CAR_Public/020516.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
               Thursday, May 16, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 96

                           Headlines

AT&T BROADBAND: Cable Customers File Suit Over False Billing in Florida
CANADA: Gay & Lesbian Spouses File US$400 Million Suit For Pensions
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Physician Testifies in Camden Diocese Suit Hearing
FORD MOTOR: New Brunswick Sues Over Safety of Crown Victoria Sedan
IKON OFFICE: Agrees To Settle Employee Suit Challenging 401(k) Plan

LOCKFORMER CO.: Witness Testifies About Pollution At Lisle IL Facility
MASSACHUSETTS: Bare-Walls Rule Triggers Inmates' Suit Over Free Speech
MCLEODUSA INC.: Plan Participants Sue For ERISA Violations in N.D. IA
POWER SUPPLIERS: Wolf Popper Launches Suit Over CA Electricity Market
SAAB CARS: Fairness Hearing Over Settlement To Be Held June 15, 2002

                         Securities Fraud

AIRGATE PCS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
ANTS SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit
CIRCUIT CITY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon

DYNEGY INC.: Emerson Firm Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
GTECH HOLDINGS: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
INSPIRE INSURANCE: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Fraud
JDS UNIPHASE: Holzer & Holzer Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
MCLEODUSA INC.: Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in N.D. Iowa

MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NJ
MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates Securities Suit in S.D. NY

SEITEL INC.: Holzer &  Holzer Commences Securities Fraud Suit in TX
SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
SILICON LABORATORIES: To Vigorously Oppose V. Securities Suit in NY
TIMCO AVIATION: Arrives at $11.5M Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit
WORLDCOM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY

WORLDCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Secuities Suit in S.D. NY
                            
                            *********

AT&T BROADBAND: Cable Customers File Suit Over False Billing in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys have filed a lawsuit for about one million AT&T Broadband
cable customers in Florida, alleging the Company charged subscribers
for services that were not provided, among other complaints, The
Associated Press recently reported.  One of the filing attorneys,
Norwood S. Wilner, said he expects a certification hearing over the
lawsuit's class action status to take place in a few months

The suit was filed five days after Attorney General Robert Butterworth
announced a full-scale investigation into the cable provider's billing
practices in Jacksonville.  The three attorneys who filed the suit
claim the Company breached contracts with subscribers in all of Florida
and profited while not providing proper service and provided false
customer service reports to Jacksonville.

Many of the Company's cable customers say they are being charged for
channels they do not subscribe to, and that they are paying too much
for cable boxes and not getting refunds, which the city's cable
franchise agreement calls for when technicians are late for
appointments, said Mr. Wilner.

Len Falter, the Company's general manager for the Jacksonville market,
said the Company has not been served with the lawsuit, and he has not
taken a detailed look at the allegations.  "We want to review it so we
can respond appropriately," Mr. Falter said.     


CANADA: Gay & Lesbian Spouses File US$400 Million Suit For Pensions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A legal effort aimed at recouping $400 million from the Canada Pension
Plan for bereaved gay and lesbian spouses moved to British Columbia
recently, following the lead of a similar effort launched last year in
Ontario, The Associated Press has reported.

The recent hearing in British Columbia Supreme Court was aimed at
having the court certify the plaintiffs' suit as a class action that
possibly would be heard this fall.

Toronto-based lawyer Douglas Elliott said that gays and lesbians are
required to pay into the pension plan, but many are barred from
collecting benefits.  Mr. Elliott's clients allege that the federal
government is discriminating against same-sex couples by denying
benefits to gays and lesbians whose partners died before January 1,
1998.  The federal government imposed that date on an estimated 10,000
gays and lesbians in 2000, when it introduced Bill C-23, which granted
a variety of rights to same-sex couples.

Mr. Elliott claims the cutoff date was imposed on same-sex couples
arbitrarily and without legal justification.   He added that the
lawsuit, if granted class action status, would seek benefits for all
applicable gay and lesbian survivors retroactive to April 17, 1985, the
day equality guarantees were "enshrined" in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Physician Testifies in Camden Diocese Suit Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A second round of hearings on a class action against the Diocese of
Camden opened recently  with another former altar boy describing how
a parish priest sexually abused him decades ago, The Associated Press
has reported.  The hearing will focus on whether the first ex-altar boy
and his brother, also an ex-altar boy, have a legal excuse for not
filing their claims sooner.

Under New Jersey law, a minor who is sexually abused has until his or
her 20th birthday to seek redress in court.  After that period of time,
the statute of limitation is deemed to have tolled, terminating the
right to sue for a specific action, unless the victim can show duress
or incapacity prevented him or her from bringing the action sooner.

