland entities have sued the California Department of
Corrections, claiming that the department said the project was not a
public works project and therefore was not a prevailing-wage job.  

The Court is expected to set a date for trial on June 6.


CANADA: Veterans Group asks For Review Procedure on Pension Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Chadderton, Chairman of the 40-member National Council of
Veteran Associations, stated that his organization has written to the
Minister of Veterans Affairs suggesting that his Department establish a
review procedure which would allow payment of interest on justifiable
cases, according to a report by Canada News Wire.

"We have been advised that the Government of Canada has filed leave to
appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada on the decision of the Court of
Appeal for Ontario, in regard to a class action (lawsuit) on (veterans)
trust accounts.  The decision of the Lower Court would require the
government to go as far back as 1917 in regard to the payment of
interest on trust accounts administered by Veterans Affairs on behalf
of incompetent veterans while under medical care of the Department,"
said Mr. Chadderton.

The National Council made a reqeust to the former Minister of Veterans
Affairs asking that a review committee be established with authority to
approve payment to any justifiable cases.  "We do not feel it is fair
that the case be held up in the courts while veterans or their
immediate families have to await a decision regarding the Crown's
appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada," Mr. Chadderton said.

Mr. Chadderton's letter to the Hon. Dr. Rey Pagtakhan, VAC Minister,
was written on May 10, 2002, and bore the subject caption, "RE:
VETERANS CLASS ACTION INTEREST ON TRUST ACCOUNTS."

Mr. Chadderton wrote that he had been advised that the Crown is seeking
leave to have the Lower Court's decision, which was rendered by Justice
Brockenshire, and upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal, go before the
Supreme Court of Canada.  Mr. Chadderton then mentions that
this further court action "will cause unconscionable delays in
resolving this issue."  Therefore, Mr. Chadderton wants to draw the
Minister's attention to the proposal, earlier submitted, to provide for
a review procedure under which the Minister could rule as to whether
interest payments were justifiable in cases prior to the current
effective date of January 1, 1990.

Mr. Chadderton points out that the Department of Veterans Affairs had
been administering the funds of veterans who were ruled incompetent to
handle their own affairs.  Because this was a service over and above
the ordinary intent of the Pension and War Veterans Allowance Act, and
provided an additional benefit to the veteran, there was no
justification for the veteran to receive interest on his trust account.

However, Mr. Chadderton notes, the situation changed when veterans
began to accumulate large amounts of money because many of them were in
receipt of full pay and special allowances, far in excess of their
needs.  Mr. Chadderton writes that it was his view that this change of
circumstances placed the Department of Veterans Affairs in the position
of a trustee rather than the previous role of administering smaller
amounts of money on behalf of this group of veterans.

Mr. Chadderton next observes that the Department has a significant
number of files on this matter going back to 1970, which appear to
indicate that the Department was aware of the possibility that it could
be held liable for payment of interest.  The amendment to the
arrangements with the Treasury Board, which commenced January 1, 1990,
obviously left out a number of cases where the Department's role had
changed from an administrator to that of trustee.  

Mr. Chadderton then points out that it should be possible to develop
some guidelines which would indicate by the dollar value of the trust
account, the time at which the Department became a natural custodian of
the funds.  It seems reasonable, says Mr. Chadderton, that interest
should be paid on such accounts, irrespective of the January 1, 1990
deadline.

Mr. Chadderton closes his letter to the Minister, saying that he would
appreciate if further consideration might be given to the "proposal
which would see the establishment of a review committee with authority
to recommend payments based on a reasonable guideline which would
indicate the appropriateness of such payments from the time upon which
the Department was a trustee rather than an administrator."


FLORIDA: Plaintiffs To Appeal Ruling in Marion County Assessments Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the tax class action against Marion County plan to appeal
a state court judge's ruling finding the special assessment approved by
Marion Oaks residents in the 1980s as "legitimate," the Starbanner.com
reports.

The suit was commenced by out-of-state property owners, Patrick and
Leigh Donnelly, against the assessment, called the Municipal Services
Taxing Unit.  The MSTU raises around US$500,000 a year which helps fund
law enforcement programs and the building of a community center in
Marion Oaks.  According to the Starbanner.com, a landowner pays US$25 a
year on improved residential lots and $20 a year on unimproved or
partially improved lots.

The Donnellys argued that out-of-state landowners like themselves had
to pay the MSTU assessment without receiving any significant benefit
from it.  Ocala attorney Dock Blanchard, one of the lawyers
representing the Donnellys and other class-action participants, called
the assessment "taxation without representation."

"The people I represent, 20-some-odd thousand people, don't live in the
county, so they don't get to vote," he told the Starbanner.  "Our
contention was, this is a tax, not an assessment, that it benefits
residents disproportionately to non-residents."  Myra Tedder, Marion
County's director of MSTU assessments refuted this, saying the
assessments are used to pay for services a community wants that the
county otherwise would not provide.

Greg Stewart, one of the lawyers who represented the county's interests
in the case, also told the Starbanner the absentee landowners do
benefit from increased police protection and the community center.  
"The judge determined that it increases the value of the property by
having those services in the development.I think the judge very clearly
felt the plaintiffs in this particular case, who don't live there, and
never intend to live there, didn't consider the desires of others."


INDONESIA: High Court Allows Environmental, Forestry, Consumer Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Amid the wide misperception and rejection of class actions in
Indonesia, its Supreme Court has issued a regulation requiring the
district court and judges to accept class actions filed by groups who
may have been wrongfully victimized in environmental, forestry or
consumer protection cases, according to the Jakarta Post.

