---

               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
                  Friday, May 17, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 97

                              Headlines

AVENUE A: Plaintiffs in TX Consumer Suit Seek Transfer To State Court
AVENUE A: Plaintiffs Appeal WA Court Ruling on Internet Privacy Suit
CHICO'S FAS: CA Store Employees File Suit Alleging Wage Law Violations
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Faces Suits in TX, CO Over Floppy Disk Controllers
FLORIDA: Advocates Say Girl's Disappearance Sign Of Inadequate Care

KENTUCKY: Vehicle Tax Suit Prompts New Policy, Refunds For Car Buyers
MYLAN LABORATORIES: DC Court Upholds Certification of Antitrust Suit
SAIPAN WORKERS: Court Allows Sweatshop Suit To Proceed as Class Action
TJX COMPANIES: Store Employees File Suit For Overtime Wages in CA Court

*Enron Scandal Renews Debate Over Private Securities Litigation Law

                          Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in PA
AIRGATE PCS: Fruchter & Twersky Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
AMERICAN BANK: NY Court Orders Securities Suit Settlement To Proceed
ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Law Firm To Pay $21M In Baptist Foundation Suit
AVENUE A: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY

CALPINE CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
CALPINE CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
CIRCUIT CITY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
COMPAQ COMPUTER: TX Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
COMPAQ COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Ask For Certification of TX Securities Suit

COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: To Vigorously Oppose Oregon Securities Fraud Suit
DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Suit in New Jersey
DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EDISON SCHOOLS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

EDISON SCHOOLS: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
EXELON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

MERRILL LYNCH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
REGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
RELIANT RESOURCES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX

RELIANT RESOURCES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
RELIANT RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
RELIANT RESOURCES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
RELIANT RESOURCES: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
SEITEL INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX

SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
SPECIALTY LABORATORIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
SYNSORB BIOTECH: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
TEXTRON INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX

UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
VERISIGN INC.: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
VIROPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
                              
                              *********

AVENUE A: Plaintiffs in TX Consumer Suit Seek Transfer To State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Avenue A, Inc. in the
United States District Court in Cameron County, Texas filed a motion to
remand the suit to the state court.  

The suit alleges common law invasion of privacy and unjust enrichment
relating to the Company's collection and use of Internet user
information.  The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well
as monetary damages and disgorgement of profits that the Company has
received in connection with the alleged illegal practices.

The motion is still pending.  The Company intends to mount a vigorous
defense against the suit.


AVENUE A: Plaintiffs Appeal WA Court Ruling on Internet Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington against
Avenue A, Inc. appealed the court's decision granting summary judgment
in favor of the Company.

The suit alleges claims relating to the Company's collection and use of
Internet user information, such as:

     (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2510 et seq. (the
         Wiretap/Interception section of the Electronic Communications
         Privacy Act),

     (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. section 2701 et seq. (the Access to
         Stored Information section of the Electronic Communications
         Privacy Act),

     (3) violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1030 et seq. (the Computer
         Fraud and Abuse Act),

     (4) violation of RCW section 9.73.030 et seq. (the Washington
         State Wiretap/Interception statute),

     (5) common law trespass to personal property and conversion,

     (6) common law invasion of privacy,

     (7) unjust enrichment,

     (8) violation of state consumer protection and deceptive practices
         statutes, and

     (9) declaratory judgment.

On September 17, 2001, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment and entered judgment in its favor.  On October 15,
2001, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.


CHICO'S FAS: CA Store Employees File Suit Alleging Wage Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Women's clothing chain, Chico's FAS, Inc. faces an amended class action
filed in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County
of Orange, on behalf of all Company assistant store managers, sales
associates and hourly employees in California from September 21, 1997,
to the present.

The amended suit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime wages
and failed to provide rest breaks and meal periods.  The suit seeks
unspecified monetary damages.

The Company is actively investigating the merits of the suit.  The
Company believes that the merits of this action do not warrant class
action status and that it has certain defenses to the claims.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend the action, including contesting
the certification of the action as a class action.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Faces Suits in TX, CO Over Floppy Disk Controllers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Compaq Computer Corporation faces two consumer class action suits that
are similar to other lawsuits filed against other major computer
manufacturers, involving claims that the computer industry sold
computers with allegedly defective floppy disk controllers.

The first suit is pending in the District Court of Jefferson County,
Texas, 60th Judicial District in Beaumont.  The court has already
certified the suit as a class action, which the Company has appealed.  

Another suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.  The Company has asked the court to dismiss the
suit, but the court is still considering the motion.

The Company continues to provide information to the federal government
and state attorneys general in California and Illinois in response to
inquiries regarding floppy disk controllers in computers sold to
government entities.  The Company also intends to continue vigorously
defending against the suits.


FLORIDA: Advocates Say Girl's Disappearance Sign Of Inadequate Care
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Child welfare advocates who are suing the state over its foster care
program say they have gathered evidence showing that the Rilya Wilson
case is just one of many in which state case workers failed to
regularly visit children, The Associated Press recently reports.

Theodore Babbitt, a West Palm Beach lawyer who is pursuing a class
action against the Department of Children & Families (DCF) and Gov. Jeb
Bush, said he has testimony from current and former DCF officials that
many children in state custody are not receiving the required monthly
visits.

Mr. Babbitt said that the testimony conflicts with statements made by
DCF Secretary Kathleen Kearney and Gov. Bush that the case of five-
year-old Rilya, a child in state custody whose disappearance was not
discovered for 15 months, is an isolated incident.  As an example, Mr.
Babbitt said, a review conducted by the state, in 2000, showed only
eight percent of children in Palm Beach County were seen every month.

"It is a bad situation and a situation that Kathleen Kearney knows
about, and when she says Rilya Wilson is an isolated incident, and it
is all the fault of one errant worker, then she is woefully unaware of
what is going on in her own department, or she is not telling the
truth," Mr. Babbitt said.

Ms. Kearney was not immediately available for comment, and no one could
be reached at the DCF public information office after business hours.  
A department spokeswoman did not return a page.

Gov. Bush defended the DCF recently during a campaign stop in Orlando.
"We have a better child welfare system today," Gov. Bush said, adding
that Rilya's disappearance was an "isolated case."  He added, "We have
doubled the amount of money going to our child welfare system in four
years . We have increased the number of adoptions by a significant
percentage.  We have decreased the time that kids stay in foster care.  
We have reduced the work loads of our protective case workers."

Rilya was sent to live with Geralyn Graham, who claims to be her
paternal grandmother, and Ms. Graham's sister Pamela, in 2000.  Ms.
Graham says a child-welfare worker took Rilya away for evaluation in
January 2001.  The girl was supposed to receive monthly visits from a
case worker, but state workers did not report the child missing until
April 25, 15 months after Geralyn Graham says the child was taken.  Ms.
Kearney says the girl is not anywhere in the state system.