Dr. Mark Depman, 47, a physician from Guilford, Conn., who grew up in
New Jersey, said the Rev. John P. Kelly molested him in the late 1960s
at St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church in Merchantville, and said that
another priest once fondled him in a bath house.  Unless Dr. Depman can
satisfy the court that there were, in his case, mitigating
circumstances under the law, that prevented him from coming forward to
sue at age 20, his right to seek redress in court would have terminated
in 1974.

He compared the assaults to someone opening the back of a computer and
damaging its hard drive.  "When they had their pleasure, they shut the
door and I was left with a damaged, faulty hard drive for the rest of
my life," Dr. Depman testified.  "Those men damaged my brain."

Dr. Depman and his brother, John F. Depman, 45, are among 16 plaintiffs
suing the diocese over sexual abuse they say they suffered at the hands
of priests in the late 1960s and early 1970s.  The lawsuit filed in
1994, alleges that diocesan priests preyed on children and that their
superiors ignored or covered up the abuse.

Earlier this month, after a similar hearing, Superior Court Judge John
G. Himmelberger Jr. dismissed two Delaware brothers as plaintiffs in
the lawsuit, saying they had failed to prove "religious duress"
prevented them from coming forward sooner.

At the hearing, Dr. Depman, an emergency room physician, testified that
he had at least a dozen sexual contacts with Rev. Kelly beginning at
age 12 or 13, but that he did not understand it was wrong until 1993.  
These contacts included fondling, masturbation and oral-genital
contact.  Rev. Kelly also introduced Dr. Depman to Rev. Charles
McColgan, who once took him and a friend to a bathhouse where Rev.
McColgan fondled him.  

Dr. Depman said he never thought about the sex acts as right or wrong
until 1993, when he was driving to New Jersey, for a visit, with his
wife and son.  She told him that his migraine headaches nearly always
coincided with his visits home.  "It did not all just come upon me," he
said.  "It's an ongoing process of beginning to fix those damaged
circuits."

Rev. Kelly, who was treated for pedophilia at St. Luke's Hospital in
Suitland, Md., died in 1992.  Rev. McColgan died a year later.

Brian Tierney, a public relations person working on behalf of the
Diocese of Camden's law firm, said it was difficult to believe Dr.
Depman, as a medical professional, did not realize until he was in
his 30s that he had been a victim.  "He waited 20 years until Father
Kelly was dead, to file his lawsuit," said Mr. Tierney, speaking
outside the courthouse after Dr. Depman's testimony.

"I'm not saying it didn't happen and I'm not saying it's not horrible,
but justice requires that you adhere to the statute of limitations," he
said.


FORD MOTOR: New Brunswick Sues Over Safety of Crown Victoria Sedan
------------------------------------------------------------------
The City of New Brunswick, New Jersey filed a class action against Ford
Motor Company, relating to the Ford Crown Victoria Sedan that the city
used as police cruiser, Reuters reports.  The suit alleges that the
vehicle is unsafe, prone to leak fuel and catch fire in high-speed,
rear-end collisions.

The suit echoed the concerns of the state of Arizona over the vehicle,
where officials said it is prone to being punctured in a crash.  The
suit further states that the Company has known the defect for decades,
saying, "Ford's practice of marketing and selling the Crown Victoria
with a known hazardous design amounts to an illegal act or
unconscionable business practice."

Company spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes told Reuters, however, that the
Crown Victoria is safe.  "All the accidents we know of involving the
Crown Victoria police interceptor and fires have occurred in high-
energy impacts, with some being struck at speeds of up to 100 miles per
hour."

Last October, however, the Company sent out a bulletin to its dealers
asking them to make two minor repairs to police Crown Victorias to
lessen the risk of axle parts puncturing the fuel tank in a high-speed
collision.  As a result, the US National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration in November started a preliminary probe into three of
the Company's vehicles that share the same design; the Crown Victoria,
Mercury Grand Marquis and Lincoln Town Cars.


IKON OFFICE: Agrees To Settle Employee Suit Challenging 401(k) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IKON Office Solutions (NYSE:IKN) reached an agreement to settle,
subject to court approval, the class action brought against it and a
number of individual defendants, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The suit contends that the Company and certain of its present and
former officers, directors and employees breached fiduciary duties owed
to participants in the Company's 401(k) plan during the period October
1995 through August 1998.