The regulation allows any group of people victimized by actions,
policies or activities carried out by the state or private
institutions, to file lawsuits through their representatives.  The
updated regulation is meant to provide a more effective means for
groups in pursuing legal action.

Mr. Soeharto, a deputy to the chief justice on civil matters, said that
despite its limited coverage, the regulation allowed a group of people
victimized by any policies made by the government and other state
institutions and private ones, to file a class action without fear that
their lawsuits would be nullified due to the absence of a law on it.

The ruling stipulates that judges are obliged to investigate and hear
class action suits based on violations of the law with strong material
evidence and witnesses.  The court's verdicts in class action cases
must be announced through the mass media to let the group of victimized
people know about them.

In case of financial compensation, "judges must make the details of the
verdicts public, and must notify the victimized people for the purpose
of compensation distribution," Mr. Soeharto said, adding that during a
trial, the group of plaintiffs would not be required to attend.


Mr. Soeharto has acknowledged that lower courts have frequently turned
down class-action cases because of the absence of legislation.  "Only
the three laws regulate class-action suits," Mr. Soeharto said, adding
that the Supreme Court has no legislative authority to make the law.
This is because class actions are a new phenomenon in Indonesia, having
been first introduced in the late 1990s.  Therefore, most people,
including those in the legal profession, are not accustomed to such
cases.  So far, 45 cases have been brought to court, but only a few
were accepted.

Numerous judges have opposed class actions, which are based on the
English common law system, as inapplicable, because the law in
Indonesia is based on the continental or civil law system, which does
not have a tradition of such lawsuits.

However, cases have been accepted, gone to trial and have had
successful completion, under the new inching-forward system.  In March,
the Central Jakarta District Court ruled in favor of Wardah Hafidz,
chairwoman of the Urban Poverty Consortium, when she, along with an
alliance of NGOs, filed a class action against the Jakarta
administration over its failure to cope with the recent flooding that
claimed more than 25 lives and caused millions of rupiah in material
losses to Jakarta residents.

The court also has ruled in favor of representatives of a group of
people who were evicted in a military-backed land clearance operation
in several areas of the city.


JEWEL FOOD: Faces Suit Alleging Milk Price Fixing in IL State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jewel Food Stores, Inc. faces a class action pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging milk price fixing.  The suit
also names Dominick's Supermarkets, Inc. as defendants.

In December 2001, the Company moved for summary judgment in the suit,
but the Court denied the motion.  The Company has appealed this denial.  

The Company has strong defenses against this lawsuit, and is vigorously
defending it.  Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties
inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently
available to the Company, management does not expect the ultimate
resolution of this action to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition.


LIFE INSURANCE: Life Insurance Suit Summary Judgment Denied in GA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
denied the motions for summary judgment filed by Life Insurance Co. of
Virginia (dba GE Life and Annuity Assurance Co.) in the class action
filed against them related to the sale of universal life insurance
Policies.

The suit is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
universal life insurance policies from the Company and alleges improper
sales practices in connection with the sale of universal life insurance
policies.

No class has been certified in the suit.  The Company asserts that the
suit is still in its preliminary stages, and its ultimate outcome, and
any effect on the Company, cannot be determined at this time.  The
Company intends to defend this lawsuit, including plaintiff's efforts
to certify a nationwide class action, vigorously.


MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Recalls 18T Automotive Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 18,000
Power Plus automotive chargers that plug into automotive cigarette
lighters.  The automotive chargers are often used on job sites to
charge power tool batteries.  When used under low voltage conditions,
the chargers can overheat. This poses a fire hazard.

The Company has received six reports of the chargers overheating. No
injuries or property damage have been reported involving these
chargers.

The recall includes Power Plus automotive chargers and Impact wrench
kits containing these chargers.  A label on the front of the charger
reads, "Milwaukee. POWER-PLUS 9.6 Volt - 18 Volt AUTOMOTIVE CHARGERS."  
A nameplate on the back of the charger lists the catalog number.
Impact wrench kits containing these chargers have serial numbers within
the range listed below.  The serial number is located on the side of
the Impact wrench kit.  The chargers included in the recall are:

     (1) Catalog Numbers: Charger 48-59-0184, Serial Numbers:  All
         Serial Range, and

     (2) Catalog Numbers: Wrench Kit 9079-23, Serial Numbers:
         241A401520001 through 241A402080126     

Home centers, hardware stores and industrial distributors sold these
chargers and wrench kits containing these chargers nationwide from
March 2000 through April 2002.  The chargers sold for about $115. The
Impact wrench kits containing these chargers sold for about $325.

For more information, contact the firm by Phone: 800-414-6527 between 8
am and 5:30 pm CT Monday through Friday, or visit the Company's Web
site: http://www.heavydutytool.com.


NORDSTROM INC.: Faces Suit Over Cosmetics Price-Fixing in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Department store giant Nordstrom Inc. was named as a defendant along
with other department stores, specialty retailers and cosmetics and
fragrances manufacturers in a consolidated class action pending in the
Superior Court of California in Marin County.

The suit arose from nine separate but virtually identical suits
commenced in May 1998, alleging that the retail price of the "prestige"
cosmetics sold in department and specialty stores was collusively
controlled by the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation
of the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act.  The
suit was filed on behalf of a class of all California residents who
purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the
defendants during the period four years prior to the filing of the
amended complaint.