Mr. Babbitt plans to release depositions taken from DCF workers to
support claims that many children are not being seen every month.  
"What is being suggested as an isolated incident is not an isolated
incident," he said.  "Every time that happens there is an uproar, and
the state takes the position that it is some scapegoat's fault.  And
it's not true."


KENTUCKY: Vehicle Tax Suit Prompts New Policy, Refunds For Car Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky's Revenue Cabinet and attorneys in a class action find that a
judge's decision has resulted not only in a change in tax policy but
also has resulted in a situation in which car buyers may be entitled
to a refund for taxes paid, The Associated Press reports

Kentucky used to allow a credit for the value of a trade-in against the
taxable value of a used vehicle.  The tax is six percent, but the
credit was allowed only for vehicles purchased in Kentucky.

A class action was later brought on behalf of car buyers who purchased
their vehicles outside Kentucky.  A judge ruled that the different
treatment for vehicles purchased in Kentucky or another state was
unconstitutional.  The ruling also ordered the Revenue Cabinet to
notify vehicle owners who might be eligible for the refund.  Eligible
taxpayers would have bought a used vehicle from March 10, 1997, to
January 31, 2001, and traded in a used vehicle in the transaction.  The
Cabinet has estimated the refunds could total $12 million, but the
estimate is vague.

If someone from Kentucky sold a car to an out-of-state dealer, who then
sold it to a Kentuckian, that transaction also may be eligible for a
refund.  Spokesman for the Revenue Cabinet, Alex Rose, said the
Cabinet's database would not have turned up such transactions.

Therefore, the search for people who might be eligible for a refund on
taxes paid by Kentuckians on purchases of used motor vehicles in
another state is proving more problematic than originally thought.  The
Revenue Cabinet, in late April, sent notices to more than 830,000
individuals who might be eligible for such a refund.  Mr. Rose said
more than 100,000 of the notices have been returned because of improper
addresses, moves or other reasons.

Attorneys in the class action have suggested the state should undertake
an advertising campaign to find the people whose notices were retuned,
or who might be eligible for a refund for other circumstances.  No
decision has been made on such a campaign.


MYLAN LABORATORIES: DC Court Upholds Certification of Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld
a lower court's decision granting nationwide class certification to a
lawsuit filed against Mylan Laboratories, Inc. and Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on behalf of all direct purchasers of two widely
prescribed generic drugs, lorazepam and clorazepate.

The suit alleges that, by price fixing and monopolization, the Company
and its co-conspirators raised the prices of two widely prescribed,
generic anti-anxiety drugs, lorazepam and clorazepate, by more than
1900%.  

The Company had argued on appeal that, if the class was upheld, it
faced the "looming threat" of "daunting" damages in the amount of
"(h)undreds of millions of dollars trebled."  

The Court of Appeals rejected the Company's argument that it would be
unduly pressured to settle. The Court of Appeals stated that the
Company's argument was unaccompanied by hard evidence that "the damages
claimed would force a company of its size to settle."  The Court of
Appeals also reasoned that any pressure to settle was not independent
of the "merits of the class' claims."

The Court of Appeals also decided that on "the record before us," it
"cannot conclude that there is manifest error in the district court's
determination" that the plaintiffs and the class have standing to
recover treble damages under the antitrust laws.  The court also
decided the district court's certification of the class action was not
"manifestly erroneous."


SAIPAN WORKERS: Court Allows Sweatshop Suit To Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign garment workers have gained class action status in a federal
racketeering lawsuit, alleging sweatshop conditions in factories in
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands. Factories that supply US retailers,
such as the Gap, the Associated Press reported recently.

Federal Judge Alex Munson also granted preliminary approval of a
settlement reached with 19 retailers named in the original suit and
ordered the factories to post a notice of that settlement.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of some 30,000 garment workers from
Asia who allege they work 12-hour days in unsafe, unsanitary
conditions.  Many of these foreign workers have worked in the factories
in this US Commonwealth since January 1989.

Michael Rubin, a San Francisco attorney for the garment workers, said
recently, in a telephone interview, that under the federal Racketeer
Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the retailers would
have to pay triple damages if the workers win their case.  With more
than 30,000 workers and a case that goes back 13 years, the damages
could run in the tens of millions of dollars, he said.

"The stakes are huge, the ruling is unprecedented," Mr. Rubin said.  
"The judge issued a very important legal ruling, which I assume will
prompt the other plaintiffs to engage in very serious settlement
discussions."  Nineteen US retailers have settled for $8.75 million,
he said.  If there are no further settlements, said Mr. Rubin, the case
will continue to trial.

The settlement also calls for part of that money to pay for an
independent monitoring program that will regulate wages, conditions at
factory-supplied barracks, food and other living and working
conditions, Mr. Rubin said.

John Keker, an attorney for San Francisco-based Gap Inc., one of eight
retailers and some 28 factories still named in the lawsuit, said the
workers still must prove the allegations.  "They made some pretty broad
allegations. We are confident that once we get into the facts those
allegations will not hold up," he said.

Levi Strauss & Co. stopped manufacturing its products in the Northern
Marianas in 2000, a process started in 1998, said Jeff Beckman, a
spokesman for the San Francisco-based clothing company.  The
allegations against Levi Strauss are unfounded and the company has no
plans to settle, he said.  Mr. Beckman said that the company has always
operated under a code of conduct that promotes responsible workplace
practices.  "We are confident that the contractors who produced our
products in the Marianas were in full compliance with our code of
conduct," Mr. Beckman said.

Mr. Rubin said that the goal of the lawsuit is not to close down the
factories, since that would not be in the best interest of the workers.  
"We are trying to make the factories comply with American law," Mr.
Rubin said.  "These companies profit from operating in a US
Commonwealth.  These are violations on American soil of the rights of
foreign workers who are legally entitled to make claims under American
law."

Notice of the class action will be posted in the factories in Saipan,
and published in newspapers in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand and
the Philippines, Mr. Rubin said.  Most of the workers are women, and
most are from China, he said.


TJX COMPANIES: Store Employees File Suit For Overtime Wages in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothing chain TJX Companies, Inc. faces four class action suits
pending in the California on behalf of all exept store manager and
assistant store managers in the Company's TJ Maxx, Marshalls and
HomeGoods stores in California.

The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were improperly classified
as exempt from California overtime laws and seek recovery of
overtime pay allegedly owed, penalties, punitive damages and
injunctive relief.

The Company believes that its managers are and were properly classified
and does not believe that the outcome of this litigation will have any
material adverse affect on its financial condition or results of
operations.