The Company is not making any monetary payment to the class to settle
the lawsuit, and the settlement does not reflect any admission of
liability by the Company.  Instead, the Company has agreed to make
certain modifications to its 401(k) plan in order to allow participants
greater flexibility with respect to investment of the employer match
portion of their individual accounts.

Like the plans of many other companies, the Company's employer match is
made in company stock and may not be transferred into other investment
options available in the 401(k) plan until the employee attains the age
of 55. Under the settlement, employees who have been with the Company
for at least two years will be permitted to place Company matching
funds in investment options other than Company stock, subject to
vesting schedules.

It is expected that plaintiffs' counsel will petition the court for an
award of their fees and costs of litigation, which, if awarded, will be
paid by the Company.  Such payment is not expected to have a material
financial impact on the Company.

In announcing the settlement, James J. Forese, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, said, "We are very pleased with this settlement,
which we believe is in the best interests of the Company and its
employees and shareholders. In the past year, there has been a great
deal of public discussion about high concentrations of employees'
investment of retirement assets in employers' stock. The changes to our
plan are in keeping with the growing trend to lift restrictions on
investment of the employer match to allow greater diversification. The
settlement allows the Company to address those legitimate concerns and,
at the same time, put the expense and distraction of the litigation
behind us."

For more information, contact Veronica L. Rosa, Investor Relations by
Phone: 610-408-7196 or by E-mail: vrosa@ikon.com or Steven K. Eck,
Media Relations by Phone: 610-408-7295 or by E-mail: seck@ikon.com


LOCKFORMER CO.: Witness Testifies About Pollution At Lisle IL Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys on both sides of a federal class action pollution suit
wrestled recently with differing interpretations of how Lockformer
Company, a Lisle, Illinois manufacturer, handled a chemical spill on
its property, the Chicago Daily Herald reported recently

The suit alleges trichloroethylene (TCE) from the Company plant in
Lisle, seeped into the aquifer and contaminated numerous wells in the
Lisle area.  The plaintiffs argue that the Company knew the soil and
water on the site were tainted but covered up the information.  A class
of 186 families is seeking damages from the Company for trespassing and
creating a nuisance.

Company officials say they believed the TCE, which is used to degrease
metal, was contained on their property.  Attorney Norman Berger, who
represents the residents, questioned geologist Richard Berggreen of STS
about his work for the Company from 1992 to 1998.  Mr. Berggreen
testified that in 1992, the environmental consulting firm took 15
soil borings at the Company plant that TCE levels of 680 parts per
million, the highest reading Mr. Berggreen said he had ever seen in his
career.

Mr. Berggreen also testified that he never told the Company that the
contamination was not moving off the site.  Mr. Berger referred to a
1992 report by STS that recommended that the Company do more
investigation on the property to determine how far the contamination
had gone.  Mr. Berggreen agreed that the meaning of the report was not
that the problem was gone, and said he had discussed with Company
executives the potential contamination to wells in the area.  He added
that in 1997, his firm STS did test the groundwater and found it
contained TCE.

In his cross-examination, Daniel Biederman, the Company's attorney,
asked the geologist about the advice he had provided to the Company.  
Mr. Berggreen said the soil samples he took in 1992 indicated the
contamination was contained to the property in an area of about 45 feet
by 65 feet.  Mr. Berggreen said he told Lockformer executives more
investigation at the site would be useful.  "I probably said I would
like more information, but given the information I have, the
interpretations were reasonable."

Mr. Berggreen also told Mr. Biederman in response to a question, that
he did not tell the Company there was a threat to human health or the
environment.

Earlier in the day, expert witness David Ozonoff testified about the
health effects of TCE.  Mr. Ozonoff is chairman of the Department of
Environmental Health at Boston University and a professor at the School
of Medicine.  He said the chemical TCE has been associated with causing
a variety of illnesses including cancer and birth defects.  Lisle
residents with TCE in their wells likely received exposure to the
chemical through a number of pathways.

"They weren't only drinking it, they were bathing in it, washing their
dishes in it," Mr. Ozonoff said.  "All these (activities) resulted in
TCE getting into people.  It seeps into their skin, they breathe it
when they take a shower or flush the toilet."  Mr. Ozonoff also said
the chemical doesn't do them any good, and it has the potential to do
them substantial harm in terms of the diseases it may cause.

There are two other defendants in the lawsuit, the Company's parent
Mestek Inc. and Honeywell International Inc., which owns the former
chemical supplier to Lockformer.