The Company denied the allegations in the suit.  The Company and the
other retail defendants have produced documents and responded to
plaintiffs' other discovery requests, including providing witnesses for
depositions.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved for class certification.   


PENNSYLVANIA: Western PA Cyber School Sued Over Charter School Status
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School in Midland, Beaver County
faces a class action filed by thirty-two school districts, alleging the
school isn't a charter school under state law, and is not entitled to
using taxpayers money for funding, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

Similar suits have been filed against other cyber schools.  Charter
schools are independent, privately operated schools that are overseen
by local school boards and receive taxpayer money.  Cyber schools
allegedly do not deserve to be classified under charter schools,
because they don't have teachers, students and classes housed together
in buildings.

The suit generally claims that the Midland cyber school isn't a charter
school under current state law.  More specifically, it claims that
Midland School District "essentially granted a charter to itself" to
operate the Western Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School.  The suit
contends that the charter application wasn't even completed until after
the school opened for the 2000-01 school year, and that the charter
school board held an organizational meeting six months after it had
been opened, the Post-Gazette reports.

Last July, Butler Area School District sued Einstein Academy, a Bucks
County cyber charter school, arguing that Einstein does not comply with
Pennsylvania laws governing charter schools. Since then, more than 100
other districts have joined that lawsuit.

Other recent legal actions include a lawsuit filed by the Pennsylvania
School Boards Association, which challenges whether cyber schools can
be considered charter schools.


PROVELL INC.: Summary Judgment Ruling Pending in MN State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in the class action suit against Provell,
Inc. are currently pending in the Minnesota State Court, filed by both
the Company and the plaintiffs in the suit.

Four customers commenced the suit in August 2000, requesting
representation of a class of consumers.  The suit contends that certain
of the Company's business practices violate Minnesota consumer
protection laws.  Plaintiffs seek both damages and injunctive relief.

The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses and is
vigorously defending the allegations both on the merits and in regard
to class status. Management believes that the resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition or
operations of the Company.


PROVELL INC.: Former Employees of Closed Subsidiary Files Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Provell, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States District
Court in Minnesota by former employees of its subsidiary Clickship
Direct, Inc, alleging that the Company had failed to provide
appropriate notice to employees and pay annual performance bonuses when
ClickShip's operations were ceased.  Plaintiffs seek payment in lieu of
notice, incentive pay, and statutory penalties.

The Company believes it has strong factual and legal defenses and is
vigorously defending the allegations.  This matter is currently in the
discovery phase of litigation.  Management believes that the resolution
of this action will not have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition or operations of the Company.


STANDING ROCK: Members Sue To Participate in Tribe Decisions, Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying they are being shut out of decisions and benefits, some members
of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe have asked the tribal court to order
changes, The Associated Press has reported recently.  The lawsuit says
the coalition's class-action claim involves about 60 enrolled tribal
members.

The Black Hills Coalition of Standing Rock Enrollees and member Sidney
Whitesell filed the lawsuit against tribal officers of the Standing
Rock tribe and the 14 tribal council members.  The Standing Rock
reservation straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border.

In the complaint, the tribal members say they have been denied federal
economic development funds and proceeds from the tribe's casinos.  Mr.
Whitesell said there is a dispute over whether tribal members not
living on the reservation can cast absentee votes in tribal elections.  
The lawsuit claims that the double standard, pitting the interests of
reservation residents against urban members, has existed "for several
years."

"But living off the reservation, we have the same problems:  housing,
jobs, schools.  If we could get some of that money we could get at
solving some of these problems," Mr. Whitesell said.  He estimated that
200 to 300 Standing Rock families are living in the Rapid City area.

The suit comes as the tribe already faces financial scrutiny.  In an
April hearing at Fort Yates, Senator Kent Conrad, D-N.D., heard
allegations of improper tribal lending of $7.4 million in trust funds.  
The Senator has asked Interior Secretary Gale Norton to investigate the
charges.  The money comes from interest earned on a $90.6 million
permanent trust established in 1992, to compensate the tribe for land
lost to Lake Oahe, which was created in the construction of Missouri
River dams.

The lawsuit asks the Court to order the tribe to extend equal
representation to all members and to provide the urban group, as well,
the funds derived from the trust accounts and funds generated by the
Prairie Knights Casino, south of Mandan, N.D. and Grand River Casino in
Mobridge.


US CUSTOMS: Hispanic Special Agents File Racial Bias Suit in DC Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Customs Service faces a class action filed by a group of
Hispanic special agents. The lawsuit, lodged in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the federal law-
enforcement agency has engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination
against Hispanic agents nationwide dating back to the early 1970s, the
San Antonio Business Journal reports.  

The suit was filed on behalf of around 400 former and current Hispanic
Customs agents, including a former assistant commissioner of the agency
and an agent who was left a paraplegic after being shot in the back by
one of his supervisors during a botched drug bust.  The claims in the
suits include:

     (1) denials of promotion,

     (2) lack of training,

     (3) disproportionate assignments to dangerous undercover work,

     (4) disproportionate assignments to border stations,

     (5) failure to compensate Hispanics for their Spanish-language
         ability,

     (6) disparities in hiring and transfers, and

     (7) systemic retaliation and harassment.

The suit seeks back pay, compensatory damages, and an injunction
"requiring the Customs Service to cease and desist these illegal acts."  

The suit was first filed before the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The EEOC, however, failed to act on
"the full panoply of claims" brought by the Hispanic agents, according
to the statement issued by the plaintiffs' law firm Shaffer, Rapaport &
Schmidt.