*Enron Scandal Renews Debate Over Private Securities Litigation Law
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveying the post-Enron wreckage, The Washington Post reports that
some informed observers of the scene believe that Congress needs to
take some blame.  Among these critics is Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-
Ala), who notes that seven years ago lawmakers passed a measure that
made it more difficult for investors to sue corporations and accounting
firms involved in fraud.

Critics of the law say it has made corporations more willing to engage
in financial shenanigans, according to the Washington Post.  "We
removed a lot of incentives for doing the right thing," said Sen.
Shelby, who has introduced legislation to roll back that law, the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the 1995 act).  
Basically, says the Senator, the likelihood was reduced that those
responsible for fraud would be punished for their criminal behavior.

However, Mark Gitenstein, a lawyer who led the fight for the 1995 law,
said it has worked as intended, helping courts weed out unfounded cases
and devote more time to real instances of fraud.  "The notion that the
act has closed the courthouse doors or made it impossible to get
significant settlements out of accounting firms is totally unfounded,"
he said.  Mr. Gitenstein, who is an attorney with Mayer, Brown, Rowe &
Maw, who represented the major accounting firms during the 1995 push
for enactment of the legislation.

The bill, which became the 1995 act, moved through Congress as part of
House Speaker Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America."  It contained a
number of provisions aimed at reducing the number of shareholder
lawsuits.  Among other things, reported The Washington Post, the law
required plaintiffs to meet higher standards to sue for securities
fraud and changed the way in which damages were assessed.

Accountants, at what were then the Big Six firms, lobbied aggressively
for the measure, spending millions of dollars.  The major accounting
firms argued that they were unfairly targeted in shareholder lawsuits
because of their deep pockets.  Leaders of Arthur Andersen were so
pleased with their efforts that they encased the text of the new law in
a paperweight and handed it out as a souvenir.

However the Enron scandal and the role of Arthur Andersen, its auditor,
have energized the coalition of plaintiff lawyers and consumer groups
opposed to the 1995 measure.  Andersen is being tried on a charge of
obstruction of justice for destroying Enron-related documents, a state
of affairs, reports The Washington Post, that some critics believe
might not have come into being if provisions making it harder for
shareholders to sue for fraud had not been enacted.  

Lobbyists for these groups are making the rounds on Capitol Hill,
pointing to the financial scandals and the number of corporate earnings
restatements in recent years, as they argue that the 1995 law needs to
be rolled back.  There were 230 restatements in 2000, up from 130 just
three years earlier, according to a study issued by Andersen before its
work for Enron was called into question.

"Our nightmare has come true," said Sally Greenberg, senior counsel at
Consumers Union, which opposed the 1995 bill on the ground that it
would make it too difficult for victims of financial fraud to seek
redress in the courts.

Congress, currently, is considering a number of proposals that would
give investors more options to sue corporations and the professionals
who advise them.

The Senate Judiciary Committee last month voted out a bill by Sen.
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that would give plaintiffs more time to
investigate and file securities fraud cases.  That move gained momentum
after Washington state Attorney General Christine Gregoire told the
committee that pension plans in her state could not recover half of the
losses they suffered because of Enron - more than $50 million - because
the statute of limitations had run out.  The House is considering
similar measures by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D.-Mich) and Rep. Edward J.
Markey (D-Mass.)

A plan put forward by Sen. Shelby would go even further, allowing
plaintiffs to sue in state courts and making it easier for shareholders
to go after accountants and lawyers who helped the fraud take place.  
Sen. Shelby says a few lawmakers have told him privately that they have
no second thoughts about voting to revise the 1995 law, but he has not
heard from enough of them to make him confident of success.  The House
approved the 1995 law by a vote of 325 to 99, and the Senate by a vote
of 65 to 30.

Supporters of the 1995 bill, such as the American Electronics
Association and the US Chamber of Commerce, have countered that changes
are not needed because the law has worked effectively, blocking weak
cases but allowing others to proceed.

Joseph Grundfest, a Stanford University professor and former member of
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and others, note that although
more lawsuits have been dismissed, the settlements that investors have
collected are rising, suggesting that cases making their way through
the courts since the reforms are more substantial.  Cases brought since
1995 have been settled for about $1.5 million more than lawsuits
brought before the securities law was passed, according to a study by
Cornerstone Research.

Shareholders filed more than 475 such cases last year, according to the
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse at Stanford.   However,
University of Iowa law professor Hillary Sale, who writes frequently
about securities fraud, said given the huge surge in publicly traded
companies since 1995, and the stock market bubble, the number of cases
filed should be far higher.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was part of a
broader legal revolution in the early 1990s, The Washington Post
reported.  Two earlier US Supreme Court cases had the effect of
creating new limits on the period during which shareholders could sue
after they discovered corporate fraud.  The cases also offered more
protection from legal liability to accountants, lawyers and bankers who
advised firms.  Another law, which Congress approved in 1998, directed
securities fraud cases to federal courts after plaintiffs began to
bring lawsuits in state courts to get around the 1995 law.

The 1995 legislation itself imposed at least two conditions of lasting
significance to fraud victims.  First, it raised the standard of proof
for investors who wanted to bring cases, by requiring plaintiffs to
provide highly detailed information about fraud schemes before they
could lawfully review the files of companies they wanted to sue.

Lawyers who represent shareholders said they have turned down dozens of
cases they otherwise would have filed because they were unable to meet
the new standard.

The securities reform law, secondly, also changed the structure of
legal liability, directing judges to decide how much each defendant is
to blame for the fraud and then assessing damages accordingly.  For
instance, if the judge decided that an accounting firm's responsibility
for the fraud could be placed at 40 percent, the firm could only be
ordered to pay 40 percent of the total settlement, unless it waived its
rights.  In the past, each bank, law firm, accounting firm or
corporation could be held accountable for the entire court settlement
or final determination after trial.

While these provisions of the 1995 law were intended to protect
accounting firms, they created problems for Andersen, which wanted to
settle quickly the civil suits brought against them in the Enron case.
Plaintiff lawyers wanted assurances that the money they collected from
Andersen would not limit the amount they could collect from banks and
other defendants in separate cases.

They could foresee, reported The Washington Post, that if, under the
legal liability structure of the 1995 law, Andersen were assessed 60
percent of the blame but could pay far less, they might not be able to
recover the total amount of their losses.  In the real world of
finance, with all its highly ramified possibilities for achieving goals
that the players might conceive and all the complex results that could
result therefrom (like the Enron debacle), the 1995 law could become an
impediment for the very constituency it was aiming to protect.