MASSACHUSETTS: Bare-Walls Rule Triggers Inmates' Suit Over Free Speech
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MCI-Norfolk's inmates had resigned themselves to a ban announced last
year on the posting of pinups and pornographic pictures on cell walls.  
However, after the Norfolk superintendent told them that they couldn't
post any newspaper and magazine clippings, Joel Pentlarge, a jailhouse
lawyer and three fellow inmates filed a federal First Amendment
lawsuit, The Boston Globe reported

Mr. Pentlarge used to liven up the drab institutional air of his cell
with postcards from Cape Cod, a watercolor of a sunset, and the cover
of The New Yorker magazine. The November 12 issue on his wall depicts a
fluffy puppy holding a fountain pen and a sword.  Taking his cue from
the fluffy puppy, Mr. Pentlarge, in the recently-filed class action,
argued that naked centerfolds are one thing, but a magazine's cartoon
about the power of the written word?

"If he were putting up an article about how to escape from prison, that
makes sense," First Amendment lawyer Howard Friedman of Boston said.  
"But a New Yorker cover?  It's hard to imagine it is likely to cause
some problem in the institution."

Prisoners still possess fundamental legal rights like freedom of
religion, freedom of speech, as long as their actions in their exercise
of these freedoms do not compromise security.  Individual prison
superintendents design cell decoration policies to ensure safety,
security and hygiene.  Officials also want to keep "offensive" or
inflammatory pictures off the small area over inmates' desks where they
are allowed to hang pictures, said Department of Correction spokesman
Justin Latini.

Norfolk superintendent Luis Spencer sent inmates a memo on November 14
telling them that family pictures, plain calendars and religious items
were appropriate wall decorations, but that under no circumstances were
media clippings acceptable.  The prison's inmate council filed an
objection and Mr. Pentlarge filed an internal appeal.  

"The prohibition.of all magazine/newspaper pictures or articles of any
kind is a clear violation of my First Amendment rights.  I respectfully
request that the (policy) be rescinded," he wrote.  Prison officials
rejected both appeals.

State prison officials already caused a stir in September of last year
when they announced a prohibition on sexually explicit magazines like
Playboy and Penthouse.  Hard-core porn already had been banned.  The
Supreme Court has upheld limitations on sexual material for inmates.

A debate already exists as to the First Amendment rights of prisoners.
Kara Gotsch, public policy coordinator for the National Prisoner
Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that "prisoners are
probably considered the bottom of the social ladder, and they are easy
to beat up on.  But we can't violate their constitutional rights simply
because it's the convenient and popular thing to do," she said.

On the other hand there is the view put forth by State Representative
Francis Marini, the Republican House leader from Hanson who, in 1999,
supported a successful ballot initiative that denied voting rights for
inmates.  "I think they are missing the point," Mr. Marini said.  
Critics of the ban need to remember why criminals are in prison in the
first place, he said.

The Norfolk policy does not prevent inmates from reading newspapers and
magazines, however.  Peter Costanza, an attorney with Correctional
Legal Services said that the comprehensive ban on posting media
clippings mystified him.  Federal courts tend to take a "hostile" view
toward prisoner claims, he said, but federal judges sometimes allow
inmates who are representing themselves, like Mr. Pentlarge, to travel
to the courthouse in Boston to make their arguments.

Mystified as he was, yet Mr. Costanza made an informed guess of the
"why" as to this most recent prohibition.  Often corrections officials
look to particular prisons to experiment with policies that might later
be implemented system-wide.  Mr. Costanza guessed that Norfolk, a
medium-security facility with 1,250 inmates, might be serving as a test
ground for a way to deal with the coming pornography ban.

However, if prison officials hope to avoid controversial gray areas by
simply forbidding all displays of media clippings, Mr. Friedman said,
they are mistaken.  Content-based limitations on speech could quickly
pull the Department of Correction into a morass of First Amendment
litigation, he said.  "To say you can't have anything if it is from a
newspaper or article, that sounds like it is going too far."


MCLEODUSA INC.: Plan Participants Sue For ERISA Violations in N.D. IA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
McLeodUSA, Inc. faces a class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids
Division, on behalf of participants in the Company's Incorporated
401(k) Profit Sharing Plan against certain present and former members
of our Board of Directors from January 8,2001 to December 3,2001.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, mismanagement of plan assets
and misrepresentation, pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, as amended.  The complaint also names as
defendants "John Does," as yet unidentified members of the Company's
Employee Benefits Committee, and "Richard Roes," as yet unidentified
additional members of our Board of Directors.

As this case is in an early stage, it is impossible to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount or range
of potential loss, if any, to the Company.  However, the Company
believes that the suits are without merit and intends to defend the
action vigorously.