Customs officials declined to comment on the EEOC case when interviewed
previously by the Business Journal.  However, a spokesman for the
federal law-enforcement agency said at the time that Customs has made
great efforts during the past several years to improve its internal and
external systems to eliminate the potential for racial profiling and
other forms of discrimination. The spokesman added that Customs also
has placed a great emphasis on recruiting minorities.


WEYERHAUSER COMPANY: Agrees To Settle Investigations Over Wood Sidings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Company has agreed to settle a Washington state attorney
general's investigation into alleged misrepresentations over its
engineered wood siding, Associated Press reports.  The investigation
was prompted by consumer complaints in the 1990s that the siding, made
mostly of wood fiber and resin, was bulging and rotting.

Under the settlement, the Company agreed to help finance a two-year
study of the performance of the sidings in Northwest climate.  It will
contribute more than $130,000 to the study, which will be undertaken by
the Washington State University Wood Materials and Engineering Lab, the
Tacoma-based Engineered Wood Association and the University of
Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  Additionally, the Company
will also pay $55,000 in attorney fees to each of the three states
involved in the investigation: Washington, Oregon and Wisconsin.

                            Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Adelphia Business
Solutions, Inc. (OTC:ABIZQ.PK) between January 6, 2000 and March 27,
2002, inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania against:

     (1) John J. Rigas, Chairman,

     (2) Timothy Rigas, CFO, Vice Chairman, Treasurer and a director,

     (3) Michael J. Rigas, Vice Chairman, Secretary and a director and

     (4) James P. Rigas, CEO, Vice Chairman, President and a director

The Company filed for bankruptcy protection on March 27, 2002 and is
not named as a defendant in this action.

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 January 6, 2000 and March 27, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, throughout the class
period, the Company engaged in deceptive sales practices, which
artificially inflated the reported number of telecommunications lines
that it sold.  

In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants improperly caused
the Company to pay the overhead expenses of Adelphia Communications
Inc., a company controlled by defendants which maintained important
business ties with the Company and on which the Company depended.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose
that Adelphia Communications had in excess of $2 billion in off-balance
sheet liabilities.  On March 1, 2002, the Company announced that it
will default on interest payments on certain secured notes.

Subsequently, on March 27, 2002, defendants disclosed that Adelphia
Communications, along with another entity controlled by defendants, was
liable for $2.3 billion of previously undisclosed debt.  On that same
day, the Company filed for bankruptcy.

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: adelphiasolutionscase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com


AQUILA INC.: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Aquila, Inc. (NYSE: ILA) Class A
common stock during the period between April 25, 2001 and December 3,
2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and UtiliCorp United Inc., the Company's controlling
shareholder, with making material misstatements and omissions
concerning the Company's planned formation of an Audit Committee
consisting of independent directors to, among other things, monitor
transactions between UtiliCorp and the Company.

Defendants' failure to timely appoint an independent Audit Committee
ultimately permitted UtiliCorp to commence a tender offer pursuant to
which it bought back all of the outstanding the Company's Class A
common stock at a non-negotiated and less than optimum price per share.

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


COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in Oregon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon on behalf of
purchasers of Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc., (AMEX:CIO), common
stock between October 11, 1999 and December 21, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b(5). The action arises
from damages incurred by the class as a result of a scheme and common
course of conduct by defendants, which operated as a fraud and deceit
on the class during the class period.

The Company designs, manufactures and markets thermal imaging devices
and services used for clinical diagnosis, pain management and
industrial non-destructive testing.  Their flagship product, a Breast
Cancer Detection System, is currently under review by the FDA.

As alleged in the suit, the Company admitted that during the class
period, the Company's ex-President and Chief Operating Officer, David
Packer, consistently made representations to the Board, the
shareholders of the Company and the public about the status and timing
of submissions to the FDA, which were false and misleading at the time
they were made and which placed the ultimate approval of the BCD System
in jeopardy.

As further alleged, due to defendants' deceptive and illegal conduct,
plaintiff and the other class members purchased their Company
securities at inflated prices and were damaged thereby.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun or Marc L. Godino by Phone:
888-388-4605 by E-mail: info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.secfraud.com


CONCORD CAMERA: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers of Concord Camera Corporation (Nasdaq: LENS) common stock
during the period between January 18, 2001 through June 22, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements throughout the class period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company, Harlan Press and
Ira B. Lampert issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements, which failed to disclose that:

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

     (2) this delinquent $15,777,000 receivable balance was
         uncollectible; and

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

On June 22, 2001, the Company revealed the above and these shocking
revelations caused the stock to plummet over 20% to $6.02.

For more information, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by E-
mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html


ENRON CORPORATION: Lawyers for Defendants Request Suits' Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pointing at the Enron-related lawsuits, attorneys for Wall Street
investment banks, law firms, former Enron figures and Arthur Andersen,
LLP have asked a federal judge to dismiss the sweeping claims of fraud
and conspiracy against their clients, USA Today reported recently.  The
attorneys expect United States District Judge Melinda Harmon, in
Houston, to rule on the motions this summer.

A class action by Enron shareholders, led by the Regents of the
University of California, accuses the corporate figures and Wall Street
firms of securities and accounting fraud.  Another class action, filed
by former Enron workers, alleges conspiracy and racketeering.  

However, the corporate defense attorneys say in their recent court
filings that both lawsuits have no legal grounding.  The motion by JP
Morgan Chase, for instance, calls the shareholders' class action "a
work of fiction based on fantasy."