Senator Shelby said that given the complexity of the issue, Congress
may not act to revise the 1995 law unless more financial scandals come
to light.  "I fear there are a lot of them out there," the Senator
said.  These scandals "really hurt the capital markets.  The average
American today is skeptical, and rightly so, about the honesty of the
reports."
                           Securities Fraud

ADELPHIA BUSINESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Adelphia Business
Solutions, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ABIZQ) between January 6, 2000 and March
27, 2002, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) John J. Rigas, Chairman of the Board of Directors,

     (2) Michael J. Rigas, Vice Chairman, Secretary and Director,

     (3) Timothy J. Rigas , Vice Chairman, CFO, Treasurer and Director,
         and

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

The suit charges the defendants with issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and financial condition.  
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the financial
condition and results of the Company during the class period.

The defendants failed to disclose that because of the deceptive sales
practices instituted by or approved of by the defendants, the Company
reported artificially inflated line counts (lines that the Company had
sold to customers).  The defendants also committed the Company to pay
overhead expenses to Adelphia Communications Corp. (which was also
controlled by the defendants) without maintaining proper accounting
records of these expenses.  

Additionally, throughout the class period, the defendants failed to
disclose in excess of $2 billion of off-balance sheet liabilities for
Adelphia Communications Corp. due to the Company's dependence on the
defendants and Adelphia Communications Corp., the off-balance sheet
liabilities should have been disclosed to Company shareholders during
the class period.

On March 1, 2002, the Company announced that it would not make an
interest payment of $15.3 million on certain secured notes of the
Company and would be in default.  On March 27, 2002, Adelphia
Communications Corporation announced its financial results and that it
had entered into these off-balance sheet financing arrangements which
obligated Adelphia Communications for approximately $2.3 billion in
debts, together with Highland Holdings, an entity also controlled by
the defendants.

On that same day, March 27, Adelphia Solutions announced that it had
filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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


AIRGATE PCS: Fruchter & Twersky Commences Securities Suit in N.D. GA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruchter & Twersky LLP launched a securities class action in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Airgate PCS, Inc. in the
Company's public offering on or about December 14, 2001.

The action charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, and the lead underwriters of the public offering with
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations in the
Company's December 14, 2001 prospectus which artificially inflated the
price of Airgate securities.

Specifically, the complaint 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:

     (1) 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;

     (2) 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

     (3) 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 Jack G. Fruchter by Mail: One Pennsylvania
Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10119 by Phone: 212-279-5050 or
800-440-8986 by Fax: 212-279-3655 or by E-mail:
JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com.  


AMERICAN BANK: NY Court Orders Securities Suit Settlement To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
has ordered the settlement funds and securities of American Bank Note
Holographics, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: ABHH) be distributed to class
members in connection with the Company's settlement of the consolidated
securities class action against it, its former parent American Banknote
Corporation and other parties.  The distribution is in accordance with
the settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court in December
2000.

Among other things, with respect to the Company, the Court directs that
the Company issue to its class members 1,095,000 shares of its common
stock (which together with the previously issued 365,000 shares awarded
as plaintiffs' counsel fees represents 1,460,000 shares in total) and
warrants to purchase 647,735 shares of the Company's common stock
(which together with the previously issued 215,912 warrants awarded as
plaintiffs' counsel fees represents 863,647 warrants in total).

The shares and the warrants, but not the shares issuable upon exercise
of the warrants, are being issued without registration under the
Securities Act of 1933, in reliance upon the exemption provided by
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act and may generally be resold by
non-affiliates of the Company without registration under the Securities
Act.

The warrants will be exercisable through June 18, 2003. Each warrant
will be exercisable for one share of the Company's common stock at a
purchase price of $6.00 per share, subject to the effectiveness of a
registration statement to be filed with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission covering the issuance of the shares by the Company upon any
exercise of the warrants.  The Company is working with plaintiffs'
counsel to effect the issuance and distribution of the shares and
warrants to the class members and expects this distribution to take
place shortly.

The settlement agreement provided for the payment of $14,850,000,
comprised of $12,500,000 which was funded in escrow by the Company's
and American Banknote Corporation's insurance carrier and $2,350,000
which was funded in escrow by the Company's former auditor.  The order
directs the distribution of these funds to class members, net of
attorneys' fees and expenses and administration costs.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN: Law Firm To Pay $21M In Baptist Foundation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Phoenix law firm that represented the failed Baptist Foundation of
Arizona has agreed to pay the foundation's bankruptcy trust $21
million, The Associated Press reports.  The foundation's failure was
the largest nonprofit bankruptcy in US history, leaving 11,000 mostly
elderly investors poorer by $570 million.  

Earlier this month, the foundation's bankruptcy trust filed a lawsuit
against the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP, claiming the
Company ignored warning signs of foundation fraud, including whistle
blowers and a series of newspaper articles.  The bankruptcy trust also
alleged Andersen concealed huge losses on financial statements that
would have alerted investors to the foundation's troubles.

During the course of the trial, the accounting firm agreed to pay $217
million to settle the lawsuit by the trust, as well as a class action
and pending cases brought by state regulators and the Arizona attorney
general's office.  The May 6 Andersen settlement came one week into a
trial in which the trust was seeking $150 million in compensatory
damages and more in punitive damages relating to Andersen's audit work.

The settlement agreed to by the foundation's law firm of Jennings,
Strouse and Salmon with the Arizona Corporation Commission, which
regulates securities, and lawyers for the bankruptcy trust, provides
that of the $21 million paid by the law firm $18.3 million will go to
the foundation investors, and the remainder going to attorney fees and
other costs.

The Corporation Commission Chairman, William Mundell, said the
settlement clears up the state's claim that the law firm did not
recognize the signs of foundation fraud.  The settlement does not
impose sanctions against individual attorneys with the firm.  The law
firm admitted no liability in the collapse of the foundation.


AVENUE A: Faces Suit For Federal Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Avenue A, Inc. faces a consolidated amended securities class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all who acquired the Company's common stock
between February 28, 2000 and December 6, 2000, pursuant or traceable
to its prospectus dated February 28, 2000.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co.,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners, LLC,

     (4) RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

     (5) Brian P. McAndrews, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (6) Nicolas Hanauer, Chairman of the Board, and

     (7) Robert Littauer, former Chief Financial Officer

The complaint charges all defendants with violations of 15 USC section
77k (section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933), 15 USC section 78j(b)
(section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and 17 CFR
section 240.10b-5 (Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5).  The
suit also charges the individual defendants with violations of 15 USC
section 77o (section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933), and 15 USC
section 78t(a) (section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with disclosures contained in the Company's prospectus dated
February 28, 2000, for its initial public offering of common stock.  
The complaint alleges incorrect disclosure or omissions in the
Company's prospectus relating generally to commissions to be earned by
the underwriters and certain allegedly improper agreements between the
underwriters and certain purchasers of the Company's common stock.