POWER SUPPLIERS: Wolf Popper Launches Suit Over CA Electricity Market
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a class action in California's State Superior
Court in San Francisco on behalf of California taxpayers and the
California general public against 26 power suppliers who allegedly
overcharged California by unfairly using the energy crisis and
manipulated electricity market to their advantage when entering into
long term electricity contracts with California.

The suit, which challenges 41 contracts for approximately $28 billion,
contends that the prices of those contracts exceeded fair and
reasonable prices by more than $9 billion.

The complaint alleges that California's Department of Water Resources
was impelled to enter into the long-term contracts containing unfair
and unreasonable prices and other terms that were unfair and onerous
because the manipulated electricity market had created a crisis
atmosphere in California.

The complaint further contends that the defendant power suppliers
allegedly exploited the energy emergency conditions and the manipulated
electricity market to obtain excessive profits from these long-term
contracts. Once the crisis dissipated, the complaint alleges that
California was left with these long-term contracts providing more power
than California needed at exorbitant locked-in rates for more than ten
years.

For more details, contact Wolf Popper LLP by Mail: 845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6869 or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.wolfpopper.com   


SAAB CARS: Fairness Hearing Over Settlement To Be Held June 15, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing in the
settlement proposed by Saab Cars USA, Inc. to settle a class action
filed on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or
leased a Model Year 1994 to 2002 SAAB 900 or 9-3 automobile (either new
or used) with originally equipped 16" wheels and 205/50 tires or 17"
wheels and 215/45 tires prior to February 22, 2002.

The hearing will be held on July 15, 2002 State Judge Arthur N.
D'Italia to determine:

     (1) whether the proposed settlement of the above class action
         litigation should be approved by the Court as fair,
         reasonable, and adequate;

     (2) whether this litigation should be dismissed with prejudice;
         and

     (3) whether the application of plaintiffs' counsel for an award of
         attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses and an
         incentive award to the named plaintiffs should be approved.

For more information, contact Saab Cars USA, Inc. Litigation Claims
Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 8855, Melville, NY 11747-8855 or by
Phone: 888-809-1205.

                          Securities Fraud

AIRGATE PCS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Airgate PCS, Inc.
(Nasdaq: PCSA) in the Company's public offering on or about December
14, 2001.  The suit is pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division against the Company and:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market in the Company's December 14, 2001
Prospectus, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the prospectus used by defendants
to sell $200 million worth of Company stock was false and misleading
because, among other things, it failed to disclose:

     (i) that in order to complete an effective integration of iCPS,
         drastic changes would have to be made to the Company's
         distribution channels and as a result, the integration of iCPS
         would take longer than expected and sales to new subscribers
         would be significantly reduced;

    (ii) sales forces in the acquired iCPS markets would require
         extensive restructuring, which would negatively impact
         productivity, resulting in a lower than expected number of new
         subscribers in the iCPS markets; and

   (iii) that the "churn," or "turnover" rate for customers would
         increase as a result of an increase in the amount of sub-prime
         credit quality customers the Company added from its merger
         with iCPS.

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 or Kenneth Vianale or Tara Isaacson by Mail: The
Plaza 5355 Town Center Road Suite 900 Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone:
561-361-5000 by E-mail: AirgatePCSCase@milbergNY.com or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.milberg.com  


ANTS SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California dismissed without
prejudice the securities class action against ANTs software, Inc. (OTC
Bulletin Board: ANTS), filed against the Company and certain of its
former officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock from October 5, 1999, through March 23, 2001.

The suit alleged violations of certain provisions of the California
Corporations Code because:

     (1) the Company misrepresented that Dr. Peter Patton was a member
         of its board of directors;

     (2) the Company failed to disclose an effort by a creditor to
         force the Company into involuntary bankruptcy; and

     (3) Donald Hutton falsely identified himself as a certified public
         accountant in a SEC filing.

"We welcome the dismissal of this complaint, which we expected once the
facts were known," Company CEO Frank Ruotolo said in a statement.


CIRCUIT CITY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Circuit City Stores,
Inc. (NYSE: CC) from December 6, 2001 and February 22, 2002, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued materially false statements during the class period
which failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was
facing significant inventory shortages and was experiencing problems
with its internal controls which would result in the Company having to
incur additional expenses associated with the termination of leases and
with the remodeling of nearly half of its retail stores.

When defendants did finally disclose the Company's problems on February
22, 2002, the last day of the class period, the price of Company stock
plummeted over 33% to close at $16.08 per share.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
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


COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman 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) by issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company.