Richard Mithoff, an attorney at Mithoff & Jacks who represents JP
Morgan Chase, says the Supreme Court has ruled that law firms,
investment banks and others accused only of "aiding and abetting" a
fraud cannot be found liable in securities-fraud cases.  Mr. Mithoff
also contends that JP Morgan Chase employees never knew Enron was
engaging in suspected fraud.  Nor, he says, did JP Morgan Chase
misrepresent Enron's ailing financial health to investors.

"This is a desperate reach for deep pockets," Mr. Mithoff says.  "None
of the facts justify suing everyone who ever did business with Enron."

Given the heavy financial losses caused by Enron's collapse,
shareholders attorney, Roger Greenberg, of Schwartz Junell Campbell &
Oathout believes the judge will uphold his clients' charges in a
precedent-setting decision.  "Extraordinary cases call for
extraordinary (judicial) review," Mr. Greenberg says.  "The complexity,
breadth and depth of fraud in Enron far surpasses any case filed so
far."

Motions to dismiss were also filed by former Enron Chairman Kenneth
Lay, former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling, Enron law firm Vinson & Elkins,
Credit Suisse First Boston and others.


EXELON CORPORATION: Much Shelist Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, PC initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Exelon Corporation (NYSE:EXC) between April 24, 2001 and September
27, 2001, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., its co-CEO and Chairman,

     (2) John W. Rowe, its co-CEO and President, and

     93) Ruth Ann Gillis, its CFO

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market.  According to the allegations, the Company repeatedly
issued statements concerning the strength of its operations and
repeatedly assured the market that it would meet or beat its $4.50 per
share earnings figure for 2001.

Specifically, it has been alleged that the defendants' statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among
other things:

     (i) that the investments in telecommunications companies held by
         the Company's Enterprises segment were plummeting in value at
         a rapid pace.  Accordingly, Enterprises could not and would
         not meaningfully contribute to the Company's results and, in
         fact, the Company was carrying tens of millions of dollars of
         impaired investments on its financial statements; and

    (ii) that InfraSource, the Company's infrastructure subsidiary, was
         experiencing declining demand for its products as its primary
         customers, telecommunications companies, were facing severe
         industry-wide problems, such as mounting debt and over-
         capacity, and were significantly cutting back on their capital
         expenditures.

On September 27, 2001, the Company issued a press release and announced
that it would not meet its earnings commitment of $4.50 for 2001.  The
Company blamed its shortfall on the economy, poor weather and write-
downs for failed investments made by the Enterprises unit.  In reaction
to the announcement, the Company's common stock price plunged by 22%,
falling to a low of $38.85 per share on September 27, 2001, after
closing at $50.45 the previous day, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden by Phone: 800-470-6824 or
by E-mail: investorhelp@muchlaw.com


FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Department Stores, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against the Company and certain members
of its senior management on behalf of persons who purchased Company
shares between February 23, 2000 and July 20, 2000.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the
basis that the Company, among other things, made false and misleading
statements regarding its financial condition and results of operations
and failed to disclose material information relating to the credit
delinquency problem at their subsidiary Fingerhut Companies, Inc.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the suit are
without merit and intends to defend vigorously against those
allegations.  Discovery has not commenced in the suit.


FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Two Derivative Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Department Stores, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota to dismiss two identical
shareholder derivative suits filed on behalf of the Company.  The suit
names the Company as nominal defendant and subsidiary Fingerhut
Companies, Inc., and certain of Fingerhut's officers as defendants.

The suits allege that the defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company in connection with the disposition of Fingerhut
and seek an injunction to prevent the liquidation of Fingerhut
or a sale of Fingerhut's assets other than as a going concern.

The Company intends to vigorously oppose the shareholder derivative
suits.


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Gerber Scientific, Inc. (NYSE:GRB) and several top
officers, alleging they defrauded investors by releasing materially
false and misleading information about the company.  The suit, filed in
the US District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeks damages on
behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common stock from May
27, 1999 through April 12, 2002.

The suit states that the Company issued materially false and misleading
information to the public during the class period, artificially
inflating the price investors paid for company stock.  The plaintiff
claims that the company, a supplier of automated manufacturing systems,
repeatedly touted the MAXX system's success in the marketplace when in
reality the product was defective.

As a result of problems with the MAXX product and the economic
downturn, the Company knowingly or recklessly allowed inventory at its
Sign Making and Specialty Graphics group to build up, the complaint
says.  In addition, according to the complaint, the Company failed to
properly write down the backlog or establish appropriate reserves in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The problems came to light on April 15, 2002, the complaint states,
when the Company revealed that it expected to take a $12 million charge
in the fourth quarter of 2002 composed principally of inventory write-
downs.  At the same time, the complaint says, the Company announced an
internal review of its financial reporting from January 1, 1998 through
the current fiscal year. The internal review, the company revealed,
came in response to a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation
of the company's inventory and reserve accounting practices and related
disclosures.

Following the company's disclosures, the Company's stock price fell
11%, from a close of $7.85 on April 12, 2002 to a close of $6.99 on
April 15, 2002.

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


L90 INC.: Cauley Geller Expands Class Period in Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP lodged a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of L90, Inc. common stock during the
period between July 26, 2001 and March 12, 2002, inclusive.  The class
period is being expanded to include purchases between October 26, 2000
and March 12, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  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 the Company's 10-K
(due March 31, 2002).