The suit has not been granted class certification and discovery has not
commenced.  This suit is among over 300 similar lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against underwriters and other issuers of stock in initial public
offerings.  The Company intends to vigorously oppose the suit.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the 8.5% Senior Notes
due February 15, 2011 (2011 Bonds) issued by Calpine Corporation
(NYSE:CPN) pursuant to or traceable to the supplemental offering, as
defined below between October 15, 2001 and December 13, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or
omitting material information in the Company's registration statement
via a supplemental prospectus (which was part of the registration
statement) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on
or about October 15, 2001.

These misrepresentations and omissions concerned the Company's
presentation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation
and amortization), and its inflation of its publicly reported revenues
due to the manipulation of certain transactions with Enron Corporation.

These misrepresentations and omissions were contained in public filings
with the SEC which were incorporated by reference in the Registration
Statement via the Supplemental Prospectus. These statements and
omissions caused the price of the 2011 Bonds to become artificially
inflated during the class period.

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


CALPINE CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the 8.5% Senior Notes
due February 15, 2001 (2011 Bonds) issued by Calpine Corporation
(NYSE:CPN) pursuant to or traceable to the Supplemental Offering (as
defined below) between October 15, 2001 and December 13, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or
omitting material information in its registration statement via a
Supplemental Prospectus (which was part of the Registration Statement)
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on October 15,
2002.  These misrepresentations and omissions concerned: the Company's
presentation of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation
and amortization), and its inflation of its publicly reported revenues
due to the manipulation of certain transactions with Enron Corporation.

These misrepresentations and omissions were contained in public filings
with the SEC which were incorporated by reference in the registration
statement via the supplemental prospectus.  These statements and
omissions caused the price of the 2011 Bonds to become artificially
inflated during the class period.

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


CIRCUIT CITY: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Circuit City Stores, Inc. (NYSE:
CC) common stock during the period between 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 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


COMPAQ COMPUTER: TX Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division dismissed with prejudice the amended consolidated
securities class action pending against Compaq Computer Corporation on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 27,
1999 and April 9, 1999.

The suit asserted claims for alleged violations of Section 19(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  
Allegations in the suit included the claim that certain defendants and
the Company issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's prospectus in 1999 in order to
inflate the market price of the Company's common stock and further
alleges that certain individual defendants sold Compaq common stock at
the inflated prices.


COMPAQ COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Ask For Certification of TX Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action pending against
Compaq Computer Corporation filed supplemental motions renewing their
motion for class certification in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The suit, which arose from five substantially similar suits, names as
defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors.  The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from July 10, 1997 through March 6, 1998.

The consolidated suit asserts claims under Section 19(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 29(a) of the Exchange Act.  Allegations in the suit include
the claim that the defendants withheld information and made misleading
statements about channel inventory and factoring of receivables in
order to inflate the market price of the Company's common stock.  The
suit further alleges that certain individual defendants sold the
Company's common stock at the inflated prices.

The Court later entered an order granting class certification, which
the Company appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  In July 2001, the appeals court vacated the order granting
class certification and remanded the case to the federal court for
further proceedings in accordance with its opinion.

The plaintiffs asked for a rehearing before the appeals court, but the
Court denied this in January 2002.  On February 8, 2002, the Court
ordered plaintiffs to file supplemental motions on class certification
by April 19, 2002.

The Company has opposed these motions, and is vigorously defending
against the suit.
                 

COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: To Vigorously Oppose Oregon Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. (Amex: CIO) labeled "without merit"
the securities class actions pending in the United States District
Court of Oregon charging the Company with violations of federal
securities laws.  The suits purport to be a class action filed on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock during certain
periods.

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.

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.

The Company has not been served with the complaints of any of these
lawsuits but has obtained a copy of the complaint filed in the first
lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits.


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

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

The complaint alleges that the Company issued approximately five
million shares in its IPO on April 25, 2002 at $13 per share, but
failed to timely inform the class of revisions in its financial
results.  On April 25, 2002 when Company shares began public trading
investors learned that the Company's previously issued financial
statements had been materially false and misleading.

As a result Company shares lost approximately 33% of their value in one
day, falling from their offering price of $13.00 to close trading at
$8.70 per share.

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


DOV PHARMACEUTICAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all purchasers of DOV Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Nasdaq:DOVP) common
stock who purchased DOV shares pursuant and /or traceable to its April
24, 2002, initial public offering.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
offering.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that just before the offering, the
Company made a last-minute change to its Offering documents to reflect
a revision of its 1999 financial results for a joint venture in Bermuda
with Elan Corp, known as DOV Bermuda Ltd.  Moreover, defendants also
failed to disclose all material facts concerning:

     (1) a $10 million licensing fee paid to Elan;

     (2) the fact that it would have to pay more fees in the future;
         and

     (3) the fact that it had lost $1.3 million dollars in 2000 on the
         Bermuda investment and filed restated financial statements for
         DOV Bermuda.

As a result, on the first day of exchange-based trading in Company
shares, on Thursday April 25, 2002, the Company's stock plummeted
approximately 33%, from $13 a share to as low as $8.70, inflicting
enormous damage on class members.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo by Mail: 320 East 39th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 or by
E-mail: Avozz@faruqilaw.com


EDISON SCHOOLS: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of the common stock of Edison
Schools, Inc. (Nasdaq:EDSN) between November 11,1999 and February 13,
2002, inclusive.  The action is pending in the United States District
Court, for the Southern District of New York, 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 November 11, 1999 and February 13, 2002, thereby
artificially inflating the Company's stock price.  

Specifically, as alleged in the complaint, the Company adopted and
implemented a practice of recording as revenue monies paid for
teachers' salaries, student transportation and utility bills that were
remitted directly by its clients (i.e., school districts).  However,
the Company never actually received these monies, yet recorded them as
revenue in its financial statements. Thus, the Company was able to
boast revenue growth in its financial statements disseminated to the
investing public.

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on February
13, 2002, the following day, the price of the Company's shares dropped
as low as $12.75, on volume of more than 4.4 million shares trade, as
compared to a Class Period high of $36.375.

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


EDISON SCHOOLS: Kirby McInerney Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP lodged a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all purchasers of Edison Schools Inc. (Nasdaq:EDSN) common
stock during the period from November 10, 1999 through May 14, 2002.

The suit charges the Company as well as its auditor,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PWC), its chief executive officer and chief
financial officer, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit, as the complaint alleges,
stem from the materially false and misleading statements made by the
defendants during the class period that, as detailed below:

     (1) misrepresented the Company's business, operations and
         financial performance; and

     (2) caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially-inflated
         prices.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, the Company
misrepresented and inflated its publicly reported revenues, and
misrepresented and deflated its publicly reported liabilities.  As the
complaint alleges, investigative reporting on February 13, 2002 first
apprized the investing public of the former, and an SEC cease and
desist order on May 14, 2002 prompted the Company to admit to the
latter.