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 (BCD) System, is currently under review by the FDA.

As alleged in the suit, the Company has admitted that during the class
period, its then-President and Chief Operating Officer, David Packer,
consistently made material public misrepresentations regarding FDA
approval of the BCD System. These statements had the effect of
artificially raising the price of Company stock so that investors who
purchased Company shares during the class period did so at inflated
prices and were damaged thereby.

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


COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Computerized Thermal
Imaging, Inc. (AMEX:CIO) securities between October 11, 1999 and
December 21, 2001, inclusive, in the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


GTECH HOLDINGS: Asks RI Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GTECH Holdings Corporation asked the United States District Court of
Rhode Island to dismiss an amended securities class action filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased Company stock during the period
from July 13,1998 to August 29, 2000.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) William Y. O'Connor, former Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) W. Bruce Turner, its current Chairman, and

     (3) Steven P. Nowick, former president and Chief Executive Officer

The suit relates to various Company announcements made during the class
period, and generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws (including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934) by making allegedly false and misleading statements (including
statements alleged to be overly optimistic respecting certain lottery
contract awards to the Company and respecting the Company's prospects
in certain non-lottery business lines and investments).  

The suit also alleges that the defendants failed to disclose in a
timely manner certain allegedly material adverse information that it
purportedly had a duty to disclose (including an alleged inability to
close certain contract awards and as to certain alleged cost overruns).

The Company and the other defendants then moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in their lawsuit on the grounds that the allegations made in
the amended complaint are unsupported by fact and fail, in any event,
to state a cause of action under the federal securities laws.  The
motion is pending.

The Company believes that it has good defenses to the claims made in
this lawsuit. On the basis of information presently available, the
Company believes the outcome of this matter will not materially
adversely affect its consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


INSPIRE INSURANCE: Appeals Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed with
prejudice the amended class action filed against INSpire Insurance
Solutions, Inc. alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The suit was initially filed in 1999 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, on behalf purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period between January 28, 1998 and
October 14, 1999.  The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of
its officers and directors, and Millers Insurance.  

The suit alleged violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  
These violations were allegedly committed when the Company made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading.  

The Texas Federal Court later dismissed the suit, but allowed the
plaintiffs to re-file an amended complaint, which the plaintiffs did in
June 2001.


JDS UNIPHASE: Holzer & Holzer Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of JDS Uniphase Corp. (Nasdaq:JDSU) common stock during
the period between July 27, 1999 and July 26, 2001 inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and its controlling shareholder violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges that during the class period,
defendants were motivated to inflate the value of Company stock so that
the Company could make acquisitions using stock and so the individual
defendants, who are the top officers and directors of the Company,
could sell their shares.

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

The suit also alleges that the Company misrepresented the success of
its largest acquisitions, including Optical Coating Labs, Cronos
Integrated Microsystems, E-Tek Dynamics and SDL Inc. The complaint
alleges that as a result of these positive statements, Company stock
traded as high as $146.32.

The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants and its
controlling shareholder took advantage of the inflation, selling or
disposing of 25.5 million shares of their Company stock for proceeds of
$2.1 billion.

Then, the complaint alleges, on July 26, 2001, the Company announced
the restatement of its 3rdQ F01 results, the write-off of $44 billion
in goodwill associated with its acquisitions, inventory write-downs and
that F01 EPS would be only $0.16 and that it would incur a loss of
$0.15 in F02. On this news, alleges the complaint, Company shares
dropped to as low as $7.90, or more than 94% lower than the class
period high of $146.32.

For more details, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr. by Phone: 404-847-0085
(if in Atlanta) or 888-508-6832 (if outside Atlanta) or by E-mail:
michaelfisteljr@msn.com


MCLEODUSA INC.: Faces Suits For Securities Act Violations in N.D. Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
McLeodUSA Inc. faces several securities class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar
Rapids Division against the Company, its chairman Clark E. McLeod,
President and Chief Executive Officer Stephen C. Gray, and Chief
Operating and Financial Officer Chris A. Davis.  The suits are:

     (1) New Millennium Growth Fund LLC v. McLeod USA, Inc. et al.,
         filed on January 11, 2002,

     (2) Colbert Birnet LP v. McLeod USA, Inc. et al., filed on January
         18, 2002,

     (3) Jeffrey Brandes v. McLeod USA, Inc. et al., filed on January
         18, 2002,

     (4) Albert R. Currie v. McLeod USA, Inc. et al., filed on January
         18, 2002,