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

On February 4, 2002, the Company issued a press release entitled, "L90
Reports Regulatory Inquiries."  The press release stated in part: "L90,
Inc., an online media and direct marketing company, today announced
that the Company has received notice from the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the Commission is conducting an investigation into the
Company. In connection with this investigation, the Commission has
issued the Company and one of its directors subpoenas requesting
documents related primarily to the Company's financial records."  On
this news the Company's shares plummeted by more than 50% the following
trading day and continued to plummet further in the weeks that followed
and defendants revealed further incriminating facts.

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

For more details, contact Jackie Addison, Sue Null or Shelly Nicholson
by Phone: 888-551-9944 by E-mail: info@classlawyer.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.classlawyer.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Emerson Firm Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of a class of clients of Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. who purchased the
common stock of Internet Capital Group (Nasdaq:ICGE) common stock as
well as those who were not clients of Merrill Lynch who also purchased
the common stock of Internet Capital during the period between August
30, 1999 and November 8, 2000, inclusive.  The suit charges Merrill
Lynch and its former star Internet analyst Henry Blodget with
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ms. Tanya Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5336 by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


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

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

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Kaplan Fox Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and First
Vice President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Pets.com, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: IPET) between March 7,
2000 and November 7, 2000 inclusive.

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox or Jonathan K. Levine by
Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980 by Fax: 212-687-7714 or by E-mail address:
mail@kaplanfox.com


NIKU CORPORATION: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Niku Corporation faces several securities class actions pending against
it and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, arising out of
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) in February 2000.  Various
underwriters of the IPO also are named as defendants in the actions.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for allocating to them shares of our stock in
         connection with the IPO; and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to allocate such
         stock to those customers in exchange for the customers
         agreeing to purchase additional Company shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The Court later ordered that these actions, along with hundreds of IPO
allocation cases against other issuers, be transferred to Judge Shira
Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  At a status
conference held in September 2001, Judge Scheindlin adjourned all
defendants' time to respond to the complaints until further order of
the Court.

These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery
proceedings have taken place. The Company believes that the claims
asserted against it in these cases are without merit and intends to
defend vigorously against them.


OFFICEMAX INC.: OH Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division dismissed all claims in the consolidated securities
class action pending against OfficeMax, Inc. and its officers and
directors.

The suits involve claims against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors for violations of the federal securities laws
for allegedly making false and misleading statements that served to
artificially inflate the value of the Company's stock and/or relating
to the Company's shareholder rights plan.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion requesting the Court to reconsider
its dismissal of these cases.  The Company will file a brief in
opposition to plaintiffs' motion.  The Company will continue to fight
vigorously against the suits and is confident that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material effect on the
Company's liquidity, financial position or results of operations.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Two Law Firms Commence Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran and Krause & Kalfayan 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 the Company and certain 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 shocking 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 Andrew J. Morganti with Finkelstein, Thompson
& Loughran by E-mail: ajm@ftllaw.com or Patrick N. Keegan with Krause &
Kalfayan by E-mail: pkeegan@krausekalfayan.com or by Phone:
619-232-0331.


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Peregrine Systems, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PRGN) between July 24, 2001 and May 3, 2002, inclusive.  The
suit is pending in the United States District Court, Southern District
of California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

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 24, 2001 and May 3, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff and the class
were injured because the risks that materialized were risks of which
they were unaware as a result of defendants' misrepresentations,
omissions and other fraudulent conduct alleged.  On May 1, 2002 the
stock closed at $3.45 per share down almost 50% from the previous day's
closing price of $6.85 per share, on extremely heavy volume of
28,429,000 shares traded.

The following day, after it was reported that fraud might also be
involved, the Company's per share price dropped even further to close
at $2.60 per share on even heavier trading volume of over 30 million
shares.  

The decline in the price of the Company's securities was caused by the
public dissemination on or about May 6, 2002 of the true facts, which
were previously concealed or hidden. Wherein 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, which KPMG had brought to the attention of the audit
committee.  Simultaneously, the Board 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.

As a result of defendants' alleged misconduct, plaintiff and the class
have suffered substantial damages.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862 or
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


SAF T LOK: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Saf T Lok Incorporated common
stock (OTCBB:LOCK) between May 17, 1999 and April 16, 2001, both dates
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company, Franklin W.
Brooks, Jeffrey W. Brooks, and William Schmidt.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements and omissions of material fact regarding the
value of the Company's inventories, tools and die, and patents during
the class period.

In particular, it is alleged that a material amount of the reported
value of the Company's inventories, tools and die, and patents were
obsolete during the class period and as such were not accounted for at
the lower of cost or market value as represented.

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

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


SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of WorldCom, Inc. (NASDQ: WCOM) common
stock between May 15, 1999 and April 21, 2002, inclusive, against
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. and its star telecommunication analyst Jack
Grubman for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Fred T. Isquith, Robert Abrams, Michael
Miske, George Peters or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016 by Phone: 800-575-0735 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.whafh.com. E-mail should refer to WorldCom.  


SEITEL INC.: Federman & Sherwood Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Seitel, Inc. (NYSE: SEI) common stock during the period
between July 13, 2000 and April 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its senior
officers improperly recognized revenue and net income during fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 by recording revenue on data licensing contracts,
prior to specific data being selected by and delivered to its
customers.

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

On May 3, 2002, the Company issued a press release acknowledging that
the financial statements it issued during the class period were not
prepared in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP).  The Company also acknowledged that the May 3, 2002 disclosures
were a result of its conversations with the SEC.