As the complaint alleges, the Company over-reported revenues by
recording as revenue monies paid for teachers' salaries, student
transportation and utility bills that were remitted directly by its
clients (i.e., school districts).

Although the Company never actually received these monies, it recorded
them as revenue in its financial statements.  Thus, the Company was
able to boast revenue growth in its financial statements disseminated
to the investing public.  When this information was belatedly disclosed
to the market on February 13, 2002, the following day, the price of
Company shares dropped as low as $12.75.

On May 14, 2002, the Company, in a settlement with the SEC, agreed to
restate its financial statements so as to correctly account for certain
liabilities that had not previously been reported. The following day,
Company shares traded as low as $2.50 per share.

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


EDISON SCHOOLS: Shalov Stone Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf
of investors who purchased the securities of Edison Schools, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EDSN) in the period from November 11, 1999 to February 13,
2002 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Chris Whittle,

     (2) Christopher Cerf, and

     (3) Adam Feild

The suit alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations
and omissions of material facts concerning the Company's financial
condition and business performance during the relevant time.  According
to the suit, the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the
Company was overstating revenues.  In February 2002, it was revealed
that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue.

For more information, contact Jill M. Levy by Mail: 485 Seventh Avenue,
Suite 1000, New York, New York 10018 by Phone: 212-239-4340 or by E-
mail: jlevy@lawssb.com  


EXELON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP launched a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC), from April 24, 2001 through September
27, 2001, inclusive.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business
and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that 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 projected earnings figure for 2001.

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

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

     (2) 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 announcing
that it would not meet its earnings commitment of $4.50 for 2001,
blaming 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 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 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


LIGHT MANAGEMENT: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel 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 Light Management
Group, Inc. (OTCBB: LMGR) between June 9, 1999 through November 20,
2001, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Barrington L. Simon,

     (2) Dr. Donald J. Iwacha,

     (3) Eve Sigfrid,

     (4) Greg Amur,

     (5) James E. Slayton, CPA and

     (6) Feldman, Sherb & Co., PC

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 June 9, 1999 through November 20, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's common stock.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual financial
performance and filed reports confirming such performance with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  Defendants
misrepresented the company's financial results, and failed to disclose
weaknesses in its financial internal controls.

During the class period, financial results for fiscal 1999 were
restated twice. Financial results for the first, second, and third
quarter of 2000 were each separately restated once. In addition, year
end results for fiscal 2000 were also restated.  Mr. Slayton (auditor
for fiscal 1999) and Feldman Sherb (auditor for fiscal 2000) falsely
represented that year end results had been presented in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) based upon an audit
that was purportedly conducted in compliance with generally accepted
auditing standards (GAAS).  Defendants' misconduct included:

     (i) booking sales that later had to be reversed;

    (ii) failing to account for escalating costs and non-salary based
         compensation;

   (iii) misclassifying inventory as capital equipment;

    (iv) failing to account for expenses incurred by LMG which were
         paid by related entities in the period incurred;

     (v) failing to book expenses due to the settlement of debt with
         related parties; and

    (vi) substantially understating interest expenses

Moreover, the Company falsely represented that it had received outside
funding critical to the growth of the business when, in truth, it knew
that the announced financing would not be forthcoming.  The Company
also deceptively represented that backlog orders for its outdoor media
projection systems had increased by $20 million.  In the two years
following this statement, the Company's reported revenues never
approached this level.

The defendants' wrongful course of conduct served to artificially
inflate the price of Company common stock during the class period.  
While the price was being artificially inflated by the Company's
misrepresentations, Omega Financial (a financial services firm 38%-
owned by defendant Simon) sold substantial amounts of Company stock.  
By the last day of the class period, the price of Company stock, which
had traded for as much as $17.50 per share, had declined approximately
99% to $0.450 per share.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy LLP initiated a securities class action on behalf of all
persons who purachased shares of the Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies
Fund, Inc. (MANTX; MBNTX; MCNTX; MDNTX; MANTXEMP; MANTXFEE) from March
14,2000 through October 15,2001 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The suit names as defendants the
Internet Strategies Fund and:

     (1) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor,

     (3) Henry Blodget,

     (4) Paul G. Meeks and

     (5) several directors of the Internet Strategies Fund

On October 15, 2001, the Internet Strategies Fund merged with The
Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund.

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

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

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian Esq. or Jennifer Haas by
Phone: 800-889-3701 by E-mail: jhaas@abbeygardy.com or
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the Merrill Lynch
Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. (MANTX; MBNTX; MCNTX; MDNTX; MANTXEMP;
MANTXFEE) from March 14,2000 through October 15,2001, inclusive.  The
suit names as defendants:

     (1) Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,

     (2) Merrill Lynch Funds Distributor,

     (3) Henry Blodget,

     (4) Paul G. Meeks and

     (45) several directors of the Internet Strategies Fund

On October 15, 2001, the Internet Strategies Fund merged with The
Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund (MAGTX; MBGTX; MCGTX; MDGTX).

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and Internet stock analyst and
First Vice President of Merrill Lynch, Henry Blodget, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Openwave Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPWV) between October 16, 2000
and August 13, 2001, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against Peregrine
Systems, Inc. (NASD:PRGN) and certain of its senior officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of California,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock from July 19, 2000 through May 3, 2002,
inclusive.

The suit alleges that the defendants improperly recognized
approximately $100 million in revenue during the class period.  The
defendants alleged misstatements arose from the improper recognition of
revenue in the Company's "indirect sales" channel during fiscal years
2001 and 2002.  The Company disclosed that the revenue associated with
these sales "may have been subsequently written off" and the complaint
alleges that this revenue was recognized in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles, or generally accepted accounting
principles.

The disclosure of the alleged fraud has caused Company stock price to
fall from $6.85 per share (on April 30, 2002 - before the initial
disclosure of the fraud) to $1.45 per share (the May 14, 2002 closing
price). This is a decline of $5.40 per share, or 79%, from the price of
Company shares prior to the disclosure of the fraud.

For more information, contact James A. Harrod or Abigail Kowaloff by
Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9642
or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-Mail:
IRRep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Shapiro Haber Commences Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, which filed the first class action suit
alleging securities fraud against Peregrine Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PRGN) has filed an additional class action suit that expands the
allegations to include the period July 19, 2000 through May 3, 2002, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's revenues and income.