     (5) Randall J. Burns v. McLeod USA, Inc. et al., filed on January
         25, 2002 and

     (6) Robert Corwin v. McLeod USA Incorporated, et al., filed on
         January 31, 2002

In addition, the individual defendants have been named as defendants in
the following seven substantially similar putative securities suits
that were filed in the same court subsequent to the filing of the
Company's Chapter 11 case and therefore do not name the Company as
defendant:

     (i) Market Street Securities v. Clark McLeod, et al., filed on
         February 4, 2002,

    (ii) Gary Schnell v. Clark McLeod, et al., filed on February 5,
         2002,

   (iii) Kenneth Rheault v. Clark McLeod, et al., filed on February 7,
         2002,

    (iv) Arnold Olsen v. Clark McLeod, et al., filed on February 11,
         2002,

     (v) Brad Johnson and James R. Monroe v. Clark McLeod, et al.,
         filed on February 28, 2002,

    (vi) Syed Zaidi v. Clark McLeod, et al., filed on March 5, 2002,
         and

   (vii) Jonathan Zwiebel v. Clark McLeod, et al., filed on March 13,
         2002

The suits, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
from January 30, 2001, through and including December 3, 2001, allege
that during the class period, the defendants (other than Ms. Davis)
violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by
issuing a registration statement and prospectus on April 27, 2001, in
connection with the Company's acquisition of Intelispan, Inc. that
allegedly misstated or omitted material information concerning the
Company's financial condition, business prospects, and operations.

The suits also allege that all defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
by issuing false and misleading statements in the Company's press
releases and SEC filings during the class period.

In addition, the suits allege that each of the individual defendants
(other than Ms. Davis) is liable as a "controlling person" of the
Company under Section 15 of the Securities Act, and that each of the
individual defendants is liable as a "controlling person" under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs contend that as a consequence of the defendants'
purported misstatements and omissions of material fact, the market
price of the Company's common stock was "artificially inflated" during
the class period.  

Under the bankruptcy laws, any recovery against the Company for such
securities suits must be satisfied from the shares of new common stock
available for distribution to existing common stockholders.  As these
recent cases are in an early stage, it is impossible to evaluate the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the amount or range
of potential loss, if any, to the Company.  However, the Company
believes that the suits are without merit and intends to defend the
actions vigorously.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Measurement
Specialties, Inc. (AMEX: MSS) securities between November 9, 2001 and
February 15, 2002, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

The suit charges 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 materially false and misleading
statements to the market between November 9, 2001 and February 15,
2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company common stock.

On November 9, 2001, the Company issued a press release announcing
supposedly "record" financial performance for its second quarter of
2001, including a 23% increase in sales over the second quarter of 2000
and an $800,000 reduction in inventories since June 30, 2001.  These
financial figures were repeated in a Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 15, 2002, before the market opened for trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing that it expects to restate its
financial results for the second quarter of 2001 because of potential
mis-valuations of inventory, and is investigating whether it will have
to restate its reported financial results for other quarters.

In addition, the Company announced that it will delay filing its Form
10-Q for the third quarter of 2001 with the SEC until after it
completes its ongoing investigation into its method of valuing
inventory and that it has terminated the employment of its Chief
Financial Officer.

Immediately following the announcement, the American Stock Exchange
halted trading in Company common stock pending the Company's filing of
a Form 10-Q for the third quarter of 2001.  To date, the Company has
not filed its Form 10-Q and its stock has not resumed trading.

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: MSS@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com  


MERRILL LYNCH: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Interliant, Inc. (NASDAQ:INIT)
between August 4, 1999 and April 8, 2002, inclusive against Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. and its former star Internet research analyst, Henry
M. Blodget, who are charged with issuing misleading analyst reports
about Interliant.

The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch and Mr. Blodget participated
in a scheme to manipulate the market price of Interliant common stock.  
The scheme was perpetrated by defendants through the issuance of
inflated ratings and biased research reports for Interliant common
stock.

Defendants' scheme with regard to Interliant common stock was part of a
larger scheme whereby Merrill Lynch research analysts in the internet
group, under pressure from Merrill Lynch's investment bankers, would
initiate, continue and/or manipulate research coverage to maintain and
attract investment banking clients.