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


SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI) and several top officers,
accusing them of pumping up the Company's stock price by improperly
recording revenue.  The suit, filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, seeks damages on behalf of all investors
who bought Seitel common stock from May 5, 2000 through May 3, 2002.

According to the suit, the Company and the individual defendants
materially misrepresented the Company's financial results for 2000 and
2001 by improperly recognizing revenues.  Most of the improper revenue,
the complaint says, was attributable to the Company's undisclosed
practice of recording revenue for the licensing of its seismic data and
other geophysical information before delivering data to customers.  The
practice ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles and
artificially inflated the Company's stock price during the class
period, the complaint says.

The complaint alleges that the defendants were motivated to commit the
accounting fraud in order to earn commissions and bonuses, which were
tied to the Company's revenues and earnings.  The complaint claims the
defendants had nearly $10 million of insider stock sales during the
class period.

On April 1, the Company announced that it was restating its financial
results for the year 2000 and the first three quarters of 2001. The
restatement reduced reported revenue by 15% in 2000 and 30% during the
first three quarters of 2001. It also turned what had purportedly been
profits during those periods into losses, the lawsuit states.

By the time the Company further detailed the restatements on May 3,
2002, the company's stock price had plunged to $5.65 per share, more
than 75% below the class period high of $22.72 per share, the complaint
says.

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


SEITEL INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action
against Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI) and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, on behalf of all investors who bought the Company's common
stock from May 5, 2000 through May 3, 2002.

According to the complaint, the Company and the individual defendants
materially misrepresented the Company's financial results for 2000 and
2001 by improperly recognizing revenues.  Most of the improper revenue,
the complaint says, was attributable to the Company's undisclosed
practice of recording revenue for the licensing of its seismic data and
other geophysical information before delivering data to customers.  The
practice was in violation of generally accepted accounting principles
and artificially inflated the Company's stock price during the class
period, the complaint says.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants were motivated to
commit the accounting fraud in order to earn commissions and bonuses,
which were tied to the company's revenues and earnings. The complaint
claims the defendants had nearly $10 million of insider stock sales
during the class period.

On April 1, 2000, the Company announced that it was restating its
financial results for the year 2000 and the first three quarters of
2001. The restatement reduced reported revenue by 15% in 2000 and 30%
during the first three quarters of 2001. It also turned what had
purportedly been profits during those periods into losses, the lawsuit
states.

On May 3, 2002, when the Company provided details of the restatements,
its stock price dropped to $5.65 per share, more than 75% below the
class period high of $22.72 per share.

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862
by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


SEITEL INC.: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Firm initiated a securities class action against Seitel,
Inc. ("Seitel") (NYSE:SEI) and certain of its senior officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock on the open market during the period July 13, 2000 through
April 1, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that defendants improperly recognized revenue and net
income during fiscal years 2000 and 2001 by recording revenue on data
licensing contracts, prior to specific data being selected by and
delivered to its customers.  The suit further alleges that top insiders
profited illegally from insider trading in the Company's common stock
and earned exorbitant commissions and bonuses that were tied to
reported revenue and earnings.

During the class period and as a result of defendants'
misrepresentations, shares of the Company's common stock traded as high
as $23.03 per share.  The Company currently trades, after having
restated its false financial statements, at approximately $8.00 per
share.

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

For more details, contact Tanya Autry by Mail: P.O. Box 25336, Little
Rock, AR 72221-5336 by Phone: 800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
tanya.autry@worldnet.att.net


SEITEL INC.: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of purchasers of Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI) securities
during the period between July 13, 2000 and April 1, 2002.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Company
provides seismic data and related geophysical services to the petroleum
industry.

The suit alleges that during the class period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's
business, its financial results and its prospects causing its stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels, including as high as $23.03 in
March 2001.  

In fact, defendants' reported financial results were materially
misstated due to the Company's inclusion in revenue of payments from
parties with which the Company was jointly acquiring data.  The Company
was also reporting revenue for licenses sold to customers who had not
yet even decided which data they wished to purchase from the Company.

Defendants took advantage of this inflation in the Company's stock
price, selling 565,480 shares of their Company stock for proceeds of
$10.2 million.

Then on April 1, 2002, the Company announced the restatement of its
financial statements for fiscal 2000 and the first three quarters of
2001.  The Company did not meet the financial covenants for its long-
term debt under the restricted earnings and has had to obtain waivers
from its lenders.  The Company's stock now trades at less than $9 per
share.

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


SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock 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 issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  The Company, a research-based clinical
laboratory, develops and performs esoteric clinical laboratory tests.
The Company went public in December 2000 selling five million shares at
$16.00 per share.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that in June and October of 2001,
the 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.  The inspectors 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 6 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 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 providing 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706 by E--mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


STILLWATER MINING: Preparing for Defense V. Securities Suits in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stillwater Mining Company faces several securities class actions
pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of the Company between April 20,2001 through and including
April 1, 2002.

The suits assert claims against the Company and certain of its officers
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The suits challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures made by
the Company regarding its financial performance, and in particular, its
accounting for probable reserves.

The Company has not been served by any of the plaintiffs but intends to
vigorously defend itself in these actions, it said in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


TEXTRON INC.: Mounting Vigorous Defense V. Securities Suit in RI Court
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder lawsuit filed against Providence-based Textron, Inc.,
seeking class-action certification, alleges that top executives
committed securities fraud by not timely disclosing the problems of the
Company's Bell Helicopter Textron subsidiary, The Fort Worth Star-
Telegram reported recently

The action, filed in Federal Court in Rhode Island, alleges that
Company officials made "false and misleading" reports on Bell's
performance and the prospects for its V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft
between October 19, 2000, and September 26, 2001.