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

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

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


REGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Sued For Securities Act Violations in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Regent Communications, Inc. faces a securities class action filed on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between January 25,
2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Terry S. Jacobs, CEO and Chairman,

     (2) William L. Stakelin, COO and director,

     (3) Anthony A. Vasconcellos, CFO,

     (4) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (5) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and

     (6) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation

The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The defendants
allegedly made false and misleading statements in its registration
statements and prospectuses that artificially inflated the price of the
Company's stock.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the suit is still in its preliminary stages, thus its
outcome is uncertain.  The Company is confident, however, that the suit
will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
operations.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Reliant Resources, Inc.
(NYSE:RRI) securities between May 1, 2001 and May 10, 2002, inclusive,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston, Division, against the Company and:

     (1) R. Steve Letbetter,

     (2) Steven W. Naeve and

     (3) Mary P. Ricciardello

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the class period and by materially overstating its
revenues which statements and conduct 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 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


RELIANT RESOURCES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Reliant Resources,
Inc. (NYSE: RRI) securities between May 1, 2001 and May 10, 2002, in
the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleges that defendants misstated the Company's financial results
during the class period, thereby causing or permitting the Company to
issue materially false and misleading statements in the Company's
public reports filed with the SEC, press releases, and other public
documents concerning the its financial condition.

During the class period, defendants pursued a course of conduct that
caused the Company to:

     (1) deceive the investing public, including plaintiff and the
         other members of the class, regarding material facts about the
         Company's financial condition;

     (2) artificially inflate the market price of the Company's common
         stock; and

     (3) cause plaintiff and the other members of the class to purchase
         the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

On May 10, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company's common
stock closed at $12 per share.  After the Company admitted, on May 13,
2002, to having engaged in a series of fake transactions, the Company's
stock fell $2.06 per share - a drop of more than 17%, on enormous
volume of approximately 10.6 million shares. The Company's shares are
currently trading at approximately $8.70 per share, more than 76% below
its class period trading high of $37.50 per share.

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 or by E-mail: RRI@bernlieb.com.  


RELIANT RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Reliant Resources, Inc. (NYSE:RRI) between May 1, 2001 and May 10,
2002, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) the Company's stated and represented revenues in 1999 and 2000
         were materially overstated because 10% of such revenues
         represented purchases and sales with the same counter-party at
         the same price, or so-called "round trip trades;" and

     (2) the Company improperly accounted for certain transactions in
         its conventional accrual accounts as cash flow hedges.

On May 10, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it was canceling a $500 million private placement debt
offering that had been priced on May 9, 2002, due in part, to having
engaged in "round trip" trades.

Following this announcement, the Company's common stock fell from a
high of $15.10 on May 9, 2002 to a low of $11.10 on May 10, 2002, or a
single-day decline of more than 25% on high trading volume and a
decline of more than 55% from the class period high.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman 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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of Reliant Resources, Inc.
(NYSE: RRI) publicly traded securities during the period between May 1,
2001 and May 10, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors 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 May 1, 2001 and
May 10, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Company
securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The
complaint alleges that these statements were materially false and
misleading because, among other things:

     (1) the Company's stated and represented revenues in 1999 and 2000
         were materially overstated because 10% of such revenues
         represented purchases and sales with the same counter-party at
         the same price, or so-called "round trip" trades; and

     (2) the Company improperly accounted for certain transactions in
         its conventional accrual accounts as cash flow hedges.

On May 10, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it was canceling a $500 million private placement debt
offering that had been priced on May 9, 2002, due in part, to having
engaged in "round trip" trades.

Following this announcement, the Company's common stock fell from a
high of $15.10 on May 9, 2002 to a low of $11.10 on May 10, 2002, or a
single-day decline of more than 25% on high trading volume and a
decline of more than 55% from the class period high.

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


RELIANT RESOURCES: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Reliant Resources,
Inc. (NYSE: RRI) between May 1, 2001 and May 10, 2002, inclusive, in
the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division against the Company and:

     (1) R. Steve Letbetter,

     (2) Steven W. Naeve and

     (3) Mary P. Ricciardello

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 May 1, 2001 and May 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Company securities.

Throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants
issued statements regarding the Company's quarterly and annual
financial performance and filed reports confirming such performance
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

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

     (i) the Company's stated and represented revenues in 1999 and 2000
         were materially overstated because 10% of such revenues
         represented purchases and sales with the same counter-party at
         the same price, or so-called "round trip trades;" and

    (ii) the Company improperly accounted for certain transactions in
         its conventional accrual accounts as cash flow hedges.

On May 10, 2002, the last day of the class period, the Company
announced that it was canceling a $500 million private placement debt
offering that had been priced on May 9, 2002, due in part, to having
engaged in "round trip" trades.  Following this announcement, the
Company's common stock fell from a high of $15.10 on May 9, 2002 to a
low of $11.10 on May 10, 2002, or a single-day decline of more than 25%
on high trading volume and a decline of more than 55% from the class
period high.

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: ReliantResourcescase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com   


SEITEL INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against Seitel, Inc. (NYSE: SEI) and certain of its senior officers
with violations of the federal securities laws 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 complaint 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 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.  
The Company also acknowledged that the May 3, 2002 disclosures were a
result of its conversations with the SEC.

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


SEITEL INC.: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a securities
class action against Seitel, Inc. (NYSE:SEI) and several top officers,
alleging they artificially pumped up the Company's stock price.  The
suit is pending in the US 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 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 suit 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, its 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.  


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

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

The complaint also alleges that in June and October of 2001, California
Department of Health Services representing the State of California and
acting as agent of the Centers for Medicare and Medical Services (CMS)
inspected the Company.  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 Company's deficiencies in question relate to two broad areas, both
of which focus on the number of licensed personnel in the lab. First,
historically there have been required ratios for labs in terms of the
number of licensed supervisors per the number of testing personnel.
Second, California implemented a requirement for labs performing
testing in the areas of cytogenetics and molecular genetics.
Specifically, directors of such operations must now be at least at the
M.D. or Ph.D. level and must also be Board certified in their area of
focus.  However, defendants sought to avoid compliance with
California's laboratory requirements in order to inflate the Company's
revenue and EPS.

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

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


SYNSORB BIOTECH: Marc Henzel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel commenced a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of Synsorb Biotech Inc. (Nasdaq: SYBB)
between April 4, 2001 and December 10, 2001, inclusive, against the
Company and certain of its officers.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
touted the successful progression of its SYNSORB Cdr Phase III clinical
trials while concealing from the public that, in fact:

     (1) defendants had "concerns about enrollment;"

     (2) defendants knew that "the completion of the trial would reach
         out years beyond" what they had forecast;

     (3) the FDA had directed defendants to use a more stringent
         protocol in its Phase III trials;

     (4) defendants had repeatedly failed to increase enrollment in the
         Phase III trials during the class period;

     (5) defendants had been experiencing "unacceptably high drop out
         rates;" and

     (6) defendants could not afford to continue to finance the Phase
         III clinical trials  

After the market close on December 10, 2001, the Company issued a press
release announcing the termination of its SYNSORB Cdr development
program and in a conference call the next morning, revealed the true
facts concerning the Phase III clinical trials. These shocking
revelations made in the press release and in the conference call had a
dramatic effect on the price of Company stock, causing the stock to
plummet over 52% and causing plaintiff and the class to suffer damages.