These practices came to light on April 8, 2002, when after a 10-month
investigation, the New York state Attorney General concluded that since
late 1999, internet research analysts at Merrill Lynch published
ratings for internet stocks that were misleading because:

     (1) the ratings in many cases did not reflect the analysts' true
         opinions of the companies;

     (2) as a matter of undisclosed, internal policy, no "reduce" or
         "sell" recommendations were issued, thereby converting a
         published five category rating system into a three category
         system; and

     (3) Merrill Lynch failed to disclose to the public that Merrill
         Lynch's ratings were tarnished by research analysts who were
         acting as quasi-investment bankers rather than as independent
         and objective research reports on those companies.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Rabin & Peckel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin & Peckel LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons or entities who purchased Internet Capital Group, Inc.
common stock (Nasdaq:ICGE) between August 30, 1999 and November 8,
2000, both dates inclusive.  Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Henry
Blodget, a former Internet Capital Group analyst at Merrill Lynch, are
named as defendants in the action.

The suit alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in analyst reports concerning Internet Capital Group during
the class period.

In particular, it is alleged that defendants:

     (1) recommended the purchase of and set price targets for Internet
         Capital Group common stock without any reasonable factual
         Basis;

     (2) failed to disclose significant material conflicts of interest
         to obtain investment banking business for Merrill Lynch; and

     (3) failed to disclose material, non-public, adverse information
         which they possessed about Internet Capital Group, as well as
         their true opinion about Internet Capital Group.

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

For more details, contact Eric Belfi or Sharon Lee 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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Peregrine Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PRGN) securities between April 4, 2001 and May 3, 2002,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

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

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

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

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: PRGN@bernlieb.com or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com  


SALOMON SMITH: Wolf Haldenstein Initiates 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. (Salomon) 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 issuing analyst reports regarding WorldCom, which
recommended the purchase of WorldCom common stock and 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.

Furthermore, in 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 Taylor 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.: Holzer &  Holzer Commences Securities Fraud Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer 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.

The suit alleges 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
trading in the Company's common stock and earned exorbitant commissions
and bonuses that were tied to reported revenue and earnings.  The
complaint alleges that during the class period and as a result of
defendants' misrepresentations, shares of Company common stock traded
as high as $23.03 per share.  The Company currently trades, after
restating its allegedly false financial statements, at approximately
$8.00 per share.

The complaint alleges that 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 complaint alleges that the
Company also acknowledged that the May 3, 2002 disclosures were a
result of its conversations with the SEC.

For more details, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr. by Phone: 404-847-0085
if in Atlanta or 888-508-6832 if outside Atlanta or by E-mail:
michaelfisteljr@msn.com


SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Seitel, Inc. and several of its top officers,
accusing them of pumping up the company's stock price by improperly
recording revenue, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The suit, filed on behalf of all investors who bought Seitel common
stock from May 5, 2000 through May 3, 2002, charges the Company and the
individual defendants with 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 Lange by Phone:
800-516-9926 or by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com


SILICON LABORATORIES: To Vigorously Oppose V. Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. faces a securities class action pending in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
relating to the Company's initial public offering on March 23,2000.  
The suit names as defendants the Company, four of its officers
individually and the three investment banking firms who served as
underwriters' representatives in connection with the offering.

These claims are premised on allegations that the registration
statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering did
not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters solicited and received additional, excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors; and

     (2) the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the offering
         in exchange for a commitment from the customers to purchase
         additional shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined higher
         prices.

The Company intends to vigorously contest this case, however, the
Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation will have a material impact on its results of operations or
financial condition in any future period.


TIMCO AVIATION: Arrives at $11.5M Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Timco Aviation Services, Inc. reached a US$11.5 million settlement
agreement in the securities class action pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company
and some of its former directors and officers, the American City
Business Journal reports.

Under the settlement, the Company will also issue securities:

     (1) 1.25 million shares of its authorized but unissued common
         stock,

     (2) $4 million of its new 8% junior subordinated convertible PIK
         notes, due in 2007, and

     (3) warrants to purchase 4.15 million shares of its common stock
         at an exercise price of $5.16 per share

In a statement, the Company's chairman and CEO Roy Rimmer said, "We are
pleased to put this matter, which was based on allegations relating to
periods prior to our current management's involvement with the company,
behind us."

The settlement has yet to be approved by the Court.  If the agreement
is approved, all claims against the Company will be dismissed without
any admission of liability or wrongdoing.


WORLDCOM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against WorldCom,
Inc. (Nasdaq:WCOM), together with its auditors, Arthur Andersen, LLP,
and certain of its officers and directors was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of WorldCom securities between January 3, 2000 and April
29, 2002.

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

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


WORLDCOM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Secuities 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 it 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 information, 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 or by E-mail: WCOM@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  * * *