As a result, the suit alleges, the Company enjoyed higher stock prices
than it otherwise might have until September 26, 2001, when it fired
Bell's top executive and announced a write-off to account for cost
overruns and production problems at Fort Worth Bell.  The Company's
stock price dropped $10 a share to $33.04, a 23 percent decline after
that announcement.

The lawsuit was filed, on behalf of an individual investor, by
Providence, Rhode Island attorney Barry Kusinitz, and a New York law
firm specializing in class action stockholder suits.   The named
defendants are:

     (1) Lewis Campbell, chairman and chief executive officer,

     (2) Theodore French, chief financial officer,

     (3) Terry Stinson, former chairman and chief executive officer of
         Bell's, and

     (4) John Janitz, former Company president

"Textron believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
it vigorously," said spokeswoman Susan Bishop.  "We are confident that
Textron has made fully appropriate disclosures with respect to all
significant aspects of our business, including the V-22."

The Company wrote off $73 million in the third quarter of 2001, largely
because of Bell's problems with the Marines' H-1 helicopter rebuilding
program.  Last week, the Pentagon gave the Marines the go-ahead to
continue with the H-1 program, and flight testing of the V-22, which
has been grounded since December 2000, is expected to resume this
month.


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Patton Haltom Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP initiated a securities
class in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Lufkin Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Universal Access, Inc. or Universal Access Global Holdings, Inc.
(Nasdaq:UAXS) between May 10, 2001 and March 22, 2002, against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors seeking remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the class period, failing to adequately disclose a change in the
company's business model and the risks involved in that change, and
issuing financial statements that violated generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP), thereby artificially inflating the price
of the Company's publicly traded securities.

The alleged GAAP violations include recording revenue for contingent
contracts and for "capacity swaps" with other telecommunications
companies.  As alleged in the complaint, these capacity swaps were
merely a trading of services, which had no real business purpose other
than to artificially inflate the revenues of the participating
companies.

The suit alleges that these actions violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For more details, contact Richard Adams by Phone: 866-546-9959 or by E-
mail: radams@pattonhaltom.com


US LIQUIDS: NY Court Dismisses Some Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered a partial dismissal of several claims in the consolidated
securities class action pending against US Liquids, Inc. on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from May 12,1998 to August 25,
1999.

The consolidated suit charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of purchasers of common stock in the
Company's March 1999 public offering and violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on
behalf of purchasers of common stock during the period beginning on May
12, 1998 and ending on August 25, 1999.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose allegedly material
information regarding the operations of the Company's Detroit facility
and the Company's financial condition in the prospectus relating to the
Company's March 1999 stock offering and in certain other public filings
and announcements made by the Company.

In 2000, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint.  The court then entered an order of partial
dismissal, which dismissed the claims asserted by the plaintiffs under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, but
granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.

The deadline for filing an amended complaint has passed and the
plaintiffs have advised the court that, while preserving all of their
rights regarding the claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, they will proceed on the current complaint as affected by
the order of partial dismissal.  Accordingly, the lawsuit is proceeding
with respect to the claims asserted under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act only.

In addition, one stockholder of the Company has filed a lawsuit against
certain of the officers and directors of the Company in connection with
the operation of the Company's Detroit facility and the securities
class action described above.  The suit, entitled Benn Carmicia v. US
Liquids, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on September 15, 1999
and was subsequently consolidated with the claims asserted in the
securities class action described above.

The plaintiff purports to allege derivative claims on behalf of the
Company against the officers and directors for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty resulting from their oversight of the Company's affairs.
The lawsuit names the Company as a nominal defendant.

The Company believes that the stockholder derivative action was not
properly brought and has filed a motion to dismiss this action in order
to allow the Board of Directors to consider whether such litigation is
in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders.  As of March
29, 2002, no ruling had been made by the court on this motion to
dismiss.


VERISIGN INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq:
VRSN) securities between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws
by engaging in conduct throughout the class period that had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, PA by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


VERISIGN INC.: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of VeriSign, Inc. (Nasdaq:VRSN)
between January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002, inclusive.  The action is
pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint 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 January 25, 2001 and April 25, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company provides digital trust
services to businesses engaged in securing digital commerce and
communications.  Plaintiff alleges that during the class period,
defendants artificially increased the Company's revenue and margins
thereby created the false perception that its deferred revenue growth
was derived organically.

As part of their effort to boost the Company's stock price, defendants
misrepresented the Company's true prospects and concealed improper
accounting activities until they could effect the sale of at least $26
million worth of their own stock and use Company shares to acquire
other companies in stock-for-stock transactions.

The truth began to materialize on April 25, 2002, as the Company
reported substantial employee lay-offs and revenue well below
previously represented forecasts. By market closing the following day,
Company stock had fallen $8.35 to close at $9.89, wiping out roughly $2
billion of the Company's market value.

As a result of defendant's alleged misconduct, plaintiff and the class
have suffered substantial damages.

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone: 888-844-5862
or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


VIROPHARMA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired ViroPharma, Inc.
securities between July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002, in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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


WORLDCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired WorldCom, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WCOM) securities between January 3, 2000 and April 29, 2002,
inclusive, in the Southern District of New York.

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 complaint 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 complaint further alleges that 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 its 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 its balance
sheet.

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