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


TEXTRON INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court, District of Rhode Island, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT)
between October 19, 2000 and September 26, 2001, inclusive.  The suit
names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Lewis B. Campbell,

     (2) John A. Janitz,

     (3) Theodore R. French and

     (4) Terry D. Stinson

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 October 19, 2000 and September 26, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the Company
failed to disclose that the V-22 Osprey, a military aircraft that it
was manufacturing, suffered from structural defects that required that
it be substantially redesigned which would delay full-scale production
of the Osprey for years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars in
excess of the costs allocated to the project for the purpose of
calculating profit and loss.

On September 26, 2001, as alleged in the complaint, the Company issued
a press release over the Business Wire in which it reduced its guidance
for the third and fourth quarters of 2001, and announced that it
expected a third-quarter loss of $0.25 per share, compared to the
consensus forecast of earnings of $0.71 cents per share.

The suit alleges that the Company attempted to blame its poor
performance on "the slowdown in the US economy" and "the impact of
events on September 11."  However, as alleged in the complaint, the
Company was also forced to admit that its reduced earnings were
resulting from "a number of significant adjustments at Bell Helicopter
and other Textron businesses," including a special charge of
approximately $0.52 per share resulting from "stretched out production
schedules and additional costs to make design changes in the V-22 and
H-1 government programs."

In the same press release, the Company announced the abrupt departures
of Mr. Janitz as Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Stinson as Chief
Executive Officer of Bell Helicopter.  On this news, Company shares
dropped to a year-low price of $33.04 per share, down 23% from the
previous day's closing price of $43, on relatively heavy trading volume
of 4,393,200 shares traded.

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


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in E.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel filed a securities class action in
the Lufkin Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas 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 April 24, 2002, against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors seeking remedies
under the Securities Act of 1934.
The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with:

     (1) issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
         during the class period;

     (2) failing to adequately disclose a change in the company's
         business model and the risks involved in that change; and

     (3) issuing financial statements that violated generally accepted
         accounting principles, 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 complaint alleges that these actions violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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


UNIVERSAL ACCESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Universal Access Global Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: UAXS) from May 10, 2001
through April 24, 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 failed to adequately disclose the Company's adoption of a
new business model as well as the associated material risks facing the
Company as a result.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company issued financial
statements, which violated generally accepted accounting principles
(GAAP) by improperly recording revenue for contingent contracts prior
to the receipt of payment.  In addition, the complaint alleges that the
Company improperly recognized revenue for "capacity swaps" with other
communications companies, which had no real business purpose other than
to artificially inflate the Company's reported revenues.

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


VERISIGN INC.: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of VeriSign Inc. (Nasdaq: VRSN)
common stock during the period between Jan. 25, 2001 and April 25,
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 digital trust services that enable Web site owners,
enterprises, communications service providers, e-commerce service
providers and individuals to engage in secure digital commerce and
communications.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants sought
to artificially increase the Company's revenue and margins and to
create the perception that its deferred revenue growth was derived
organically. In fact, approximately 10% of the Company's revenue was
derived from sales to small companies in which the Company had invested
and from dubious "barter transactions."

The Company's revenues and earnings derived from related parties were
dubious at best.  Specifically, whenever a two-way set of transactions
occurs in which a company acts as both the lender and service provider,
an investor lacks assurance as to whether the related parties would
have made similar decisions regarding purchases in the absence of
financing from that company.  

Accordingly, despite the Company's claims that such transactions were
separately negotiated and recorded at terms the Company considered to
be at arm's length and fair value, the revenue and earnings that the
Company recognized from its relationship with these customers was not
an accurate measure of the "real" demand for its products.  Equally
dubious was the quality of the non-monetary portion of revenue recorded
from reciprocal agreements.

As part of their effort to boost the price of Company stock, defendants
misrepresented the Company's true prospects in an effort to conceal its
improper acts until they were able to sell at least $26 million worth
of their own stock and use Company shares to acquire companies in
stock-for-stock transactions.

In order to overstate revenues and assets, the Company violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules by, among other
things, engaging in improper barter transactions and affiliate sales.
These transactions had the effect of dramatically overstating the
Company's margins and financial statements.

On the Company's partial disclosures on April 25, 2002, the Company's
shares plummeted by more than 50%.

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


VIROPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of ViroPharma
Inc. (NASDAQ: CPHM) between July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its directors.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period,
the defendants made highly positive statements regarding the Company's
drug Picovir.  The Company represented that its growth was contingent
on US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of its' Picovir
(pleconaril) drug as a cure for the common cold.  The Company informed
the investing public of every positive part of the Picovir studies, and
sent numerous press releases praising the effectiveness of Picovir. The
Company minimized or concealed potential obstacles to FDA approval.

On March 19, 2002 trading was halted as the Company revealed that an
FDA advisory committee was deciding the fate of its cold treatment,
Picovir.  The panel voted 15-0 against approval because of safety
concerns.  However, during the class period, the Company insisted that
treatment was well tolerated and that adverse events were comparable to
placebo in the trials.

On March 20, 2002 after the resumption of trading, shares of the
Company plummeted 60 percent.  The 15-member FDA committee had
questions about the safety of the drug in women taking oral
contraceptives and in the elderly.  In addition, the committee asked
for broader studies on the drug's benefits with minorities, the
elderly, patients with asthma and chronic bronchitis, children, and
more about the drug's interaction with other medications.  They also
expressed concern that the drug may develop drug-resistant cold germs.

The FDA pointed out that the drug had several significant side effects,
with headache the most frequently cited. Seven patients out of 4,500
who took the drug reported rapid heart palpitations and four patients
withdrew from the study for that reason. The side effect that most
concerned the panel was abnormal bleeding by 3 percent of women taking
birth control pills. Because Picovir needs to be taken within the first
24 hours of getting a cold and after eating, several panelists worried
that doctors would dole out prescriptions before the cold season began,
without discussing safety considerations.

There were tremendous obstacles for the Company to overcome before it
could receive regulatory approval for Picovir.  These obstacles, as
enumerated by the FDA as set forth above, were undisclosed during the
class period, but were well known to defendants by virtue of their
testing and trials of this drug on thousands of people for several
years.

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


                              *********

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  * * *